Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

More whining and excuses from sore loser HRC.

HRC is, and continues to be, wonderful. She got epically screwed in this election thanks to Russian meddling, GOP making her a villain, and an ignorant populace.
 
Calliecake said:
Hey Dancing Fire, We have to listen to your whining President every flipping day. It won't hurt you to listen to Hillary every once in a while.
Click to expand...
CC
TBH... Like everyone else in america I was expecting HC to beat Trump easily and become the first female Prez of our country.. I guess all of her lies caught up to her on election night.
 
HRC has the IQ of 141. She does not seem to understand people very well, but had she won, we would be living with a very smart, very able president who would come well-prepared, like she always had. Do you know that she had a great plan for disability, for suicide prevention? Now it is all down the drain, of course.

Today, I am on my 3d book about the election campaign. I read "Shattered", and to be fair and get a different perspective, I read "the Game of Thorns", written by a religious republican.

Re. the outcome of the election - HRC is wrong, of course. No Russian could go to MI, OH, PA or WI and cast ballots for the voters. I can speculate why her results were so similar to those of another "cold pizza", Al Gore, but it would not change the net balance. In a different country, she'd win. In a country with archaic electoral college and a costly, unusable system of caucuses and primaries, as well as IA and NH, she lost because of poor planning of her election campaign, and also, because under Obama, things had not changed much for unemployed blue collar low middle class at Midwest. It would seem to me that Hillary must be a pretty nerdish person, to trust so much another nerd, Mook, who in turn relied on the assumption that "the blue wall" should definitely hold (why?) and was chasing FLA and South Carolina.

But here is another observation. I would never believe, not for a moment, that private servers of Republicans were unassailable. Our GOP members, age-wise, are comparable to Hillary, it means that they grew up without computers, and viruses and hackers appeared much later, so if anyone wanted to, he would easily penetrate the GOP servers and dump the results into WikiLeaks as well. (The hack into HRC's personal server must have happened in, or before, 2015. Before any Trump was nominated. Other people were viewed as potential candidates. Yet, HRC was the only one attacked at that time.)

And then DNC server was attacked. Maybe Republicans had better protection system, or they might have known about the attack and took measures. But most likely, they were not targeted.

And then this stupid Podesta's server was hacked.

So, three attacks on the Democrats, none on Republicans, or Bernie, or the libertarians.

Which tells me that someone was very interested in doing everything possible to besmear HRC as the potential candidate. Someone saw her as the danger, too hawkish, maybe? Everyone was writing about Clinton's corruption - but someone must have seen it differently? That she would protect American interests?

Think for a second - it looks as if someone was afraid that HRC will be too good a President. Saw her as strong and dedicated to her country.
 
Arkteia said:
HRC has the IQ of 141. She does not seem to understand people very well, but had she won, we would be living with a very smart, very able president who would come well-prepared, like she always had. Do you know that she had a great plan for disability, for suicide prevention? Now it is all down the drain, of course.

Today, I am on my 3d book about the election campaign. I read "Shattered", and to be fair and get a different perspective, I read "the Game of Thorns", written by a religious republican.

Re. the outcome of the election - HRC is wrong, of course. No Russian could go to MI, OH, PA or WI and cast ballots for the voters. I can speculate why her results were so similar to those of another "cold pizza", Al Gore, but it would not change the net balance. In a different country, she'd win. In a country with archaic electoral college and a costly, unusable system of caucuses and primaries, as well as IA and NH, she lost because of poor planning of her election campaign, and also, because under Obama, things had not changed much for unemployed blue collar low middle class at Midwest. It would seem to me that Hillary must be a pretty nerdish person, to trust so much another nerd, Mook, who in turn relied on the assumption that "the blue wall" should definitely hold (why?) and was chasing FLA and South Carolina.

But here is another observation. I would never believe, not for a moment, that private servers of Republicans were unassailable. Our GOP members, age-wise, are comparable to Hillary, it means that they grew up without computers, and viruses and hackers appeared much later, so if anyone wanted to, he would easily penetrate the GOP servers and dump the results into WikiLeaks as well. (The hack into HRC's personal server must have happened in, or before, 2015. Before any Trump was nominated. Other people were viewed as potential candidates. Yet, HRC was the only one attacked at that time.)

And then DNC server was attacked. Maybe Republicans had better protection system, or they might have known about the attack and took measures. But most likely, they were not targeted.

And then this stupid Podesta's server was hacked.

