HRC - "Trump/Sanders capitalized on anger, I beat both, 3rd party ppl are crazy"

[DrScholl]

I've said it before, but I'm glad that she lost. Trump is exactly the disaster that Democrats in 2018 need to win state governments in order to have a say in redistricting.

I've said it before, but I'm glad that he lost. Bush is exactly the disaster that Democrats in 2002 need to win back the House.

9/11 gave Bush nigh impossible approval ratings for any President to duplicate. Not a good comparison.

[Adam Griffin]

In all likelihood, her quote about "plus, you know, the crazy third party people" was almost certainly referring to the candidates and not the voters, if you care about/actually follow the context of that sentence - and it's totally accurate. I only wish Hillary were so sassy as to imply the alternative.

Someone as flawed as Hillary, should not be sh**t*ting on 3rd party people struggling very hard against enormous challenges by calling them "crazy". That is downright insulting especially coming from a fraud.

But anyways you are wrong here. She specifically called 3rd party voters as crazy, not the candidates.

When I mention MSNBC’s hiring of conservatives including George Will, and the New York Times’ new climate-change-skeptic opinion columnist, Bret Stephens, her brow furrows. “Why … would … you … do … that?” she says. “Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It’s clearly a commercial decision. But I don’t think it will work. I mean, they’re laughing on the right at these puny efforts to try to appease people on the right.”

Something tells me English isn't your first language. Allow me to explain:

The sentence structure doesn't make logical sense in the way you and others are implying. Clinton isn't a dunce; she's not Trump and doesn't speak in fragmented thoughts. The purpose of the sentence was to illustrate that Trump did not win the popular vote, nor did he come even close.

Here are two examples of that sentence: which one makes more sense?

"A bunch of people voted for me, plus even more voted for some wackadoos" <-- what she was actually saying
"A bunch of people voted for me, plus there are a bunch of wackadoos in this country" <-- what you and some others imply she's saying

The latter - what you're trying to say she said - is a Trumpian sentence. It crams two unrelated thoughts together into one sentence.

The former - what she actually said - doubles-down on the point she is trying to make ("I got more votes than Donald Trump, and there were in addition millions more who rejected him by voting for an assortment of losers").

[Shadows]

In all likelihood, her quote about "plus, you know, the crazy third party people" was almost certainly referring to the candidates and not the voters, if you care about/actually follow the context of that sentence - and it's totally accurate. I only wish Hillary were so sassy as to imply the alternative.

Someone as flawed as Hillary, should not be sh**t*ting on 3rd party people struggling very hard against enormous challenges by calling them "crazy". That is downright insulting especially coming from a fraud.

But anyways you are wrong here. She specifically called 3rd party voters as crazy, not the candidates.

When I mention MSNBC’s hiring of conservatives including George Will, and the New York Times’ new climate-change-skeptic opinion columnist, Bret Stephens, her brow furrows. “Why … would … you … do … that?” she says. “Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It’s clearly a commercial decision. But I don’t think it will work. I mean, they’re laughing on the right at these puny efforts to try to appease people on the right.”

Something tells me English isn't your first language. Allow me to explain:

The sentence structure doesn't make logical sense in the way you and others are implying. Clinton isn't a dunce; she's not Trump and doesn't speak in fragmented thoughts. The purpose of the sentence was to illustrate that Trump did not win the popular vote, nor did he come even close.

Here are two examples of that sentence: which one makes more sense?

"A bunch of people voted for me, plus even more voted for some wackadoos" <-- what she was actually saying
"A bunch of people voted for me, plus there are a bunch of wackadoos in this country" <-- what you and some others imply she's saying

The latter - what you're trying to say she said - is a Trumpian sentence. It crams two unrelated thoughts together into one sentence.

The former - what she actually said - doubles-down on the point she is trying to make ("I got more votes than Donald Trump, and there were in addition millions more who rejected him by voting for an assortment of losers").

You are not arguing for the sake or arguing. There is no shame in admitting that you made an incorrect statement, everyone can make an incorrect statement.

Do you want me to quote the entire paragraph? Because it was self-explanatory. The talk was about NBC hiring conservatives to which Hillary replies that there are more liberals in the country. To justify it, she said there are more people who voted for her - 66M, plus all the crazy 3rd party people. So there is no justification to go with more conservative commentators. This is pretty easy to understand. I won't go with the amateurish jibe "Hey you don't know English" because any1 using Translate is also smart enough to understand this.
 
This is pure cognitive dissonance. You have taken a stand & made an incorrect statement so now you will try to twist sentences & create "alternative" explanations otherwise it becomes a personal error & failure for you (& this is childish mate !)

