Hills "accepts responsibility" for loss

[GMDino]

(05-03-2017, 12:35 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yeah but I feel she keeps getting asked about it because she hasn't actually owned up to anything. If Hillary would have just came out and said she screwed up and how, instead of bringing up the stuff about Wikileaks and the FBI there would be less for people to talk about.

The fact that she can't give a straight answer is what continues to beg the question. Saying "I'm responsible because I was the candidate" is just as good as avoiding the question entirely.

Again she gave a bad answer.

But she did indeed say she accepts full responsibility....then talked about the other factors. (FBI, Russian interference, etc)

I feel like some in the world want her to say the Russians weren't involved more than they want her to accept full responsibility though.

[Vas Deferens]

I think it would be nice for her to say she royally screwed over the American populace by rigging the DNC with hand up DWS' pantsuit and tossing Bernie aside because she felt entitled to the position.

But that wouldn't go over well with the class action lawsuit currently being heard against that wretched establishment.

She didn't recognize she wasn't the people's choice after Obama wiped the floor with her, highly doubt she's elevated herself to that base level of humility now.

[masterpanthera_t]

I think it would have been at least a bit redeeming if she actually mentioned any mistakes that led to her loss to one of the least popular candidates in history. Instead this just comes off as being steeped in denial many months after the election. At best it's a throw away interview to ingratiate herself into "political activism" to keep her relevant in different political circles, IMO.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-03-2017, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again she gave a bad answer.

But she did indeed say she accepts full responsibility....then talked about the other factors. (FBI, Russian interference, etc)

I feel like some in the world want her to say the Russians weren't involved more than they want her to accept full responsibility though.

She clearly doesn't accept full responsibility based on what she said. She made a quick statement about how she "accepts responsibility" and then diverted attention to the Russains and the FBI. But what did YOU do Hillary that caused you to lose the election. She's showing nothing but clear denial.

What else can Hillary say about the Russians and the FBI that people haven't heard already from the infinite news cycles about it? I don't want to hear about the Russians and the FBI being partly to blame because they did "insert regurgitated information here". 

I want to know what she thinks she did wrong. Based on what she's said so far she thinks that whatever she did is miniscule compared to "Putin and Comey".

So what if the Russians were involved? She doesnt have a shred of evidence to prove that Russia lost the election for her.

[BmorePat87]

David Axelrod: Comey didn't tell her to not campaign in WI.

[masterpanthera_t]

(05-03-2017, 04:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: David Axelrod: Comey didn't tell her to not campaign in WI.

Not a single bit of acknowledgment of failing to make arguments to a part of the populace which is suffering from economic issues.  Not even a cursory attempt at addressing this. 

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 01:57 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: She clearly doesn't accept full responsibility based on what she said. She made a quick statement about how she "accepts responsibility" and then diverted attention to the Russains and the FBI. But what did YOU do Hillary that caused you to lose the election. She's showing nothing but clear denial.

What else can Hillary say about the Russians and the FBI that people haven't heard already from the infinite news cycles about it? I don't want to hear about the Russians and the FBI being partly to blame because they did "insert regurgitated information here". 

I want to know what she thinks she did wrong. Based on what she's said so far she thinks that whatever she did is miniscule compared to "Putin and Comey".

So what if the Russians were involved? She doesnt have a shred of evidence to prove that Russia lost the election for her.

This is not about "proving" the Russians affected the election. How would the election have gone if voters knew Trump's camp was under investigation?

And it seems to me she did a lot of things very well. She was magnificent and prepared in the debates while Donald looked grumpy and played. What did Trump really do better? He wanted to build a wall and ban Muslims and that drew the Republican base to him. He injected an unprecedented level of incivility into the campaign at every stage.

In my view, two decades of Fox/Rightwing media "fake news" had a larger effect on Hillary's negatives than Russia or even the email scandal.  People are scratching their heads every day now at Trump's incompetence and lack of knowledge while the Trump base shows little sign of buyer's remorse. Someone who doesn't know government is still better than someone who does because he's an outsider. Hillary had no answer for that. Perhaps there is no answer until Trump's policies are finally perceived to fail massively.

