ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why Did Hillary Clinton Lose a Won Race? (updated w/information from recent analysis)

Updated on August 12, 2018
My Esoteric profile image

ME has spent most of his retirement from service to the United States studying, thinking, and writing about the country he served.

Shattered!

Hillary Clinton was supposed to have finally "shattered" the glass ceiling to the top job in America, the presidency. The word also describes how Hillary felt early in the morning of Nov 9, 2016, when Ms. Clinton finally realized she had lost her final quest. Shattered is also the name of the book written by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - a book I just finished, almost two years from Clinton's historic, and for most of America, tragic loss. While not much of a palliative, Hillary Clinton still has the honor of being the first woman nominated by a major political party to be President of the United States. It will be left to another woman to shatter that final glass ceiling.

What did I learn from Shattered? Not much and a lot. My basic conclusions I came to eighteen months ago when I first wrote this Hub. What Shattered, and the march of time, did was offer much insight into what happened behind the scenes both within the campaign and external to the election (Russia and Comey).

In a nutshell, which I expand on in the main article, is Hillary Clinton lost for three substantial reasons;1 1) her campaign and its strategy, 2) FBI Director James Comey's mishandling of his investigation into her email server, and 3) the Russian massive misinformation campaign. The detail that Shattered brings to the table is Hillary's management style, the strategies used to got votes, the terrible infighting that distracted everybody from the main goal of electing their boss.

Two things struck me as having a particularly detrimental impact on the effectiveness of the Clinton campaign. One was her allowing, even encouraging, a sort of multi-level management style (which means no one is in charge) and the other was to mimic President Obama's scientific approach to measuring voter turnout and inclinations.

Because she had so many people giving her advice and arguing about how to run her campaign they could never figure out why they couldn't connect with working-class white males, the demographic that use to be the backbone of the Democratic Party and now are flocking to Donald Trump's message of fear.


1 I go into much more detail regarding other factors I think influenced the results.

SHATTERED

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign

An inside look at the dynamics of a campaign that history said was an easy win for the first woman nominated by a major political party to be President of the United States. But, beyond all reason, she lost! Why?

 

Prologue

IT IS ONLY A MONTH AND A HALF SINCE CLINTON LOST TO TRUMP, but a lot has been learned about what happened. As I see it, there are four main reasons emerging.

Supporting Roles:

  • FBI Director Comey's letter to Congress reopening the Clinton email server investigation just days before the election and then reporting they found nothing a few days later. Unfortunately, the tone has been set and now it is becoming evident the FBI might not have even had probable cause to start it up again in the first place.
  • Only Donald Trump and his supporters disagree with the intelligence community's assessment that Vladimir Putin played a significant role in a year long disinformation campaign to sway the election to Trump.
  • The Democratic National Committee (DNC) lost its way. Dr. Howard Dean and built one of the most efficient and effective infrastructures in all 50 states, including very Red ones, It was responsible for President Obama's victory in 2008 against all odds. After Dean left, the DNC let this powerful organization atrophy to the point that they paid the price in 2010, 2014, and the ultimate price in 2016. Had Dean's efforts been maintained, Hillary Clinton would not have lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Dean didn't forget the blue-collar worked, the DNC did.

The Starring Role: Hillary Clinton

As will be expanded on below, Hillary Clinton lost her own race by not reading the tea leaves properly, not learning how to campaign, not meeting the email server scandal head-on, and finally, like the DNC, ignoring the white working class.and banking on minority and woman turn-out to carry the day.

It wasn't like the people didn't want her, she clobbered Donald Trump in the popular vote by receiving almost 3 million more votes than he did. But they don't count, the electoral college did and she didn't watch her back. I would argue that if any one of those four factors was missing, Hillary Clinton would be President today.

Former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton | Source

What Was Behind the Biggest Upset in US Political History?

NOBODY, INCLUDING YOURS TRULY, AND I MEAN NOBODY, not the pollsters and pundits (save for the LA Times/USC poll), not the Democrats, not the GOP, not the Trump camp, and probably not even Trump, given his demeanor at the end, that that this would be the outcome. Even more stupendous was the degree of Trump's win ... he mauled her. To some degree, Clinton has only herself and her campaign staff to blame

What happened? Angry white Americans is what happened. An anger so large that it blinded otherwise intelligent person to make an emotional choice regardless of Trump's proven lack of the suitability of their hero to be president. His suitability is almost zero and Clinton was right, he has exhibited the lack of temperament for the job and has bragged about not knowing what he is doing.

Missing this part of the electorate was the major reason Donald Trump whupped Hillary Clinton at the polls.


Hillary and the Clinton Campaign Were There Own Worst Enemy

WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM FBI DIRECTOR COMEY. Even so, Clinton could have one but for a series of bad decisions within her own campaign and the interference of FBI Director Comey. Here are some other factors;

  • The Drumbeat of Wikileaks Set the Tone - While there was never, ever any truly damaging information in Wikileaks, like an email from her server, the constant drumbeat of their release had a cumulative negative influence. One Clinton could do nothing about. They ultimately worked as Julian Assage intended, he got his revenge.
  • Not Watching Her Back - She should never have lost Wisconsin, and, most likely, Michigan, both solid blue states. She felt they were safe and spent very little of her huge war chest on them. She didn't learn from her defeats to Bernie Sanders.
  • She Ignored the Rural Areas - She should have not lost Pennsylvania either. Again like with Bernie, she focused on minorities and women in Philadelphia and surrounding areas to the excluding of the rest of the State.. Why go into solid red areas? To peel off some votes, mainly women. If she could have peeled off just 160 in each of the counties, she would have won. Clinton certainly should have gone into at least Biden's home county.
  • She was Too Defensive (though she had every right to be) - Even though it goes against the political instinct of ANY politician, Clinton should have come out with, at the get-go, the message she finally settled on regarding her email server. She didn't and it only got worse from there.
  • FBI Director Comey Did Hurt Her - Whether intentional or not, the note he sent to Congress 11 days before the election about Clinton's server was, if not criminal in itself, beyond stupid and irresponsible. y and without good reason released the not about the Anthony Weiner emails to Congress, 11 days before the election, there was an immediate narrowing of the polls. Clinton never recovered from that loss.
  • The Blacks Did Not Turn Out for Her - Honestly, I don't know what else she could have done to get them enthusiastic; maybe have President and Michele Obama;start sooner. Their message could not have been more elegant and persuasive. But it wasn't enough and Clinton didn't even come close to Obama's numbers. Blacks will rue their lack of enthusiasm. After Trump and the far-Right Supreme Court is done with them ... maybe next time ... assuming they can vote at all.
  • The Latinos Did Not Turn Out For Her - This in spite of a huge outreach effort by the Hispanic leaders, it was like she didn't talk to them at all and they don't care what Trump and the Supreme Court are going to do to them. Trump did better with Latinos than Romney did in 2012.
  • She Focused on the Young People Too Late - Clinton, near the end of her campaign, began focusing on young people, but to no avail. She did much worse with this demographic than Obama did in 2008.
  • "Deplorables", While Right, was Wrong - I think Clinton's statement about "deplorables" even though surveys back her up, went a long way toward solidifying the anti-Clinton Vote
  • Racism, and to Some Extent Sexism Played a Role - Although it is political incorrect (from the Right's perspective) to say, the sad fact is, for 75% of America's history, if you start from 1700, America has been an extremely racist/sexist nation. It wasn't until 1964 did the legal vestiges, nationally, disappear and since the 1980s, they have been creeping back again; in many Western and Southern States, there has been constant push back. The Clinton team didn't understand this and, consequently, didn't prepare for it.
  • The Hillary Clinton Factor - Clinton, from a campaign for President view, was often her own worse enemy; and she knew it; she joked about it sometime. But, she didn't or couldn't change her approach to the public and the media.
  • Finally, The Faux Clinton Foundation Scandal - Politics as usual was turned into an image killing tsunami against HRC. The optics, in my opinion, were handled very badly. But again, Hillary and her people were too close to the issue to see what the problem really was and didn't correct for it. with something that was all smoke-and-mirrors on Trump's part and never had any meat to it. If the supposed "pay-to-play" was significant and should send her to jail, then find room for almost every politician from city, state, and federal governments. The kind of thing Trump supporters found so horrible is a way of life in politics AND business.

Donald Trump and His Supporters Were Not the Problem

IT WAS HOW SHE PERCEIVED AND REACTED TO THEIR BEHAVIOR AND THREAT, that was. Before going further, please know that I write the following as a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, I always have been and always will be. That said she needs to look to herself and her team to find the real reason she let the election slip through her fingers. While Comey had his part as did her troubles with her email server and the Clinton Foundation and Wikileaks, it was how she did, didn't, or couldn't respond to them that cost her the election.

There is no question that Trump and his followers knew no moral or ethical boundary or, for that matter, any feeling of guilt in their historic use of lies, hyperbole, distortions, misrepresentation, and an almost total aversion to anything truthful in their assault on Hilary Clinton. Its was probably more effective in getting his followers to go out and vote than changing anybody's mind. He played to every fear the white working class has about race, income, and a changing world; that was his job.

Clinton's ad campaign, in normal times, would have been extremely effective by using Trump's own vile words against him; she needed no original content of her own for the negative part of her campaign. The problem she fell victim to by not noticing, was Nobody Cared!!! Nobody cared about about policy or the lack there of; Trump could have been Hitler, and nobody would have cared (he has most of Hitler's traits, btw.)

The white working class had bought into 8 horrible years of a professionally produced, Joseph Goebbels-style propaganda effort by the GOP and Trump. And they were angry ... in spite of all the evidence to the contrary; they simply didn't give a damn what the truth was, and loudly repeated the lies. And Clinton didn't notice.

Or if she (meaning her and her team) did notice, they made bad choices on how to respond. They responded with the Truth ,,, Trumps own words. But they thought they were dealing with rational people; they weren't. Instead they were dealing with very emotional people who felt left out and wanted to make somebody pay for their bad feeling. She forgot that emotional people, logic (her forte) means nothing. She should have designed her campaign address that emotion. But she didn't and hear we are, on the precipice of having Caesar fiddling while America burns; unless Trump can change his spots..

