Why did Hillary Clinton lose the 2016 US election?
Hillary Clinton didn’t lose the election in 2016.I’m not talking about Electoral College vs popular vote.I’m not talking about Russian meddling, which certainly happened, assuming everyone except Donald Trump and Vlad Putin saying otherwise can be trusted.Had all qualified votes cast in the election been counted, Hillary Clinton would be in the White House.All the handwringing on the part of the Democratic party about how they screwed up and lost the White House is for naught. The Democrat candidate won the election. Had over 1 million qualified votes that were thrown out been counted, both the popular and Electoral College vote would have gone to her.All the Democrats need to do is re-establish the integrity of the voting process. Not an easy task, to be sure, since the GOP knows it won’t win a fair election. But programs like Crosscheck virtually assure that Democrats have to win by a landslide to overcome the suppressed minority votes that are disallowed into the final count.Palast predicted Trump’s win via these voter suppression programs months before it happened. Last I knew there were 28 states where Crosscheck purges minority voters from the rolls based on bogus name matches with voters in neighboring states. I’m glad to know that my home state of Indiana is the first to face a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this blatantly racist scheme.Hillary won the election, it’s just that the votes showing it weren’t all counted. And so we have Trump, who appointed as Chairman of the Voter Fraud Commission none other than the architect of the Crosscheck program.There is, indeed, electoral fraud happening. Republicans and Democrats both should be outraged that this central component of what makes America great - the right to vote for our elected officials - is no longer a legitimate process.Thus, Hillary didn’t lose the election. Hillary “lost” the election.
What are your thoughts on Chelsea Clinton?
What are your thoughts on Chelsea Clinton?I do not know the woman, so I can’t form an intelligent opinion of her as a person.The poor woman has been hounded by the media and the public since she was a child. She was—and continues to be—harassed over her father’s indiscretions, which is terribly unfair to her (and which she appears to have handled very well according to the video I saw).She’s been accused of having the same flaws as her parents, despite staying largely out of the public eye—and when she does appear in the public eye, it’s generally not for something negative, but to criticize people for going after other Presidents’ children, defending the cost of Secret Service details protecting the President and his family, defending the kids of SCOTUS nominees, criticizing comedians who post “vile and wrong” (Ms. Clinton’s word) photos on social media…So I do not know Chelsea Clinton and cannot form an intelligent opinion of her, but from what I have seen from a distance, she’s someone that I don’t think I would object to having a meal or a drink with and getting to know a little bit. I sincerely doubt we would agree on much politically, but she comes across as someone with whom I could have an intelligent and respectful conversation, and that’s something I appreciate in people, regardless of their politics.
What do you think of Chelsea Clinton's statement that undoing Roe v. Wade would be "unchristian"?
Thank you very much for asking me, Lisa.I should explain that as a Briton I had to look up Roe v. Wade; as a man I hardly dare to have an opinion as to whether abortion on request is permissible and proper, but, if I have to take a position, abortion undeniably ends a human life prematurely, and I would hold by the Church of England's very slightly qualified opposition to abortion.But there is some Church support for abortion rights, and if Chelsea Clinton meant that vulnerable or desperate women might seek help but be denied it, there is some basis for her thinking the suggested reversal an unChristian move.That said, in the world as we know it babies have died young all through human history, sometimes naturally, sometimes not; as one example among many, our bombs in World War Two did not have an ingenious device fitted so that they would avoid killing babies; and today, with all the advances in medical science, it is still not possible to save every unborn baby or every new-born. But I feel sure we will not be wrong if we trust that God is going to give every one of these children their lives, everlasting life, truly the Holy Innocents indeed.Most grateful to you again for asking me, Lisa, a hard question for me.With all good wishes,Barrie
How can someone who doesn't care about money at all make it in this world?
