0
()
submitted a long while ago by @ to c/@
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 104 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Two things can be true at the same time.

  1. She is a target of mysgonstic flavored consisparcy theories.

  2. She truly is unlikeable with half measure policies while being woefully out of touch with the average person.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago
  1. She is / was 100x more qualified than Trump.

  2. American voters are idiots.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 26 points 2 months ago

It's easy to be more qualified than totally unqualified. She was the obvious choice, but her total lack of charisma to voters destroyed that.

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

The worst part is that more people voted for her, just not where it counts because she couldn't be bothered to campaign there

[-] Makhno@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

Yeah, cause she's an elitist piece of shit, which makes her unqualified to anyone with a fuckin brain.

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Still more qualified than the woefully unqualified, elitist trash that is Trump. Lol

[-] Makhno@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that Dem shills are dumb as fuck too, just not blatantly malicious like Republicans

Ok, but she got more votes across the nation in a nationwide election for a Federal job, so...?

[-] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago

As shitty as this sounds, does it matter whether or not she won the popular vote if that was not the metric for winning?

She, a career politician, should know that and her strategy was lacking.

Oh, for sure, she should have had a better strategy. I don't disagree that she ran a terrible campaign. But OP said "more people voted for her" despite her bad strategy, which is true and frankly should have been a national point of months of protests. But instead, the person I responded to implied it doesn't matter because she's [insert stereotypical Clinton hate vomit].

It does matter. She did get more votes. That is in fact a fairer and more just way of representing a national vote for a national/Federal position. We all know there's an electoral college. But there absolutely shouldn't be because it inherently counts some votes as more valuable than others, which is frankly incompatible with democracy. So yes, that definitely matters.

[-] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

I agree with you, i just meant it in a plain cause and effect sort of way. It doesn’t matter in the sense that it is not a metric that matters for determining the outcome in the election, just an indicator of popularity.

Also, makhno said that she didn’t campaign in key states because of her elitism, and that attitude makes her less qualified. They didn’t say that it didn’t matter because of it.

Democracy, in the American sense, is a scam, and at the presidential level it’s the same mechanism from the ground up, full of antidemocratic mechanisms.

[-] Makhno@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Cause people are idiots...?

And she stole the election from Bernie..?

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago
  1. She should have run on a platform that was better than "What else are you going to do, vote for Trump?"
[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago
  1. She shouldn't have pushed trump as the pied Piper candidate in the first place.
[-] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

And yet, unelectable!

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

She's from the Chicago suburbs, fuck that entitled bitch.

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)

0 readers
0 users here now

founded a long while ago