Which Would be More Truthful?

[Sunstone]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

 

[eldios]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

There is no Truth in this world. Truth is our invisible created existence that will never be observed in our consciousness. If you listen close enough, I can explain what the Truth is.

 

[Sunstone]

There is no Truth in this world. Truth is our invisible created existence that will never be observed in our consciousness. If you listen close enough,

Quit crapping in my thread. You're off topic.

 

[Lyndon]

I think what happened is America took a crap at the ballot box.

 

[Erebus]

I'm on the other side of the pond so keep in mind all the usual caveats. I only see American politics from the outside, my sources may not be reliable, etc.

Trump appears to be in way over his head. He seems to have largely sauntered through life, accompanied by yes men and with daddy's money to fall back on. I honestly don't think he was prepared for the sheer scale of the responsibility thrust upon him.

With that in mind, it seems more accurate to me to say that Hillary lost. Then again, it seems most accurate to me to say that everybody lost.

At least, that's how it appears from my outsider perspective.

 

[idav]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

The election turned out pretty much as expected except for a few key states. I'd say it's more accurate to Clinton lost those key states, similar to Trump not even doing that well in the red state Texas. How Trump managed to do worse in Repubilican states while managing to do tons better in Obama states we may never know.

 

[eldios]

Quit crapping in my thread. You're off topic.

There is no Truth in the world. All the inhabitants on earth are liars who perish during this first temporary generation. Clinton and Trump are both liars.

 

[DavidFirth]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

I agree. If Clinton had campaigned more in the states from Minnesota to Indiana she would have won is what I think.

 

[DavidFirth]

Quit crapping in my thread. You're off topic.

I think this guy is a troll. He made a very anti-Lutheran statement in another thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think either one is at best a half-truth. Yes, Hillary officially did not win the election, but Trump certainly did not win it with the support of the people.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm on the other side of the pond so keep in mind all the usual caveats. I only see American politics from the outside, my sources may not be reliable, etc.

Trump appears to be in way over his head. He seems to have largely sauntered through life, accompanied by yes men and with daddy's money to fall back on. I honestly don't think he was prepared for the sheer scale of the responsibility thrust upon him.

With that in mind, it seems more accurate to me to say that Hillary lost. Then again, it seems most accurate to me to say that everybody lost.

At least, that's how it appears from my outsider perspective.

The chasm between pop media and reality was the story of this election- we were/are fed the same anti-Trump line 24-7 as anywhere else- and they all predicted he would lose by a wide margin.

But back in reality, on the ground; I live in a fairly liberal Midwest area, where 4 and 8 years earlier there were mostly Obama signs. This time it was a sea of Trump signs, I saw only one 'Vote Hillary' on an abandoned lot! A lot of people also went out of their way to put up more than just a standard sign in their yard, banners, flags, obviously a lot of grass roots support. So I would definitely credit his own personal efforts and message against a vastly greater political machine & Democrat campaign spending

I thought I saw one bumper sticker supporting her, but it was 'Hillary for prison'... I've no idea how she came as close to winning as she did, kinda scary!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

From the other side of the world it looks to me like...
1) Clinton made key mistakes strategically. Trump's team seemed to better identify and gain traction in key areas of the electorate, working within the college system. People saying he didn't get the popular vote have a problem with the system (perhaps fairly!) but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't get the popular vote. It was close, and he may very well have invested in targeted, rather than broad appeal. Under the current system, that's actually smart.

2) Voting for Trump was seen as voting against the establishment. I never quite understood that, but I guess voting against the political establishment, even at the risk of voting FOR a rich, white male (clearly part of the establishment in a broader sense) was commonly seen as preferable. I think Clinton did a crappy job of pushing any narrative involving her as the establishment breaker, and Trump as the establishment, in a more societal sense. Perhaps she couldn't have, but I think it cost her, and her battles against Sanders in primaries only reinforced that in people's minds.

3) Trump has plenty of skeletons, and (in my opinion) was a scary person to put in office. But Hillary had plenty of her own issues and baggage. It made it easier for people to excuse Trump's, since there was the view that neither candidate had played by the rules anyway (fairly or unfairly).

All in all, Hillary lost it, in my view, but that's not Trump's fault, nor should it be held against him. I say this as someone who holds plenty against him, and thinks he's completely out of his depth, narcissistic, and a tool. It would have been a more interesting election if Sanders was put up against him, I think. Items 2 and 3 on this list might not have been such factors then.

As I said, though, I'm judging this second-hand, from the other side of the world.

 

[crossfire]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

I agree with you that Clinton and the democratic party goobers lost it more than Trump won it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Americans lost. The parties did not put up any decent candidates.

 

[FutureFaith]

It's more accurate to say Trump won. I mean, he smeared all the other Republicans during the debate and everybody ate it up. He calls everybody a liar, both Republicans and Democrats. He speaks his mind almost every chance he gets.

Clinton, on the other hand, was more of the shoo-in to win. Everything was pointing to her becoming Obama's successor. She's had time in the White House, both as First Lady and as Secretary of State under Obama's reign.

Clinton lost, but could've easily won.
Trump won, and defied all expectations.

 

[Purple1]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

If you ask me, this is a false question. The question is implying that Clinton and Trump were up against each other in the last United States Presidential Elections. Which they were.

There were only 2 outcomes to this election (assuming we eliminate all others like: Trump and Clinton die, etc. But even there, we can safely assume that we could have reformulated that question in the line of: Democrats versus Republicans* (*i do not mean to undermine the power of the specific candidates' personalities and histories)

The reality is: Clinton wins or Trump wins (or won/won); could also be formulated as such: Clinton loses or Trump loses (or lost/lost).

So: did Clinton lose or Trump win? is tautological. Because one implies the other.

Trump never could've won if Clinton didn't lose and Clinton never could've lost if Trump didn't win.

To me, there is no truth to be found in answering that question, the question already implies the full truth about that situation: Trump won and Hilary lost.

Then again, maybe we could go into more details about each individuals' decisions at such and such time, charisma during such and such event, specific discourse on specific issues, damage done to the other party at specific time.... we could examine a whole lot of data and variables to consider who is to blame or praise for the win or loss, maybe this is the question you are asking? I'm not sure. If so; I don't have the knowledge and the time to do so, maybe I also lack the will. I am not trying to undermine the value of that question, somebody could really go into an in depth analysis of each and every move of both candidates and into analysis of the population's reaction. Like I said, it would become really complex. I'm don't think we could correctly or truthfully answer that question with enough accuracy with just dialogue and ideas; it would require a lot of data and also, political, psychological, historical, statistical, sociological... knowledge.

But I suppose it can be interesting to dialogue about it. Share ideas and discuss.

Still, the facts would always stay the same; Clinton lost and Trump won.

 

[bobhikes]

Which would be more accurate and truthful: To say that Clinton lost the presidential election, or to say that Trump won it?

Put differently, was the presidency Clinton's to lose, and she actually defeated herself by one means or another?

I think there are several reasons the election turned out as it did, but that -- for the most part -- it would be more accurate to say Clinton lost the election than to say Trump won it.

IMO the most truthful saying about the past election is that most voters are stupid and ignorant

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even the partymen who selected the two candidates.

 

[tytlyf]

Americans lost. The parties did not put up any decent candidates.

You're not voting for the candidate, you're voting for the policies of the party.

 

[bobhikes]

You're not voting for the candidate, you're voting for the policies of the party.

Neither party has good policy as well.