Poor Hillary is exhibiting classic Berlin Bunker syndrome. Moving military units that no longer exist on a map where the front lines no longer match the reality happening on the ground above. She can't accept reality because to do so means accepting defeat. Thus she rejects reality and substitutes her own alternate version. Sad and pathetic at the same time.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Mark Steyn was really having fun with the "Content farms of Macedonia" today when he was filling in for Limbaugh. I'm sure she wasn't listening but Steyn would have made her feel like the imbecile she is should she have been.

"Content farms of Macedonia" would be a neat name for a rock band....

I can't prove it, but I suspect her husband voted for DJT.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
I can't prove it, but I suspect her husband voted for DJT.

Now you know!

This thread reminds me of why I love this place.

The laughing Trump supporter - sheesh, I'm still struggling to breath normally. That is too funny...that was ME the entire day after the election...

"Content Farms of Macedonia" as the name of a rock band...I think I peed a little.

Wah, wah, waaah! stick a pacifier in her mouth.

I'm pretty certain all the blaming started when Putin invaded Korea.

Hillary Lacks Remorse of Conscience

WSJ
By Peggy Noonan
June 1, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET

I don’t want to beat up on Hillary Clinton. She thought she’d win and she lost, embarrassingly, to a man she considered deeply unworthy. At the same time she won the popular vote by 2.9 million. It would take anyone time to absorb these things emotionally and psychologically.

But wow. Her public statements since defeat have been malignant little masterpieces of victimhood-claiming, blame-shifting and unhelpful accusation. They deserve censure.

Last weekend she was the commencement speaker at her alma mater, Wellesley, where she insulted the man who beat her. This Wednesday she was at the 2017 Code Conference, hosted by the Recode website, where she was interviewed by friendly journalists Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. She eagerly offered a comprehensive list of the reasons she lost the 2016 presidential election.


She lost because America is a hopelessly reactionary country in which dark forces fight a constant “rearguard action” to “turn back the clock.” She lost because Republicans are both technologically advanced and underhanded. Democrats, for instance, use data and analytics to target and rouse voters—“better messaging.” Republicans, on the other hand, use “content farms” and make “an enormous investment in falsehoods, fake news, call it what you will.” Democrats “did not engage in false content.” She lost because of the Russians: “Who were they coordinating with, or colluding with?”


She lost because of “voter suppression” and “unaccountable money flowing in against me.” She lost because the Democratic National Committee didn’t help her. “I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean it was bankrupt. . . . Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.”

She lost because FBI Director James Comey told Congress the investigation regarding her email server had been reopened. “So for whatever reason . . . and I can’t look inside the guy’s mind, you know, he dumps that on me on Oct. 28, and I immediately start falling.”

She lost because she was “swimming against a historic tide. It’s very difficult historically to succeed a two-term president of your own party.” She lost because she was “the victim of a very broad assumption that I was going to win.” She lost because the news media ignored her policy positions.

And then there was sexism. “It sort of bleeds into misogyny. And let’s just be honest, you know, people who have . . . a set of expectations about who should be president and what a president looks like, you know, they’re going to be much more skeptical and critical of somebody who doesn’t look like and talk like and sound like everybody else who’s been president. Any you know, President Obama broke that racial barrier, but you know, he’s a very attractive, good-looking man.”

Oh my goodness, how she thinks.

Oddly, she seemed completely sincere, as if she believes her own story. It tells you something about our own power to hypnotize ourselves, to invent reasons that avoid the real reasons. It is a tribute to the power of human denial. And at first you think: I hope it was cathartic. Maybe these are just stories she tells herself to feel better.

But none of this, in truth, is without point. It is purposeful. It is not mere narrative-spinning. It is insisting on alternative facts so that journalists and historians will have to take them into account. It is a monotonous repetition of a certain version of events, which will be amplified, picked up and repeated into the future.

And it’s not true.

The truth is Bernie Sanders destroyed Mrs. Clinton’s chance of winning by almost knocking her off, and in the process revealing her party’s base had changed. Her plodding, charmless, insincere style of campaigning defeated her. Bad decisions in her campaign approach to the battleground states did it; a long history of personal scandals did it; fat Wall Street speeches did it; the Clinton Foundation’s bloat and chicanery did it—and most of all the sense that she ultimately stands for nothing but Hillary did it.

