Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal BarbaraHudson's Journal: You seriously want us to respect you now? 46

Journal by BarbaraHudson

Rioting after losing because YOU fucked it up by rigging the nomination against #FeelTheBern Sanders. Take responsibility for your own shitty actions. It wasn't misogynists - white women voted in almost as high numbers as men for Trump (but they didn't admit it to polsters, hence the surprise). It wasn't because Trump supporters are racist, Clinton failed to get as many votes in many counties as Obama had, and last I looked, Obama was at least sort of black. It was because your candidate was so shitty, so unelectable, so untrustworthy that people would rather vote for anyone else, even Trump, or just stay home.

And now that Clinton is out, her phoniness is exposed, and people can talk about it openly.

So stop being butt-hurt crybaby Clinton losers. Her and her husband Bill were not social progressives. Bill signed the Defense of Marriage act, and Hillary opposed same-sex marriage on Ellen and in the senate and outside the senate. What a bitch!

Don't blame anyone else - you rigged your convention, you didn't speak out against it, you rejected an easy win with Sanders and insisted on running a woman who was unelectable, tarring everyone who pointed this out as misogynists or racists or a traitor to women or whatever. Here's a clue - voting for someone based of their sex is just as bad as voting against someone based on their sex. Voting for her just to shatter the glass ceiling is no reason. Elizabeth Warren would easily have been able to do it, so it's not about sex or gender. It's a rebellion against bullshit as usual. Get over yourselves, stop your whining and rioting and look in the mirror - you made Donald Trump president, all you Clintonistas. It's all your fault.And it's worth 4 years of Trump just to get rid of you and your "public position and private position" lying mouth.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You seriously want us to respect you now? More

You seriously want us to respect you now?

Comments Filter:

  • Absolutely well said. Barbara you continue to make awesome sense.

    Its funny how you said "now Clinton is out her phoniness is exposed".

    For me at least it wasn't ever hidden, probably because apparently unlike most Hillary voters, I actually bothered to do some independent fact-checking rather than just turn my brain off and 100% believe whatever MSNBC and "The View" told me to.

    To pick up your point though, from several post-election conversations, most of the clueless retards that voted for her are still eve

    • It's sad. But it also guarantees that the fall will be hard, and the blowback harsh. This is what needs to happen.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        Its definately what needs to happen but it won't work.
        Its probably cruel of me but I treat talking to Democrats about Hillary's corruption as a sort of human experiment. Its actually been very insightful because I've done it many times now and repeatedly and without fail got the same results.

        Of course they initially try all sorts of tricks to change the subject, but if you politely but firmly keep them on track and show them enough credible sources of information that they literally have no option but to fi

        • The "elite left" are crazy. They've been living in a bubble for years. They no longer even know what concerns the average Joe or Jane. We're just voters to be exploited for their benefit and that of their corporate paymasters. Interestingly enough, The Atlantic has a (warning - very long but very interesting) story about how the democrats killed their populist soul [theatlantic.com]

          "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both."

          That ethos no longer exists in the Democrat party. This is the story of how that happened.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by JustNiz ( 692889 )

            They had to kill such principles in order to support Hillary, because she's the living embodiment of all the wealth in the hands of a few. The Democrats couldn't allow stuff like principles to stand in the way of her political ambition.

          • FTFA: The Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public.

            They did that in '68, not '75... I couldn't read much of the rest of the drivel in there. Just a bullshit soap opera. And besides, the real soul of the democratic party belongs to the slave owners of the antebellum south. Even their so called 'populism' of the 30s was as phony as a three dollar bill. They couldn't pass a civil rights bill in the 60s without a lot of republican assistance. They are the shits.

        • So then you really weren't reading the discussion you and I had previously. I expected as much, but thank you for taking the time to confirm it. Not many from your camp are willing to openly admit their faults in that way. If you'd like to have a discussion based on facts rather than just mantras, let me know and we can try.

