Time for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to Move On

[pcfixup]

At which time the bottle-neck will have been passed and it's full throttle towards the total demise of this nation. In less than a generation, the majority of major cities in this country will resemble Detroit, as there will be little done in the way of building and improvements.
The tax base for the country will diminish further as there will be more money going out than what will be going into the government coffers.
Additionally, the Snowflake generation will then be in power, and with their complete lack of vision and motivation, no one will care one way or the other about what goes on around them. It will be the perfect opportunity for nations such as Russia or China to simply walk in and take over.

I think the third world war will have wiped out the world population by then.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Maybe so but its hard to keep quiet when you see what a train wreck we have in the white house.

And Her Entitleness can take the lion's share of credit for that one, too.

I mean, I can understand how an outsider can win a party nomination when he has 16 other opponents. Similar things happened when Carter beat out 11 other candidates mostly splitting the liberal vote in 1976 (Carter, in fact, was the most centrist candidate in the race, with G Wallace and Lloyd Bentsen and Henry Jackson angling off to what was then the 'conservative' side of the Democratic Party) and when Dukakis' good fortune saw Dick Gephardt and Al Gore split the moderate/conservative white voters while Jesse Jackson collared the black vote in 1988. Once it came down to Dukakis-Jackson, Mike beat him like a drum. So I actually do find it difficult to rip the GOP for following the rules before the race began (it's a fair criticism that maybe they should have a super delegate scheme). Any lucky centrist with a big name, money, and opposition dividing similar voters (Cruz-Rubio) can collar enough delegates to win.

But there should have been no way on this planet that any candidate managed to somehow LOSE to Donald Trump in a one-on-one race over a period of six months where he was exposed as a charlatan that would say anything to anyone and with the recording of what Trump said......much less the so-called 'most qualified ever' to seek the office (which is still one of the best jokes of the campaign not named Trump). I mean, I gave Trump no chance even with her high 'untrustworthy' numbers.

There's a lot of blame to go around for the fact Trump is the President, but a LOT of it falls on his opponent, too.


One more note on that: I was reading yesterday about one aide to HRC saying she's haunted that her "legacy" being that she lost to Trump. Somehow, losing to Obama was okay but losing to Trump has fractured her outsized ego. But here's the truth: her name will simply be the answer to a trivia question of 'who was the first female nominee for President of a major American political party?'

After all of us who lived through it pass on, the simple truth is that most people won't remember her at all other than for that trivia game. Despite the assumptions of a few of the left-wing dingbats on social media, there simply is not going to be this revisiting of "what if Hillary had prevented Trump from getting elected" (or whatever variant you prefer). It's simply not going to happen. Okay, a few people like Tidewater (and his imitators) will make assessments of the time.


But the simple truth is this: one hundred years from now, Barack Obama will have dozens of 'books' (whatever we're using then) written about his Presidency. Bill Clinton will have many books written about him. Donald Trump will have books written about him, the jury still being out on what precisely is examined in those books.

Hillary Clinton will not. The simple truth is that once we're three to four generations removed from the people who lived during the 2016 election, the loser of any election is pretty much forgotten. Other than actual history buffs - and without looking - who lost to Harding in 1920?

Nobody remembers. Even the losers of controversial elections are rarely remembered. THAT is what bothers her more than "the candidate who lost to Trump" - the lack of immortality.


And the biggest irony yet of last year's election? The guy who won keeps running and acting as though he lost while the one who lost keeps acting as though she won.

 

[pcfixup]

Hillary Clinton will not. The simple truth is that once we're three to four generations removed from the people who lived during the 2016 election, the loser of any election is pretty much forgotten. Other than actual history buffs - and without looking - who lost to Harding in 1920?

Hilliary will be remembered as the closet lesbian who helped begin the restoration of patricharchy!