Hillary Clinton's Concession Speech

The Forgotten

ALL CLINTON HAD TO DO WAS WIN TWO VERY BLUE STATES, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The problem is, of course, she didn't (even though she might approach beating Trump by 3 million popular votes, it doesn't matter). In my opinion, as well as most others now pontificating on this, she forgot that there more than women and minorities living in the big cities and there was many more other people living in the suburbs and rural areas. She did this with Bernie Sanders which is why he did so well; she didn't learn her lesson, obviously.

It wasn't her platform. Between the policy parts of her speeches and her website there was plenty of detailed policy to find; all you had to do was listen and look. Her campaign was, however, devoid of ideas on how to translate in such a way to catch the attention of the white working class; it needed to be translated in a way they could remember.

Both she and Bernie had many wonderful ideas on how to fight income inequality (probably the greatest thing on these voters minds), racism, terrorism, foreign affairs and the like. They did, very good ones in fact. The difference between the two is that Bernie knew how to talk to the people at the center of Trump's base (but not his extremists hangers-on). Hillary, on the other hand, obviously did not. Bernie used hard hitting emotional, yet not hateful, one-liners that could be understood while Hillary stuck to trying to explain complex policy that went above many people's heads.

Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk which is her greatest strength AND her greatest weakness. She knew the details of issues inside and out but unfortunately that knowledge does not translate into simple one-liners and sound bites that people can understand; that is impossible to do with complex topics unless you are a very accomplished speaker. Further, it is clear, most Americans do not want details, it bores them1. They do like Trumps type of histrionics however. Regardless of what he said, they bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she is one of the worst campaigners in American politics. She didn't have to be that way; she isn't that way one-on-one, I am told. But she and her staff did not know how to do what Bernie did. They failed, even to my accepting eyes, to get the words right, they couldn't even get the cadence of her speech right.

Trump, on the other hand, had no platform at all and few non-general ideas other than what came to mind the moment he opened his mouth, but nobody cared. They wanted to hear his insulting, inflammatory rhetoric that spoke directly to their fears about race (Black Lives Matter), terrorism (Islamophobia), the perceived lack of jobs (hasn't been true for awhile). The males ignored his misogyny because, down deep, many American males (and some females I have found) think women have over stepped their bounds; that has been our history. This is not said, except by Trump, but it is felt; I see and hear it all around me in my own part of rural Florida. Trump's talk about sexually abusing women simply didn't shock much of the nation as the Hillary Camp thought it would. Those women who were going to vote for her still did and those who weren't going to thought it was all lies and overblown.

Knowing she had a weakness with these mostly rural, hard working white people why didn't she dive deep into their territory? Why did she ignore Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania's interior? Granted, she might not have won even one of those precincts, but she might not have lost so badly in the them. Donald Trump understood this and capitalized on it ... BIG TIME, even though his tactics were despicable.

Her "basket of deplorables" actually does exist, sadly, in America; and in large numbers. Instead of ignoring them, as she did, why didn't she try to embrace the few that might be able to be reached; her campaign had lots of money to spend; they just needed a new approach. It would only have taken a few in each precinct. Instead, she focused on the women, blacks, and Latinos where polling was shown early enough to do something about it that they weren't going to come out in Obama-size numbers. Even though Bernie Sanders did his level best to get the young people to come out and vote for her, a surrogate wasn't enough; she should have personally started much sooner in the campaign. Using President and Michele Obama was brilliant, but too little too late to get the momentum going among blacks even though they made block-buster performances.

She has proven herself a very adaptable women, but one thing that needed improving the most was her speaking style. Her emphasis were in the wrong place and, as I said before, her cadence was distracting. For example, at the end of the campaign she was tying hard to get people out to vote. She raised her voice and tone as she went leading up to a crescendo. But then at the peak, instead of finishing off forcefully, she dropped her voice, lowered the pitch, and finished with three weak words "on November 8th". Granted, she did increase the pitch and volume, but not to the level where she started.

What is done is done, unfortunately, but it does seem a direction which the leadership of the Democratic seems to be drifting. If they are going to want to win elections, up and down ballot, then they are going to do their own "postmortem" to determine what went wrong.

1 Only 10% of American actually "likes" that kind of stuff, and she is one of them while Trump is not. Another, 30% MIGHT want to listen to the detail; Trump isn't one of these either. That leaves at least 60% of the American population who either doesn't care, because it bores them, or are not wired to understand the details (like I am not wired to play the piano ... or flute apparently).

January 2017 Polling Suggests Why Clinton Lost a Won Race

The "Forgotten" are starting to explain why they either voted for Trump (white working class) or didn't vote at all (minorities). PACs that support Democratic candidates began conducting polls and focus groups to see what when wrong. The results, of course, aren't that surprising to those outside the Clinton camp.

The research looked at two groups of voters who voted for President Obama in 2012. One was Obama-Trump voters and the other were Obama voters who simply didn't vote (drop-off voters). They surveyed voters nationally as well as in Michigan and Wisconsin, two very Blue states that wen Red. Here is what they found:

  • Bottom line - An overwhelming number of Obama-Trump voters felt the Democrats, as represented by Clinton, favored the wealthy in their economic policy. They did not feel that way about Donald Trump, specifically.
  • The Clinton message, even with the help of President Obama, did not resonate with Obama voters who did not vote in 2016; even though this group was very anti-Trump
  • Many of the Obama-Trump voters feel they are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems.

Some of the findings are:

  • 81 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living or is merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
  • 30 percent of Obama-Trump voters votes were anti-Clinton votes. This group would have been susceptible to propaganda from Vladimir Putin and FBI Director Comey late announcement that the Clinton was reopened.
  • 42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats' economic policy favors the wealthy while only 21 percent said the same about Trump. 40 percent said the same of congressional Republicans.
  • A total of 77% Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats
  • 92% of drop-off voters said they are worse off or the same economically
  • While Democrats have a perceived "Wall Street Problem" with the public, the fact is polls show Democrats favor far more in the way of Wall Street accountability and oversight than Republicans do.
  • The polling also shows that, among the Obama-Trump voters, large percentages of the more cautious supporters of Trump are concerned that he will go through with deep cuts to social programs and the repeal of Obamacare.

The above suggests several things to me when viewed in the contest of Sen Sanders surprising showing and upset victories in the states which Trump took away from the Democrats. If ????? had conducted this poll after Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination to determine why Sanders did so well, it is my believe they would have come up with the same results. Either they didn't or they did and the Clinton campaign blew off the results. And because they were unaware of the feelings of those Obama-Trump cohort or the Drop-offs, they didn't change their approach to conducting the general election.

Following from that major failure, she set herself up for what was to come next. With everything we know, Clinton should have had an easy victory. Instead her and the DNC screw-ups it made it a very tight race in states where it should not have been. That, therefore, set the stage for Comey's decision to make public a couple of weeks before the election that he was reopening the Clinton investigation1 and for the Putin disinformation campaign to have a real impact on the outcome by setting the very negative tone about Clinton.

1 Immediately after Comey's announcement, I saw a distinct move away from Clinton in critical states.

© 2016 My Esoteric

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Thank you Shyron.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 

      5 months ago from Texas

      Hillary did not lose the election, America lost and Putin won.

      Love your hub.

      Blessings my friend

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      The daily signal: owner, Heritage Foundation.

      Wouldn’t read it if you paid me to.

      Like I said, 40 years of right wing hate propaganda, beginning with the Arkansas Group.

      Sell it to a Fox News junkie. I don’t fill my mind with garbage.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      CWG

      https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/03/08/high-rankin...

      High-level federal executives routinely use personal email for business, in likely violation of the Federal Records Act. That’s according to a recent survey of federal employees.

      The survey was conducted by the research group Government Business Council just prior to revelations that Hillary Clinton allegedly exclusively used personal email and a private server at her Chappaqua, N.Y., residence for her government communications while serving as President Obama’s secretary of state.

      Personal email is “always” or “often” used for government business in their agency, according to 16 percent of survey respondents. One-third, 33 percent, said personal email is used “sometimes” or more frequently.

      Source: Government Executive

      The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.

      Thirty-one percent said personal emails used for business are not preserved for archiving. Forty-seven percent said they don’t know whether or not the records are properly preserved.

      Clinton: Not the First

      The revelation about Clinton’s use of personal email is the latest, but not the first.

      In fact, Clinton herself was a vociferous critic of the George W. Bush administration’s email practices after it was learned in 2007 that millions of White House emails sent on a non-government server may have been “lost.”

      More recently, the State Department inspector general (IG) identified multiple instances of officials improperly using and failing to archive personal email from 2010 to 2014.

      19 Times the Government Withheld Documents It Didn’t Want You to See

      For example, the IG said officials at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand were not implementing procedures on records management and “email messages … are not preserved.”

      IRS manager Lois Lerner allegedly used an msn.com email account labeled ‘Lois Home’ for government-related communications. Lerner was a key player in what the IG found was the tax agency’s unfair targeting of conservative groups.

      Former Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used private email accounts, as well as a secret EPA email address under the pseudonym “Richard Windsor,” to conduct official business. That included communicating with a climate lobbyist.

      “P.S. Can you use my home email rather than this one when you need to contact me directly? Tx, Lisa.” —EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson email to a lobbyist.

      Jackson’s use of personal email accounts was inadvertently revealed in a Freedom of Information Act production. In an email chain between Jackson and a Sierra Club official, Jackson’s personal Verizon email address was redacted citing a “privacy exemption.” But it was left unredacted later in the thread.

      The EPA inspector general recently found the agency’s Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso and two top officials used personal email accounts to conduct official business. The IG said the officials did not preserve the emails, in violation of federal regulations.

      Lawsuit Seeks EPA Administrator’s Deleted Messages

      Attorney General Eric Holder’s criminal division head, Lanny Breuer, was caught forwarding controversial Fast and Furious-related emails to his personal account.

      Obama Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, Holder’s former assistant attorney general for civil rights, allegedly used his private email account to leak non-public information about official business.

      As to whether Holder himself ever used personal email for government business, the Justice Department isn’t saying. A spokesman did not respond to requests for information about Holder’s email practices.

      In Justice Department emails turned over in a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Holder’s email name is redacted with no explanation. It’s unknown whether the redactions conceal use of an email address that does not belong to an official government account.

      Fast and Furious-related emails between Holder and his wife Sharon Malone, and his mother, are currently being withheld under executive privilege invoked by President Obama.

      There are similar redactions of the email name for Obama adviser Eric Schultz. In one instance, “privacy” is cited as the reason. In other cases, no explanation is given.