I hope she will keep a running commentary on them as they do.  Maybe the people will choose better next time around.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-03-2017, 06:38 PM)Dill Wrote: This is not about "proving" the Russians affected the election. How would the election have gone if voters knew Trump's camp was under investigation?

Well the point is that she hasn't proven anything regarding voters swayed by Russian involvement. To use it as an excuse for why you lost is pointless when you have no data to support it. How would the election have gone if voters knew Trump was under investigation? Who knows. That's the point, no one knows who was swayed by what or how many was swayed by whatever people believe they were swayed by. 

Quote:And it seems to me she did a lot of things very well. She was magnificent and prepared in the debates while Donald looked grumpy and played.

It's not hard to prepare when you're fed the questions. Whose fault was that again? Putin's or Comey's? I can't remember.

Quote:What did Trump really do better? He wanted to build a wall and ban Muslims and that drew the Republican base to him. He injected an unprecedented level of incivility into the campaign at every stage.

In my view, two decades of Fox/Rightwing media "fake news" had a larger effect on Hillary's negatives than Russia or even the email scandal.  People are scratching their heads every day now at Trump's incompetence and lack of knowledge while the Trump base shows little sign of buyer's remorse. Someone who doesn't know government is still better than someone who does because he's an outsider. Hillary had no answer for that. Perhaps there is no answer until Trump's policies are finally perceived to fail massively.

I hope she will keep a running commentary on them as they do.  Maybe the people will choose better next time around.

What did Trump do better? Not get cocky and act like he was going to win by a land slide I suppose. We could have an almost endless discussion on why Clinton lost, but that's not my concern right now. My concern is that she's acting like she's taking responsibility when she really isn't.

[Goalpost]

The emails fried her. She went cover up right from the start.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-03-2017, 04:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: David Axelrod: Comey didn't tell her to not campaign in WI.

Yeah, this can't be mentioned enough. You can't ignore a couple states in your campaign because you expect them to be handed to you, and then blame others when you lose them.

...or well, I guess you can, but you'll look awfully silly doing it.

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 07:56 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well the point is that she hasn't proven anything regarding voters swayed by Russian involvement. To use it as an excuse for why you lost is pointless when you have no data to support it. How would the election have gone if voters knew Trump was under investigation? Who knows. That's the point, no one knows who was swayed by what or how many was swayed by whatever people believe they were swayed by. 

It's not hard to prepare when you're fed the questions. Whose fault was that again? Putin's or Comey's? I can't remember.

What did Trump do better? Not get cocky and act like he was going to win by a land slide I suppose. We could have an almost endless discussion on why Clinton lost, but that's not my concern right now. My concern is that she's acting like she's taking responsibility when she really isn't.

I understand your criticisms, Matt. I don't want to imply your take is "wrong" or unreasonable.  

1. It is not clear how one would "prove" something like influence on an election, occurring as a process anymore than one can predict how one call could influence a football game. One can recognize probabilities, however. Trump seems to have thought the Comey revelation would sway voters because he hammered it home every day. Why do that if it has no effect? What if it were widely known Trump's people were under investigation for collusion with a foreign power to determine the outcome of an election? That rather pales beside getting a few details on what a debate question might be like.  Who knows what would have happened if the ref had thrown a flag on that helmet to helmet hit on Hill in last year's playoff game.

2. Hillary was not "fed the questions." Brazile apparently told her she would get a question from a Flint woman with a rash. Very bad, but not why Trump was creamed in all three debates.  His policy knowledge is so abysmal he'd have lost even if had the questions and someone prepared the answers for him. He cannot stay focused and remember details. He still does not know what is in his "very great" health bill. But all that pales in comparison to a foreign power hacking the DNC to throw an election. I shudder to think what the Russians might have found in Bannon and Flynn's emails.

3. I don't think people should view the loss as either all on Hillary or all on something else. That would not give anyone an accurate picture of what happened. Her biggest mistake in retrospect was that she had that private email server--an error that pales now in the weekly comedy of errors that is the Trump show. The Russians worked to sway the election, and according to Comey they are still working us. Trump thinks that's all fake news to undermine his legitimacy. His base agrees.  Those ready to "locker her up" for risking national security back then are ready now, with their commander in chief, to ignore an act of war.