So, three attacks on the Democrats, none on Republicans, or Bernie, or the libertarians.

Which tells me that someone was very interested in doing everything possible to besmear HRC as the potential candidate. Someone saw her as the danger, too hawkish, maybe? Everyone was writing about Clinton's corruption - but someone must have seen it differently? That she would protect American interests?

Think for a second - it looks as if someone was afraid that HRC will be too good a President. Saw her as strong and dedicated to her country.
Click to expand...

1). Russians don't have to actually "cast ballots for voters" to affect the election process. There are lots of ways to affect the way people vote -- which is why we need to know all the various tactics and strategy the Russians used, successful or not.
By the way, notice that the same email hack and release was attempted against Emmanuel Macron during the French election -- except they got the timing wrong, French media was wise to the tactic, and most importantly, France doesn't have the equivalent of Fox News or Breitbart that would have covered and broadcast the (rather boring) emails like it was scandalous. In fact, most of the aghast reactions over the emails were from alt-right posters in forums who apparently couldn't read French! LOL!

I would appreciate some clarity on the other bolded sections above because:
2). I was under the impression that Hillary's server was NOT hacked.

3). I thought Podesta's email came from the DNC hack, not his private server, if he even had one.

4). What corruption are you talking about? Did you mean all the investigations and insinuations over decades that never amounted to anything? Because you know the republicans would not have held back if they found an iota of criminality, so the fact that they haven't "lock(ed) her up" tells you there's nothing to "lock her up" for.
 
t-c said:
1). Russians don't have to actually "cast ballots for voters" to affect the election process. There are lots of ways to affect the way people vote -- which is why we need to know all the various tactics and strategy the Russians used, successful or not.
By the way, notice that the same email hack and release was attempted against Emmanuel Macron during the French election -- except they got the timing wrong, French media was wise to the tactic, and most importantly, France doesn't have the equivalent of Fox News or Breitbart that would have covered and broadcast the (rather boring) emails like it was scandalous. In fact, most of the aghast reactions over the emails were from alt-right posters in forums who apparently couldn't read French! LOL!

I would appreciate some clarity on the other bolded sections above because:
2). I was under the impression that Hillary's server was NOT hacked.

3). I thought Podesta's email came from the DNC hack, not his private server, if he even had one.

4). What corruption are you talking about? Did you mean all the investigations and insinuations over decades that never amounted to anything? Because you know the republicans would not have held back if they found an iota of criminality, so the fact that they haven't "lock(ed) her up" tells you there's nothing to "lock her up" for.
Click to expand...

1) About France - I think the strategy Macron used was important. I do not know if the hack was attempted, though, this is what Macron says. Not sure his anti-hacking strategy was the core of success, either. Simply, by the time of the elections, French people had both Brexit and the results of the US elections in front of them as the warning. Don't forget, 30% of French are descendants of the immigrants from the former colonies, they probably would not vote for Le Pen, and also, France does not have "electoral vote", so every vote counts. If we had it, Hillary would be our president.

Re. 2. . "Emails sent to Clinton's privateclintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account. The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attackand other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.comaddress." That very private server.

(Actually the server was bought for her 2008 campaign so one wonders if she was the target since that time).

I shall answer Nr. 3 and nr. 4 later.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I think Arkteia makes good points. I watched Hillary and found I felt the same way about her as I have these past election cycles. I don't like her. Her analysis just doesn't cut it for me. She forgot to mention Bill Clinton's stop on the Tarmac with the AG who then had to say she would not make the decision in HRC case.. This prompted Comey to give his address to the American people explaining why he didn't indict her. Next, he let us know he re0opeed the case, which I do think did have an effect on the voting. If Bill hadn't done what he did, Comey would have followed the normal channels.
Yes, I voted for Hillary, but I suspect many voted for her as a vote against Donald Trump. But, if there was another candidate I would not have voted for Hillary. And I agree she would have made a far better Pres, than the nut job we have there now.
I wish Hillary would go away. Find something else to do.

Love dogs, I really like you and I hate disagreeing with you, but I must.

Arkteia-- good good post.

Annette
 
Everyone expected HRC to be elected. That's why she was the target.
Now President Trump is the target.
 
Arkteia said:
1) About France - I think the strategy Macron used was important. I do not know if the hack was attempted, though, this is what Macron says. Not sure his anti-hacking strategy was the core of success, either. Simply, by the time of the elections, French people had both Brexit and the results of the US elections in front of them as the warning. Don't forget, 30% of French are descendants of the immigrants from the former colonies, they probably would not vote for Le Pen, and also, France does not have "electoral vote", so every vote counts. If we had it, Hillary would be our president.

