View Full Version : Hillary Clinton In 2013: “I Would Like To See People Like Donald Trump Run For Office
ducks
11-13-2016, 11:39 AM
http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2016/11/12/hillary-clinton-in-2013-i-would-like-to-see-people-like-donald-trump-run-for-office-theyre-honest-and-cant-be-bought.html
angrydude
11-13-2016, 12:08 PM
All the butthurt Democrats only have Hillary to blame for this. Thanks to wikileaks we know getting the media to promote Trump during the primaries was all part of her Pied Piper strategy. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
http://media.salon.com/2016/11/pied-piper-dnc-email.png
Clipper Nation
11-13-2016, 12:17 PM
Unfortunately, it's a fake. She did say she wanted more successful businesspeople to run, but she didn't mention Trump and she was responding to a question about Michael Bloomberg.
MALE ATTENDEE: My question is, as entrepreneurs, we risk a lot. And Mike Bloomberg had 30 billion other reasons than to take office. Do we need a wholesale change in Washington that has more to do with people that don't need the job than have the job?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That's a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don't have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there's that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it's important to have people with those experiences.
https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails//fileid/11011/2875
TeyshaBlue
11-13-2016, 12:38 PM
Just stop, ducks.
Fucking nutbar.
ElNono
11-13-2016, 01:47 PM
All the butthurt Democrats only have Hillary to blame for this. Thanks to wikileaks we know getting the media to promote Trump during the primaries was all part of her Pied Piper strategy. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
http://media.salon.com/2016/11/pied-piper-dnc-email.png
It makes sense, tbh... she would've been destroyed by any of the other more moderate GOP candidates. She was that terrible of a candidate.
You gotta give credit to Trump especially in not sticking with the conservative talking points on free trade around the rust belt. While Shillary and her VP flip flopped on the TPP, Donald stuck to his guns, and I feel that was the difference maker here in a pretty close race.
The real hope here is that he continues being his nasty twitter self to the GOP congress when they try to push the TPP again...
baseline bum
11-13-2016, 02:18 PM
It makes sense, tbh... she would've been destroyed by any of the other more moderate GOP candidates. She was that terrible of a candidate.
You gotta give credit to Trump especially in not sticking with the conservative talking points on free trade around the rust belt. While Shillary and her VP flip flopped on the TPP, Donald stuck to his guns, and I feel that was the difference maker here in a pretty close race.
The real hope here is that he continues being his nasty twitter self to the GOP congress when they try to push the TPP again...
Such a disgrace. I can't imagine how badly Crooked Hillary would have gotten wrecked by Kasich or especially Rubio. Trump won just because Clinton was so horrible and couldn't turn out her base. This election with a GOP challenger who excited his base would have been a massacre.
Thread
11-13-2016, 02:35 PM
Such a disgrace. I can't imagine how badly Crooked Hillary would have gotten wrecked by Kasich or especially Rubio. Trump won just because Clinton was so horrible and couldn't turn out her base. This election with a GOP challenger who excited his base would have been a massacre.
That's easy to say now that Trump won.
Those "GOP challenger"(s)" were fine taking an ass beating with the promise of a marker they could use some where else-some other time.
baseline bum
11-13-2016, 02:38 PM
That's easy to say now that Trump won.
Those "GOP challenger"(s)" were fine taking an ass beating with the promise of a marker they could use some where else-some other time.
I have been saying Hillary would get wrecked by Kasich or Romney for months and probably lose to Rubio too.
Thread
11-13-2016, 02:40 PM
I have been saying Hillary would get wrecked by Kasich or Romney for months and probably lose to Rubio too.
They'd a went to their doom like the Jews who hopped into the gullies even before they were shot.
baseline bum
11-13-2016, 02:44 PM
They'd a went to their doom like the Jews who hopped into the gullies even before they were shot.
I don't see it. Oh well, Trump won. Hopefully Clinton gets pneumonia again.
Axl Rose
11-13-2016, 02:45 PM
Such a disgrace. I can't imagine how badly Crooked Hillary would have gotten wrecked by Kasich or especially Rubio. Trump won just because Clinton was so horrible and couldn't turn out her base. This election with a GOP challenger who excited his base would have been a massacre.