        • BTW, you should see all the crazies in the LGBT going absolutely ape-shit thinking that they are suddenly going to lose all their rights. Same-sex marriage isn't going away any time soon, especially without a constitutional amendment. No more of Bill Clinton's shit Defense of Marriage Act BS defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. The supreme court was very clear that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. And yet, they think that Trump's VP Pence can wave a magic wand and it all dis

  • No text here; subject says it all.
  • Yep. Shame is a powerful tool for individuals and companies. It doesn't work on large swathes of the population. Brexit is a great example of this.

    Similarly to Brexit, the Remain/DNC is partly responsible for the bigots feeling empowered. If you paint one side as just being motivated by bigotry, and ignore all of the other reasons they have for voting the way they did (whether or not those reasons make sense - not the point), and then that side wins - of course the bigots are going to feel powerful. They
  • Well, do you? Does putting on the Big Sombrero that says 'El Presidente' on it magically erase every filthy disgusting thing he said?

    Nope! Ain't gonna happen!

    I didn't vote for either one of them -- because I didn't think, and don't think that either one of them is suited and/or can be trusted to be POTUS. But that doesn't mean I'm OK with Trump winning, either. Unless he's kept on a short leash by the Republican party, he'll screw everything up for everyone, Red or Blue.

    Trust has to be earned, especially in this case, and Donald T

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      There's nothing to worry about, The US os not a dictatorship, There are checks and balances on the president too. He can't just do any crazy shit that he wants.

      • I realize all that. But the Republican party has an arm-long agenda, just like the Democratic Party does, and much of it is Bible-thumping, turn-back-the-calendar-fifty-years (if not farther), dark-ages nuts; note that Pence is a Dominionist, and he's not the only one in D.C., either. They've (the GOP) got the White House and both houses of Congress. There's all sorts of damage they can do, socially, fiscally, environmentally, and you-name-it. That's what I'm really worried about. I don't think Trump is sma

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by JustNiz ( 692889 )

          Yeah I agree. His profound ignorance of issues like global warming is very scary. I was wondering if he wasn't just playing a game to placate the Reps to keep their support while he ran the race, but given his appointment of Myron Ebell to head the EPA its clear he's actually doubled-down on it.
          As someone who supported Trump, I'm still happy he got in, but I always thought he was just the lesser of 2 evils rather than actually a good candidate by any other metric.

        • And the Democrats haven't been doing just as much damage? Trade deals that turn more of the middle class into the lower class. Increasing bogus work visas. Giving the health insurance companies a bigger, perpetual payout than the banks got under Bush. Libya. Syria. Obama's Permanent Kill List (the so-called Disposition Matrix of targets for extrajudicial killing, including US citizens). It was Bill Clinton who reacted to states legalizing same-sex marriages to pass the Defense of Marriage Act, banning sam

    • They are both equally bad in their own ways. However, Trump can be an agent of change just by screwing up the system hard enough that "business as usual" is no longer viable. Both sides will have change forced on them. Really, once they got rid of Bernie, this was the best possible outcome. With the repeal of Obamacare (which is a bigger payoff to the insurance industry than even the bank bailouts, maybe some future administration can bring in single-payer by extending Medicare to everyone.

      As for protectin

  • Good to hear this coming from you. She's down, but not out. She'll be the new Henry Kissinger for the next 20-25 years influencing the next six presidents... Just in time too. He's breathing his last. And remember, the Clintons remain good friends with the Trumps. He'll be calling her for advice.

    • She's out. Two-time loser, no street cred left, ignored her campaign workers the night of her defeat (possibly a 3rd stroke?) And you can be sure that Hillary will hold a grudge. It's what she does. The Secret Service has said she's the worst duty to pull. Trump is more likely to call Obama. They've certainly realized that they need each other, at least for the next few months.
  • Usually an election features at least one likeable candidate. This time, as if nobody actually wanted to win the white house in 2016, both parties managed to nominate extremely flawed and un-likeable candidates. In the end, it wasn't a battle between Hillary and Donald, it was a battle between "Not Donald" and "Not Hillary". This led to the terrible outcome of "Not Hillary" winning, because the very name Clinton is effectively a dog whistle that works conservatives up into a hurricane or anger. I wouldn'

    • No, it wasn't a battle of "unpopularity", or even about Clinton. Well, it was, but not exactly the way you want to believe. This was just another show of party corruption that drives people away and discourages participation, that was made clear in 1968. The only question is if they intentionally threw the election. The liberals are fools to believe the party reflects them. If you want to make any headway you will have to divest yourself from the democratic party. They are regular machine politicians.

