She was out of touch with the hardships of Middle America. Globalization has been good to America in aggregate, but has hollowed out the rust belt (which went very much for Trump).
The emails did not help; it made her appear above the law.
Government in the US has been extremely dysfunctional for a while now, and Clinton is the embodiment of the establishment politician. This may explain why so many people were willing to vote for an outsider candidate, despite his obvious flaws.
for me it was the way she talked. like the umpteenth "career politician" who is trying to spoon feed me exactly what baby-food formula her focus groups think I want to hear. We've heard that so many times from so many candidates, that you stop believing it.
What I believe is she is funded by wealthy corporate donors and will always put their needs first.
I voted for trump because "I'm not falling for that again". I'm sick of hearing it, the boilerplate speeches about making things "better" while they go off and do whatever they want once they're elected. When trump spoke, he didn't have that "mask" on, he talks like a real, genuine human being who's speaking from his mind/heart. His crude statements were unfortunate, but those also reinforce that he's genuine, speaking whats inside. Not through a triple-stage reverse-osmosis speech filter scripted by his handlers.
Actually the same happened in my country. I was thinking if this is a property of voting system. I like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting which theoretically helps to choose compromise candidate for most of the voters. But it is just my opinion I don't know how this works in reality.
Except, as per usual, nobody can back these assertions up with actual evidence. Meanwhile, you're happy to elect the pro-war, pro-key-escrow candidate. What the hell has happened to "hacker" news?
You're welcome for forestalling mandatory backdoored crypto for four years.
Sexist - ... Not going to link it - I'm yet to hear Hillary's version of "I can walk right up to men and grab them on the cock". This is a one way street. I actually would struggle to think of any prominent female who would act in the same manner of openly stating they can abuse a person such (and even to try and recant this later)
Do you acknowledge any of these? Dispute video evidence? The sources?
I am genuinely perplexed you seem to believe there is no evidence, however it seems you have a shifted-goalposts view of what constitutes "sexism" "racism"or "vengeful narcissism".
If you disagree with my post - which is a high probability - can we try a thought exercise?
Describe a scenario that you believe would be scandalous sexism if Trump mete out that act. I am interested to see the threshold that needs to be met to constitute as "sexism" under your rubric.
Can you explain how you arrive at your labels from these edited-together quotes? Here's Trump's first quote, in its entirety:
> “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I don't see who this is racist towards. Illegal immigrants from Mexico are a pretty specific group, and do not represent a race.
> I actually would struggle to think of any prominent female who would act in the same manner of openly stating they can abuse a person such (and even to try and recant this later)
> Vengeful narcissism - Despite being cleared of any charges, he openly alludes to the imprisonment of his opposition
I don't understand how the article supports your point at all. His statements follow Comey's remark to the Senate. This kind of statement is very common. I can point to many situations off the top of my head, where people, after being cleared of charges, are still considered guilty for something and hounded by their opposition - Zimmerman, Ghomeshi, the Duke lacrosse team... I just don't see the connection to "vengeful narcissism", I think it's an understandable emotional reaction when you don't get the expected outcome of the wrongly-labeled "justice" system.
The Mexican example isn't racism. If you turn it around and look at US citizens that are fleeing the US to Mexico, it wouldn't surprise me if they also were more likely to be criminals. If you're running from the police - on either side - you'd want to hop the border, and not because either Mexicans or US citizens are genetically prone to being rapists.
Stefan Molyneux had a great video on this subject, with some actual facts:
Living in a foreign country is pretty tough. It's also pretty tough to try to do so illegally. It's not the sort of thing one undertakes lightly. As a criminal, moving to a country where you don't speak the language, where you face discrimination, where you have no social network, and an extremely well funded police force, would be a stupid move.
I was an illegal immigrant at one point. I couldn't make it work. Restricting people who want to come to a country to improve their lives is indefensible. If the word for that isn't "racism" it must be "stupidity".
> Restricting people who want to come to a country to improve their lives is indefensible
Pretty much all the countries in the world do that. Mexico is extremely lucky to have a physical border with the US that you can walk/climb over. How could a Burmese or Nigerian citizen emigrate to US (or any other Western country) illegaly?
> I'm yet to hear Hillary's version of "I can walk right up to men and grab them on the cock".
"Keep your mouth shut about my husband raping you, or you'll be sorry." I mean yeah, I know she was savvy enough not to let herself be caught on tape saying it, so it never happened, and the multiple women attesting it are liars and they're bought and they're liars. Clearly some barnyard language is the really reprehensible thing here.
And he's far from the only one to suggest she merits indictment. Do you remember Comey's first final statement on the email investigation? The one in which he said, boiled down, that while he'd absolutely recommend anyone else who'd done the same be indicted, this was, for reasons
left as an exercise to the reader, a special case?
>I'm yet to hear Hillary's version of "I can walk right up to men and grab them on the cock"
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." --Hilary Clinton
Not that this quote is anywhere near equivalent. It's far more egregious. Trump made a lame comment, in a private situation, about how he picks up women. Clinton, in an official capacity as First Lady of the United States, said she view men as so unimportant that they are not the primary victims in their own deaths.
Um, it has all been recorded and/or videotaped? Why do Trump supporters keep denying the horrible things he has said when there is solid recorded evidence?
There is a difference between attacking people because of their sex or by insulting them based on their sex. First is definitively sexist, the latter is arguable.
He was suggesting that Megyn Kelly was asking him though questions and that the reason for this was that she is on her period. There is a very subtle but important difference.
He attacked her for asking supposedly though questions, not for being on her period. First was the reason of his attack. Latter was the means of his attack.
As with the other reply, I don't see how this is any better. It's still openly sexist. (Megan Kelley isn't able to do her job properly because she has a uterus.)
"Blood coming out of her eyes" seems to imply she's "bloodthirsty", out to "get him" or something like that. I don't see any sexism there.
People usually omit that first part, and falsly quite him as saying "blood coming out of her whatever", which sure does sound very sexist. But if you quote the whole thing, "blood coming out of her eyes, or whatever" sounds like he's basically backtracking on his (too) offensive comment.
I've been thinking about this... I still don't think he was referring to her vagina, but I admit that I could be wrong.
However, even if he was, or let's make it clearer, even if he directly said "she was so mean because she had PMS/her period", that would still not make it sexism. Sexism is discrimination on the basis of sex. Trump wasn't discriminating against her, he was insulting her because he disliked her (which he's free to do, of course).
For insults to be effective, they have to be tailored. You won't call "gay" an obviously gay guy, because that's not an insult, that's the truth! The insult "gay" would only be effective towards someone who's masculine and exaggerates a bit, making you believe that he's actually insecure of his masculinity and would be hurt and offended when being called "gay". That doesn't mean you're homophobic, it just means you're good at insulting people.
Trump was simply tailoring his insults to her, and if he meant something in connection with her sex, that's no worse than insulting any other part of her. He's obviously not discriminating - he's been insulting pretty much everyone, and his insults are always highly tailored ("low energy" Jeb, "crooked" Hillary, ...).
