We all know what happened, Hillary: you're a loser! Now get over it and give the rest of us a break

'What happened?' is the title of Hillary Clinton's new 464-page book.

The answer, it transpires, is the most whiny, self-pitying, deluded load of literary claptrap written since Kim Kardashian's 'I was empowering women' defense for posting naked bird-flipping selfies.

By the time I'd finished wading through Hillary's absurdly self-indulgent tome, I felt like I'd been lowered into a large vat of violently indignant, furiously self-justifying, boiling mad spittle.

This is the tormented, tragic work of a spurned woman who never thought she could possibly lose to Donald Trump, a man she considered her inferior opponent in every possible way imaginable from intellect and political experience to credibility and popularity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4880156/PIERS-MORGAN-happened-Hillary-loser.html

Can't imagine anyone wanting to read any of this weirdos rantings...

I don't like Hillary, but she's a billion times smarter than Trump the weasel.

Lurker wrote:I don't like Hillary, but she's a billion times smarter than Trump the weasel.

couldn't outsmart him in the elections though

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lurker wrote:I don't like Hillary, but she's a billion times smarter than Trump the weasel.

couldn't outsmart him in the elections though

That was the Russians.  Pussy-grabber is just a minor-league capo.  Putin is now the capo de capos.  

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lurker wrote:I don't like Hillary, but she's a billion times smarter than Trump the weasel.

couldn't outsmart him in the elections though

That's because Russia rigged the election!

Trump is very smart - he didn't need Russia to rig the election - he won because people were sick of the usual candidates .

How did Russia "rig" the election? Could it be Trump won because more people voted for him?

nicko wrote:How did Russia "rig" the election?     Could it be Trump won because more people voted for him?

More people voted for Hitler Nicko, where in 1928 they held 12 seats. How was it that they held 196 in 1933?

More people did not even vote for Trump. As the US system allows for someone based on a national vote to win based locally. Not on numbers overall, but numbers locally. Where a population is very small compared to other states.

Now are you going to claim to me that Hitler never obtain power based off his and Goebbels lies of hate?

If Russia is able to manipulate social media, and other websites. Where as seen they can spread fake news about Clinton being part of a Pedophile gang and even rational people like some posters here buy into this. What effect do you think this has on many Americans?

Granted, Clinton lost because of two factors. One she was useless, but more importantly, the Russians were able to feed social media with more fear on her, than the main media did on Trump. Which shows its more about how people use propaganda as a weapon.

So the question to ask of you here Nicko, and I think Clinton is not fit to be President, but do you seriously think Trump is?

I'm just so thankful Hilary never won - she is very dangerous . My thoughts my views .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I'm just so thankful Hilary never won - she is very dangerous . My thoughts my views .

How can you be thankful of something that has zero effect on your life?

It is your thoughts and views.

Both Clinton and trump are both poor, both corrupt.

Its not even a situation to be happy or thankful about if either obtained power.

Its like being thankful, that Judas instead of Paul, brought about the coming of Christianity.

One a traitor, the other a hateful misogynistic wally.

nicko wrote:How did Russia "rig" the election?     Could it be Trump won because more people voted for him?

Same way the remain side won the referendum

Everyone knows 48 is bigger than 52

Lurker wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

couldn't outsmart him in the elections though

That's because Russia rigged the election!

Well if Clinton is so smart why didn't she get Russia to rig it for her??

No I'm. Not convinced that Clinton is smarter than trump

smelly-bandit wrote:

nicko wrote:How did Russia "rig" the election?     Could it be Trump won because more people voted for him?

Same way the remain side won the referendum

Everyone knows 48 is bigger  than 52

Indeed, so how did Clinton, lose with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%)?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lurker wrote:

That's because Russia rigged the election!

Well if Clinton is so smart why didn't she get Russia to rig  it for her??

No I'm. Not convinced that Clinton is smarter than trump

Well Putin did by having his secret service carry out terrorist acts.

Trump is actually not that smart, as he clearly has left a trail behind him.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Same way the remain side won the referendum

Everyone knows 48 is bigger  than 52

Indeed, so how did Clinton, lose with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%)?

Well quite a few of those who voted for Clinton were either dead or illegal.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Well if Clinton is so smart why didn't she get Russia to rig  it for her??