      Six mi

      • No. If this was not about Clinton, then Trump would have received far fewer votes. More people who voted for him did so to vote against Hillary than because they actually agreed with him or endorsed anything he said or wanted. Had the democrats picked any other candidate they would have defeated Trump just due to voter apathy, but this time the GOP were given a reason to show up because their least favorite family in the universe was making a grab at returning to 1600 Pennsylvania. Even Pelosi would hav

        • You are evading the issue of the democrat party's corruption, its machine poilitics, under which no 'progressive' or liberal has a chance.

          • Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. No party is perfect. The "third party" parties have their own problems (beyond lack of exposure). But as an insider who has worked his way inside the machine, I can't say the corruption is present at the level of my own state. Perhaps other states were actually rigged to exclude Sanders? I can't answer that one way or the other as I wasn't involved in the national level. From where I sat it just came down to numbers, and Sanders had numbers that were lower.

            • I never said anything about being 'perfect'. That's just part of your evasion of the truth. There's a word for that, but I can't remember what it is. The party is owned by gangsters. This is their history. The democrats are not 'liberal' by any definition of the word, and neither are the majority of people that vote for them. You can believe what you want, but Sanders never had a chance regardless how the vote turned out. Their primaries are always intentionally rigged this way. This is proven fact. You're

              • If you're so sure of that, then you should be working on getting the 55.9% of the eligible voting public to go out and vote. That is more than enough to bring about any candidate you want into any office you want. The dems and reps are splitting less than half the pool of eligible voters, that is a fact.

                You are, for some reason, spending your time here trying to push it the other way. In case you haven't noticed, the number can fall as arbitrarily low as people want (by not showing up) and we still e

                • The dems and reps share over 98% of the people who vote. That is the fact that matters. More eligible people will vote when they are convinced they have a choice, or if they are allowed to voted 'no confidence'. I'm not 'jealous' one way or the other. You are just trying to rationalize your support of a corrupt party. That is your loss, not mine.

                  you're still here just trying to get slashdot readers to give up on voting.

                  And of course you still like to lie about what I advocate. Just part of of your shtick..

                  • The dems and reps share over 98% of the people who vote.

                    I was kinda hoping your fact of the week would come later, though I guess this means I don't need to look for it any longer into the week. Thank you for saving me time on that.

                    That is the fact that matters.

                    Not necessarily. If there was truth to the parties being so collaboratively awful, then it should not be hard to get enough of the non-voting public out to vote to flip the game against the Ds and Rs. After all, you would only need about 28% of the eligible public - just over half of the people who can but choose not to - in orde

                    • If there was truth to the parties being so collaboratively awful, then it should not be hard to get enough of the non-voting public out to vote to flip the game against the Ds and Rs.

                      Mass media has all of you, and them, that their collaboration is just a wild 'conspiracy theory', and that they/you only have the two choices they spoon feed to them/you. I'm in no position to combat that, but it is the truth. 98% of the people that do vote, including you, are simple D or R fanboys. I see no point in trying to

                    • Mouseland

                      It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

                      It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

                      They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got

                    • First, I'll say that I am a big proponent of bringing about a single-payer healthcare system in this country. I have on many occasions here on slashdot expressed my disappointment with the ACA as taking us in the wrong direction. I have on many occasions described the ACA as quite possibly the largest corporate handout in the history of government. I championed for Howard Dean when he was running for the democratic nomination with single-payer as one of his platform issues (my state's caucus did not matt
                    • Which one's the moderate right? There seems to be lots of overlap.
                    • The democrats currently occupy the moderate-right, which is where the GOP was back in the 80s (including Reagan himself). Since then the GOP started marching increasingly further to the right, and the democrats did the same. As many have pointed out, Reagan himself would be kicked out of today's GOP for being too liberal and insufficiently confrontational / hawkish for their liking.

