What Happened? (Slachtoffer Politics Met Huillary Clinton)

, , Comments Off on What Happened? (Slachtoffer Politics Met Huillary Clinton)


Huillary is back!

En je raadt het nooit?

Maar ze is weer eens stevig aan het huilen.

Leest u even mee?


The Guardian: Hillary Clinton’s new memoir compares Trump’s ‘war on truth’ to Orwell’s 1984.

Hillary Clinton uses her new memoir to draw parallels between Donald Trump’s “war on truth” and the Soviet Union and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

“Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism,” the defeated presidential candidate writes in What Happened, published on Tuesday. “This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered.”

The goal is to make you question logic and and reason and to sow mistrust, Clinton writes. “For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.”

Trump is net als “de Sovjets” en net als “1984”?

Ik dacht dat Trump net als Hitler was?

Trump put-downs
Clinton peppers the book with insults aimed at Trump. These include: “a clear and present danger to the country and the world”; “he’d remade himself from tabloid scoundrel into right-wing crank”; “for Trump, if everyone’s down in the mud with him, then he’s no dirtier than anyone else”; “he had no ideological core apart from his towering self-regard, which blotted out all hope of learning or growing”.

Indrukwekkende woorden waar Trump ongetwijfeld – na het zien van de soundbites op TV (want Trump leest geen boeken red.) – meteen gillend gek van wordt en schuimbekkend over zal tweeten ergens om 3u ‘s morgens een keer.

Bernie Sanders
Clinton also shows little affection for her rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, identifying him as another causal factor in her defeat. “His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign. I don’t know if that bothered Bernie or not.”

Clinton was hammered by both Sanders and Trump over her paid speeches to Wall Street. She admits these were a “mistake”, explaining: “Just because many former government officials have been paid large fees to give speeches, I shouldn’t have assumed it was OK for me to do it. Especially after the financial crisis of 2008-09, I should have realized it would be bad ‘optics’ and stayed away from anything having to do with Wall Street. I didn’t. That’s on me.”

Huillary en Bill waren ordinaire graaiers in Arkansas, ze waren ordinaire graaiers in het Witte Huis en ze zijn nog veel grotere graaiers geworden na Washington.

Het is tevens schattig dat Huillary allerlei problemen met Bernie Sanders heeft.

Volgens mij was het toch de Democratische Partij die samen met haar campagne Bernie Sanders’ campagne om zeep aan het helpen was.

De emails gelekt door WikiLeaks laten weinig ruimte voor verbeelding over.

The Russia factor
The Clinton campaign’s frustration with a lack of media attention toward reported attempts by Moscow to interfere with the race were well-known. But Clinton dedicates a lengthy section not simply to how she and her aides became increasingly aware of Russian efforts, but also to warn that Vladimir Putin has only just scratched the surface.

Clinton attests to sharing a relationship with Putin that has long been “sour”, saying of the Russian president: “Putin doesn’t respect women and despises anyone who stands up to him, so I’m a double problem.”

“Putin doesn’t respect women”?

Hij is er met eentje getrouwd en hij heeft een dochter.

But, she writes, she would not have anticipated the assault that was subsequently waged against her campaign, and the minimizing of Russia’s role behind it.

“This wasn’t the normal rough-and-tumble of politics,” Clinton writes. “This was – there’s no other word for it – war.”

The wounds are reopened with each revelation about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Clinton confessed that she has followed “every twist and turn”.

As one of the young attorneys who worked for the House judiciary committee’s impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon, Clinton advises the Trump-Russia investigation is “much more serious” than Watergate.

Each time a new shoe drops, Clinton can’t help but hear Trump’s infamous words to her in their final debate when she confronted him over his affinity for Putin: “No puppet. You’re the puppet.”

“This man is President of the United States,” Clinton writes, “And no one is happier than Vladimir Putin.”

Okay, doen we even een korte tussenstand.

Het ligt dus allemaal aan Trump want die voerde geen eerlijke campagne over allerlei issues en policies zoals Huillary. Dan is het ook de schuld van Bernie Sanders want die richtte allemaal non defined “schade” aan terwijl Huillary’s campagne team en de top van de Democratische Partij zijn campagne en kansen sloopten. En het lag dus allemaal een beetje aan Putin, want die heeft geen respect voor vrouwen.

Dat hele Wall Street verhaal?

Dat was ‘bad optics’, dus dat ligt dan wel een beetje aan Huillary.