Re. 2. . "Emails sent to Clinton's privateclintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account. The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attackand other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.comaddress." That very private server.

(Actually the server was bought for her 2008 campaign so one wonders if she was the target since that time).

I shall answer Nr. 3 and nr. 4 later.
Click to expand...

1. You didn't address my original point which is that Russians did not need to be casting ballots to influence the election.

1b. There was a release of Macron's emails. I doubt Macron himself (or his team) would release those so the cause is likely an unauthorized access (i.e. hack).

2. Just because one party on the email is addressed as clintonemail.com does not mean that clintonemail.com server was hacked. It could have been the other party who was breached -- which is probably what happened. (For example, my husband's account could be hacked and they would see email from me, but my email server would still remain secure. Only emails I sent to him would be exposed.)
 
smitcompton said:
Hi,

I think Arkteia makes good points. I watched Hillary and found I felt the same way about her as I have these past election cycles. I don't like her. Her analysis just doesn't cut it for me. She forgot to mention Bill Clinton's stop on the Tarmac with the AG who then had to say she would not make the decision in HRC case.. This prompted Comey to give his address to the American people explaining why he didn't indict her. Next, he let us know he re0opeed the case, which I do think did have an effect on the voting. If Bill hadn't done what he did, Comey would have followed the normal channels.
Yes, I voted for Hillary, but I suspect many voted for her as a vote against Donald Trump. But, if there was another candidate I would not have voted for Hillary. And I agree she would have made a far better Pres, than the nut job we have there now.
I wish Hillary would go away. Find something else to do.

Love dogs, I really like you and I hate disagreeing with you, but I must.

Arkteia-- good good post.

Annette
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton is now a private citizen after decades of public service starting from when she graduated from Wellesley. She's taken crap from the right (investigation after investigation that turned up nothing) and the left (she's just like Trump; she's boring; she's a terrible candidate; she should just go away) for most of her life. Yet she has continued to show enough respect for the work and the people that she always did her best and showed up prepared and knowledgeable.

It isn't she who failed; it is the ignorant electorate who thinks that a president they could have a beer with is better than one who knows the issues backwards and forwards, presented an actual plan to accomplish what was promised, and have a track record of working with the other party to pass legislation. So you know what? She can do and say whatever the hell she wants. She's earned the right.
 
Anna, Please go back and read Arkteia's post. You seemed to have missed a lot!!
 
Hi,
t-c--The issue is not whether or not she failed. I believe the real issue is that a majority of people would not have voted for her if there was a better candidate against her.. There are some very smart people in life who don't connect well with people. When she was younger she was nicer. Her troubles have hardened her and to be a Pres, yes, I think, people must like you.
She worked hard for the country, and I wouldn't take that away from her, but she has little insight to her own behaviors that contributed to her loss.
If she has earned the right to say whatever she pleases, so have most of us. I have heard enough of Hillary, you have not. That's life.

Annette
 
smitcompton said:
Hi,
t-c--The issue is not whether or not she failed. I believe the real issue is that a majority of people would not have voted for her if there was a better candidate against her.. There are some very smart people in life who don't connect well with people. When she was younger she was nicer. Her troubles have hardened her and to be a Pres, yes, I think, people must like you.
She worked hard for the country, and I wouldn't take that away from her, but she has little insight to her own behaviors that contributed to her loss.
If she has earned the right to say whatever she pleases, so have most of us. I have heard enough of Hillary, you have not. That's life.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, her negative qualities would have been overlooked had she been a man.
America wants women to act like women are supposed to act. :doh:

A strong man is admired.
A strong woman is a bitch.

Sad.
 
Last edited:
She didn't lose.

She won.

Trump got in on a technicality. And with a lot of help from the Russians.

It was rigged.
 
iLander said:
She didn't lose.

She won.

Trump got in on a technicality. And with a lot of help from the Russians.

It was rigged.
Click to expand...

That 'technicality' is not a technicality.
It is our electoral college system.
It helps or hurts every candidate in every election, regardless of party.

In America you don't win by popular vote.

IMO (and this has nothing to do with my hatred, yes hatred, of Cheeto) the electoral college system should be eliminated.
 
