Clinton says: 'Fight for our values'

Fight for our values? What values ?

We have many values, it's just they just conflict with each other. Some place their values in making money, others place values in quality of life, other place values in religious beliefs and so on.

"It is still the place where anyone can beat the odds.”

Which she managed to do in an amazing fashion.

If during the campaign Trump had told his followers to "fight for their values", I am certain that the opposition would have condemned it as a call for violence.

Already a has been. Even with the might Dems machine and President and cash she couldn't win the election. she should go back to being a lawyer - suits her.

Rhetoric of this sort using "fight" and "values" as the key words only invite trouble for any society, including our host country.

The word and concept of values is an extremely vague and indefinite, diverse and contradictory subject and a word that touches upon everything from dreams, ideals, morals, ethics and laws as well as personal preferences that automatically invites and opens conflict/s within a person and among people. . When the word fight is introduced it invites that conflict to become open and physical to a point of actual physical violence.

It is an extremely dangerous rhetoric to use especially when the [population she is addressing is extremely emotional, irrational and unstable right after an election due to the uncertainly that exists. She is in fact calling for riots.

That is exactly what is NOT needed during transition. Should Major rioting become nationwide and widespread, that can become an excuse for and open up an opportunity for the current president to actually call for Martial law.

We do NOT want her talking like that at all. We don't want to give the current administration that opportunity to turn the election around by declaring Martial law. If an actual war starts, the current president may even continue to keep power.

What an impossible and inhuman person she is. She is using and playing her supporters and others who are dissatisfied with not just Trump but their own lives.

To what end... that is the question...

kazetetsukai, agreed.

The reason she lost is because she can and could not explain her "values" and why she/it wanted to be president. She wanted to be president just because she wanted to be president. She couldn't care less about anyone except herself.

Go away Hillary. Just go away.

“Believe in our country, fight for our values and never, ever give up.”

Says the lady who has never owned a business but has a combined $111. million net worth.

“For the sake of our children, and our families and our country, I ask you to stay engaged, stay engaged on every level,” Clinton said.

What a weasel.

for sure, hillary would you please just dissapear?

If you listen to what she said, her emphasis has been as reported, "Fight for your values and never ever give up." That is unless the media "chose" to use and emphasize only those words to promote their agenda.

The timing and place of her speech was for "defense" for the Children and not her political position or for politicizing the need to "fight for" some undefined values and "never" give up. It would have been relative and meaningful if she had said that one should never give up the defense for defenseless children.

The rest of her speech are window-dressing to "sound" good and "appear" to be a loyal and caring American looking for sympathy from the public, possibly "covering" for and avoiding the many investigation still going on regarding her personal as well as political activities.

So the question still is... to what end? For whose benefit?

The beauty of democracy, it stops people like this from building a dynasty out of her family.

I think her advice applies to every US citizen. Just appears that the GOP was better at it on Nov 8th. While I am uncomfortable with the term "fight", it is used commonly in a non-violent way and in sports.

I don't think that my, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump's values are THAT different. We are probably 90% similar, maybe more. But on the 10% which are different, oh boy.

Look at the bright side, Madame Secretary. You can go back to the Clinton Foundation and fight for what you value.

We do NOT want her talking like that at all. We don't want to give the current administration that opportunity to turn the election around by declaring Martial law. If an actual war starts, the current president may even continue to keep power.

Wha-?! There are limits to what is reasonably plausible; your statement falls far short of them.

You can go back to the Clinton Foundation and fight for what you value.

This I'm sure she can do so that impoverished and neglected people can receive aid. Meanwhile, GWB watercolors portraits of himself in the shower.

theFuNOV. 17, 2016 - 06:00PM JST I think her advice applies to every US citizen. Just appears that the GOP was better at it on Nov 8th.

Yeah. The straight white male supremacists just wanted it more.

"Fight for our values"

Yeah, we're fighting now to have our laws apply to everyone, including Hillary Above The Law Clinton. Trrump's election was a big step foward in this regard. Stay tuned.