                      Though yes, there is a lot of overlap. The ACA ("Obamacare") fracas will really expose that if they dare to actually pur
  • The 2016 election was determined by about 6 million fewer ballots than the 2012 election, in spite of the total population of the US increasing by around 10 million. Did that many people decide to just stay home for whatever reason (which would be an indication of just awful candidates and voter disinterest)? There are multiple states where the decrease in voter turnout exceeds the number of votes by which Trump beat Clinton.

    • Would any sane person be all that enthusiastic to vote for either one? This was truly an election between the worst of the worst. I know that in elections where I wasn't enthusiastic about any of the candidates (don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other person, tell me why I should vote for you) I either stayed home, spoiled my ballot in a very public fashion (illegal, but f*ck it, it was a really cold day and I was p*ssed at all of them for running negative campaigns), or voted for the incumbent's w

      • I have said more than a couple times here on slashdot that this year I went to caucus and voted for Bernie. I was enthusiastic about his campaign and heart broken when he did not get enough support to win the endorsement. At the convention he did manage to influence the platform in significant ways, but that was not the same as having him on the ballot.

        I was certainly more concerned about protecting (what remains of) our democracy by attempting to stop the election of an egomaniac pathological liar wi
        • I would have considered Cruz far more dangerous. He thinks GOD wanted him to be president, same as many of the other losers. Crazy is dangerous. GOD-crazy is megalomaniac dangerous. YUGE dangerous. Someone needs to build a wall around him and get him to pay for it :-)
          • His pitch was more dangerous, without a doubt. Arguably there was at least as much - if not more - hate in his message than in Trump's. The difference, and why I respect him more, is that his message was at least consistent. We know what Cruz stands for. What does Trump stand for? Trump has held pretty well every position on every issue. Nobody knows what he actually wants to do, and if he has any plans for doing it.

        • You are living in such a bubble of denial. Even if he had a 20 to 1 advantage, Sanders would never get the nom. That fact is a matter of history. The party would put Trump on the ticket first if not for Clinton or Feinstein or whoever fit the mold. The 'platform' is a bunch of pandering bullshit. You are so fished in. Just accept that there is no liberal party of any consequence in the US, and that only an independent has the tiniest chance. Stop with the 'lesser evil' crap. There is no such thing in Americ

          • "Lesser evil?" I think it's fantastic Trump won because that's the only way to stir up enough shit to maybe get some change from the duopoly.

            Now if all the trannies going ape-shit will stop ...they sound like butt-hurt Clinton crybabies. They're still going on about how North Carolina's HB2 bathroom bill is now going to be enforced worse than ever - idiots. HB2 was so rushed (and Democrats also voted for it) that it contains no provisions for enforcement, and no penalties for violation. The cops have said

            • "Lesser evil?"

              Yeah, that's still going to be the democrats' regular guilt trip.. They have learned nothing from this while they continue to blame everyone but themselves for the loss.

              I think it's fantastic Trump won because that's the only way to stir up enough shit to maybe get some change from the duopoly.

              Possible, but not until people stop reelecting 95% of the congress. It really is hardly a 'duopoly'. It's a two faced monopoly, one party rule. At this point, even with Trump, the status quo is alive and

            • I think it's fantastic Trump won

              Of course you do. You're not in the firing line.

              because that's the only way to stir up enough shit to maybe get some change from the duopoly.

              Looking over Trump's coalescing staffing picks, it seems like that's not going anywhere. Or, in other words, that's not shit they're stirring up.

              • I think it's fantastic Trump won

                Of course you do. You're not in the firing line.

                To the contrary, with the US being our closest geographical neighbor and largest trading partner, we're right on the firing line. Better to blame an external foe and all that. There is no other country we share a common land border with.

  • If you weren't a writer I wouldn't point this out: "Her and her husband Bill..."

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close