      Security Questions

      Experts say it’s not only a question of whether federal officials are trying to skirt Freedom of Information law that requires release of public documents upon request; there are also security concerns. From that standpoint, Clinton’s example may be the most concerning.

      Government Executive says security experts are “still scratching their heads about why Clinton would have taken the unusual step of setting up a home-managed email account, a move that potentially made her messages vulnerable to foreign hackers keen on spying on the U.S.’s top diplomat.”

      “Computer-security analysts … warned that emails sent across separate servers—instead of delivered entirely within government servers—posed greater risk of being intercepted or spied on.”GovExec

      A high-ranking government official familiar with the potential security risks says Clinton’s case raises many security issues.

      “There are times when the location of the secretary of state and other cabinet members is sensitive” or even classified, said the official, “especially, if they are traveling with the president.”

      A smartphone using a commercial Internet service provider would theoretically broadcast its location most of the time, over an unauthorized network, including when that location classified, the official said.

      The official also noted that it’s not known whether Clinton carried her phone into areas where classified discussions took place. “If she did, that [could be] a security violation. Commentary: How to Free the Government’s Grip on Freedom of Information

      The State Department has said Clinton did not send classified information via email. A Clinton spokesman has said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the [federal records] rules.”

      Clinton sent a tweet last week shortly after the House Benghazi Committee subpoenaed her emails.

      “There’s no doubt that there will not be a way to fully validate the completeness of that production,” Jason Straight told Government Executive. Straight is chief privacy officer and senior vice president of cybersecurity at UnitedLex.

      Dear Readers:

      With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

      However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

      If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

      This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

      We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

      Sharyl Attkisson

      Sharyl Attkisson, an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist, is a former senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal. She hosts the Sunday morning news program "Full Measure" and is the The New York Times best-selling author of "The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think,

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      You don't believe that Obama and his administration used the DOJ and the FBI as found in the IG report?

      Mueller can't find any evidence on Trump and yet you say he is guilty, but the FBI and DOJ and State Dept have lots of evidence on Clinton and yet they don't indict, and you believe that is OK.

      The latter doesn't mean she didn't do anything wrong, and even the FBI and DOJ admit that, but the emails from McCabe, Strzok,and Page give the reason why they didn't indict. And Comey wrote her exoneration even before she was interviewed.

      It is also protocol for the DOJ to prosecute, and not the FBI. Just like in any police the FBI build a case, but it is the District Attorney (DOJ) that prosecutes.

      Many criminal cases are decided by circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence. With the Clinton email investigation there were lot of both types of evidence.

      And a lot of it appears in the 568 page IG report which you selectively ignore. But if that report was against Trump you would ride him out of town because of it.

      However that is not reality, Clinton is the one that has the evidence stacked against her.

      Please tell me again why it was OK for Clinton to delete emails while under a subpoena. Why she scrubbed the drive(s) they were on? The communication devices were also part of the subpoena, and why were they destroyed and their SIM cards removed?

      President Obama said HRC was the most qualified presidential candidate ever. Is what Clinton did even without the criminality attached to it, the acts of a qualified presidential candidate?

      Starting with never getting any information from the state dept on how to protect classified information. Thinking that (c) was part of alphabetical sequencing?

      Did the FBI do a real job of investigation Clinton?

      Why did everyone close to her including her IT guy get immunity from the FBI without even being interviewed, and giving them nothing in return. That is not why the FBI or any police agency gives immunity.

      Why didn't the FBI tape the interview of Clinton? Why is there no record of the interview? Why was the original finding by the FBI showing gross negligence by Clinton changed in the Comey statement where it became Extremely Careless, but the statute mentions Gross Negligence?

      All of these are patent examples of a coverup and the FBI themselves being the obstructions of justice.

      "Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday morning in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey revealed former Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to call the probe into former Secretary of State and then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a "matter," not a criminal investigation.

      "She [Lynch] told me to call it a matter, which confused and concerned me. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the [Justice] Department if we're to close this case credibly," Comey said. "We had an open criminal investigation."

      You don't see anything wrong, strange, or suspicious about any of this do you? Why not?

      What about my comment on Comey?

      ME

      5 reasons Comey should have recommended Clinton's indictment

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Or the one before that.

      Tell me what is your goal about Trump and why it is personal to you, so I can understand where you are coming from on it.

      --------------------------------------------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Comey used private server for fbi work.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Chaffetts and Gowdy use private servers as they investigate Clinton:

      http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/175077-trey-gowdy-and-jason-chaffetz-have-private-email-servers/

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Brad, Thanks for the WaPo story, I remember reading it or something quite like it. I am guessing you were referring to the last two paragraphs about the devices. Yes, it would have been nice to have them, but the bottom line is they found nothing nefarious about their destruction or loss. Had they, then she would be charged with OOJ and she wasn't. As to whether anything was stolen from any of her devices becomes less and less likely as each day passes by without any revelation that something was.

      You should be, IMO, much more concerned with Trump's mishandling, ignorance, and release of classified information that is Currently happening rather than something in the past. Clinton did nothing wrong that was actionable so you have got to learn to live with that fact and move on.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/ad...

      Also, dumpy trump uses an unsecured cell phone.

      It was Colin Powell who coined the phrase "stupid witch hunt"

      He said it about the Clinton email investigation.

      Benghazi bullsh*t:

      https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma...

      Email same.

      Clinton foundation gets A+ rating, now distributing narcan in America.

      But called crooked by your inglorious evil clown .

      All Republicans can blow it out your keesters.

      None of any integrity remain.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Brad, since all I have to discern your philosophy is your writing and since your writing, for the most part, follows the conservative line of thinking, then I can only conclude you are conservative regardless of your protestations. You certainly don't write like a socialist, liberal, or moderate does, there is only one choice left.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      Cape

      You just rant and rant.

      It doesn't seem like you have a grasp on the issue.

      There is proof that Clinton's private server was not secured, and classified information was sent and received by her. And the FBI found classified emails from her server on Anthony Weiner's personal computer. How did Weiner get those emails?

      What evidence or information do you have on anyone doing that in the Trump WH?

      I gave my comments in details, not windmills. I did play off the ME duck theory:)

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Well gee. If private servers are such a crime, when do Jared, Ivanka, lewandowsi, conway, sec rice, sec Powell, Gov Bush, Mike pence, and any number of gvt employees go on trial?

      And if we're looking into biased FBI, look into guiliani anf his new York field office of Clinton hate. Actually used a book written by a Breitbart contributer to go after her.....same book the movie from citizens united case was based on.

      How did guiliani know Comey was going to release that letter? And it was classified, and chaffets shared it on Twitter.

      How did Roger Stone know about Podesta dump?

      Most relevant, who was hurt by the fbi?

      Tilting at windmills Brad. It's all lies. 40 years worth, starting w Arkansas Group.

      One day we will see who all has been involved. Deffo Russia and the NRA. Plus rogue individuals in our gvt.

      Now, they just happen to be in power.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      I don't subscribe to the Washington Post either

      ------------------------------------------

      National Security

      FBI releases Hillary Clinton email investigation documents

      1:38

      What you need to know about the FBI report on Clinton's emails

      The FBI published a detailed report on its investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

      By Matt Zapotosky and Rosalind S. Helderman September 2, 2016 Email the author

      Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staffers employed an informal and sometimes haphazard system for exchanging and storing sensitive information and were at times either unaware or unconcerned with State Department policy, documents from an FBI investigation into her private email server system show.

      The documents reveal a myriad of new details about the email set-up and show that investigators found multiple attempts by hackers to access Clinton’s system — a series of personal devices and servers that the Democratic presidential candidate told investigators she used as a matter of convenience while she was secretary of state.

      The materials, which include a summary of the FBI’s entire investigation as well as Clinton’s hours-long interview with agents in July, contain no major revelations. But they offer new details that Clinton’s political opponents will be able use in the months leading up to the November election. The summary shows that Clinton’s account to law enforcement was generally consistent with what she has said about her email situation publicly, but she repeatedly told agents she could not recall important details or specific emails she was questioned about.

      [FBI’s attempt to show Clinton probe was nonpartisan keeps running into politics]

      Clinton has been dogged by questions about her use of the private email server since the start of her presidential campaign and her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, has used the issue to argue she is untrustworthy.

      3:00

      The FBI's statement on Hillary Clinton's emails, in 3 minutes

      FBI Director James Comey said on July 5 that Hillary Clinton should not be charged for her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

      Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said, “While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the Justice Department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case.”

      Trump said in a statement: “Hillary Clinton’s answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief. I was absolutely shocked to see that her answers to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to what she told the American people. After reading these documents, I really don’t understand how she was able to get away from prosecution.”

      FBI Director James B. Comey announced in July that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her use of a private email server, though he said at the time she and her staffers were “extremely careless” in how they treated classified information. He said the decision was based largely on the fact that investigators did not find Clinton intended to mishandle classified material, though such material did traverse her private server.

      Ordinarily internal documents from FBI investigations are not made public. However, Comey has said the unusually high profile case warranted more robust public disclosures than is standard.

      The FBI found no evidence that anyone penetrated the email of the former secretary of state herself — although “hostile foreign actors successfully gained access to the personal e-mail accounts of individuals with whom Clinton was in regular contact and, in doing so, obtained e-mails sent to or received by Clinton on her personal account,” the bureau wrote. Those include confidante Sidney Blumenthal, whose emails were hacked and publicly revealed by Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar.

      The bureau wrote in its report that it was unable to track down all of Clinton’s electronic equipment because it had been destroyed or lost. One staffer told investigators he destroyed two mobile devices “by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.” The FBI said it requested 13 devices from the law firm representing Clinton, and the firm said it could not produce any.

      The FBI wrote that “investigative limitations, including the FBI’s inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton’s personal e-mail systems, prevented the FBI from conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton’s personal server systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means.”

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      5 reasons Comey should have recommended Clinton's indictment

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      When FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for violation of the Espionage Act (Title 18, United States Code, Section 793), he made a decision based upon political considerations, not based upon principles of criminal law or justice.