4. I am hoping that Hillary will, in the near future, steer that national conversation back to the fact that Russian hack is a terrible threat. That is what we should be discussing, whether it affected the election or not.  

[Bengalzona]

I'm starting to think we should have voted for Comey instead of Trump or Hillary.

He seems to know how to play Putin's games.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-03-2017, 06:38 PM)Dill Wrote: This is not about "proving" the Russians affected the election. How would the election have gone if voters knew Trump's camp was under investigation?

And it seems to me she did a lot of things very well. She was magnificent and prepared in the debates while Donald looked grumpy and played. What did Trump really do better? He wanted to build a wall and ban Muslims and that drew the Republican base to him. He injected an unprecedented level of incivility into the campaign at every stage.

In my view, two decades of Fox/Rightwing media "fake news" had a larger effect on Hillary's negatives than Russia or even the email scandal.  People are scratching their heads every day now at Trump's incompetence and lack of knowledge while the Trump base shows little sign of buyer's remorse. Someone who doesn't know government is still better than someone who does because he's an outsider. Hillary had no answer for that. Perhaps there is no answer until Trump's policies are finally perceived to fail massively.

I hope she will keep a running commentary on them as they do.  Maybe the people will choose better next time around.

Matt can't determine what "Russian interests" are "exactly." How could one determine if Russian interests influenced an election if one can't first identify a single Russian interest on their own?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-03-2017, 07:56 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well the point is that she hasn't proven anything regarding voters swayed by Russian involvement. To use it as an excuse for why you lost is pointless when you have no data to support it. How would the election have gone if voters knew Trump was under investigation? Who knows. That's the point, no one knows who was swayed by what or how many was swayed by whatever people believe they were swayed by. 



It's not hard to prepare when you're fed the questions. Whose fault was that again? Putin's or Comey's? I can't remember.




What did Trump do better? Not get cocky and act like he was going to win by a land slide I suppose. We could have an almost endless discussion on why Clinton lost, but that's not my concern right now. My concern is that she's acting like she's taking responsibility when she really isn't.

What is the point of Trump complaining about 3-5 million votes by illegal immigrants without proof? To use it as an excuse for why He lost the popular while He won the electoral vote is pointless when you have no data to support it and "petty" since He won.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-03-2017, 10:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure she can choose not to talk.  But she gets paid well to talk.

No one has to listen.

Aren't they worth like 9 figures?  She doesn't have to talk.  

[GMDino]

(05-04-2017, 10:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Aren't they worth like 9 figures?  She doesn't have to talk.  

Greed is an incurable disease.

The more you have the more you want.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2017, 10:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Greed is an incurable disease.

The more you have the more you want.

I guess so, but I swear I could walk away at $100,000,000.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 01:04 AM)Dill Wrote: 4. I am hoping that Hillary will, in the near future, steer that national conversation back to the fact that Russian hack is a terrible threat. That is what we should be discussing, whether it affected the election or not.  

Why is it that, when discussing the "Russian" hack of the DNC people seem to conveniently omit one pertinent detail?  The hacks wouldn't have hurt Hillary or the DNC if they didn't uncover untoward conduct.  You can't expose what doesn't exist.

The Dems had best get their shit together because if they keep living in denial as to why Hillary lost, as Hillary clearly continues to do, they'll lose again in 2018 and really be in bad shape.

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2017, 11:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why is it that, when discussing the "Russian" hack of the DNC people seem to conveniently omit one pertinent detail?  The hacks wouldn't have hurt Hillary or the DNC if they didn't uncover untoward conduct.  You can't expose what doesn't exist.

The Dems had best get their shit together because if they keep living in denial as to why Hillary lost, as Hillary clearly continues to do, they'll lose again in 2018 and really be in bad shape.

This is where I'm at. One of the worst responses I have ever seen in witnessing politics is what the Hillary camp did when it was exposed that they rigged the Democratic Nomination.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2017, 11:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is where I'm at. One of the worst responses I have ever seen in witnessing politics is what the Hillary camp did when it was exposed that they rigged the Democratic Nomination.

It's one of the worst responses because it is ongoing.  They got caught jobbing the system and their only complaint is that they got caught.  But Russia!