In the campaign book “Shattered,” journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes report they were surprised “when Clintonworld sources started telling us in 2015 that Hillary was still struggling to articulate her motivation for seeking the presidency.” Her campaign was “an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority . . . distorted priorities, and no sense of greater purpose.” “Hillary didn’t have a vision to articulate. And no one else could give one to her.” “Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn’t really have a rationale.”


What is true is that throughout her career Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be largely incapable of honest self-reflection, of pointing the finger, for even a moment, at herself. She is not capable of what in Middle English was called “agenbite of inwit”—remorse of conscience, the self-indictment and implicit growth, that come of taking a serious personal inventory. People are always doing bad things to her, she never does bad things to them. They operate in bad faith, she only in good. They lie and exaggerate, she doesn’t. They are low and partisan, not her. There’s no vast left-wing conspiracy only a right-wing one.

People can see this. It’s part of why she lost.

It is one thing to say, “I take responsibility,” and follow that up with a list of things you believe you got wrong. It’s another thing to say, “I take responsibility,” and then immediately pivot to arguments as to why other people are to blame. “I take responsibility for everything I got wrong, but that’s not why I lost,” is literally what she said Wednesday.

Walt Mossberg asked her about her misjudgments. What about Goldman Sachs ? You were running for president, he said, why did you do those high priced speeches?

“Why do you have Goldman Sachs [at this conference]?” Mrs. Clinton countered.

Mr. Mossberg: “Because they pay us.”

Mrs. Clinton: “They paid me.”

Mr. Mossberg noted they paid her a lot. Hillary replied she speaks to many groups, she had been elected in New York, which includes Wall Street. Then: “Men got paid for the speeches they made. I got paid for the speeches I made.”

The worst part is that she insulted her own country by both stating and implying that America is full of knuckle-dragging, deplorable oafs who are averse to powerful women and would never elect one president. Has she not learned anything? Does she never think Britain had Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and Theresa May now, that Germany has had as its leader Angela Merkel since 2005? Is America really more backward, narrow and hate-filled toward women than those countries? Or was Mrs. Clinton simply the wrong woman, and the wrong candidate?


It would have been helpful if she’d spoken at least of those who’d voted for her and supported her and donated to her campaign precisely because she was a woman.

You should never slander a country that rejected you. Maybe it had its reasons. Maybe her most constructive act now would be to quietly reflect on what they might be.

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
She's like a cat trying to cover a turd on a tile floor.

For the win!

I don't which would be worse. To be Hillary, hooked with Bill Clinton for all the years. Or to be Bill Clinton hooked with Hillary for all the years.

#1 - Thoroughly corrupt unlikeable harpy bitch

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I don't which would be worse. To be Hillary, hooked with Bill Clinton for all the years. Or to be Bill Clinton hooked with Hillary for all the years.

Hillary got the best part of the deal. She would be no one without riding his popularity.

Maybe she's still waiting for her Participation Trophy/Ribbon.

quote:

["]And you know, President Obama broke that racial barrier, but you know, he’s a very attractive, good-looking man.”

Yes, dear, but was he clean? Joe Biden thought he was clean, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

["]And you know, President Obama broke that racial barrier, but you know, he’s a very attractive, good-looking man.”

Yes, dear, but was he clean? Joe Biden thought he was clean, too.

Not just clean, the first one that was clean and articulate.

And the DNC fires back....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/...n-dnc-data-pushback/

Democratic data gurus are lashing out at Hillary Clinton after she complained publicly that her campaign was hamstrung by a party that had out-of-date information on individual voters.

Clinton said Wednesday in an interview with Recode's Kara Swisher that once she became the Democratic nominee, she inherited "nothing." The Democratic National Committee's data, she said, "was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."
Her comments drew swift rebuttals from some Democratic operatives who built, or worked with, that data.
Andrew Therriault, the former DNC director of data science, lashed out in two since-deleted tweets, calling Clinton's comments "f---ing bull----."
"I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense," he said in a message directed to DNC data staffers.