      ADVERTISEMENT

      There are five key points to be made in analyzing the director’s very flawed recommendation:

      1. There was a disregard for criminal negligence

      After ignoring a wealth of evidence that would have met the intent prong of the statute, Mr. Comey essentially wrote subsection 793(f), the gross negligence section, out of the applicable statute in the Clinton email investigation. The director’s explanation that he had worked all his life to “decriminalize negligence” and thereby would not recommend prosecution was nothing short of ridiculous. It should be first noted that Mr. Comey offered no such examples of his “life’s work,” and it is doubtful that there are any.

      There has always been prosecution of criminal negligence at every level of our legal system, and with good reason. Negligent homicide by reckless driving is one common example that should come readily to mind. Starting a fire in a fireworks stand, resulting in an explosion and death of a customer or employee, would be another. Intent to kill is not required for conviction of reckless homicide in either case for obvious reasons. The negligent actions taken are inherently reckless as to endanger human life, and are therefore included in virtually every state and federal criminal code as punishable offenses.

      It must also be noted that Mrs. Clinton’s unguarded emails may have similarly resulted in at least one death — that of an Iranian scientist who was executed by Iran as a spy after his name surfaced in one of the emails on her unprotected private server.

      2. Comey was not a prosecutor at the time of the scandal, and could not, therefore, exercise prosecutorial discretion

      While Mr. Comey may have exercised prosecutorial "discretion" in some of his prior posts as an assistant United States attorney or deputy attorney general, Mr. Comey was not a prosecutor at the time of the email scandal investigation. He was and remains the nation’s chief investigator, sworn to uphold the laws of the country as written by Congress, and he was neither sworn nor entitled to re-write those statutes to his own satisfaction.

      While there are undoubtedly some examples of investigative discretion in our system, most are relegated to petty offenses, such as warning tickets for minor speeding violations. At the offense level where Mrs. Clinton’s offenses are found, such decisions are reserved to a prosecuting authority; they are not left to investigators.

      3. Comey revealed proof of guilt and then pardoned it without authority

      When Mr. Comey took the unprecedented step of revealing the conclusions of his investigation prior to submitting those findings to the Department of Justice, and of delivering an excoriation of Mrs. Clinton’s negligence to the public, he characterized her actions as “extremely careless,” words used in trial jury instructions to explain the very meaning of the phrase “gross negligence” used in the statute. He thereby confirmed that his investigation had revealed proof of guilt, but chose to issue a pardon instead — another action he had no authority to take.

      4. Comey lacks any substantive argument to support his actions

      In defending his action, Mr. Comey fell back on a bad habit of his, one for which he has actually been congratulated in the past. While acting as deputy attorney general, when he didn’t like a memo he received supporting parts of a terrorist surveillance program, he referred to it dismissively as “fatally flawed,” saying “no lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it.” When another seasoned attorney replied that he had relied on the memo, Comey’s response was, “No good lawyer” — a remark that earned him praise from those opposing the program under scrutiny.

      Similarly, when Comey presented his findings in the Clinton investigation, he preemptively declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict on such evidence, a claim subsequently challenged by those as credentialed as Rudy Giuliani and Joseph diGenova, former United States attorneys for, respectively, the Southern District of New York and Washington, D.C. In both instances, Comey put nothing on the table to substantively defend his decisions. He resorted instead to insulting, ad hominem attacks on anyone who would dare to disagree with his imperial decisions — decisions that could NOT, after thorough review, be defended in any other fashion.

      5. Comey abrogated his responsibility to the law and the nation

      Some have theorized that this was a conscious decision by Comey to take no action because he believed that the decision to be made — in essence, to disqualify Mrs. Clinton from the presidency — was one properly reserved for the voters. In so deciding, if in fact such was his decision, his action was much more in line with the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate than with the wisdom of Solomon. The Constitution’s system of checks and balances inherently recognizes that there are times when voters, being human, will make mistakes, and elect public officers who — also being human — will violate the laws of the nation or the Constitution itself.

      Here, Comey was not even dealing with an elected official, just one on her way to a nomination. If our system falters or ultimately collapses, those such as Mr. Comey (and, arguably, Chief Justice Roberts in the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision) who are charged with providing the checks and balances contemplated by the Constitution — but who could not find the courage to apply them — will have to answer to history.

      Proof of intent is generally established by evaluating the actions of the suspect. Here those actions included Clinton’s unlawful establishment of a private email server, numerous “false exculpatory statements” (lies about her actions), destruction of evidence, and further lies about her lies and destruction of evidence.

      Comey ignored such evidence in order to reach his negligence analysis, which, as previously discussed, is “fatally flawed.” His final justification — that no one had ever been prosecuted for a violation of subsection 793(f) — is similarly absurd. Indictment precedents are not required if the elements of a statutory violation are satisfied by the misconduct of the offender.

      By definition, there always has to be a first time. By any neutral and competent analysis, Mr. Comey, this was that time. Having demonstrated that you were not up to the task of performing that analysis, you have shown America that it is time for you to go.

      Charles Ambrose is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, a former USAF JAG officer, and served for 25 years as an assistant United States attorney in the District of Columbia and in the Western District of Missouri. He is the author of the Jeff Trask crime dramas, writing under the name Marc Rainer. His newest novel in the series, A Winter of Wolves, is available now on Amazon and your local bookstore.

      ----------------------------

      http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/299661...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      BRAD - nobody but conservatives think the FBI investigation is corrupt. Even the DOJ IG said so. So where are you getting your false information from?

      B:

      Once again, I am not a conservative or whatever it is that you think you are. I look at the choices, although I must admit that the left hasn't given me anything to choose. That is their doing, not mine. I also, don't see republicans especially under Bush either father or son doing a lot.

      Trump fit my choice, mainly because unlike the other choices in politicians he wasn't a part of the establishment that did create the problem.

      I don't agree with all of what is Trump, but I do on much of it.

      As for where am I getting it, after you citing the IG report, the question is why isn't that a credible source.

      And why do you think that there are that many people of any position that you can speak for here.

      It is like Hillary calling anyone "not with her" as deplorable s.

      The IG report didn't go far enough because he doesn't have the power that Mueller has. And yet, after a year, Mueller has zero evidence showing any wrong doing, and only an indictment against 13 Russians that are challenging the indictment. And Rod Rosenstein said that NO Americans were involved and none of the Russian tampering affected the election.

      -----------------------------------------------

      When are you going to drop the debunked 30,000 email deletions. Those were her private emails and save for a couple the FBI later determined might have been work related, they had no problem with it. Why are you still throwing up this myth.

      B:

      It is a fact, that she was under a subpoena duces tecum, look up what that means. What she actually did was destroy evidence. You have no idea what or even how many of the emails were destroyed.

      Did Michael Cohen have the same chance to destroy anything on his computers, and if the FBI had done the same to Hillary and Her attorneys you would be enraged, but not when it happens to Trump.

      Some of these deleted emails were found by Wiki Leaks and some were found by the FBI in Sept 2016 on Huma Abedin's husbands laptop. How did it get there, on Weiner's computer. And they sat on it for a month, before Comey was forced to acknowledge their existence in Oct 2016.

      There were according to Comey hundreds of thousands of them, and yet they were able to go through them in a matter of weeks. Where is the myth, and no one denies the veracity of the email being those of Hillary Clinton.

      What more proof do you need?

      And do you think that the FBI and DOJ acted in the same matter in the Clinton email investigation as they are in the Trump investigation?

      --------------------------------------------

      What is debunked is that any of those actions ended up mattering to the FBI - they didn't, so they don't matter to me nor should they you except to create a false narrative.

      B:

      The IG report gives a partial reason as to why. There is nothing false about the narrative. What is false is the testimony of Comey to congress, and his failure to conduct a real investigation of Clinton.

      Without going through the details of the Clinton investigation, there is evidence showing that the upper management of the FBI and DOJ and even Obama administration that were just out to stop Trump from being president, and then when he was president to get him out of office.

      Like you people like Adam Schiff keep repeating the same mantra's but have not in three investigations including the Mueller investigation have not produced any evidence much less compelling evidence.

      Even Brennan and Tapper admitted they could find no evidence on Trump colluding with Russia.

      And while you may think that Comey's statement that Clinton was extremely careless with classified information, his statement not mine, but like you he spoke for everyone saying that NO prosecutor would indict her. Peter Strzok had been shown in his emails to change Gross Negligence to Extremely Careless. What is the difference?

      Yet, with Trump there is an investigation that doesn't even have a crime to start it. Collusion is not a crime, yet they are treating it as if it was conspiracy. Why then do they keep calling it Collusion.

      You believed all 17 US intelligence agencies including the FBI that all used the same Hillary DNC paid for opposition paper created by Christopher Steele. Why, when even the document itself stated that it had not been verified and may contain false information.

      And if Trump had done the same thing as Clinton using a private email account, on his own server and it was also unprotected for a period of 6 months you would have called that circumstantial evidence that he was hiding criminal activities. And if he would have bleached bit his drives while under subpoena to keep the server intact, you would have also cried guilty. Then when her phone devices are physically destroyed by her people, if Trump did that, what would you have said?

      How are these facts, a myth. Just because you say it is?

      Why isn't Hillary not guilty of her handling of state department emails, that were leaked to the public endangering the identities of government assets?

      ----------------------------------------

      I can't read your source since I don't subscribe to the on-line Post.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Well said, Cape. I am reading Shattered and to some degree it is very eye opening and sad. It generally agrees with what I laid out in this article (I guess it should be the other way around) and much better written. My take away so far, and taking into account the latest revelations about the extent Russia went to to throw the election to Trump, is that:

      "Clinton and her campaign put the election within losing range of Trump and Comey/Russia pushed him over the edge."

      BRAD - nobody but conservatives think the FBI investigation is corrupt. Even the DOJ IG said so. So where are you getting your false information from?

      When are you going to drop the debunked 30,000 email deletions. Those were her private emails and save for a couple the FBI later determined might have been work related, they had no problem with it. Why are you still throwing up this myth.

      What is debunked is that any of those actions ended up mattering to the FBI - they didn't, so they don't matter to me nor should they you except to create a false narrative.

      I can't read your source since I don't subscribe to the on-line Post.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      Under a corrupt FBI DOJ investigation.

      Are you saying that they are not true.

      For example, Clinton didn't delete at least 30,000 emails from her private server while she was under a Subpoena?

      Are you saying it is false that she didn't have the disk drives on those servers, she had multiple servers, weren't bleached bit, cleaned, and then physically destroyed.

      What is being debunked?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-secu...