"Clinton, a former secretary of state, won the popular vote"

This is interesting:

Here are the latest popular vote totals for the 2016 presidential election according to a spreadsheet compiled by Dave Wasserman and Cook Political Report:

Clinton: 62,568,373 Trump: 61,336,159

If you removed only California’s popular votes from the total, this is the result you would get, as of November 16:

Clinton: 55,889,446 Trump: 57,760,819

Thanks a lot, California, lol.

If you removed only California’s popular votes from the total, this is the result you would get, as of November 16:

Yeah, and Clinton's popular vote lead will only rise as mail-in votes are counted. Pretty hilarious, isn't it?

A few Chinese students lingered after class tonight to as me about "Calxit" - the idea that California will secede. I said that it's an interesting mental game but that it will never happen. I also mentioned, though, the overwhelming power California has on America - that the state itself basically equals the power of the presidency. Trump will realize this when he runs face-first into it. In addition, we have a fresh face in our new senator, Kamala Harris, who will replace the aging Barbara Boxer - she's young but experienced and very talented; some mention her as presidential material (we'll see).

One thing is certain: California will not take the Trump presidency sitting down, and anyone who underestimates the power of our great state does so at their own peril.

And keep this in mind - Hillary won all 55 of California's electoral votes and all 29 of New York's electoral votes and she STILL LOST the Electoral College! Even with President Obama's support, Michelle Obama's support, the media's support, Lady Gaga's support, Bruce Springsteen's support... some Republicans' support... Bernie Sanders' support ... whoops!

Oh my...

OBAMA TO PARDON HILLARY CLINTON: Trump Will Pardon Julian Assange. Trump Will Indict Hillary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTjhLBq9wY&t=5s

Serrano - Clinton won Trump's hometown! Didn't he campaign there - or maybe they're too acquainted with him. Also, if Texas didn't exist, Clinton would have won both the popular and electoral votes. These games can go on forever.

You've youtubed about a Clinton pardon before, and as before, I say that it will not happen. Check the archives to save wasted panting.

She will try again for next election.

A few Chinese students lingered after class tonight to as me about "Calxit" - the idea that California will secede.

I think they should join Canada. They have more shared values with Canada than the flyover states.

She will try again for next election.

I hope not.

American values: you work and earn your keep. Those aren't Clinton's values.

"Clinton won Trump's hometown! "

Good grief, the last time a Republican won New York was Reagan's landslide in 1984,

"You've youtubed about a Clinton pardon before, and as before, I say that it will not happen"

You really think Obama won't pardon Hillary? You realize that if that be the case, she goes to prison, right?

"She will try again for next election."

If she does, it could be from a prison cell,but no, even she's not that stupid.

Looks like the democrat led welfare mentality is being seen in all it's degenerative splendor.

You really think Obama won't pardon Hillary? You realize that if that be the case, she goes to prison, right?

As I mentioned before, Hillary is from the old school of American patriots. She would rather be jailed than cause a miscarriage of American values - and Trump knows this. If he goes after her, he loses no matter what happens.

More worrying for Trump is whether he'll make it through his own presidency without being impeached. The bookies are somewhat divided - and he's not even begun the first of the 75 lawsuits pending against him (not to mention his inauguration - if he makes it that far).

There have been times this past week when all I wanted to do was just to curl up with a good book or our dogs, and never leave the house again -- article

Considering the shellacking she received last week, Mrs. Bill Clinton should have heeded her own advice over a year ago. . . .

Hillary: "America is still the greatest country in the world..."

Even after 8 years of Obama, lol..

"it is still the place where anyone can beat the odds.”

As evidenced by Trump's victory, as the odds sure were stacked against him.

Hillary also had the support of Cher, who said she would leave the planet if Trump won, here it is more than a week after the election, and she's still polluting the planet, what gives?

What gives with Trump's insistence on appointing his son-in-law to a position in his cabinet? Anti-nepotism laws clearly forbid this, and the last thing Trump needs is more legal trouble (he's begging the judge he slurred as a "Mexican" to put off testimony in the Trump University case as it is), but despite this, it looks like he's intent on going ahead with it.

It appears that Trump is not mentally clear, and that he thus needs a family caretaker to look after him. This issue is further clouded by the supposed firewall he'd claimed to set up between him and his businesses. Serious legal issues afoot here.

What gives with Trump's insistence on appointing his son-in-law to a position in his cabinet? Anti-nepotism laws clearly forbid this -- comment

Actually, precedent does allow him to do it. . . .