Just because someone misses my point doesn't mean I'm not following the discussion. During the campaign, everyone thought Clinton would win. That's why Russia, or whoever, focused on making her look bad. Who thought Trump would win? I seriously doubt anyone thought their efforts would change the outcome of the election. IMO, they sought to damage the next President and cast doubt on our process.
It's important to know what the Russians are doing. It's important to know if any Americans are colluding. We can all agree on that.
We will never agree on HRC.
 
t-c said:
Hillary Clinton is now a private citizen after decades of public service starting from when she graduated from Wellesley. She's taken crap from the right (investigation after investigation that turned up nothing) and the left (she's just like Trump; she's boring; she's a terrible candidate; she should just go away) for most of her life. Yet she has continued to show enough respect for the work and the people that she always did her best and showed up prepared and knowledgeable.

It isn't she who failed; it is the ignorant electorate who thinks that a president they could have a beer with is better than one who knows the issues backwards and forwards, presented an actual plan to accomplish what was promised, and have a track record of working with the other party to pass legislation. So you know what? She can do and say whatever the hell she wants. She's earned the right.
Click to expand...

T-c, no one says she has not earned the right, or the respect.
Moreover, I, for one, would have been pretty happy with HRC as the President - I planned to vote for her in 2008, and in 2016, definitely. I like her view of science, for example.
However...If we do not want to end up with Pence in 2020, something has to change in the Democratic camp. Did you expect Hillary to be that disliked among the people? Me neither. But I know people who chose not to vote rather than vote for her. They did not want Trump, but they did not want what "Shattered" called "Clinton, Inc.", either.
In 1861, Lincoln was elected the President. He was brilliant. He probably suffered from both bipolar and Asperger's and he did a great job for the country. One of my acquaintances astutely noted that today, he'd have zero chance. Why? "You forgot," said she, "he was ugly, and everything is on TV".
So a very smart, somewhat shy, woman, who assumes that her almost 50 years of public service spoke for her lost to a bombastic buffoon who was seen on TV weekly for years, because of this idiotic show, "the Apprentice". The recognition factor, you know.
Conclusion? Do not nominate unelectable candidates that are not popular with average folks and do not perform well in large groups. Because now we all, all have to live with the consequences.
Personally, I was shocked when Gore lost, and devastated when Clinton lost. But there is something similar in two campaigns.
 
t-c said:
1. You didn't address my original point which is that Russians did not need to be casting ballots to influence the election.

1b. There was a release of Macron's emails. I doubt Macron himself (or his team) would release those so the cause is likely an unauthorized access (i.e. hack).

2. Just because one party on the email is addressed as clintonemail.com does not mean that clintonemail.com server was hacked. It could have been the other party who was breached -- which is probably what happened. (For example, my husband's account could be hacked and they would see email from me, but my email server would still remain secure. Only emails I sent to him would be exposed.)
Click to expand...

t-c, are you even reading my answers? It is true, the other party who was first breached in Clinton's emails was Sydney Blumenthal, but through his hacked emails, Guccifer 2.0 (the name of the hacker allegedly located in Romania) was able to hack into Clinton's emails. I quoted it. But I assume that Hillary had been targeted by hackers for a long time, that she was the object of interest for the hackers.

Re. Podesta. I planned to wait till the evening and check the book, "Shattered", describing how it happened, but searched online, and found the explanation of how it happened with his emails.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack

So you stated that only DNC server was hacked. I can not tell about the servers (I am not in IT and do not know how it is done technically), but what I am stating is that there together were three separate hackers attacks, all of them targeting Hillary.
 
Arkteia said:
t-c, are you even reading my answers? It is true, the other party who was first breached in Clinton's emails was Sydney Blumenthal, but through his hacked emails, Guccifer 2.0 (the name of the hacker allegedly located in Romania) was able to hack into Clinton's emails. I quoted it. But I assume that Hillary had been targeted by hackers for a long time, that she was the object of interest for the hackers.

Re. Podesta. I planned to wait till the evening and check the book, "Shattered", describing how it happened, but searched online, and found the explanation of how it happened with his emails.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack

So you stated that only DNC server was hacked. I can not tell about the servers (I am not in IT and do not know how it is done technically), but what I am stating is that there together were three separate hackers attacks, all of them targeting Hillary.
Click to expand...