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      No worries. His party is setting up yet another investigation of her emails. I guess 6 years and millions of dollars wasnt enough. Meanwhile, they clamor for Mueller to "wrap it up" after a year.

      They are so superior they dont even bother to hide it anymore.

      Jared and Ivanka are advisers to the president and use private servers.

      Trump talks and tweets on an unsecured phone.

      Karl Rove deleted 22 million.....so, obvi its not about the emails.

      Its about hatred of hillary, the toxic c*nt, and obama the subhuman mongrel.

      Neither which foul label is considered offensive, given that the man who said them was invited to the white house!

      Oh but they do so cry about the term "orange man-baby"

      *sniffle**sniffle*

      #Basta. !!!!

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Brad, all those statements have been asked and answered a hundred times before - you have been debunked.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Hillary derangement syndrome. Hatred laid bare. Sad!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      Once again you are playing a game you don't have the cards to win.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      5 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      "The Drumbeat of Wikileaks Set the Tone - While there was never, ever any truly damaging information in Wikileaks, like an email from her server, the constant drumbeat of their release had a cumulative negative influence. One Clinton could do nothing about. They ultimately worked as Julian Assage intended, he got his revenge."

      B:

      What do you call it when HRC under a subpoena duces tecum to keep her servers, and documents intact that was ignored by Clinton.

      She had deleted over 33,000 emails. Isn't that evidence of something to hide.

      Well, then how about when she bleachbit her servers, yes there were more than one.

      Then, the disk drives were physically destroyed, as well as her communication devices.

      Doesn't that alone smack of obstruction of justice?

      Then the Comey FBI investigation gives every related to these servers and devices. They did this before they were interviewed, and without having given any testimony then or later.

      Do you think that a presidential candidate like Hillary showed any knowledge of respect for classified documents. As well as sidestepping federal government record keep with her private unencrypted email servers.

      Quite a difference between how Cohen by the FBI when they did the early morning raids on his house, hotel and office. Taking also attorney client privilege communications.

      Then we find classified information on Huma Abenin's husbands weiner computer. But Comey didn't see that as a violation of classified information. Why not?

      How did classified information get there?

      Clinton was a first lady, an almost two term senator, and sec of state, and yet she told the FBI she no understanding of what (c) meant on her emails. Does any federal worker have that same lack of understanding?

      How does Obama's statement that HRC is the most qualified presidential candidate ever in the country? Yet, (c) confuses her!

      The email server was not secured either digitally or physically. I guess if you don't believe that the Wall protects national security then you couldn't possibly have a wall around your national security sensitive data!

      What say you!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      9 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      You are showing your ignorance by saying that?

      I have written several articles on it, so I w0n't repeat it here. But, you didn't understand what I have said, and you didn't check it out.

      You disappoint me with your red herrings.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      9 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      They also haven't said a WORD about Melania staying with serial cheater Don, nor the fact that she called the 19 women who accused him liars.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 

      9 months ago from Texas

      My Eso, I so enjoyed the debate between you and b.

      My take on this subject is: the men who could not stand the fact the one woman who was so much smarter than they, they must destroy her before she ever thought of running for public office. Then the holier-than-thou would punish Hillary for not leaving Bill after Monica, but there would have been just as many who would have been against her had she left him, damned if she did, damned if she didn't.

      Then there were those that hate women and believed the BS for all those years just because they wanted to and they could not stand to have a woman and especially one who could run a country better than a man, and especially those that thought of a woman as inferior, then Comey comes off as if she were still under investigation and trump was not.

      I very much admire Hillary for her strength of character and her courage.

      Blessings always my friend.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      9 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Brad, since you actually think building a wall will stop drugs, human trafficking, or illegals, it is clear you do not know the facts. The fact is ALMOST ALL of those things happen at ports of entry and NOT on unwalled borders. Building a wall is a HUGE waste of money since it won't accomplish what you think it will

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      9 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Carolyn,

      I fact checked Hillary's claim and found studies show she underestimated the number. This is one of many who back up Clinton's assertion. - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-of-t...

      So yes, it is reasonable to think "That would mean, by your math, that we have over 31 million racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic voters in the USA. "

      When you say "Flawed candidate, a virtually non-existent platform, and the wrong approach to fixing what's wrong with America." - I can only agree with the first sentiment. If you had ever read her web page, you would have found tons of policy solutions. (the problem is, complex answers to complex problems bore most Americans. If it won't fit into a sound bite, it is worse than worthless, it is bad.) As to the third sentiment, since I did read her platform, from my way of thinking, she had the right solutions.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      9 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Donna Brazille has retracted her accusation. In fact, Sanders had access to the same procedures Clinton did, but he didn't use them.

      Donna Brazille wanted to sell books.

      Donna Brazille gets photographed with the worst alr-righter out there, who happens to travel to Russia. Know why? NRA. Sheriff's "sadist" Clarke.

      No real dem would be caught dead with him.

      The Kremlin Klan extends to the alt left was well. And they hate Hillary as a much as the deplorables do.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      9 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      Once again, Brad. The election showed the polls were correct since they narrowed near the end and showed the election a toss up. Sorry.

      B:

      The election was and is never about the popular vote. The EC was and is the only way to become president. If the polls were about the popular vote than they were the wrong polls. EC 304 to 231 is not close, that is what is called a landslide.

      ----------------------------------------------

      You may say you are not either R or D, but you are definitely Tea Party conservative.

      B:

      I only like Trump, not any party. R and D are the different sides of the same coin, Trump has his own coin. I don't even know anything about the Tea Party.

      ----------------------------------------------

      When discussing politics I think in terms of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. I only think of Party in terms of which philosophy they represent at the moment in time under discussion.

      B:

      How does that relate to Hillary and your support for her?

      ----------------------------------------------

      Today, the Ds are the liberals and the Rs the conservatives (and minimal state liberals if you follow academia). Throughout American history, including the Constitutional Convention, it was liberalism that improved society and conservatism that has drug (and is currently dragging) it backwards. Consequently, there is a world of difference between the Republicans of today and Democrats.

      B:

      What I have always said is that both parties are responsible for the decline of the US, they just do it from different vantages.

      The R and D are diametrically opposed in the way they want to run the country. While they are both wrong, the D is worse because they want to change the social aspects and change who we are.

      And both parties ignore their loyal party voters once they vote, and then they get their direction from those that funded them.

      --------------------------------------------

      Let's see, they say there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. right now. There are also maybe 330 million people (including the 11 million). Divide 11 by 330 you end up with 3%. Now, tell me, how do you get "massive influx" out of 3%? I'll tell you, you can't; so everything you say that is dependent on it must be false.

      B:

      There you go with the math again.

      These 11 million cost the country more than 3%. Free medical, free education, welfare, and even voting in our elections. You can't tell me that they don't because the democrats don't allow voter ID to vote. Also in CA hispanics and white are the same in number, and every million that comes into the country illegally makes them more than us. And what about the millions of refugee immigrants that Obama brought into the country and into welfare.

      Do you really want the country to be run like the democrat controlled state of CA?

      -------------------------------------------

      Show me your proof regarding your assertion that "We spend more than the cost of a US border wall on these people." I have read nothing to suggest that is true.

      B:

      Illegal Immigrants: Drugs, Gangs and Crime

      Paramilitary groups trading fire with U.S. agents. Kidnappings and murders of U.S. citizens. Members of al-Qaida, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations infiltrating the border on a routine basis. We are not talking about Iraq – but Texas. One of the clearest indicators the United States has lost control of its southwest border is the ease with which thousands of tons of drugs and millions of illegal aliens are crossing the U.S. border on an annual basis. This open borders policy has opened the door to more than just cheap labor. The presence of millions of undocumented persons in our country has provided a perfect cover for various forms of criminal activity, ranging from drug trafficking to prostitution to identity theft.

      Drugs

      Federal investigators believe that as much as 2.2 million kilograms of cocaine and 11.6 kilograms of marijuana were smuggled into the United States via the Mexican border in 2005.1 With the decline of the Medellin and Cali cartels of Colombia, two Mexican drug cartels – the Sinaloa cartel and the Gulf cartel – are battling over the billion-dollar drug trade between Mexico and the United States. These cartels also have ties to U.S. gangs that serve as distribution networks in the interior United States. A 2006 study by the House Committee on Homeland Security warns that the Mexican cartels have essentially wrested control of the border from both the U.S. and Mexican governments:

      The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reports that the Mexican drug syndicates operating today along our Nation’s Southwest border are far more sophisticated and dangerous than any of the other organized criminal groups in America’s law enforcement history. Indeed, these powerful drug cartels, and the human smuggling networks and gangs they leverage, have immense control over the routes into the United States and continue to pose formidable challenges to our efforts to secure the Southwest border. … The cartels operate along the border with military grade weapons, technology and intelligence and their own respective paramilitary enforcers. … This new breed of cartel is not only more violent, powerful and well financed, it is also deeply engaged in intelligence collection on both sides of the border.

      ------------------------------------

      Since those 19 foreign terrorists made it in, no more have made it through the net Bush and Obama put up. You know who has made it through because Trump (and you) is so focused on the wrong target? Domestic terrorists, that is who.

      B:

      These were domestic terrorists that came through unvetted and legally thanks to Obama.

      How did Trump do that?

      The latest shooting in Florida was someone that idolized the terrorists.

      And the FBI didn't do their job, if they did they would have known that the person they were tipped about was Cruz. But, because they say they didn't know, means they never contacted him.

      What ever happened to the I in FBI? Obama corrupted the intelligence agencies.

      -----------------------------------------

      But it doesn't seem that reaches your level of concern (nor does the hundreds of people being mowed down by the sea of automatic weapons, it seems).

      B:

      What are you talking about?

      -------------------------------------

      Oh, BTW, you know those illegals you hate so much? It is them plus the legal ones that come into the country (the ones your hero is trying to stop from coming in) that are keeping the US economy from collapsing in the long-run. Why? Because native born Americans aren't producing enough kids and haven't been for several years.

      B:

      I think that the legal immigrants here as well as many white people across the country are doing those jobs right now. Cheap labor from the illegals only benefits their employer, the indirect costs are paid for by the taxpayer for the free medical, free education, and welfare. In CA, many trauma centers closed because that was the free medical for illegals.

      Also gangs come across the borders, like MS 13 that have hundreds of thousands of gang members on the east coast, like Suffolk County Long Island.