After JFK appointed his brother attorney general, Congress passed a law which states:

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

So, yes, there is precedence, but that precedes this law. The overriding question, though, is why Trump is so intent on getting family help. Someday, this will be clarified.

Boxer already prepared an agenda to change and. It will be first discussion of coming Senate. discussion.

I think Hillary will be candidate again in 2020. She will not give up.

Would still prefer Hillary over Trump any day. At least you know what you're getting with Hillary. Experience and knowledge of politics. With Trump it really is a case of Russian roulette.

Considering the shellacking she received last week, Mrs. Bill Clinton should have heeded her own advice over a year ago. . . .

You mean that 'shellacking' where she got more votes than her opponent?

As evidenced by Trump's victory, as the odds sure were stacked against him.

The odds and the votes of the people!

Hillary received more votes than Trump. She is the choice of the people for their President -- yet what we get is the LOSER.

Hillary's hour-long temper tantrum when it was clear she was losing on election night, cursing and throwing objects at staff, sending Podesta out to tell her supporters 'go home, it's getting late, we'll check the count tomorrow', reports that such tantrums are just standard operating procedure for her ... Goes a long way toward explaining the shell-shocked faces on her staff from time to time, must be Stockholm Syndrome.

Clintonian values include trying to rig every situation they encounter from every conceivable direction. Suspenders AND belt AND roofer's rig. Foiled this time by the electoral college!

You mean that 'shellacking' where she got more votes than her opponent?

You need to work on your math. Trump received 306 votes while Hillary ended up with just 232. That adds up to a humiliating defeat for her. By the way, the results turned out to be a complete shock for Hillary as she was convinced she was up by 50 percentage points just a few weeks before election day! Anyone up for Hillary 2020? You know what they say, third times the charm!

One other interesting factoid. Although the counting still continues, House Republicans have received 3 million more overall votes than Democrats. That margin adds up to a Republican lead of 238 to 193 in the lower chamber.

You just cant keep a bad one down. annhilated in the election, both houses handed on a plate to the republicans, but back comes hillary telling us what we should be doing. 2020? With her ego and complete lack of shame I wouldnt be surprised if she runs again!

Hillary's hour-long temper tantrum when it was clear she was losing on election night

More conspiracy theories: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-had-drunken-meltdown-after-losing-the-election/

You need to work on your math. Trump received 306 votes while Hillary ended up with just 232.

You mean only 538 people voted in the election? I thought it was over 100 million people.

Oh wait, I get it! You're talking about electoral college votes! Yeah, Trump got more of those.

But more people voted for Hillary.

hillarys political career is destroyed. shes gonna take her "popular vote" and settle into her place as a minor footnote in history.

annhilated in the election

You mean that 'annihilation' where she got more votes than her opponent?

shes gonna take her "popular vote" and settle into her place as a minor footnote in history.

With her career, it's hardly a minor footnote. But that said, it's time for the RNC to look forward towards a new candidate for 2020.

yes, annhilated.

Hmm, did the meaning of 'annihilated' suddenly change to 'being more popular than your opponent' when I wasn't looking?

Or is this another case of Republican self-delusion?

Oh yeah, and did you hear that one about Trump protestors being hired through craigslist?

Or about that time a certain Republican poster here tried to claim that they don't live in a fact-free bubble, then went on to claim that I said a Hillary victory was inevitable, even though my comments saying the opposite were on record?

You mean only 538 people voted in the election? I thought it was over 100 million people.

Ok I get it. You don't understand the American system of government. I recommend you read the US Constitution. It's all explained in there for those confused by the difference between a Constitutional republic and a pure democracy. I suspect there wouldn't be this confusion had the shoe been on the other foot.

If the rules were to get the majority of the national vote I suspect the strategy of both campaigns would have been drastically different. The problem Democrats have is that their supporters are prone to segregate themselves into major cities. An interesting fact I heard the other day - fully one third of all Democrats in Congress are from three places, California, New York, or Massachusetts. It's no wonder they are out of touch with such a large part of the country.

You don't understand the American system of government.

Oh I get it fine. The president is chosen by the electoral vote, which is why Trump, who got less votes than Clinton, will be president.