Lol you still haven't learned a damn thing. No basic bitch cookie cutter cuckservative could have competed in the rust belt the way trump did. People like me stay home for mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The reason trump won the primaries is because of a disgust with cuckservatism in the GOP base. The only reason people even held their noses on Romney is because his opponent is or they felt is a black Muslim. GOP is going to have to embrace Trumpism if they want to compete going forward. The average republican doesn't care about trickle down economics he just doesn't want his 2nd amendment or any rights violated and doesn't want trannies in his daughters restroom. He is also sick of immigration and doesn't want open borders.
Thread
11-13-2016, 02:49 PM
I don't see it. Oh well, Trump won. Hopefully Clinton gets pneumonia again.
Because (they'd) a fought/fight fair. Hillary/Trump? They had no such intention. She thought she was the only one with a bloody knife. And actually appalled that he pulled one and switched the blade. Yeah, the fucking nerve. He had no intention of hopping into that lime covered gully, shot, or no shot.
- "How do you think they got all that money, Laura, from doing good?"
- "The Verdict"
Those two do their own wet work. Trump is just more lethal.
Thread
11-13-2016, 02:50 PM
Lol you still haven't learned a damn thing. No basic bitch cookie cutter cuckservative could have competed in the rust belt the way trump did. People like me stay home for mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The reason trump won the primaries is because of a disgust with cuckservatism in the GOP base. The only reason people even held their noses on Romney is because his opponent is or they felt is a black Muslim. GOP is going to have to embrace Trumpism if they want to compete going forward. The average republican doesn't care about trickle down economics he just doesn't want his 2nd amendment or any rights violated and doesn't want trannies in his daughters restroom. He is also sick of immigration and doesn't want open borders.
Drop the mouse, Axe.
baseline bum
11-13-2016, 02:51 PM
Lol you still haven't learned a damn thing. No basic bitch cookie cutter cuckservative could have competed in the rust belt the way trump did. People like me stay home for mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The reason trump won the primaries is because of a disgust with cuckservatism in the GOP base. The only reason people even held their noses on Romney is because his opponent is or they felt is a black Muslim. GOP is going to have to embrace Trumpism if they want to compete going forward. The average republican doesn't care about trickle down economics he just doesn't want his 2nd amendment or any rights violated and doesn't want trannies in his daughters restroom. He is also sick of immigration and doesn't want open borders.
I learned Trump is almost 600,000 votes behind Romney 2012 in a nation with 10.5 million more people than it had in 2012, which says Republican voters weren't as excited for Trump as they were Romney.
I learned Trump is almost 600,000 votes behind Romney 2012 in a nation with 10.5 million more people than it had in 2012, which says Republican voters weren't as excited for Trump as they were Romney.
And Clinton was >10m or so behind 2nd term GWB but almost 8 million ahead of Ronald Reagan. Popular vote is terribly misleading since it's known ahead of time that it's not the deciding factor nationally. You might as well be counting FG% instead of point total in a basketball game.
baseline bum
11-13-2016, 03:22 PM
And Clinton was >10m or so behind 2nd term GWB but almost 8 million ahead of Ronald Reagan. Popular vote is terribly misleading since it's known ahead of time that it's not the deciding factor nationally. You might as well be counting FG% instead of point total in a basketball game.
Clinton is about a million votes behind what Bush pulled in 2004, where did you pull that stat from? Being ahead of Reagan isn't surprising since the nation had almost 90,000,000 fewer people in 1984. I don't see what's misleading about using popular vote to indicate how well a candidate motivated his base, it is literally the number of people the candidate convinced to vote for him.
Axl Rose
11-13-2016, 03:26 PM
Trump had the message he was just a little rough around the edges with his delivery and the media demonized him in the eyes of all but his most dedicated supporters. In 4 years he is going to break 70 million votes
InRareForm
11-13-2016, 03:28 PM
stfu
Clinton is about a million votes behind what Bush pulled in 2004, where did you pull that stat from? Being ahead of Reagan isn't surprising since the nation had almost 90,000,000 fewer people in 1984. I don't see what's misleading about using popular vote to indicate how well a candidate motivated his base, it is literally the number of people the candidate convinced to vote for him.