I read your answers. You wrote that hackers accessed Sydney Blumenthal's account. Where in your answer explained an actual hack of Clinton's server? The last I read, the FBI said "there was no direct evidence" of a hack. That doesn't mean it didn't happen...but you're declaring it as a fact -- so what's the new evidence?
 
t-c said:
I read your answers. You wrote that hackers accessed Sydney Blumenthal's account. Where in your answer explained an actual hack of Clinton's server? The last I read, the FBI said "there was no direct evidence" of a hack. That doesn't mean it didn't happen...but you're declaring it as a fact -- so what's the new evidence?
Click to expand...

I see what you mean... About the server, let us assume you are right. And I won't debate you on this. Because FBI has been all over it again.

"The FBI has consistently said that it has no evidence to indicate that Hillary Clinton’s personal email account was hacked, but has repeatedly noted that if such a breach did occur its agents might not be able to to tell."

Perhaps I should have said that "there were three separate targets of hackers' attacks", meaning Hillary, Podesta and DNC.
 
Last edited:
kenny said:
That 'technicality' is not a technicality.
It is our electoral college system.
It helps or hurts every candidate in every election, regardless of party.

In America you don't win by popular vote.

IMO (and this has nothing to do with my hatred, yes hatred, of Cheeto) the electoral college system should be eliminated.
Click to expand...

If this article is true (and it makes sense to me), and the real reason behind electoral college system was slavery, then it ought to be eliminated. http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
 
Sure liberals want to end our electoral system so that the coasts can rule the entire country.
 
Hi,

Kenny et Al" re: Strong women as bitches.

The world is changing. I watch young women every day who are knowledgeable and assertive, and hold their own with the men they deal with. They participate in what used to be a mans world , which is the world of finance-and news reporting. Watch CNBC and tell me the world is not changing. Most of these woman come from the top schools in our country and while I did find some abrasive initially, once I got past that and listened to them, I was so impressed with them.
Female leaders are out there. There is no holding them back anymore. They are up for the job. No more are they just a pretty face. They come armed with knowledge, and people skills.

Look at Ireland. Can you believe that. The most Catholic country in the world electing a gay man as their leader. Who woulda thought?

Annette
 
lovedogs said:
HRC is, and continues to be, wonderful. She got epically screwed in this election thanks to Russian meddling, GOP making her a villain, and an ignorant populace.
Click to expand...
Could not disagree more. She may have a high IQ, but that does not always translate into other kinds of intelligence that is needed to be President. While I don't think Trump has it either, it doesn't mean she would be a great or even good president. She has made some egregious errors over a long period of time. From her handling of the Monica scandal to her treatment of staff in the white house and the email scandal. That doesn't even touch Bengazi. She blames other people for her error and lies about them. Please don't assume that I think Trump is any better or even like him. I just don't see anything wonderful about Hillary. I also think it is ridiculous to say that an 'ignorant populace' voted for him. While you may not agree with someone else's choices or don't understand their reasoning, it doesn't make them ignorant. By definition, it makes you ignorant for saying so.
 
Hillary Clinton was, without a shadow of a doubt, the most qualified candidate for U.S. President in the history of our country.

That's what makes this shitstorm we are in the middle of right now even more sad.
 
luv2sparkle said:
Could not disagree more. She may have a high IQ, but that does not always translate into other kinds of intelligence that is needed to be President. While I don't think Trump has it either, it doesn't mean she would be a great or even good president. She has made some egregious errors over a long period of time. From her handling of the Monica scandal to her treatment of staff in the white house and the email scandal. That doesn't even touch Bengazi. She blames other people for her error and lies about them. Please don't assume that I think Trump is any better or even like him. I just don't see anything wonderful about Hillary. I also think it is ridiculous to say that an 'ignorant populace' voted for him. While you may not agree with someone else's choices or don't understand their reasoning, it doesn't make them ignorant. By definition, it makes you ignorant for saying so.
Click to expand...

How is it her fault for her "handling" of the Monica scandal? It's such a joke that she's blamed for her husband's affair. And the 'email scandal' was nonsense blown out of proportion by the GOP because of who she was. No one seems to care the Pence uses an unsecured email account (weird how that works!)

If you don't see anything wonderful about HRC that's totally fine. My DH isn't a huge fan because she's more pro-military than he is. But don't use things like her DH's affair or "emails" to dislike her. Anyone who voted for Trump is ignorant, and I'm honestly tired of pretending to think otherwise. If they voted for him because they believed him then that's unfortunate. They were ignorant to his true intentions. If they still defend him, they remain ignorant. You don't have to agree with me, but anyone who can't recognize how much he's damaged the country, or doesn't understand all the impeachable offenses he's ALREADY COMMITTED (much less the things he's being investigated for), is ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top