Or in other words, Clinton was actually more popular than Trump, but still lost the election.

It's a fairly easy concept to understand.

Wolfpack, thanks. Hopefully that will put to rest the rather pathetic attempts by certain parties here to somehow try to claim victory feor hillary from what is in fact a stunning and utter defeat. Youd think theyd take a hint from hillary herself who has not used this "popular vote" arguement at all as she knows just how ridiculous it would make her look.

Hopefully that will put to rest the rather pathetic attempts by certain parties here to somehow try to claim victory feor hillary

Who is doing that? Hillary lost fair and square. The election is not decided based upon who gets more votes (for the record: Hillary), but rather who gets more electoral college votes.

a stunning and utter defeat.

Stunning and utter defeat requires not just winning electoral college votes, but actually getting more votes. The more accurate description would be a lackluster and barebones win (for the winner of course).

Youd think theyd take a hint from hillary herself who has not used this "popular vote" arguement at all as she knows just how ridiculous it would make her look.

How does getting more votes look ridiculous?

Or in other words, Clinton was actually more popular than Trump, but still lost the election.

Well I guess we should congratulate Hillary on her inexplicable strategy to run up the popular vote while losing the electoral college and the presidency. Good job Mrs. Clinton... what an amazing accomplishment. Now go enjoy your retirement.

Well I guess we should congratulate Hillary on her inexplicable strategy to run up the popular vote while losing the electoral college and the presidency

I don't know why you would think that was her strategy. She wanted to win the electoral college, and win the presidency. Unfortunately she didn't.

But, she did get more votes than Trump, and was more popular with the people than he was.

Clinton: 62,568,373 Trump: 61,336,159

The popular vote is irrelevant, as America is not a direct democracy.

A better set of figures to go by is campaign contributions and spending.

Hillary spent about $240 million on advertising, Trump spent less than $70 million. In many of the "battleground states", Hillary spent vastly more, $22 million in Florida, vs only $290 thousand by Trump. Despite Hillary's heavy spending, she still lost Florida, and pretty much very battleground state (where she spent three to five times as much).

One of the more refreshing things about this campaign was that for once, it was not about the money, and the candidate with the most money did not win.

Yeah. The straight white male supremacists just wanted it more.

I guess the 53% of women who voted for Trump don't count? You seem to not understand that it was the independent vote which won Trump the election, as it did for Obama. It is the independent vote which decides all American elections, and this narrow group of people is not at all white, racist, homophobic, or take your pick, it was the same group which put Obama into power, for gods sake.

And I guess that when Bernie said that immigration was costing working Americans their jobs, it wasn't seen as a racist or xenophobic remark because Bernie is a diehard socialist?

The reason that Trump won and Hillary lost is because the democrat party abandoned the working class, which used to be their largest constituency. The democrat party promised jobs, good salaries, and job security to these people, and has not delivered on any of these promises. Worse yet, this group of people whom the democrat party used to call the backbone of America are now called "morons," and "people without university degrees."

The democrat party is not a party of the working class, it is the party of power and wealth, And it has acquired that power and wealth mainly at the expense of the working class. The CEO's of the top banks are democrats, the CEO's of most of Silicon Valley's companies are democrats, the CEO's of Hollywood's studios are democrats. The richest people in America, and indeed, the world, are democrats. A great deal of the money borrowed and spent by the federal government doesn't get directly to the people, much of it goes to this elite liberal class. Elon Musk is a billionaire, but fully half of his net worth has come in the form of government subsidies. Few people are going to spend money on a new Tesla unless they get the $4k to $7k state rebate which is always shown on a Tesla's window sticker. As anyone with a little experience in the Washington are will tell you, the government does not tax the rich to help the poor, it taxes everyone to help itself and those who donate to campaigns.

The people have said "enough", and would have elected Bozo the clown over Hillary. Hillary was not a champion for anything but enriching herself and her family. She uttered the empty promises that her party (and the other) has uttered for decades, not thinking that anyone would look at her track record and notice her record of failures. Her platform was built in social issues which do not affect the great majority of Americans, who see jobs, decent salaries, and opportunities for their children as the most important issues.

Strangerland: More conspiracy theories: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-had-drunken-meltdown-after-losing-the-election/

No use citing Snopes, for reasons stated at least a few times.