The numbers are wrong however GWB still out performed Hillary, on his second term, 16 years ago. What's the population difference between then and now?
It's misleading because in every state voters know that their state is either a battle ground state or its not. There's no battle ground election, only battle ground states. If you live in Texas, you could decide to not vote because you were going to vote Republican and you know your state is going to swing that way anyhow. That's also true in California and plenty other states. Voters know it's not a popular vote contest. If it was, you'd probably have >80m votes for each side. Maybe even 100m for one side. Half the population doesn't even vote. Knowing your vote doesn't really matter is why much of the time.
baseline bum
11-13-2016, 05:49 PM
The numbers are wrong however GWB still out performed Hillary, on his second term, 16 years ago. What's the population difference between then and now?
It's misleading because in every state voters know that their state is either a battle ground state or its not. There's no battle ground election, only battle ground states. If you live in Texas, you could decide to not vote because you were going to vote Republican and you know your state is going to swing that way anyhow. That's also true in California and plenty other states. Voters know it's not a popular vote contest. If it was, you'd probably have >80m votes for each side. Maybe even 100m for one side. Half the population doesn't even vote. Knowing your vote doesn't really matter is why much of the time.
Bush was great energizing his base. You couldn't find a Republican voter who didn't like him until 2008.
Thread
11-13-2016, 05:58 PM
Bush was great energizing his base. You couldn't find a Republican voter who didn't like him until 2008.
He couldn't finish it. Got there and refused to dance, nor go home with who brung him.
And that's what was left would've done this go round if T hadn't bullied his way to it.
Bush was great energizing his base. You couldn't find a Republican voter who didn't like him until 2008.
Do you disagree that a national popularity vote would likely have a greater overall turnout than the current system?
California has 30 million people. Plenty of those are likely either non residents or incarcerated. Of the remainder, those that can legally vote are likely doing so at ~50%. Now imagine you know your vote will be added to the national total to determine the outcome instead of just competing intrastate. Basically it's like the Warriors last year. They kept trying to win RS games and broke the record. There are teams that could have challenged before but rested guys late in the year. If the championship was about RS record, don't you think the RS win totals would be higher on average for good teams?
I think you get the idea.
Th'Pusher
11-13-2016, 06:38 PM
It's misleading because in every state voters know that their state is either a battle ground state or its not. There's no battle ground election, only battle ground states. If you live in Texas, you could decide to not vote because you were going to vote Republican and you know your state is going to swing that way anyhow. That's also true in California and plenty other states. Voters know it's not a popular vote contest. If it was, you'd probably have >80m votes for each side. Maybe even 100m for one side. Half the population doesn't even vote. Knowing your vote doesn't really matter is why much of the time.
That was true for Mitt Romney as well yet more people voted for Mitt Romney than for Donald despite the fact that there were more eligible voters in 2016. Your argument that the popular vote is not a good barometer for a candidate's ability to energize the base makes zero sense.
That was true for Mitt Romney as well yet more people voted for Mitt Romney than for Donald despite the fact that there were more eligible voters in 2016. Your argument that the popular vote is not a good barometer for a candidate's ability to energize the base makes zero sense.
So then then what are the odds that two candidates with 10's of millions of votes all across the nation come down to just a small percentage of difference in popular vote? 120 million votes between 2 candidates, and what, 600K difference?
Would Cali have more or fewer votes if they knew that their total was added to the national total which decides the president, ignoring the EC? Wouldn't they run up the score? Wouldn't they feel they needed to since you don't know what other states are going to do?
I don't think either candidate "excited" their voter base. I think both basically disgusted their user bases. I just think there was enough coverage of each candidate's personal failures to create a panic in the opposite voter base.
So, having people vote against you isn't the same as you exciting your voter base, and people voted against Hillary. This much I'm pretty certain of.
Th'Pusher
11-13-2016, 08:25 PM
So then then what are the odds that two candidates with 10's of millions of votes all across the nation come down to just a small percentage of difference in popular vote? 120 million votes between 2 candidates, and what, 600K difference?
Would Cali have more or fewer votes if they knew that their total was added to the national total which decides the president, ignoring the EC? Wouldn't they run up the score? Wouldn't they feel they needed to since you don't know what other states are going to do?