Full Quote -


The impulse toward false equivalency is only getting worse, in her opinion. “The cable networks seem to me to be folding into a posture of, ‘Oh, we want to try to get some of those people on the right, so maybe we better be more, quote, evenhanded.’ ” When I mention MSNBC’s hiring of conservatives including George Will, and the New York Times’ new climate-change-skeptic opinion columnist, Bret Stephens, her brow furrows. “Why … would … you … do … that?” she says. “Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It’s clearly a commercial decision. But I don’t think it will work. I mean, they’re laughing on the right at these puny efforts to try to appease people on the right.”

Not only does she call 3rd party people crazy, she further affirms that (for you to understand) by saying 66M + Crazy 3rd people -. So there's a lot of people who would advocate stronger arguments on XYZ !!!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Wow, I really am in awe of how delusional this woman is.

[SATW]

She is as delusional as ever. As are her supporters.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm proud of my Johnson vote. I should have pulled my endorsement of Hillary in July over "extremely careless", but instead I pressed on over fear of Trump until it was revealed in late august that she had allowed her staff to send an extremely sensitive laptop through normal postage. Even then, I resisted endorsing voting against her, and even left open the idea of still voting for her myself, until after Access Hollywood, when she either didn't need my vote to win, or was going to lose no matter what I did. If anything, I was "crazy" to stick with her so long, not "crazy" for voting Johnson.

And Hillary, you didn't beat Trump. Don't lecture me on the popular vote, it's a meaningless statistic that the media shouldn't even calculate. The electoral college is what matters.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I've said it before, but I'm glad that she lost. Trump is exactly the disaster that Democrats in 2018 need to win state governments in order to have a say in redistricting.

I've said it before, but I'm glad that he lost. Bush is exactly the disaster that Democrats in 2002 need to win back the House.

9/11 gave Bush nigh impossible approval ratings for any President to duplicate. Not a good comparison.

And we're ruling out of the possibility of another major terrorist attack in the next year because...?

A 9/11 repeat at this point would be near-perfect for Trump. Whether or not the attackers had anything to do with the country's targeted by his travel ban wouldn't matter for too many people.  Sure, the left would point out that he failed to keep America safe, and that nothing he'd suggested or tried would have prevented the attack. But that wouldn't matter.

Trump would peg his xenophobia, declare national security for everything, and create the police state he craves. He'd probably invade someplace, too. The economy would enjoy a few years of surge from the wave of deficit military and security spending.  Every single problem will be blamed on foreigners and Democrats. The GOP would back him to the hilt on every bit of it.

The final result would be a US more like Russia than anything else: broken economy, corrupt one-party oligarchy, not quite a pariah state but disliked internationally, and always invading countries (only we'd go afield, while Russia stays close to its borders). And with a hefty helping of theocracy (and continuing to deal with the Saudis, of course). A nation that will be left behind by the future, unless it succeeds in killing the future first.

[7,052,770]

Don't lecture me on the popular vote, it's a meaningless statistic that the media shouldn't even calculate. The electoral college is what matters.

False. It's extremely meaningful to get the pulse of America and see what kind of mandate an incoming president has. It's also extremely relevant that the American voters wished for a Hillary presidency only to have their choice extinguished by an outdated, silly system that we explicitly would not allow to be used for any other office at any level government.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Don't lecture me on the popular vote, it's a meaningless statistic that the media shouldn't even calculate. The electoral college is what matters.

False. It's extremely meaningful to get the pulse of America and see what kind of mandate an incoming president has. It's also extremely relevant that the American voters wished for a Hillary presidency only to have their choice extinguished by an outdated, silly system that we explicitly would not allow to be used for any other office at any level government.

I understand how it is revelant for opponents of the electoral college, but I support the electoral college.

[Beet]

Don't lecture me on the popular vote, it's a meaningless statistic that the media shouldn't even calculate. The electoral college is what matters.

False. It's extremely meaningful to get the pulse of America and see what kind of mandate an incoming president has. It's also extremely relevant that the American voters wished for a Hillary presidency only to have their choice extinguished by an outdated, silly system that we explicitly would not allow to be used for any other office at any level government.

I understand how it is revelant for opponents of the electoral college, but I support the electoral college.

The electoral college is an unelected, unaccountable body of 538 people. Why should they rule over 320 million? There is no good reason, excepting an accident of history. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[7,052,770]

Don't lecture me on the popular vote, it's a meaningless statistic that the media shouldn't even calculate. The electoral college is what matters.

False. It's extremely meaningful to get the pulse of America and see what kind of mandate an incoming president has. It's also extremely relevant that the American voters wished for a Hillary presidency only to have their choice extinguished by an outdated, silly system that we explicitly would not allow to be used for any other office at any level government.

I understand how it is revelant for opponents of the electoral college, but I support the electoral college.

Do you also think that margins of victory in, say, Senate or governor races is meaningless trivia? A 70-30 winner takes the seat just like a 50.0001 - 49.9999 winner, so if mandate and pulse of the people aren't relevant, should the media just report the winner and keep the vote count secret?