      Illegal drugs brings health and mental issues to the idiots in this country that clamor for them and get them thanks to the Drug Cartel and open borders. They also contribute to higher crime rates as drug users commit crimes to buy more drugs. But no one is dealing with that problem, as we have lost the war against drugs.

      The criminal element also comes with the Drug Cartel to protect their distribution of the illegal drugs. The prisons in the US have over 2 million prisoners, and a sizable amount came across the border. It costs about fifty thousand dollars a year for each prisoner.

      Then we have sanctuary cities and states like CA that when these illegal alien convicted felons get out of prison they try to give them protection so they won't be deported. And yet many of them are repeat felons, and even the ones deported just slip back across the border.

      The cartel also deals in human trafficking.

      And you really don't care how many terrorists get across our open border?

      911 the gov completely failed us, as it did 12.7.41

    • Carolyn M Fields profile image

      Carolyn Fields 

      9 months ago from South Dakota, USA

      Have you read Donna Brazile's book: Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House? Interesting reading.

      Also . . . help me understand your comment: "Her 'basket of deplorables' actually does exist, sadly, in America; and in large numbers." Clinton said that half of Trump’s supporters were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic." 63 million people voted for Trump. That would mean, by your math, that we have over 31 million racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic voters in the USA. Really? 31 Million people? I find that very difficult to believe. You go on to say, "why didn't she try to embrace the few that might be able to be reached; her campaign had lots of money to spend." Allow me to give you something new to think about: You could spend $10 billion additional dollars on campaign literature, TV ads, etc., and it still would not have made a difference. Flawed candidate, a virtually non-existent platform, and the wrong approach to fixing what's wrong with America.

      I could go on . . . but why? I just needed to get that "deplorable" comment out of my head.

      Yours Truly,

      Deplorable Carolyn

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      9 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Once again, Brad. The election showed the polls were correct since they narrowed near the end and showed the election a toss up. Sorry.

      You may say you are not either R or D, but you are definitely Tea Party conservative.

      When discussing politics I think in terms of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. I only think of Party in terms of which philosophy they represent at the moment in time under discussion.

      Today, the Ds are the liberals and the Rs the conservatives (and minimal state liberals if you follow academia). Throughout American history, including the Constitutional Convention, it was liberalism that improved society and conservatism that has drug (and is currently dragging) it backwards. Consequently, there is a world of difference between the Republicans of today and Democrats.

      Let's see, they say there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. right now. There are also maybe 330 million people (including the 11 million). Divide 11 by 330 you end up with 3%. Now, tell me, how do you get "massive influx" out of 3%? I'll tell you, you can't; so everything you say that is dependent on it must be false.

      Show me your proof regarding your assertion that "We spend more than the cost of a US border wall on these people." I have read nothing to suggest that is true.

      Since those 19 foreign terrorists made it in, no more have made it through the net Bush and Obama put up. You know who has made it through because Trump (and you) is so focused on the wrong target? Domestic terrorists, that is who. But it doesn't seem that reaches your level of concern (nor does the hundreds of people being mowed down by the sea of automatic weapons, it seems).

      Oh, BTW, you know those illegals you hate so much? It is them plus the legal ones that come into the country (the ones your hero is trying to stop from coming in) that are keeping the US economy from collapsing in the long-run. Why? Because native born Americans aren't producing enough kids and haven't been for several years.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad Masters 

      9 months ago from Orange County California BSIT BSL JD

      ME

      I was getting dizzy from this article.

      It was all over the place, and it kept using sampling, and didn't the election show how wrong sampling is for humans.

      A Computer Science Degree and Statistics doesn't seem to be enough does it. I am neither democrat or republican and they are both different sides of the same coin. That coin, no matter which way you toss it is a loss for the country and the people. I my opinion, the last good president in the US was Teddy Roosevelt, and 1898 was the last war that the US won. The worst republicans in recent times were the Father and Son Bush, Reagan only because he had GHW Bush as VP, Clinton, Obama, and the least bad Carter.

      You don't need to sample this as it is a matter of record.

      Obama has proven himself a very bad president who spent most of his presidency trying to get control of the people. He did this by dividing the country. The Democrats have lost their usual loyal voters because they were either tired of failed promises, or they some how made it out of the democrat welfare trough.

      So they have selected the illegal aliens, and unvetted refugees and immigrants. There is no doubt that this is the first step to getting them the right to vote. It may take some years, but they are planning ahead.

      How does this massive influx of foreigners that bypass the existing immigration laws help the US and its people. We spend more than the cost of a US border wall on these people. In addition, over twenty billion dollars of illegal drugs crossover over our open borders every year. The problem there is people in this country that want those illegal drugs.

      The drug cartel also deals in human trafficking, and contraband. If the day comes when the democrats get their gun control wish, guess who will have another product in their bag.

      As for James Comey, if he did his job Hillary would have gone to prison for Gross Negligence of sending and Receiving Classified emails. They even got to Anthony Weiner's computer.

      Democrats like you, and that is most of them didn't care about her emails, she could have sent them to Putin and you would have still voted for her.

      Then, let us not forget that 19 terrorists successfully attacked the US on our own soil. And the US government FAILED to even get into the game. There was no excuse for that and we spend trillions on our National Defense.

      So how many terrorists are you willing to have cross the border?

      If the country elected Hillary Clinton, the country would have followed the same democrat implementation that we have in Ca. Ca has to be the worst politically run state in the country, and it certainly knows how to tax people that work, to give welfare to those that don't.

      Gov Jerry Brown

      rep Nancy Pelosi

      senator Diane Feinstein

      Adam Schiff

      rep Maxine waters

      The old AG Kamella Harris now senator in the US Congress.

      That is a dream team of democrats.

      Why would anyone want Hillary Clinton as president? They have chosen DACA over the country and the American people.

      And this is not the same as when immigrants came from Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They went through the legal immigration process, and when they finally got into the US they were given nothing.

      del if u wish

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      9 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Sounds like you are describing #ChildTrump, not Clinton. But I will play:

      1. True

      2. True

      3. GOP Myth

      4. She is no more dishonest than you

      5. Brazile gave her one question in one debate, oh hum

      6. GOP Myth

      7. Lie

      8. Lie

      9. Name me even one thing that she said about Trump that was false

      10. GOP Myth

    • profile image

      romybrown 

      10 months ago

      Reason's why Hillary Lost the Election:

      1. Angry Sanders supporters that voted for Trump when they found out that the DNC rigged the primary election in Hillary's favor not giving Bernie a chance.

      2. Hillary's e-mail Scandals.

      3 The Clinton Body Count.

      4. Her dishonesty

      5. Donna Brazile helped Hillary Cheat on both the Debates by feeding her the question's and answer's to the debate questions. When it hit the fan CNN was forced to fire Donna Brazile.

      6. How the Clinton's used the money from the Clinton Foundation. (pocketed most of the money that was supposed to go towards rebuilding Haiti, Clinton Foundation paid for daughter Chelsie's wedding and Honeymoon, ext.)

      7. Treason

      8. Laundering money

      9. Making up false accusations about Trump

      10. She's a flat out croak.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 

      18 months ago from Texas

      Esoteric, Hillary lost because of the republicans who have campaigned against her before she ever went into politics, and no body ever believed the truth, most people believed what they wanted to be the truth.

      Blessings my friend

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I can make the math work by dropping Carter. I voted for Ford. Can you spell brain fart?

    • profile image

      Hillaryfan 

      19 months ago

      My Esoteric said: "BTW, for me it was Nixon (twice; yes, I am an old fart), Ford, Carter, Reagan (twice; I regret the second time), Bush I, Clinton (twice), Gore, Kerry, Obama (twice), and HRC."

      How were you able to vote for Ford and Carter while voting for Reagan twice? The math just doesn't add up there. Would you care to explain?

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      20 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Thank you Florish. Problem is 25% of Americans are still blind to his Yuge failings. I suspect most of those blue-collar Ds who got him into office are having buyers remorse.

    • FlourishAnyway profile image

      FlourishAnyway 

      20 months ago from USA

      Shortly before the election, my parents traveled through rural Virginia and saw so many Trump signs that they expressed dismay and hoped aloud that it wasn't a bad omen. Your analysis was a pretty spot on. They seemed to think they had some states in the bag and thus no ads until decisions had been made. We're sure paying for all the short-sightedness now. People wanted change and now we've got it. OMG.

    • Misfit Chick profile image

      Catherine Mostly 

      2 years ago from Seattle, WA - USA - The WORLD

      There's still lots of space left for those kinds of responses; and more comments draw people to this hub. Plus, diversity makes things not quite so boring, ha!

      It really has been quite a kick in the gut to watch our country thrown into chaos like this knowing why/how it happened: because we really didn't think so many people were this misinformed, uniformed and subject to targeted, hot-point manipulation.

      You know you're not alone in this frustration; and it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. If things get flipped (tampering is still unlikely, I keep reading); and Hillary ends up President - I really think she should hire a 'non-perfect' fat lady to belt out the Star Spangled Banner at her big party, just to irritate Trump and his somehow WAY more angrier than us supporters. :)

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      two people i saw on the news got busted for voting twice. trump was telling people to do it at his rallies.

      what they were actually doing was purging dem voters off the rolls by claiming THEY voted twice.

      these trump zombies who actually did it gave perfect excuse and cover for them to purge. "see? people are voting twice."

      thats not the only balloney they pulled.in wisconsin, trump was given 1,600 fraudulent votes.

      they knew to target swing states, and its a nice operation. trump and his operatives, run by kobach, who ill bet will be rewarded with a cabinet job. and koch bros, who have a massive operation of their own. how else you think a teabagger like walker gets to run a liberal state?

      then of course, wikileaks who just happened to target only the dnc...how sweet! and russia, whom the intel ops dnc hired traced the hacks back to the kremlin and the fsb.

      there are plenty more dirty tricks, like telling people to stay home, sending out false addresses for voting stations, etc.

      at the federal level, its redistricting. more people vote for dems, but repubs get the office. its all tied up neat in a bow.

      then, they have the internet stooges paid to spread disinfo....lies-r-us.

      and the ones who make fun of even mentioning this. because, you know, they know it ALL.

      thank you for letting me use your space, me. i promise this is the last.

      now back to regular programming: hillary/killary the crook, trump the glorious, and sanders the big white hope

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      10 hrs ago. "want to know if the election was hacked? look at the ballots"--j alex halderman. read it. he suggests clinton campaign do just that. now i know people who make fun of others for kicks on a website are more intelligent than a computer expert at a top ten university, but still.

      if they are so sure there is nothing going on, they wont mind people looking.

      after all, we know it would have been rigged had trump lost.

      halderman says they must act quickly, though. and personally, i think they wont. seems to be over for hillary.

      but dang sure not for me. and plenty others. you all go on with this charade of governing. its a theft of america, and i wont be a part.

      lucky you all can keep your take.

      anyone under 60 is royally screwed.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      its official: hackers breach election systems in illinois and arizona. wesley bruner, evan perez,cnn

      came from overseas.....fbi investigating. that is, if you trust the fbi.

      hillarys lead in popular vote now over 2 million. "unprecedented"

      #audit the vote

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      well, with the tongue lashing they took for being too mean to poor little donald....maybe they will be angry enough to really look into it.

      however, with trump allied to a guy who allegedly poisons his opponents and allegedly has journo's killed....and his mob ties (obviously doesnt mind the methods), i can believe the fear might outweigh the anger.

      terror is a great silencer.

      which is why i worry about a few out here.

      the only ones who could even dare expose it would have to be as powerful as those they expose.

      watch the omarosa short video...very odd, but also bone-chilling if you believe it.

      this is no longer america-land.