I don't think either candidate "excited" their voter base. I think both basically disgusted their user bases. I just think there was enough coverage of each candidate's personal failures to create a panic in the opposite voter base.
So, having people vote against you isn't the same as you exciting your voter base, and people voted against Hillary. This much I'm pretty certain of.
That's all fine and good, but you were arguing the popular vote was terribly misleading because of the electoral college while comparing voter turnout to previous elections, all of which were conducted under the electoral college system.
I'm not quite sure why your arguing at this point.
That's all fine and good, but you were arguing the popular vote was terribly misleading because of the electoral college while comparing voter turnout to previous elections, all of which were conducted under the electoral college system.
I'm not quite sure why your arguing at this point.
Well no. Baseline Bum compared Trump to Romney. These are two completely different elections. That's when i pointed out that you can cherry pick two candidates from different elections and the popular vote can be wildly different, but that doesn't mean one or the other was more or less inspiring. Votes are just as likely (it seems) to be against a candidate as for one. Unless you consider fear to be excitement, then you have to face the fact that popular vote doesn't mean the voter base was excited about you. The issues are at least as important as the candidates.
I'm arguing because like always you butted in without understanding the conversation. I'm sure you'll forfeit this one as well once you realize it takes more than a dissenting opinion to carry on.
Th'Pusher
11-13-2016, 08:42 PM
Well no. Baseline Bum compared Trump to Romney. These are two completely different elections. That's when i pointed out that you can cherry pick two candidates from different elections and the popular vote can be wildly different, but that doesn't mean one or the other was more or less inspiring. Votes are just as likely (it seems) to be against a candidate as for one. Unless you consider fear to be excitement, then you have to face the fact that popular vote doesn't mean the voter base was excited about you. The issues are at least as important as the candidates.
I'm arguing because like always you butted in without understanding the conversation. I'm sure you'll forfeit this one as well once you realize it takes more than a dissenting opinion to carry on.
There's nothing to forfeit. HRC won the popular vote, but not the electoral college. The popular vote isn't "terribly misleading" because of the EC as compared to any other election as All presidential elections are cunducted under the same system.
It doesn't matter as we don't use popular vote to elect presidents, but there is nothing misleading about her winning the popular vote.
There's nothing to forfeit. HRC won the popular vote, but not the electoral college. The popular vote isn't "terribly misleading" because of the EC as compared to any other election as All presidential elections are cunducted under the same system.
It doesn't matter as we don't use popular vote to elect presidents, but there is nothing misleading about her winning the popular vote.
There's no popular vote contest. It's like saying the Warriors won the FG% contest so technically they are the better team, not the Cavs.
If all the teams entered the playoffs under the rules that the team with the best FG% wins, you'd not see any 3pt shots. In that event, it would be misleading to look at the total points scored to determine which team was better. That's what popular vote does in the EC system, it misleads. Candidates strategically campaign based on EV, not on popular vote.
This seems fairly simple.
Th'Pusher
11-13-2016, 09:13 PM
There's no popular vote contest.
I just said this.
It's like saying the Warriors won the FG% contest so technically they are the better team, not the Cavs.
If all the teams entered the playoffs under the rules that the team with the best FG% wins, you'd not see any 3pt shots. In that event, it would be misleading to look at the total points scored to determine which team was better.
I read your basketball analogy the first time. It's cute.
That's what popular vote does in the EC system, it misleads. Candidates strategically campaign based on EV, not on popular vote.
This seems fairly simple.
It is simple. That's why Trump is the president elect. Still, if it is so misleading, why is it so infrequent that the person who wins the popular vote loses the electoral college?
I just said this.
I read your basketball analogy the first time. It's cute.
It is simple. That's why Trump is the president elect. Still, if it is so misleading, why is it so infrequent that the person who wins the popular vote loses the electoral college?
If one were to look at only the popular vote in this election, what would one think? That Hillary won. Ergo misleading because Hillary didn't win. See, every time you move the goalpost I can continue to hit it.
The original target was whether or not popular vote indicates excitement from the voter base. Now you've changed it to whether or not it correlates with the win.
