Hillary knew the Americans wouldn't accept

[Revoltingest]

If Hillary had been a man, she would have been transgender.

She might have stood a chance.

One big obstacle would still remain...
He'd still be Hillary...crooked as Nixon & charismatic as Dukakis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To help @Shaul understand his error:

What is a Popular Vote? - Definition & Overview - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

My tablet is being a bit balky when it comes to copy and paste, But the winner of the popular vote is simply the candidate with the most votes. No majority needed.

 

[PureX]

She received less than a majority of the vote. So actually she did lose the popular vote.

Well, perhaps you live in that alternative universe where money trickles down to the poor and "votes" are electoral votes.

 

[Audie]

Well, perhaps you live in that alternative universe where money trickles down to the poor and "votes" are electoral votes.

Those are votes, and there was a good reason for setting things up as they are.

"Trickle" and "down" dont make for a good sound bite
for those down and not wanting a "trickle".

"A rising tide lifts all boats" is an older saying.

You think it is not so?

 

[Audie]

Not in my experience.
Such folks as found her gender in the top 5 reasons to vote for or against her, probably had already made up their minds.
Tom

Who knows. Hillary evidently believed it was a selling
point as she kept emphasizing it.

 

[PureX]

Those are votes, and there was a good reason for setting things up as they are.

"Trickle" and "down" dont make for a good sound bite
for those down and not wanting a "trickle".

"A rising tide lifts all boats" is an older saying.

You think it is not so?

I know it's not so. Because the vast majority of American's boats have been slowly sinking for the past 40 years, while an elite few's boats have risen so far, so fast, that they've gone airborne. And now they're using those commanding heights to drop lead into everyone else's bilge.

 

[Audie]

I know it's not so. Because the vast majority of American's boats have been slowly sinking for the 40 years, while an elite few's boats have risen so far, so fast, that they they've gone airborne. And now they're using those commanding heights to drop lead into everyone else's bilge.

you have facts to back all of this?

 

[Shaul]

Well, perhaps you live in that alternative universe where money trickles down to the poor and "votes" are electoral votes.

Money doesn’t trickle. Dollars bills don’t float around of their own volition. However wealth can flow and money follows wealth. Not that anything I wrote has anything to do with trickle down economic theory. That you conflate money and wealth is telling.

A vote is something that is context specific. Nothing I wrote made any mention of electoral votes, nor depends in it.

 

[Audie]

Money doesn’t trickle. Dollars bills don’t float around of their own volition. However wealth can flow and money follows wealth. Not that anything I wrote has anything to do with trickle down economic theory. That you conflate money and wealth is telling.

A vote is something that is context specific. Nothing I wrote made any mention of electoral votes, nor depends in it.

In Hong Kong, we always had a maid. She would be from Philippines, and have a college degree. Why not hire someone who has the brains.

The pay rate is set by the government, not terrific or
anything, but they come by the tens of thousands and
make more then they could at home, as nurses, theachers
or any of those "middle class" professions..

Ok, so we represented wealth, she poverty.

I dont think she'd be better off if we'd been poor and
could not hire anyone.

 

[metis]

I held my nose and voted for Trump because the alternative was worse.

Sad indeed...
Hillary’s Legendary Lies: Benghazi
But On The Night Of And Day After The Attack, Clinton Also Emailed Her Daughter And The Egyptian Prime Minister Acknowledging It Was A Terrorist Attack And "Had Nothing To Do With The Film"

On September 12, 2012, Clinton Told The Egyptian Prime Minister That The Administration Knew The Benghazi Attack "Had Nothing To Do With The Film" And That It "Was A Planned Attack-Not A Protest." (Lawrence Randolph, Email To S_CallNotes, State Department Release, 9/12/12)

The Benghazi Timeline, Clinton Edition - FactCheck.org
In her first public statement, the secretary of state referred to the video, but made no mention of terrorists or a terrorist attack. An hour later, she sent an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that made no reference to the video, and blamed “an al Qaeda-like group.” (The State Department’s Operations Center earlier that night sent an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts — a fact that was not made public until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24, 2012.)

Clinton issued a statement, which made no mention of the anti-Muslim video, and she delivered a speech, which did. Neither referred to a terrorist attack.

Privately, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff wrote an email that said “we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos,’” and Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister that the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.

end quote

Bottom line
her public and private comments are too far apart and are problematic

To say Hillary's worse is simply a nonsensical excuse because she was not ever charged or indicted for anything, nor did she ever have to pay any fine for violations. However, with Trump, he has violated numerous laws, had to pay fines even as late as 2016, and has committed numerous moral discrepancies.