      ....or, really, should i say, we white people have entered the america-land of the murdered and the enslaved.

      no one is safe

      (sounds dramatic, i know. i live by gut feeling. ironically, just like trump)

    • Misfit Chick profile image

      Catherine Mostly 

      2 years ago from Seattle, WA - USA - The WORLD

      I've read about those things being connected, too - always just took them with a grain of salt. Plus, Trump really did seem to be WAY too odd of a ball. Something never felt right about him - not even before he won the Republican Nominee part.

      Would it be wrong of me to say that I HOPE this particular conspiracy theory is true? LoL! How wierd is that? Crossing your fingers and hoping for a major conspiracy theory to be revealed. OMG! We can dream!! :)

      Doesn't really look like any news media is picking up on it, much.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      "outagamie, wisconsin has found that more people voted for trump than showed up to vote at all"--palmer report

      in all the states where hillary was predicted to win, and lost...everywhere it was a shock: you can bet it was hacked. at least i think so. and yeah, it wont do any good anyway. i realize this.

      of course, im a tin foil hatter, so i believe this was a long range plan, going back to snowden betraying the usa. i remember reading something about him. this guy was questioning his credibility...asking how a low-level employee like him is suddenly promoted and making 200k. booze allen hamilton is a subsidiary of the carlyle group.

      and such coincidence that he runs to russia with his knowlege of our system, and the dnc is hacked? course, it is probably easy for anyone with enough knowlege or skill to hack anything. but then the question is why.

      saw a conferance on c-span years ago: cyberwar is next phase of warfare.

      but anyway, it will all come out long after trump has been sworn in. and as with anything, qui bono? i mean big power, qui bono. and also, who will care?

      so far, i see putin amping up his murderous attacks in allepo, and netanyahu ramping up his complete take over of palestine with facts on the ground.

      thumbs up from the american people.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I looked up the Bonifaz findings ... interesting. I have degrees in both computer science and statistics, so their theory that something may be wrong is worth looking into.

      Probably not enough to change the outcome, but, given the sophistication of Russian hacking, it is disturbing nevertheless.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      "john bonifaz and j alex halderman, university of michigan center for computer security and society, believe they've found persuasive evidence that results in wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked."

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      i really suggest you read the rolling stone article written by greg palast. just google cross check, greg palast.

      all these swing states, where people were so shocked by the outcome..all those states had the voter rolls purged.

      this big surprise is not due to actual votes, but the removal of actual votes.

      guess who was in charge of it? kansas kolbach...you know the one who encourages the wall and muslim registry.

      i know people always say conspiracy theory...but do you really think all the pollsters got it wrong....all of them??

      just please read the article...and remember trump voters voting twice and trump telling them to.

      its not a conspiracy, its a plan--warren ballentine

    • Hamza Badr Aoui profile image

      Hamza Badr Aoui 

      2 years ago

      I was also wondering the same why she lost the winning race.

      no

    • lisaparker03 profile image

      Lisa Parker 

      2 years ago from India

      I was also wondering the same why she lost the winning race.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      maybe a different way to say it: black men being killed by police and women imprisoned for miscarriage is not as important as white men losing jobs.....

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      yes, i read that 4 million votes in california dont count at all because they have no electoral rep.

      and i dont think hillary ran the wrong campaign at all.

      sorry, but there are plenty of disenfranchised people other than working clsss whites and christians.

      and i am really so sick of having to bow to them all the time.

      yes, i get that these past eight years was anethema to them.

      but they showed zero class in handling it.

      and now, we are back to worrying about christian whites.

      fine. but obama was helping all of us, whether you acknowlege it or not. and clinton was going to do the same, too. whether you acknowlege it or not.

      and now the rest of us will be subject to being ignored, again, as the republicans, sanders and tim ryan argue about who can best help the angry white male.

      progress is like climbing up a hill full of slippery slime.

      now we slide back

      back to illegal abortion and curtailed voting rights for anyone not voting r.

      the fact that immigrants and people of color are deathly afraid should really tell you something, but it wont.

      anger wins over fear. every time.

      should i get my knee pads now? no, not for a lewinski, to bow on one knee when il duce walks by.

      and listen, even tv's are watching us now. he'll be able to see if you bow when he comes on to make a pronouncement.

      omg, too disrespectful and mean? at least i didnt say hes a terrorist not born here, and call his wife a baboon.

      heil! for the foreseeable future. IMO

    • gunited profile image

      Godrej United 

      2 years ago from Bangalore

      it is unfortunate...

    • The Indexer profile image

      John Welford 

      2 years ago from UK

      Might it have something to do with the arcane system that decides a US Presidential election? The idea is to elect a President for the whole nation, but it turns out that votes in some states (the "swing" ones) are worth vastly more than those in "safe" states such as California.

      These elections should be decided on the overall popular vote across the whole country - if that had been the case, Hillary Clinton would have won, and the United States would now be looking forward to being led by someone whom more people voted for than against.

    • Misfit Chick profile image

      Catherine Mostly 

      2 years ago from Seattle, WA - USA - The WORLD

      I would agree that most of the things you have listed were indeed factors. But, things started decades before now...

      For 8 yrs, Republicans have made it clear that they do not respect the votes of the people; and have been trying to convince everyone that gov is bad bcuz of us EVIL liberals, leftists & elitists (your NORMAL American neighbors) - WHILE portraying themselves as ‘the abused’. They refused to work across partisan divides to work out budgets, immigration laws, jobs programs, climate change, tax reform, energy, etc - AND had a majority, yet Obamacare exists.

      As citizens became angrier with a stalled country, GOP continued to blame Obama & those of us who voted for him. Since they haven’t changed in decades & simply CAN’T win an election based on anything but fear – Tada, Trump!

      Nasty women were calling Trump racist & misogynistic BEFORE the election for divisive-hype reasons. Trump needs to say & do something ELSE to unite us beyond using the SAME lame, hateful rhetoric that somehow got him there.

      Beyond that, most men are misogynistic toward Hillary and have been for decades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrcQeFl76cg Most women (except white Christian ones) were able to separate her from Bill’s scandals; and could see that the ones she DID participate in weren’t NEARLY as incriminating as any other male politician before her.

      Hillary worked in a male-dominated culture WHILE 'being a lady' – and failed miserably against Trump, a good ‘ol locker room pal with a hot-head, fear-mongering, cocaine-mentality and practically NO experience in politics. Plus, he obviously knows how to use his big businesses to both rip people off & evade taxes.

      Misogyny is also why many Bernie voters rejected Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoWSaM61NI Its not just GOP men. This is the part that really sickens us women. We expect this attitude from the disoriented right-wing.

      And, let's not forget the affect of fake news: Fake-news writer: I think Donald Trump is in the White House bcuz of me. Confesses to creating that 'paid protestor' fake news & MORE: http://tinyurl.com/FakeNewsConfession

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I have read the Federalist Papers, which is more or less the history behind why there is an electoral college in the first place; it was an attempt to prevent exactly this from occurring. It shouldn't have but HRC simply ran the wrong campaign and lost a won race. In any case, consider this:

      - The major flaw in ANY system you choose is it disenfranchises a lot of voters and will always lead to a few battleground states.

      - If it is a popular vote basis, as many want, then you won't have battleground states, you will have battleground metropolitan areas; LA, Chicago, NYC, etc virtually all D strongholds. Left out entirely are virtually every rural area in the U.S. In other words, you almost guarantee a Democrat for President. It is not that that is a bad thing given what the GOP is today, but absolutely what the founders had in mind.

      - Another possibility is vote by Congressional district like in Maine and Nebraska. But that is just as bad because you will elect a far-Right Republican every time since rural Congressional districts far outnumber those in the city. So long as gerrymandering is alive and well, this dynamic won't change either.

      Originally the House would be the only one elected by the populous. The Senate by appointment by State legislatures and the President by electoral college, some of who were voted for in some States or appointed by the legislatures in other States. Now the electors are chosen by each State's voters. Much time and debate during the Constitutional Convention was spent devising this system. http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college

      Sorry about the long-winded story, but it helps keep it fresh in my mind.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      well, im sorry. hillary clinton is coming up on 2 million more votes than trump.as far as im concerned, she won.

      but we have a silly system. so be it. just remember, if electorates vote hillary in, that is also part of that antiquated system.

      and trump was going to contest the election if hillary won. lets get off that high horse, shall we?

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      You might not "walk" the far-Right, and now I will add the far-Left (they look the same to people in the middle) line; both are extremists and that is how you write, which is my only insight into how you think. It is possible you write different from what you think, but I have to take you at your word.

      You can certainly "despise" HRC, clearly you have that right whether based on reality or not. There is Much factual evidence that Trump is despicable' (and no, I don't insist you feel the same about him); but I seriously doubt you can present similar factual evidence against HRC to warrant that view/ You may have an instinctual dislike of her; which everyone does from time to time; but there are no substantial facts you can point to to support your view.