You could ask the same question about the electoral college. Maybe the media should have just announced that Trump was the winner and never revealed any vote totals, statewide winners, county winners, or anything.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Don't lecture me on the popular vote, it's a meaningless statistic that the media shouldn't even calculate. The electoral college is what matters.

False. It's extremely meaningful to get the pulse of America and see what kind of mandate an incoming president has. It's also extremely relevant that the American voters wished for a Hillary presidency only to have their choice extinguished by an outdated, silly system that we explicitly would not allow to be used for any other office at any level government.

I understand how it is revelant for opponents of the electoral college, but I support the electoral college.

You could ask the same question about the electoral college. Maybe the media should have just announced that Trump was the winner and never revealed any vote totals, statewide winners, county winners, or anything.

The mandate is defined by the electoral college margin.

[Virginiá]

The mandate is defined by the electoral college margin.

Since when? Are you saying only states matter in the idea of a mandate, and not people? How can you lose the popular vote by millions and still claim a mandate?

[Beet]

Don't forget, Wulfric is the one who wanted a coup d'etat. He probably thought the generals would have had a mandate to pass tax cuts.

[Adam Griffin]

Blah blah blah

I read the full quote when I read the article. I understand fully what was said then, as I do now. You don't. English isn't your native tongue and when combined with your partisan hackery, you're gonna read into it how you wanna read into it.

Nobody with a lick of coherency speaks in sentences like what you're describing. She said "I got more votes than Trump, and even more votes were cast for crazy third party people [candidates]". She didn't say "I got more votes than Trump plus there are crazy people in this country!". Logical sentence structure in the English language applies here. Careful and calculated politicians don't cram unrelated thoughts together in the same sentence. You even acknowledged this (unknowingly) with the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the point was to outline how many votes were not cast for Trump; 66m for her and several million more for the nutty third partiers.

The context is very obvious to anybody not blinded by ideological zeal and determined to write Russian-influenced press releases on this forum constantly. It was obvious to me the moment I read it, but I recognized the ability for spin to be used on the way it was phrased.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Don't forget, Wulfric is the one who wanted a coup d'etat. He probably thought the generals would have had a mandate to pass tax cuts.

Hey, at least I didn't change my political allegiance over one party supposedly becoming irrelevant, and then awkwardly switch back a few weeks later.

[angus]

The mandate is defined by the electoral college margin.

I'm not sure that's the orthodoxy among political scientists and historians.  At least it wasn't when I was in school.  I remember Doctor White (who was not white) talking about this in my freshman history class.  He defined a mandate the way our textbook did:  55% or more of the popular vote going to one candidate defined a mandate.  He called it a rare thing.  I haven't looked up the statistics, but I suspect that he was right.  I don't remember any time in my adult life that a candidate got 55% or more of the popular vote.  We're in a time when mandates are just not happening, at least according to the textbook definition.  According to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, the last time a presidential candidate had a mandate was in 1984, at which time I was in the eleventh grade (reading "1984" for a class assignment, as it turns out.)

[elcorazon]

You mean it’s not a strategy for you, I clarify. “For me, yeah.” She pauses. “But I don’t think it’s a good strategy for most people.”But this was an election that was, in many ways, about anger. And Trump and Sanders capitalized on that.“Yes.” Clinton nods. “And I beat both of them.”

Jess McIntosh, a Democratic strategist who was the director of communications outreach for the Clinton campaign. “Look at the coverage of Bernie Sanders’s supporters: Who’s filling the stadium, what gender and age and race were they? Those stories did not exist about enthusiastic Hillary voters even though there were more enthusiastic Hillary voters than for the other candidates."

“Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/hillary-clinton-life-after-election.html

Very insightful & truthful analysis, isn't it?

as usual, Hillary is correct

[Badger]

Don't forget, Wulfric is the one who wanted a coup d'etat. He probably thought the generals would have had a mandate to pass tax cuts.

Hey, at least I didn't change my political allegiance over one party supposedly becoming irrelevant, and then awkwardly switch back a few weeks later.

After supporting a coup, any justification after the words "but at least...." is going to fall flat.

[Frodo]

Hillary is in a no-win situation with a lot of you -she gets criticized as being a phony if she parses her words, but when she does speak her mind unscripted you criticize her for that too. 

[Technocracy Timmy]

Hillary is in a no-win situation with a lot of you -she gets criticized as being a phony if she parses her words, but when she does speak her mind unscripted you criticize her for that too.  

Well...maybe she should have endorsed Senator Sanders in the primary.

On a more serious note, this thread is a dumpsterquake.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Hillary is in a no-win situation with a lot of you -she gets criticized as being a phony if she parses her words, but when she does speak her mind unscripted you criticize her for that too. 