No I'm. Not convinced that Clinton is smarter than trump

Well Putin did by having his secret service carry out terrorist acts.

Trump is actually not that smart, as he clearly has left a trail behind him.

Obviously not that much h of a trial, the fake news have been trying to follow it for months now and have come up empty

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Indeed, so how did Clinton, lose with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%)?

Well quite a few of those who voted for Clinton were either dead or illegal.

Based on what evidence?

You smoking crack?

How many people live in the US smelly and how is the US election based on?

Is it based on voting for a national winner, or based geographically, based on states to decide and not the most votes overall?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well Putin did by having his secret service carry out terrorist acts.

Trump is actually not that smart, as he clearly has left a trail behind him.

Obviously not that much h of a trial, the fake news have been trying to follow it for months now and have come up empty

So what fake news is this, when its well known that the Russian secret service instigated terrorism, to ensure popularity for Putin?

It's amazing how gullible some people are... the US people voted Trump in... that is all there is to it...!!!


Idiots need to stop crying!

Tommy Monk wrote:It's amazing how gullible some people are... the US people voted Trump in... that is all there is to it...!!!


Idiots need to stop crying!

Nobody is crying but questioning what clearly is a very daft system, based geographically on a national vote for a President. My point would ring true on any previous Presidential election.

I could care less that in this instance Trump has one, but it cease to be Democratic when you base this locally, over that of a national vote. It means people living in less populated areas, can lose overall and have a President win. When that President has the less amount of votes overall.

So in reality, 90 million people who were eligible did not vote for either.

That to me, should have been a vote of no confidence

Less people voted for Trumpton, than they did for Clintonvillle, both idiots.

It means 165 million people did not vote for Trump, when he only managed 62 million other voters?

How is that voting for trump?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Obviously not that much h of a trial, the fake news have been trying to follow it for months now and have come up empty

So what fake news is this, when its well known that the Russian secret service instigated terrorism, to ensure popularity for Putin?

It's so well known that trump got impeached almost straight away

Oh wait......... He hasn't and is Still the POTUS

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Well quite a few of those who voted for Clinton were either dead or illegal.

Based on what evidence?

You smoking crack?

How many people live in the US smelly and how is the US election based on?

Is it based on voting for a national winner, or based geographically, based on states to decide and not the most votes overall?

Still POTUS

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Based on what evidence?

You smoking crack?

How many people live in the US smelly and how is the US election based on?

Is it based on voting for a national winner, or based geographically, based on states to decide and not the most votes overall?

Still POTUS

Indeed he is smelly, but what exactly has he done with that Presidency?

Kind of like saying though that Hitler was still the Fuehrer and that people voted for him.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Still POTUS

Indeed he is smelly, but what exactly has he done with that Presidency?

Kind of like saying though that Hitler was still the Fuehrer and that people voted for him.

Still POTUS

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Indeed he is smelly, but what exactly has he done with that Presidency?

Kind of like saying though that Hitler was still the Fuehrer and that people voted for him.

Still POTUS

For how long?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Still POTUS

For how long?

With Russian backing it should be Another 7.5 years matey

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

For how long?

With Russian backing it should be Another 7.5 years matey

lol, do you see how you just admitted, that Trump needs foreign support and not domestic support?

That he is a mere puppet?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It's amazing how gullible some people are... the US people voted Trump in... that is all there is to it...!!!


Idiots need to stop crying!

Nobody is crying but questioning what clearly is a very daft system, based geographically on a national vote for a President. My point would ring true on any previous Presidential election.

I could care less that in this instance Trump has one, but it cease to be Democratic when you base this locally, over that of a national vote. It means people living in less populated areas, can lose overall and have a President win. When that President has the less amount of votes overall.

So in reality, 90 million people who were eligible did not vote for either.

That to me, should have been a vote of no confidence

Less people voted for Trumpton, than they did for Clintonvillle, both idiots.

It means 165 million people did not vote for Trump, when he only managed 62 million other voters?

How is that voting for trump?

The system is the same as it was last time round, and the time before that and the time before that... and on and on...


And people have the right not to vote if they don't want to... so what has that got to do with anything...?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

With Russian backing it should be Another 7.5 years matey

lol, do you see how you just admitted, that Trump needs foreign support and not domestic support?

That he is a mere puppet?