      But to say "but for being personally and undeniably responsible for the hatred & disgust all the Trump voters have for her" is simply untrue. And, if I am to take you at your word, you actually believe what you wrote which is not words of a Moderate.

      BTW, for me it was Nixon (twice; yes, I am an old fart), Ford, Carter, Reagan (twice; I regret the second time), Bush I, Clinton (twice), Gore, Kerry, Obama (twice), and HRC.

      Happy T-day to you and your family as well.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 

      2 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Eso....All due respect, it is not for you to take it upon yourself to "label" me. My voting record is my statement as an Independent. Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton (Twice) George W. (Twice) and Barack (Twice)....It should be clear, even to you, that I do not walk a "Far Right line".....never have, never will be ALL of one party or the other. IMHO, this is the practice of narrow-minded, PARTY-devoted fanatics who remain steadfast, unmoving, blind, deaf and dumb, despite the clearly obvious. This equals "ignorance," wouldn't you say? I am not ignorant, Thank you.

      Looks to me & should look to anyone interested that I certainly have a great formula for voting for ultimate winners of the Presidency.....

      I'm sure you realize that this fact about me, speaks for my Independent status~~and not my particular verbiage that may have displeased you. I can't help what rubs someone the wrong way.

      Excuse me, but how do you find it acceptable that you insist I refer to Trump as hateful & disgusting? I've already admitted to not being fond of him. What he was to me and quite obviously to MILLIONS was our only other option to keep your girl out of office.

      We used him and took a chance on change. Let's all wait to see if in fact, all of you in opposition get the opportunity to rub our noses in the pile of $##t. When & if that time comes, I will be as honest, open and up-front as I am at all times. No whining, no pouting, no protesting. I'm not only a proud, self-assured, independent American, I'm a BIG girl with an excellent head on her broad shoulders who can handle defeat without losing my mind.

      I'm sorry I cannot love your girl. It's merely politics. I see no reason to attack supporters of the opposition when I can use all that energy to despise the candidate I feel is pure poison in the flesh.

      Once again I thank you for taking the time to interact with me. I hope you understand I simply will not stand silently by while anyone assumes to know me, my methods, my reasoning and my decisions. This is my business and my call.....only "your own" belong to you and only you know why.

      If you noted, I have not resorted to the bully route of referring to you as a Lefty, Left wing Loon (that's a popular one ) and the simple reason for that Esoteric, is that I don't know you well. I have no right to assume that because you love Hillary, that means you walk the fine Left lane at all times. It follows Sir, you may not make such opposite claims about me, simply because I despise the woman.

      Wishing a peaceful Thanksgiving Day to you and yours.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      LoveMyChris, I can't agree with your voter suppression argument. The only State that may have affected, even though the voter laws were reinstated at the end, is North Carolina.

      The unfortunate fact is that HRC and team didn't do the proper homework. If they had, they would have put people on the ground all over the battleground states, to make person-to-person contact with voters in the cities AND the rural areas. Had they done that, they might of gotten the sense that Trump was winning traditionally D voters over. But, she didn't so they went on flying blind and banked on HUGE minority turn-out, which didn't happen; not because of any suppression, but through lack of caring.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      fpherj48 - What does "one of those people" mean to you? To me, it means that "of the group of people who have a common characteristic, you are one of them". Simple as that. You are, however, and based solely on your comments, definitely NOT an Independent. Every word you write toes the far-Right line, whether you think so or not.

      An Independent is someone who does not profess such things as "but for being personally and undeniably responsible for the hatred & disgust all the Trump voters have for her" when it is provably not true and simply shows extreme bias in one direction. You could say "Trump is a disgusting, hateful person" and then write a hub, as I have done, full of different kinds of examples to back up that statement. On your side, you only have a very bad decision by HRC to have a personal email server, a la George W. Bush. The 17 or 19 GOP investigations cleared HRC of Benghazi. She never said the things a couple of the families of the dead claim she did, as reported by other families that were there.

      The Clinton Foundation interface with the State Dept happens at ALL levels of gov't from city council up to every Congressman and Department head alive ... including in my own Defense Department; it is a political fact of life. (A scandal would be if HRC personally or financially benefited from those interfaces and not even the far Right has suggested she has.)

      I do thank you, however, for your thanks and the vast service of your family and relatives. That was very kind.

    • Larry Rankin profile image

      Larry Rankin 

      2 years ago from Oklahoma

      Interesting analysis.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      "blame trumps victory on college educated whites, not the working class", eric sasson

      that would suggest to me racism. sexism, too. *hi catherine!*

      and look at sanders....everything hes talking about: how hard it is to get by, has been going on forever in the black community....and single moms, i might add.

      look at his audiences....predominantly white.

      he and trump are two sides of the same coin, as is tim ryan, going for pelosis job. they represent white male rage....and, as ive said many times before....you mad?

      get in line!

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      plz read:

      A Dark View From Flyover Country, Sarah Kendzior

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      2 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      a lot of the vote was suppressed, due to republicans, whose supreme court gutted the voting rights act. and republican states made sure of that.

      her foundation gets an a+ rating, while trumps has been ordered to stop taking money.

      where was media in this election? billy bush was the only sour spot for trump, even though he had a trial coming up for fraud! and the media seemed to agree that sexual degradation is just fine. "locker room talk". and women agreed with it, too! even so far as to have t shirts made that said trump can grab my p*ssy!

      the viciousness of trumps rallies and NOW these people care about riots? get out of here...your guy relishes violence.

      the planet will suffer, immigrants, black people, muslims and women will suffer, but hey: e-mails.

      and in my opinion, anyone who votes for someone who thinks women need to be punished for abortion is no independent. that is straight-up far right.

      you all can stop pretending you dont know how donald will do his job. hes told you millions of times.

      and you want it. god help us all.

      by the way, 1.6 million more of us dont.

      mandate/shmandate.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 

      2 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Esoteric....And I see you are "one of those people" who uses such terminology as "one of those people," when attempting to be dismissive of someone else's opinion. Yes, I am a person, An American, voter (Independent) and within my rights, as you are, to state my opinions, without insult or attempts at diminishing my freedom of expression.

      Per your biography, I see you are former military. Thank you for your service, which as I believe has been so integral in protecting our rights & freedoms..... as my Dad (WWII) my late husband (Viet Nam) and my son, USMC~(Operation Iraqi Freedom) as well as numerous friends and other family members, have also served. My respect, gratitude & admiration for this segment of our fellow-Americans is eternal.

      So frankly, your snide, snarky response is disillusionment in stark contrast of your history and causes me only to be disappointed.

      I use no "Trump-style" anything....ever. I am not a fan of the man, in the least. This merely tells me you know absolutely nothing about me, least of all, that my excellent brain is always engaged. It's unfortunate a grown, seemingly intelligent man feels the need to refer to my statements as "ridiculous," in yet another immature attempt to insult & belittle my opinions. I will not reply in kind.

      You have earned the right, Sir to be as nasty, disrespectful and dismissive as pleases you.

      Just know that this changes nothing in terms of the fact that I am 100% certain, we Americans dodged a lethal bullet in this election. Period.

      How Mr. Donald Trump will handle this job, I have no way of knowing at this point and neither do you.

      Exchange with you has been an enlightening experience. You stay warm, safe and happy in Florida Sir.

    • Aimen Shah profile image

      Aimen Shah 

      2 years ago

      Because Trump is a cheater

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      My Esoteric 

      2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      HS - I have had similar experience with people who can't engage their brains in a rational way (my family, except my wife)

      fpherj48 - You must be one of those people HS just described; not with this world. You said "not only for the huge wuppin she took". This, of course, is Trump-style hyperbole. In fact, Trump won by just two states, PA and WI. He won those (and possibly MI) for EXACTLY the reasons I gave. That is his technical win. Clinton is still the choice of 1.3 million voters, so far,

      Since you started out with a ridiculous statement, there is no point in finishing your diatribe.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 

      2 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Good Evening Esoteric....I agree with you 100%. Hillary has no one but herself and her campaign staff to blame......not only for the huge wuppin she took, but for being personally and undeniably responsible for the hatred & disgust all the Trump voters have for her.

      She is responsible for the fierce insistence & efforts to keep the woman OUT of the White House. It wasn't easy, but we did it, Thank all the stars, the sun and moon in the Sky!! And thanks to her exposed dirtiness.

      As well-informed, fully-researched and sufficiently experienced as I am and have been for many years, no one.....NO ONE will ever be able to convince me that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not her own worst enemy.

      I began keeping a very close eye on this slippery little she-devil while she was yet First Lady to her philandering, lying, impeached hubby. She surely had me sit up and take notice when she gave birth to the concept of "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy..." of her fantasies, dreams and delusions. Sad though~only her loyal libs bought that insane nonsense, hook, line and sinker. So much so, to this day, through all of her scandals, lies, games & greed, they hold tight to the ludicrous idea there's a Right Wing Conspiracy.

      It was great for me when she was right here in New York State where I could watch her, hear her and keep abreast up close and personal & through my many political connections,,,as to what this woman is truly ALL about.

      To those who are thoroughly convinced that Hillary (and loverboy Bill) are egregiously corrupt, PHONIES/FRAUDS (one face to the public...another on the inside shadows) liars to the degree that telling the truth never even occurs to them, thieves, manipulators, traitors and just plain old nasty, evil people....? As much as you are absolutely correct and justified in your knowledge....as bad as it boldly appears to you....you haven't even a clue or a brush of the surface to how much worse it actually is.

      There are several books out that spell out the unadulterated truths about Hillary & Bill and their crooked cohorts....one by a former secret service agent, one by Dick Morris....and several others.

      There will be more to come. Most importantly, there will be both a book and 3-hour documentary available to the public, just after the first of the New Year. You cannot even begin to imagine or guess what will be proven about the entire life of Crime, with accompanying proof positive.... lived unapologetically and even "smugly," by the Bonnie & Clyde of Washington DC.

      Rest up and wait for it.

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 

      2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      I totally agree with your points. It was all crystallized to me when I went out to dinner with 3 of my closest friends this past Thursday evening. None are overly political but they have been generally sensible and interested in voting correctly. All 3 told me they voted for Trump and it was because they wanted change. I asked incredulously, what change has he called for? They said they did not know but he would shake things up. I couldn't believe it. Hillary should have done much better but President Obama caught her off guard in 2008 and Trump did this election. Hopefully America withstands this also and common sense returns to our country.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)