So, you can excuse what you are supporting all you want, which is obviously your choice, but the reality is that you are supporting a man who says and does the opposite of what I believe Jesus would EVER endorse. So, you may convince yourself of the above, but I doubt you'd be able to convince him.

IOW, "To cooperate with evil is evil."-- Gandhi.

 

[metis]

I am not confused whatsoever. Winning a plurality is a distinctly different thing from winning the popular vote.

Yes and no. Unless there are runoff elections, if someone doesn't get a majority, then the [most] "popular vote" would be the one who gets the largest number of votes and would therefore be the winner.

Semantics.

 

[Revoltingest]

To say Hillary's worse is simply a nonsensical excuse because she was not ever charged or indicted for anything, nor did she ever have to pay any fine for violations.

Even more nonsensical is to ignore other problems she had,
and to believe that one needs an "excuse" to vote against
the worse candidate.

 

[metis]

Sad indeed...
Hillary’s Legendary Lies: Benghazi

And you quote a GOP source for this?

Let's get real, there were several investigations that included testimony from top military personnel, and they said that there was no way that what happened in Benghazi could have been predicted or handled in a different way since we didn't have personnel in a position to help. That's the reality whether you want to realize it or not.

But as I posted previously, you don't give a hoot, by all indications, that the Republicans cut funding for protection of these facilities bothers you at all. Therefore, all I see you doing is playing partisan politics and then endorsing a man who is morally bankrupt.

Therefore, "What Would Jesus Do?", whirlingmerc?

 

[columbus]

Who knows. Hillary evidently believed it was a selling
point as she kept emphasizing it.

Speaking for myself, I was pleasantly surprised that her gender wasn't more of an issue than it was.

But strategically, it makes sense to emphasize it. The folks who don't think that women are capable of doing the job are almost certainly going to vote Republican anyway. For the rest of us, it's somewhere between a non-issue and a positive characteristic. For her, it was a can't lose talking point.
Tom

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

*this is quite unrelated to the occasion but now that you mention it, what would you do about Libya? It is a very complex situation all together

Probably the same thing that was done. Any action to try and attempt to save them would have escalated the situation and painted America in a more negative light.

 

[Audie]

Speaking for myself, I was pleasantly surprised that her gender wasn't more of an issue than it was.

But strategically, it makes sense to emphasize it. The folks who don't think that women are capable of doing the job are almost certainly going to vote Republican anyway. For the rest of us, it's somewhere between a non-issue and a positive characteristic. For her, it was a can't lose talking point.
Tom

I dont know if that is so, the vote republican coz dont think a woman etc.

 

[columbus]

I dont know if that is so, the vote republican coz dont think a woman etc.

It's not an absolute thing, of course. But yeah, by and large it's definitely true.
Honestly, i think that her gender played very little role. The political advantage and disadvantage mostly cancelled out.
Tom

 

[YmirGF]

Had Hillary not been a terrible candidate regardless of gender then she would have won.

One of my favorite comments from the US election was that the person had no issue, whatsoever, with a woman president, they just wanted anyone BUT Saint Hillary.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of my favorite comments from the US election was that the person had no issue, whatsoever, with a woman president, they just wanted anyone BUT Saint Hillary.

But there's political hay to be made by those claiming that sexism doomed her campaign.
- They need accept no responsibility for running a bad candidate.
- It paints anyone who voted against her as sexist, thereby enhancing her victimhood status.
- It reinforces their sense of entitlement to a win unfairly snatched from them.

 

[Shaul]

Repeating your error will not make it go away.

Except I haven’t made one. You insist that the person that “won the popular vote” be defined as the “person who got the highest percentage of the popular vote”. I have explained that it should be defined as a “person that received over 50% of the popular vote”. Let’s apply your definition to some examples. In the election of 1824 no single one of the four candidates got over 50% of the popular vote. Andrew Jackson received the highest percentage with 41.4% of it. By your definition he “won” the popular vote. Yet 6 out of 10 voters did not vote for him! We could have a hypothetical election with more candidates splitting the popular vote such that a person with much, much less than 50% of the popular vote could be the one that had the highest percentage among the candidates. Your definition would say each of these hypothetical candidates to have “won” the popular vote. How low would that percentage have to be before you could see your definition is faulty? 30%, 25%, 10%? Clearly a percentage less than 50% can be argued against, but above that, not so much. We see a similar definition with the electoral votes, BTW. The Constitution says that a candidate must have over 50% to have “won”. 48% (such as Hillary’s percentage of the popular vote) won’t do. 48% of electoral vote doesn’t ”win” it, 48% of the popular vote doesn’t “win” that.