But her emails
Clinton is at her most scathing when she reflects on the coverage of her decision to use a private email server as secretary of state. In a chapter dedicated to what she calls the single most decisive factor in her loss, Clinton envisions a history class, 30 years from now, in which students learn about the election that “brought to power the least experienced, least knowledgeable, least competent President our country has ever had”.

“Something must have gone horribly wrong,” Clinton writes, “then you hear that one issue dominated press coverage and public debate in that race more than any other.”

“‘Climate change?’ you ask. ‘Healthcare?’ ‘No,’ your teacher responds. ‘Emails.’”

Emails waaruit oa bleek dat de top van de Democratische Partij de Sanders’ Campagne aan het slopen was.

The imaginary conversation continues, with students asking if a crime was committed or damage to national security. “‘No and no,’ the teacher replies with a shrug … Sound ridiculous? I agree.”

She ultimately blames FBI director James Comey, who 11 days before the vote told Congress that the agency had uncovered a new stash of Clinton-related emails, as being decisive in her loss. “My team battled serious headwinds to win the popular vote, and if not for the dramatic intervention of the FBI director in the final days, I believe that in spite of everything, we would have won the White House.”


Het ligt ook aan James Comey, die stomme kutlul.

(Het wordt niet helemaal duidelijk of James Comey wel respect for women” heeft red.)

‘On being a woman in politics’

This is the title of a powerful chapter in the book. In it Clinton argues that sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 election. “Exhibit A is that a flagrantly sexist candidate won,” she writes. “A whole lot of people listened to the tape of him bragging about sexually assaulting women, shrugged, and said, ‘He still gets my vote.’”

But Trump did not invent such attitudes, she continues, describing sexism and misogyny as “endemic” in America, pointing as evidence to the YouTube comments or Twitter replies when a woman dares to voice a political opinion. To say it is not easy to be a woman in politics is an understatement, she goes on.

“It can be excruciating, humiliating. The moment a woman steps forward and says, ‘I’m running for office’, it begins: the analysis of her face, her body, her voice, her demeanour; the diminishment of her stature, her ideas, her accomplishments, her integrity.”

En het ligt dus ook aan misogyny en sexism.

Nod Yes Icon

So what happened?
Along with her blunders and Comey, Clinton refuses to bow down to the notion that the election was not about race. When those who voted for Trump listed their top priorities as national security and immigration, Clinton writes, “that’s a polite way of saying many of these voters were worried about people of color – especially blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, threatening their way of life.”

Cautious not to indict all of Trump’s supporters as racist or xenophobic, Clinton nonetheless states: “You had to be deaf to miss the coded language and racially charged resentment powering Trump’s campaign.”

Dus, het lag aan: Putin, Comey, Trump, Twitter, Sanders, WikiLeaks, Facebook, misogynie, sexisme en racisme.


Waar lag het echt aan?

Nou, Huillary won the popular vote. Ze kreeg een paar miljoen stemmen meer dan Trump. Door het krankzinnige Amerikaanse stelsel met “kiesmannen” echter, maakte dat geen ruk uit. In werkelijkheid lag het dus aan het domme electorale systeem van de USA. Waar ik vandaan kom? Daar wint degene die de meeste stemmen krijgt. In de USA niet, vanwege hun domme systeem.

Waarom kreeg Trump zoveel stemmen dat ie kon winnen?

Mensen zijn Huillary en Bill en de Washington insiders helemaal spuug- en spuugzat.

Daarnaast weigerden veel Bernie Sanders stemmers op Huillary te stemmen omdat de Democratische Partij in collusion met haar campagne team zo liep te kloten met de campagne van Bernie Sanders.

Dat zijn de twee voornaamste redenen waarom Huillary verloren heeft.

Iedere gek kan dit zien.

Ik heb de verkiezingen gekeken met mijn – dan net – 11 jarige dochter.

Zelfs die begreep het: Wat een achterlijk systeem van stemmen, Papa.

Die twee voornaamste redenen echter?

Komen niet aan bod in Huillary’s boek: What happened?

De Clintons willen namelijk helemaal niet weten wat er echt gebeurd is.

Huillary kan nog dik 2 jaar die slachtofferrol in en lekker uithuilen bij tal van praatprogramma’s, lectures en andere media events.

Verlies… verdient in dit geval een stuk beter dan winnen.

Nod Yes Icon