13 ms·

> I don't buy the idea that was "experienced", "the most qualified", "a good manager". She was a lawyer, first lady for 8 years, a senator, and secretary of st

by serge2k 10y ago

> I don't buy the idea that was "experienced", "the most qualified", "a good manager". She was a lawyer, first lady for 8 years, a senator, and secretary of state. She's incredibly experienced and qualified. Trump is nothing but lies and corruption. It's hypocritical to whine about Hillary and ignore trump.

rdtsc 10y ago
> It's hypocritical to whine about Hillary I didn't know I was "whining" sorry about that. Will try to keep my tone in check. > and ignore trump. Have you read the rest of the posts? Are you responding to the same comment section in HN? There is a lot of stuff being ignored but Trump is not one of those things. > She's incredibly experienced and qualified. Let's accept that. How do we reconcile the fact that she completely blew this election? With a star team of strategists, Obama behind her, all the financial support, media helping her every single step of the way, even down to passing her debate questions in advance, all that experience. Out of all people she lost to Trump? What happened there?
- sprafa 10y ago
  Trump got debate questions as well. See Megan Kelly. Yes Hillary blew the election. In the end Colin Powell was right - whatever she did right she ruined with hubris
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Can you give a cite for that? I missed that story. The ones I read in Podesta's emails were quite clearly leaked, and then Donna lied about the message being changed by Russia. That was false, because it's DKIM validate and those headers cover the body as well as the headers.
- serge2k 10y ago
  She's dull and kinda unlikeable. She had some good ideas but nothing really exciting. Trump has, in his way, an Obama like gift for getting people excited to vote for him. It makes him look god awful to his opponents, but it gets people to vote.
- dpark 10y ago
  > How do we reconcile the fact that she completely blew this election? We don't reconcile them, because while not unrelated, they also aren't tightly correlated. "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter). Trump is clearly not experienced politically and a large number of people agree that he's not qualified, yet he still won. Experienced and qualified people fail at stuff pretty regularly.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    > Experienced and qualified people fail at stuff pretty regularly. Everyone fails. But this was not a simple tactical fail, this is a strategic type long sequence of failures. > "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter). What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > But this was not a simple tactical fail, this is a strategic type long sequence of failures. Really? Because from what I saw, the biggest failure from Hillary was the email scandal, and of course the failure to actually get elected. I didn't see sequence of failures. If anything, Trump had a much bigger sequence of failures, from the tax leaks, to the Trump University fraud, to belittling a former Miss Universe, to the pussy grabbing comments and more. He got elected nonetheless because he managed to sell a message people wanted to hear. > What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on. Those things are helpful, in the same way that being smart is helpful if you're starting a company. But smart people start failing companies all the time and experienced politicians lose elections all the time, too.
      - rdtsc 10y ago

by serge2k 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago

> It's hypocritical to whine about Hillary I didn't know I was "whining" sorry about that. Will try to keep my tone in check. > and ignore trump. Have you read the rest of the posts? Are you responding to the same comment section in HN? There is a lot of stuff being ignored but Trump is not one of those things. > She's incredibly experienced and qualified. Let's accept that. How do we reconcile the fact that she completely blew this election? With a star team of strategists, Obama behind her, all the financial support, media helping her every single step of the way, even down to passing her debate questions in advance, all that experience. Out of all people she lost to Trump? What happened there?

sprafa 10y ago
Trump got debate questions as well. See Megan Kelly. Yes Hillary blew the election. In the end Colin Powell was right - whatever she did right she ruined with hubris
- Natsu 10y ago
  Can you give a cite for that? I missed that story. The ones I read in Podesta's emails were quite clearly leaked, and then Donna lied about the message being changed by Russia. That was false, because it's DKIM validate and those headers cover the body as well as the headers.
serge2k 10y ago
She's dull and kinda unlikeable. She had some good ideas but nothing really exciting. Trump has, in his way, an Obama like gift for getting people excited to vote for him. It makes him look god awful to his opponents, but it gets people to vote.
dpark 10y ago
> How do we reconcile the fact that she completely blew this election? We don't reconcile them, because while not unrelated, they also aren't tightly correlated. "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter). Trump is clearly not experienced politically and a large number of people agree that he's not qualified, yet he still won. Experienced and qualified people fail at stuff pretty regularly.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > Experienced and qualified people fail at stuff pretty regularly. Everyone fails. But this was not a simple tactical fail, this is a strategic type long sequence of failures. > "Experienced and qualified" don't guarantee success in an election (or anything else for that matter). What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > But this was not a simple tactical fail, this is a strategic type long sequence of failures. Really? Because from what I saw, the biggest failure from Hillary was the email scandal, and of course the failure to actually get elected. I didn't see sequence of failures. If anything, Trump had a much bigger sequence of failures, from the tax leaks, to the Trump University fraud, to belittling a former Miss Universe, to the pussy grabbing comments and more. He got elected nonetheless because he managed to sell a message people wanted to hear. > What good are those things for then? I would imagine such a long experience at being a politician should translate into the ability to manage an election, understanding and communicating the issues to the constituents, seeing what the voters want, and so on. Those things are helpful, in the same way that being smart is helpful if you're starting a company. But smart people start failing companies all the time and experienced politicians lose elections all the time, too.
    - rdtsc 10y ago