Mattyfisk wrote on Oct 17
th, 2017 at 10:19am:
cods wrote on Oct 17
th, 2017 at 9:28am:
I can see her interview made a huge impression on her supporters not a word on it here after 3 pages..
I didnt watch it last night I was hoping to get a run down on how much i missed...and if missing it was a good or bad thing..
You can always download it, dear.
The interview made an impression on me, simply because Hillary confirmed what I'd already assumed.
But she explained it in her own voice - the sheer frustration of trying to get your message through when the Russians have bots posting conspiracy theories on Facebook and Trump's crowds are chanting LOCK HER UP.
How do you address claims like you're part of a paedophile ring that keeps child sex slaves under a pizza parlour?
We know things like this, but what Hillary showed was how aligned the messages were coming from the Trump camp, then popping up on Wikileaks, and then being turned into conspiracy theories and disseminated by the Russians. She never made an accusation, but the inference was that Trump was in on it.
And why wouldn't he be? How could he not be?
Of course Hillary's angry. She should be. This was not a fair election, and the US (and the world) are stuck with a dud leader. At worst, Trump's a danger to the world order.
At best, he's completely inept.
I'm not a Hillary fan or aligned with the Democrats - I'm Australian. But Hillary was clearly the best leader. What Hillary - and the entire world - wonder is why Americans didn't see through the lies.
We certainly did.
2 points
1 its always a sign of weakness to be angry.
when i was 12 i thought angry people were really powerful and i thought anger was a sign of strength.
by 17 , i recognised it as a sign of weakness.
you always want to stay in control. its far more impressive
2 . trump is inept?
thats simply not going to fly.
you have to be pretty darn smart to be a successful property developer over a long period of time.
you have to have a pretty rare set of skills to be a reality TV star over a long period of time
you have to be pretty darn smart to know how to talk to a crowd and read a crowd and get yourself elected president of the USA.
i'd say he must have a bloody high IQ and a bloody high EQ and is a very very rare talent. do you think he just keeps getting lucky? i dont think so .
you may think he's evil or manipulative or whatever.
but when the left start calling him "inept"...i mean, the facts speak for themselves.
i'd actually say Clinton had to be pretty darn inept to lose an election to a guy who should have zero appeal to 90 % of voters.