David Radloff, the co-founder of the Democratic data and analytics firm Clarity Campaign Labs, tweeted: "Used DNC data on numerous campaigns this year, well managed, efficient, accurate. Real question is who's feeding Clinton bad info and why??"
John Hagner, a partner at Clarity, added: "I worked with DNC data every day last cycle, on winning Gov races. It was accurate and up-to-date and I'm grateful for their hard work."
Many Democrats noted that Clinton -- just like her opponent Bernie Sanders -- had access to the DNC's data from the outset of her campaign. Therefore, they said, if there was trouble with the data, her staff would have known long before she won the Democratic presidential nomination.
Tom Bonier, the chief executive officer of TargetSmart, a Democratic voter-targeting firm, said in using the DNC's data, the Clinton campaign was "absolutely standing on the shoulders of the Obama data juggernaut. There's just no question."
"I can tell you, having worked with the DNC from the outside over that time period, the DNC not only maintained what was built as part of the Obama 2008 and 2012 campaigns, but they built upon it," he said. "And that meant more staff and that meant better data. They built an in-house analytics team, which they had not had in the past. And they were constantly adding data to the file."
Bonier added: "You can argue about whether or not they were behind Republicans. ... But it's absurd to suggest that any Democratic candidate who was using the DNC data in 2016 was inheriting nothing, as Secretary Clinton said. What they were inheriting was the best data operation the Democratic Party has ever seen."
So what went wrong?
Several Democrats pointed to the Clinton campaign's use of the data in making decisions about which voters to target, where to send the candidate and where to devote its advertising dollars.
That element of the campaign -- analytics -- is built on top of the party-provided data.
Speculating about why Clinton might have complained about the DNC's data, Bonier said: "The modeling's built on data, right, so maybe it's a stone's throw from there where you don't want to blame your own staff who build the models, who told you, you don't need to go to Wisconsin ... so you go a little bit further upstream and say it was the data that that was built upon."
Still, there were elements of Clinton's argument that are difficult to dispute.
Much of her criticism of the DNC was an implicit shot at former President Barack Obama, who many Democrats have complained kept his own campaign's data and analytics housed separately and allowed the party's infrastructure to lapse under former chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's leadership.
The Republican National Committee made improving its data and analytics a priority between 2012 and 2016, erasing the advantage Obama had in previous elections.
Clinton also cited the Trump campaign's use of the controversial GOP firm Cambridge Analytica, which boasts of "psychographic" profiles of voters based heavily on Facebook information.
Clinton's campaign did not hire a similar outside data firm, but she said Cambridge Analytica helped Trump.
"You can believe the hype on how great they were or the hype on how they weren't, but the fact is, they added something," she said.
Tom Perez, the new Democratic National Committee chairman, also complained about the party's data operation in his campaign for the job over the winter. However, when asked on CNN's "Erin Burnett Outfront" on Thursday about Clinton's remarks, Perez said, "There are a lot of reasons for not winning that election."
"We're totally focused on the future of the DNC," he told Burnett. "We're totally focused on building an infrastructure for success."

"We have to up our game at the DNC," he added, noting the organization is "getting back to basics" by investing in organizing, training of candidates and technology.
DNC spokesman Michael Tyler said the party is in the process of overhauling its data and technological operations.
"Tom has said before that the DNC was not firing on all cylinders and that's why he did a top to bottom review that included technology. The DNC is now undergoing an organizational restructuring that will include a new chief technology officer, who will do an in-depth analysis and maintain the party's analytics infrastructure needs," Tyler said in a statement.
"Tom is already deeply engaged with the outpouring of support from Democrats across the country, from Silicon Valley to suburban Georgia, who want to help improve the data and tech, get it in the hands of more organizers everywhere, and build the grass-roots funding stream required to support those efforts."
Clinton's allies say her joint fundraising efforts helped improve the DNC's positioning.
"She was intent on leaving the party in the black," a Clinton associate said Thursday.
Despite her loss, the associate said, she was pleased to leave the party without a debt "and she turned over her email list and her data, something that Bernie Sanders did not do and has not done. Because we've got to have this in one place so people can utilize it."

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Mark Steyn was really having fun with the "Content farms of Macedonia" today when he was filling in for Limbaugh. I'm sure she wasn't listening but Steyn would have made her feel like the imbecile she is should she have been.

"Content farms of Macedonia" would be a neat name for a rock band....

As an aside - though they aren't responsible for Hillary's loss, such places definitely exist, and widespread AstroTurfing and similar fuckery is a big problem online. It's pretty much made all of the common online metrics useless and wholly untrustworthy - whether restaurant reviews, Amazon rankings, Facebook Likes, Reddit comments and votes, etc.

Like this bank of phones in one of them:

[drift]

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

"Content farms of Macedonia" would be a neat name for a rock band....

My go to band name would be "Side Boob"

[/drift]

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I don't which would be worse. To be Hillary, hooked with Bill Clinton for all the years. Or to be Bill Clinton hooked with Hillary for all the years.

They both deserve each other.