In this case:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-had-drunken-meltdown-after-losing-the-election/

Nov 15, 2016 ... according to radio host Todd Kincannon. “CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained,” tweeted Kincannon. ...

The only source for the story, and versions being shared on other unreliable sites, are the tweets of Todd Kincannon ...

But ...

https://spectator.org/where-was-hillary/

Where Was Hillary? - R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. - November 14, 2016

Ever since the early hours of Wednesday November 9, skeptical minds have been musing over what happened to Hillary and her concession speech. She was supposed to deliver it shortly after it was apparent she had lost on Tuesday evening. She was going to speak. No, she was not ready. Then it was coming Wednesday morning. No, it would be put off for a while. She supposedly was very gracious in talking to Donald Trump later that night, but was still not ready to concede publicly until late Wednesday morning. ...

Sources have told The American Spectator that on Tuesday night, after Hillary realized she had lost, she went into a rage. Secret Service officers told at least one source that she began yelling, screaming obscenities, and pounding furniture. She picked up objects and threw them at attendants and staff. She was in an uncontrollable rage. Her aides could not allow her to come out in public. It would take her hours to calm down. As has been reported for years, her violent temper got the best of her. Talk about having a temperament ill-suited for having access to the atomic bomb. So Podesta went out and gave his aimless speech. ...

Let's look at some numbers, re Snopes' comment "The only source for the story".

"R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr." is not "Todd Kincannon".

"Secret Service officers" from Tyrrell's report are not a "CNN reporter".

Likewise, articles reporting Kincannon's tweets make no mention of Secret Service officers as the source for Kincannon's "CNN reporter"..

The Nov. 14th report from Tyrrell was certainly available to Snopes before their 'debunking' was posted on Nov. 15th, and if Snopes somehow managed to avert their eyes and avoid any googling of Tyrrell's story whatsoever, it's now Nov. 17th and they've had an additional two days to update their story.

(Hint: 2 sources is not equal to 1 source.)

Keep slurpin' that Snopes, tho. It's like an Everlasting Gobstopper.

sangetsu, good info. Im sure it will be ignored by, er, certain people , and the popular vote myth will be pedaled ad nauseum.

One of the more refreshing things about this campaign was that for once, it was not about the money, and the candidate with the most money did not win.

Well, for twice. The Republicans spent significantly more in 2012, and lost then. So this isn't the first time.

No use citing Snopes, for reasons stated at least a few times.

They cite things, and back up their reasoning with evidence. To anyone who is able to differentiate between BS and realism, snopes is a valid resource. I can understand how you would want to discredit them though, seeing as they disprove about 80% of the things post. Since you can't actually counter their points, you would rather discredit them as a source.

Sources have told The American Spectator that on Tuesday night, after Hillary realized she had lost, she went into a rage.

The thing about 'sources', is that it cannot be confirmed.

Maybe you didn't hear, but sources have said that 22 million of Trump's votes were by people who voted twice.

the popular vote myth will be pedaled ad nauseum.

Myth? No, it's fact. Hillary was more popular than Trump, although that's not how the president is chosen.

But she did get more votes than Trump.

Remember the first vast right-wing conspiracy where she claimed Monica Lewinsky's accusations were lies and the work of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Remember how her books show she knew the truth all along.

sfjp, oh no, dont destroy the "progressives" illusions by telling the truth!

"But she did get more votes than Trump."

Thanks, California, lol.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is saying Obama should pardon Clinton...

During the election: Hillary did nothing wrong.

After the election: Hillary needs to be pardoned.

Normal people: If she did nothing wrong, why does she need to be pardoned?

Strangerland: They cite things, and back up their reasoning with evidence. To anyone who is able to differentiate between BS and realism, snopes is a valid resource. I can understand how you would want to discredit them though, seeing as they disprove about 80% of the things post. Since you can't actually counter their points, you would rather discredit them as a source.

Really? I "can't actually counter their points"? From what I can tell, every time I've countered one of your Snopes links, showing what they got wrong or what they conveniently left out (including this very instance), at some point you stop posting about the content and either post some vague distraction like this post (with nothing to dispute my point), or stop posting on the topic altogether.