Still POTUS

The wall is still going up, and crooked Hillary is still going to jail

All your whingeing hasn't changed

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Nobody is crying but questioning what clearly is a very daft system, based geographically on a national vote for a President. My point would ring true on any previous Presidential election.

I could care less that in this instance Trump has one, but it cease to be Democratic when you base this locally, over that of a national vote. It means people living in less populated areas, can lose overall and have a President win. When that President has the less amount of votes overall.

So in reality, 90 million people who were eligible did not vote for either.

That to me, should have been a vote of no confidence

Less people voted for Trumpton, than they did for Clintonvillle, both idiots.

It means 165 million people did not vote for Trump, when he only managed 62 million other voters?

How is that voting for trump?

The system is the same as it was last time round, and the time before that and the time before that... and on and on...


And people have the right not to vote if they don't want to... so what has that got to do with anything...?

So if that system allowed someone with less votes. (I pointed out a historical bases on this and where this has happened before). To vote in someone you disagree with, say like MEP's. Why is it with that system, you claim its unfair and a dictatorship?

Seems to me, you change your argument, based on that voting system, when it favours your political view.

Now, as seen, I have showed its not democratic with a Presidential election. As someone can wing with the least votes. Yet you rightly moan at the EU system not being democratic. Why is it you campaign against one and support the other, when neither are?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The system is the same as it was last time round, and the time before that and the time before that... and on and on...


And people have the right not to vote if they don't want to... so what has that got to do with anything...?

So if that system allowed someone with less votes. (I pointed out a historical bases on this and where this has happened before). To vote in someone you disagree with, say like MEP's. Why is it with that system, you claim its unfair and a dictatorship?

Seems to me, you change your argument, based on that voting system, when it favours your political view.

Now, as seen, I have showed its not democratic with a Presidential election. As someone can wing with the least votes. Yet you rightly moan at the EU system not being democratic. Why is it you campaign against one and support the other, when neither are?

We are only getting with the program didge.

Morally flexible, just like everyone else

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

lol, do you see how you just admitted, that Trump needs foreign support and not domestic support?

That he is a mere puppet?

Still POTUS

The wall is still going up, and crooked Hillary is still going to jail

All your whingeing hasn't changed

Has that wall gone up and how much money will be needed to maintain it?

Israel has a wall does it not?

Why is it now building and spending billions, extending this underground to stop Hamas?

That is your first clue, that this wall, is nothing more than a Trump gimmick.

Israel has a vastly shorter wall to defend and even that is not effective. They have decided to build downwards to rightly deny Hamas.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So if that system allowed someone with less votes. (I pointed out a historical bases on this and where this has happened before). To vote in someone you disagree with, say like MEP's. Why is it with that system, you claim its unfair and a dictatorship?

Seems to me, you change your argument, based on that voting system, when it favours your political view.

Now, as seen, I have showed its not democratic with a Presidential election. As someone can wing with the least votes. Yet you rightly moan at the EU system not being democratic. Why is it you campaign against one and support the other, when neither are?

We are only getting with the program didge.

Morally flexible, just like everyone else

So you admit to being a sheep to one system, whilst berating another exactly the same.

Priceless

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

We are only getting with the program didge.

Morally flexible, just like everyone else

So you admit to being a sheep to one system, whilst berating another exactly the same.

Priceless

You mean the way your Praising the unelected EU but whinging about how trump isn't democratically elected??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you admit to being a sheep to one system, whilst berating another exactly the same.

Priceless

You mean the way your Praising the unelected  EU but whinging about how trump isn't democratically elected??

But are not MEP's also elected?

Did you not vote for UKIP in such elections?

So you agree both do not have the backing, or the majority wish of the people then? In regards to the President of the US and the President of the EU?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The system is the same as it was last time round, and the time before that and the time before that... and on and on...


And people have the right not to vote if they don't want to... so what has that got to do with anything...?

So if that system allowed someone with less votes. (I pointed out a historical bases on this and where this has happened before). To vote in someone you disagree with, say like MEP's. Why is it with that system, you claim its unfair and a dictatorship?

Seems to me, you change your argument, based on that voting system, when it favours your political view.

Now, as seen, I have showed its not democratic with a Presidential election. As someone can wing with the least votes. Yet you rightly moan at the EU system not being democratic. Why is it you campaign against one and support the other, when neither are?

