Democrats have lost because of Clinton, not because of Trump

Democrats have lost because of Clinton, not because of Trump

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-bKac55h1Ls
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You can build a statue with it, but its still salt.

there is some truth here. Honestly if they would have put up any reasonable Democrat, then Trump would have lost. But Clinton has so many scandals surrounding her. Anyone with a brain is concerned to back her.

Sanders would have won for sure

This is a retarded statement to make, the losing side(doesn't matter what kinda thing is lost) loses because their player/candidate/... is worse than the other one, which means that the other one won because they were better.
Or am i wrong ?

and this goes for video games , olympic games elections any competition.

You are right, OP is just pointing out how pitiful a candidate Clinton was, that she could lose to Trump, even with the entire mainstream media and an army of shills behind her.

ah, yeah i think everyone could agree everyone was a bit(or alot) dissapointed with the candidates.

...

100% agree

youtube.com/watch?v=-bKac55h1Ls

Fuck Hilarious cunton
Fuck the demagocrats

Yep. Here's the last Sanders vs Trump head to head polls from the primary. Clinton *never* had near these kind of margins against Trump. The Dems picking Clinton (and cheating to do so) simply gave away the outsider anti-establishment message entirely to Trump. Take a look at Trump's closing campaign ad. It looks like a Sanders ad ffs. Trump got to run Sanders' campaign against the ultimate insider. The Dems fucked themselves with their brilliant conventional wisdom.

Dems fucked themselves with their brilliant liberal, emotionally driven, intellectually void, morally bankrupt tendency to prostitute themselves out to whatever voting block they hope to gain favor with.

Fuck Hillary and all the shit heel retards that stood in line to suck her dick.

Then again, take a look at the popular vote. Clinton still fucking got more votes than Trump. If only that mattered.

Then fucking southern california and new york would decide the fate of America all the time.

>emotionally driven, intellectually void, morally bankrupt

but enough about Trump....

...

>This is a retarded statement to make, the losing side(doesn't matter what kinda thing is lost) loses because their player/candidate/... is worse than the other one, which means that the other one won because they were better.
>Or am i wrong ?
There is a difference though. Was clinton weak or was Trump too strong?

Obama won both his campaigns because he was strong. Mccain was a bit weak but not that much.
When Bush first won, both bush and gore were weak (Gore won the popular vote).
Bush won when Kerry was weak and he was a little stronger (9/11 boost)

I really think Trump was unexpectedly strong here. It was unexpected brexit strength all over again. Theres something new happening. My personal opinion is that everyone underestimated the power of blatant lies (Trump generally gets 70% false ratings on factcheck sites, Clinton generally hovers velow 30%). Literally everyone was calling her a liar when her truthfulness ratings were even better than Bernies. It didnt matter, it only mattered if the narrative stuck.

I believe weve entered a new era where truth has little value and only winning matters. It will weaken the US but benefit those who can take advantage of it. The end of US global dominance is now the benefit of the few. Lets hope we can get in that club.

God forbid the majority of the citizens pick the president. Yeah, how horrible.

you do realize that 'the majority of the citizens' doesn't represent most of the land? You know where they make fucking food for your fat ass?

>if they would have put up any reasonable Democrat, then Trump would have lost. But Clinton has so many scandals surrounding her. Anyone with a brain is concerned to back her.

The scandals are overwhelmingly false. Any other candidate would have faced the same "scandals".

You really think anyone will "lock her up"? Get real

>scandals didn't happen
>Hillary Clinton
Pick one

Obviously I know that. Im not sure how anyone can seriously defend "representing the land" as if owning farmland or your profession should entitle you to more voting power.

Kind of the theme of this election, though. Real equality just isnt good enough for some people. You just have to have more than your share.

>I believe weve entered a new era where truth has little value

this. so much this. this is what scares me the most, I think.

I completely agree with you. Black live's matter, SJWs the entire liberal left. All fucking morons who want more than their share. Our opinion doesn't matter as much as theirs so they riot. Hippocrates, all of you.

Your enemy loses a race. do you:

A) tell your enemy how stupid they are, lose your credibility, and give your enemy fame

Or

B)destroy the credibility of your enemies opponent, bringing your enemies "accomplishment" into question through "no fault" of your own which will further invalidate your enemy should they retaliate.


Tl;Dr salt, by any other name

Lirerally you said that land size should entitle a person to more voting power. It doesnt get more blatant than that.

What is a sjw? Is that some group that you hate and blame for your own problems? Being serious, really dont know

Just because you can shit out more babies, in higher concentration, doesn't mean that no other states should get their say.

You're clearly not from around here. Let me show you the door.

When Clinton conceded, Trump still held more of the popular vote as well