I am one of those people. Money doesn't matter to me because I have been observing people all my life. In an effort to be the kind of person I want to be I compiled the information then processed it. I found that money does not ensure happiness and in fact seems to cause many more problems. Wealth makes people targets. Everybody wants to take what they have and the people who are front and center trying the hardest to take are thw persons very own relatives. Shameful. I've seen greed that made me want to puke. I have always been able to live on very little money currently I exsist on about $700 a month. There is one undeniable fact and that is mate r ial can be taken away from you. Whether its because someone took it or circumstances changed and your wealth gone, it seems like people are devastated over losing material. When you got nothing you got nothing to lise.
Was Hillary Clinton pandering when she claimed she was broke after she and Bill left office in 2001?
If she was pandering, she certainly picked a poor subject to do so and a bad time to do it.Why?Clintons are now part of the 1% - By making it apparent that she is and then downplaying with ridiculous claims that she and her husband’s situation after they left the White House (with a combined income of $360k between her salary and his Presidential pension) as somehow being “broke” doesn’t sit well with a American public still mired in an economic downturn. Not certain why her people thought that this was a good opening salvo especially since:Being rich is what lost Romney the election in 2012 - While Secretary Clinton isn’t “Romney Rich”, she certainly has greater financial assets than the majority of Americans will ever have a single lifetime. Had she taken a page from the Kennedy/Rockefeller playbook and hidden her financial position behind a wall of public service, things would have been far easier on her than they likely are going to be. This was also available to Romney in 2012, but foolishly he chose not to do this.Hillary Clinton is not a likable person - She never has been and that’s always been one of her greatest weaknesses as a politician. She cannot seem to fake sincerity very well, you get the impression that she knows (not thinks) that she is smarter than everyone else and even after many years in the political spotlight, she lacks the ability to smile with her lips and her eyes at the same time. The fact that she is also a wealthy unpleasant person is something which her eventual campaign is going to have to wrangle with perhaps all the way to Election Day 2016.This gives the GOP an “in” - The GOP has tried a war hero (McCain) and failed. They tried a member of the 1% (Romney) and failed. If they draft a working class candidate with appeal across a broad spectrum, then Clinton is in trouble. If that person is also likable and charismatic, the Dems will be sitting out until 2020. By showing the GOP’s strategists an “in”, the eventual Clinton campaign may have made it easier for them to find an appealing candidate who resembles “regular Americans” and who isn’t going to make the mistake of claiming how “poverty-stricken” that he (or she) and their spouse are or ever were.Honestly, once might have been “strategy”. Twice shows a person who hasn’t been in the middle class for many years and who is out of touch.Let’s hope for Secretary Clinton’s sake that she doesn’t go for a “poverty hat trick” and mention her “financial woes” again.
Did former Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and or current President Obama express regrets at missing a lot of their children's childhood because of their job responsibilities?
Carter’s three sons were grown by the time he became president. Since Amy lived in the White House while her dad was president, she may have seen more of him than some children whose fathers are not politicians. In fact, there was a minor brouhaha when Amy attended a state dinner, which is normally not a kid-friendly event, and read a book the whole time.Chelsea Clinton has said her parents always talked about her school day and current events when they lived in Arkansas. They were concerned that she not be upset about the criticism that came with having a career in the public eye, telling her it was politics and not personal. She lived in the White House until she graduated from Sidwell Friends Academy, the same high school that the Obama girls have attended. While her decision to attend Stanford was widely interpreted as a way of putting as much distance between herself and the White House fishbowl as possible, she enthusiastically campaigned for her mother in 2008 and 2016.Both Bushes’ children were grown and either in college or pursuing their careers by the time 41 and 43 became president.While Obama was an Illinois state senator and a U.S. senator, he was in Springfield and Washington, respectively all week and saw Michelle, Malia and Sasha only on weekends. It was an arrangement they all regretted, but the Obamas didn’t have inherited wealth and couldn’t afford to relocate to follow his career. At the time he was inaugurated, he said he looked forward to “living above the store” since it meant he’d see his wife and daughters every day.