The winner isn't decided on a total of votes overall basis... it is about winning most areas/regions/seats... this can lead to overal votes anomaly because of the vast difference in population in different areas of USA.


Here in UK in recent gen election, Tory increased their votes... but ended up with less seats... it is the way the system works sometimes...!!!

Anyway, back to the point,.

Clinton we know what happened, the trump train ran your fat ass over

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So if that system allowed someone with less votes. (I pointed out a historical bases on this and where this has happened before). To vote in someone you disagree with, say like MEP's. Why is it with that system, you claim its unfair and a dictatorship?

Seems to me, you change your argument, based on that voting system, when it favours your political view.

Now, as seen, I have showed its not democratic with a Presidential election. As someone can wing with the least votes. Yet you rightly moan at the EU system not being democratic. Why is it you campaign against one and support the other, when neither are?

The winner isn't decided on a total of votes overall basis... it is about winning most areas/regions/seats... this can lead to overal votes anomaly because of the vast difference in population in different areas of USA.


Here in UK in recent gen election, Tory increased their votes... but ended up with less seats... it is the way the system works sometimes...!!!

What has areas in the US got to do with voting for a President to lead the United states?

So where do we have a vote based on just a Tory leader and Labour leader to be Prime Minister?

I understood they stand as leader for the own constituency do they not?

So where some areas are so sparsely populated, they can overrule a majority of the people nationwide?

It shows how dumb the Federal system really is does it not based on a nation?

Otherwise Belgium could then be the deciding factor in voting for an EU President could it  not, based on your thinking?

Do you see how both systems are wrong and yet you defend one of them?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So if that system allowed someone with less votes. (I pointed out a historical bases on this and where this has happened before). To vote in someone you disagree with, say like MEP's. Why is it with that system, you claim its unfair and a dictatorship?

Seems to me, you change your argument, based on that voting system, when it favours your political view.

Now, as seen, I have showed its not democratic with a Presidential election. As someone can wing with the least votes. Yet you rightly moan at the EU system not being democratic. Why is it you campaign against one and support the other, when neither are?

The winner isn't decided on a total of votes overall basis... it is about winning most areas/regions/seats... this can lead to overal votes anomaly because of the vast difference in population in different areas of USA.


Here in UK in recent gen election, Tory increased their votes... but ended up with less seats... it is the way the system works sometimes...!!!

In 2015 Tory got 11,334,226 votes which was 36.9% of votes = 331 seats...


In 2017 Tory got 13,669,883 votes which was 42.4% of votes but only 318 seats...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The winner isn't decided on a total of votes overall basis... it is about winning most areas/regions/seats... this can lead to overal votes anomaly because of the vast difference in population in different areas of USA.


Here in UK in recent gen election, Tory increased their votes... but ended up with less seats... it is the way the system works sometimes...!!!

In 2015 Tory got 11,334,226 votes which was 36.9% of votes = 331 seats...


In 2017 Tory got 13,669,883 votes which was 42.4% of votes but only 318 seats...

So what you are saying is that the Presidential election is not based on two people, but two parties, correct?

No...


I think I've been clear in what I've said...!

Tommy Monk wrote:No...


I think I've been clear in what I've said...!

You mean you constantly contradict, dependent on who wins.

Latest Tommy, you just proved how its not the system, but who you like. How you favor something.

Catch you later.

You just (again) proved that you don't know what you're talking about...!

Tommy Monk wrote:You just (again) proved that you don't know what you're talking about...!

Wow, that really put me in my place, just because Tommy said so, failing to even do so.



I really have things to do.

Come up with something that has reason, not Tommy bullshit.

Thank you

I shall expect you to have an answer with reason and evidence next time

Good luck

I've been clear in what I said...


If you can't understand it, then that is your problem!


And showing your stupidity!!!

Clinton won be 3-million votes. But in America the general election is advisory only. The president is chosen by a board of old, predominately white, male people, known as the electoral college.

America was not set up to be, nor was it ever a democracy. Among European-derived peoples, France was the first democracy.

Trump won!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Trump won!!!

You don't win appointments. You are designated.

Trump lost the popular vote by 3-million votes, 10-million votes if you count all contenders. He was appointed by the electoral college.