Th'Pusher
11-13-2016, 10:58 PM
If one were to look at only the popular vote in this election, what would one think? That Hillary won. Ergo misleading because Hillary didn't win. See, every time you move the goalpost I can continue to hit it.
The original target was whether or not popular vote indicates excitement from the voter base. Now you've changed it to whether or not it correlates with the win.
It does correlate with the win, 90+% of the time. It's an interesting data point. I understand you hate HRC and are apparently bothered by the fact that she won the popular vote, but she did. More people voted for her, or against Trump. That's a fact.
It does correlate with the win, 90+% of the time. It's an interesting data point. I understand you hate HRC and are apparently bothered by the fact that she won the popular vote, but she did. More people voted for her, or against Trump. That's a fact.
You cannot find an escape route so you turn to "but you hate HRC".
All the difference and more can be explained away in California alone. So you're saying a state with 30 million people could only swing the national popular vote 600K?
Is popular vote a true indicator of the winner? Yes or no.
Th'Pusher
11-13-2016, 11:13 PM
You cannot find an escape route so you turn to "but you hate HRC".
All the difference and more can be explained away in California alone. So you're saying a state with 30 million people could only swing the national popular vote 600K?
Is popular vote a true indicator of the winner? Yes or no.
Escape from what? What is your argument? That the popular vote doesn't elect the president? That was established when the constitution was written.
It's infrequent that the person who wins the popular vote loses the election. It a fact that you seem to want to disregad.
Escape from what? What is your argument? That the popular vote doesn't elect the president? That was established when the constitution was written.
It's infrequent that the person who wins the popular vote loses the election. It a fact that you seem to want to disregad.
I've said it enough: It's not a good indicator that the candidate has excited his voter base, when you compare two different elections. I have no clue what you're on about.
The strawman you are jousting is the notion that popular vote doesn't indicate the winner. It certainly doesn't, regardless of the correlation. It never indicates the winner. Then you'll want to argue that somehow a campaign where resources are sent to battleground states would have the same popular vote count as one that had national media spots and large, high population cities only conventions, as if the "winner takes all" concept vs national popular vote doesn't in any way alter how a campaign manager runs the campaign.
Th'Pusher
11-13-2016, 11:37 PM
I've said it enough: It's not a good indicator that the candidate has excited his voter base, when you compare two different elections. I have no clue what you're on about.
The strawman you are jousting is the notion that popular vote doesn't indicate the winner. It certainly doesn't, regardless of the correlation. It never indicates the winner. Then you'll want to argue that somehow a campaign where resources are sent to battleground states would have the same popular vote count as one that had national media spots and large, high population cities only conventions, as if the "winner takes all" concept vs national popular vote doesn't in any way alter how a campaign manager runs the campaign.
My argument is that it happens infrequently, and as such, should be acknowledged as significant. You're right in that I butted into your exchange with BB. That said, You're clearly minimizing the significance of winning the popular vote and losing the election because of your dislike for HRC. That's a silly position imho.
spurraider21
11-14-2016, 01:22 AM
winning the election =/= energizing the voter base
the voter base is comprised of people that go out to vote. if you have less people go out to vote, your base isn't as energized. that doesn't mean you're incapable of winning the election, especially when the opposing party has a less energized voter base
ElNono
11-14-2016, 03:43 AM
Neither "base" can win the election on their own, tbh. I thought this time around was another exemplary case of this.
There was no "silent majority" in the Rust belt "awaken" to vote for Trump. Nor there was in Florida either.
Simply people that voted for Barry a few years ago bought what Trump was selling this time around, or was disgusted enough not to show up and support either (ie: black turnout). Probably some of the same people that voted for Dubya before Barry.
It's probably: not enthused blacks + disenchanted Bernie fans > NeverTrumpers
Thread
11-14-2016, 06:14 AM
Neither "base" can win the election on their own, tbh. I thought this time around was another exemplary case of this.
There was no "silent majority" in the Rust belt "awaken" to vote for Trump. Nor there was in Florida either.
Simply people that voted for Barry a few years ago bought what Trump was selling this time around, or was disgusted enough not to show up and support either (ie: black turnout). Probably some of the same people that voted for Dubya before Barry.
ha, ha, El, we won.
Signed,
- Fucks like me
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.