Hillary Couldn't Stop Crying, Told Friend She Blames Comey and Obama For Loss

You have to be at least somewhat appealing to your base to get elected. She lost because she failed to appeal to the Democrat base the way Obama did. That's a fact supported by the exit polls.

And I share your sentiment about the idiot we are going to be stuck with at least four years.

 

Bet she didn't cry for the kids in Waco

 

No he would not. Nor would he leave his supporters hanging all night.

Its a good thing Trump isn't like Hillary.

 

Its a beautiful thing buddy!

 

THAT was a great video!

Politico: Even Dems are getting tired of Team Hillary scapegoating

This is the way the Clintons end … not with a bang, but a lot of whimpering.

Forty-eight hours ago, Dems were stunned by the most shocking presidential-race outcome in 68 years. Team Hillary sees a lot of places to spread blame on others:Comey? Check. Sexism? Check, Weiner's weiner? Check. Racism? Why not. Even though Obama ran twice, won twice.

On a conference call held today by John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri continued to blame everyone else:
~
“They are saying they did nothing wrong, which is ridiculous,” said one Clinton surrogate. “She was the wrong messenger and everyone misjudged how pissed working class people were.” …

“She got this gift of this complete idiot who says bizarre things and hates women and she still lost,” said one longtime Clinton ally and fundraiser. “They lost in a race they obviously should have won. They need to take some blame.”
~
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215

Robby Mook, Podesta, Palmieri, and other they listened to. Bill Clinton who also ran twice, won twice, they ignored:
~
Some began pointing fingers at the young campaign manager, Robby Mook, who spearheaded a strategy supported by the senior campaign team that included only limited outreach to the Bubba voters — a theory of the case that Bill Clinton had railed against for months, wondering aloud at meetings why the campaign was not making more of an attempt to even ask that population for its votes. Bill Clinton’s viewpoint of fighting for the working class white voters was often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team who saw Bill as a talented but aging politician who simply refused to accept the new Democratic map. At a meeting ahead of the convention at which aides presented to both Clintons the “Stronger Together” framework for the general election, senior strategist Joel Benenson told the former president bluntly that the voters from West Virginia were never coming back to his party.
~
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215

So they srote off those voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton never even set foot in Wisconsin after the convention, apparently assuming for some reason that the state was safe. Democrats had lost every statewide election since 2010 and the public-employee unions have lost a huge amount of political traction, so she made a very bad bet.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/...e-getting-tired-of-team-hillary-scapegoating/

 

Indeed, I've become quite cynical There are things that I of course disagree with, even with Donald Trump. But what I learned is that situations change hourly, even yearly in American Politics.

 

Situations may change but the media and dems will always gaslight.

Its the lefty way.

 

I am SO very thankful I left the Democratic/Liberal Party. Can you imagine living life in an echo chamber fashion?(And yes, they're the ones with the echo chamber.) I was a Libertarian for a while, before adapting my current philosophy. I know that it might feel a bit uncomfortable with traditional conservatives. But I think our tent is more adaptable than ever, and I think we have far more in common: IE: National defense and the country's welfare, than not.

 

If its uncomfortable (I don't think it is) its a good thing-because it allows us to come up with solutions.

I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings. Conservatives, libertarians, and nationalists can get along just fine and in fact I think its the future for both sides against the globalist thuggies that are leftists.

 

An the right wing call the left wing selection and then raised them with a clown/conman name Trump.

 

I agree. Balance in moderation is always a good thing. And probably, the biggest and only difference would be in foreign policy. And not even then, since in my calculation the idea of expanding countries has come to an end. Contrary to the fearmongering by some in Europe. It wouldn't be to Russia's advantage to revitalize the Soviet Union. The Union collapsed in large part due to its size and economic difficulties. That hasn't changed in the least.

Likewise, there isn't another country on the globe that is embracing a "land-expansion". When the AXIS was defeated in 1945, the concept of land grabs was also defeated. And even here at home, with the California incident, it's clear that expansion even for the US was a bad thing. Though my nationalism trumps that what James F Polk did at the time, was indeed manifesting the destiny of the United States.

Today, I believe the race for being a superpower is economic in nature. I wouldn't mind being the "clean superpower of the 21st century", where I differ from Hillary is the idea that we would get rid of coal/gas for that purpose. No, we should have a multi-facet energy grid that can never be dismantled.
That way, we can overcome any natural disasters as well as god forbid, attacks on our infrastructure.

My version of State Nationalism in the 21st century is to be an Economic Superpower, allied with other Superpowers for a new(and stronger) version of
the deterrent. The problem with allying with an entire continent(as we've seen) is that when the said continent wants us to do something we don't want to do, it goes against our interests and the alliance fractures.

On the other hand, superpowers that respect each other's domestic sphere of influence and abides by the INTL Community will scratch each other's backs. The smaller countries will prosper because the top dogs are in alliance, the world will be a much safer place. Russo-US Relations will literally kick off the era of peace. An Era of Good Feelings(Part 2).

Who, honestly wants war? Even if I tried to put on a dictator hat, the calculation would always come back: What if I lose? Sure, it's great if I could
literally grab every territory but it's not worth it in lives and dollars. And that's just assuming I win. If I lose, the cost is ten times greater. And as a Humanist, I view war as abhorrent and I want to avoid it by any and all means.

But what I learned is that, while I may not want war, sometimes others do want war. So I believe in a national defense, and to the extent where I would believe in preemptive warfare, it would only be in the knowledge of an impending attack on the US or our allies.

Peace through Strength meant not only having a strong military, but being very reluctant to use that military. Because we have used our military in
the first 16 years of the new millennium, our Euro friends got too comfortable with the idea. That stops now.

Socially, I would tend to agree with the Libertarian principle of individual self freedom and in the lack of force. But where I disagree is the application of
"Force" in Law. BLM shows us, how naive this concept is. Again: As much as I hate force, others are violently oriented. Do I strip LEO's of their abilities to protect our towns, cities and innocents? No, that would lead to even more bloodshed. As tragic as some of the cases may have been, it'd be a lot worse if BLM were allowed to rein freely.

And personally, I'm for marijuana legalization(which has been approved in quite a few states just this election, Liberal States of course.) I believe we can strike a balanced note between regulations and laws and at the same time, if we do legalize marijuana, we'll be able to take the drug cartels out of the shadows and expose them. I'd like to do it Colorado-style. Have people licensed..

We also learned of the Federal Court ruling. That also has to be overturned as unconstitutional against the 2nd Amendment. So the legalization of Marijuana is in my opinion a crucial issue for the jail situation. People who otherwise committed small crimes, end up doing hard time and then become hardened to do more serious crimes. By legalizing these things(and by promoting/transferring those inmates who should be in mental hospitals in a jail, or treatment for help.)

And in terms of Conservatism. What is it that I'm "conserving"? In my mind, it's the law and order of the United States. In my mind, it's the prosperity of our country. I tend to agree with the basic tenant of conservatism which was to advance, but slowly. In my mind, it's not "big or small" government but efficient government. How can we make government more efficient to suit the needs of everyone?(And if not everyone, as many as possible.)

 

Huh? .

 

I do not think Obama had anything to do with it; I bet every Hillary voter would agree that Obama could have won a third term if not for FDR, but that kills the angry white vote crap so they will lie.

“The Rust Belt was turning red already. Donald Trump just pushed it along.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ed-already-donald-trump-just-pushed-it-along/

“Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states – but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat).” http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

 

Please provide links and supporting facts to prove this dastardly accusation!!!!!

 

one reporter managed to get some footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUEHu3x28Nc

 

Childish comment followed by video of child having a tantrum. Not adding much.