I'm more than willing to consider the idea that I don't like Secretary Clinton.

As for the OP - why is it bad to work off of anger when the people are angry?

[Shadows]

Blah blah blah

I read the full quote when I read the article. I understand fully what was said then, as I do now. You don't. English isn't your native tongue and when combined with your partisan hackery, you're gonna read into it how you wanna read into it.

Nobody with a lick of coherency speaks in sentences like what you're describing. She said "I got more votes than Trump, and even more votes were cast for crazy third party people [candidates]". She didn't say "I got more votes than Trump plus there are crazy people in this country!". Logical sentence structure in the English language applies here. Careful and calculated politicians don't cram unrelated thoughts together in the same sentence. You even acknowledged this (unknowingly) with the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the point was to outline how many votes were not cast for Trump; 66m for her and several million more for the nutty third partiers.

The context is very obvious to anybody not blinded by ideological zeal and determined to write Russian-influenced press releases on this forum constantly. It was obvious to me the moment I read it, but I recognized the ability for spin to be used on the way it was phrased.

English IS my first language, it is my mother's 1st language. Every book, every paper from school to university to masters, that I have had to read or every examination that I had to take part in, was in English. It is only language in which I can comfortably write. I find it highly insulting that you will resort to such slander & insults based on falsehoods. As someone, who was reading Charles Dickens/Mark Twain from the age of 7 and who has read entire plays of Shakespeare from the age of 12, I find it preposterous that someone like you will question my English language proficiency. I have a small library at my home, a large share of family have a Ph.d & I am a person who has been a part of various literary societies & has written/acted in plays in English. Your attack is deplorable & you should apologize.

No reasonable & honest person will agree with you here. Hillary never said the 3rd party candidates were crazy. She explicitly talks about the total people against Trump -  66M people who voted for her + the crazy 3rd party people (There is nothing in that sentence to say she was referring to the 3rd party candidates as crazy).

I wouldn't accuse of being a Hillary hack, because that's not what this is. This is flat out "Cognitive dissonance". You made a claim which turned out to be total BS. Your thought process now is "If I admit my mistake, it is a personal embarrassment". Hence, you are creating "alternative" explanations & twisting words to suit your theory. (Everyone makes mistakes, I don't get why you are behaving this way).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hillary is in a no-win situation with a lot of you -she gets criticized as being a phony if she parses her words, but when she does speak her mind unscripted you criticize her for that too. 

I would be fine with her "speaking her mind" if what's on her mind wasn't crap.

[Adam Griffin]

English IS my first language, it is my mother's 1st language. Every book, every paper from school to university to masters, that I have had to read or every examination that I had to take part in, was in English. It is only language in which I can comfortably write. I find it highly insulting that you will resort to such slander & insults based on falsehoods. As someone, who was reading Charles Dickens/Mark Twain from the age of 7 and who has read entire plays of Shakespeare from the age of 12, I find it preposterous that someone like you will question my English language proficiency. I have a small library at my home, a large share of family have a Ph.d & I am a person who has been a part of various literary societies & has written/acted in plays in English. Your attack is deplorable & you should apologize.

No reasonable & honest person will agree with you here. Hillary never said the 3rd party candidates were crazy. She explicitly talks about the total people against Trump -  66M people who voted for her + the crazy 3rd party people (There is nothing in that sentence to say she was referring to the 3rd party candidates as crazy).

I wouldn't accuse of being a Hillary hack, because that's not what this is. This is flat out "Cognitive dissonance". You made a claim which turned out to be total BS. Your thought process now is "If I admit my mistake, it is a personal embarrassment". Hence, you are creating "alternative" explanations & twisting words to suit your theory. (Everyone makes mistakes, I don't get why you are behaving this way).

OK, now I'm even more intrigued. It genuinely wasn't meant as an insult, but...there is no way you write in the manner that you do, have advanced formal education and speak English as your first language. I can see any two of those being true, perhaps, but not all three.

And no, I didn't make a claim "that turned out to be total BS". What I implied in my first reply is what I'm still stating: the structure of the sentence and the natural flow of thought humans have make it far more likely that she meant what I've been saying than what you are claiming. Your claim essentially means that she constructed a sentence made of logical apples and oranges. Again, not difficult stuff:


Initial context: responding to why MSNBC would chase conservative hosts; implying there are more anti-Trump people in this country than pro-Trump people

Correct: "66 million people voted for me [and] several million more voted for crazy third party candidates"
Incorrect: "66 million people voted for me [and] several million third party voters are crazy"

In the former, the first and second portions of the sentence agree with one another logically; akin to subject-verb agreement: a number of people voted for her and an additional number of people voted for other candidates. In the latter, it's a disjointed blurb where b does not follow a.

Clinton is not stupid, and she does not speak like this. The only politician who speaks in fragmented segments like this where b does not follow a is Trump.