DNC Staff: Arrogance Cost Hillary Clinton the Election vs. Donald Trump | The Run 2016 | US News


Arrogance, pride and abuse always have a price to pay. 

Presidents are not Dictators or Rulers 

I honestly don’t think a President Trump will be able to do any of the more controversial or extreme things he promised or said he would do from the campaign trail. He not only has the Democratic Party, the American People and even his own Republican Party that will oppose and fight him from all sides if he tries. 

Even as President, you can’t really do it all yourself, Obama learned that but still tried to ‘Executive Order’ his way past Congressional disapproval into law, being rebuked and rebuffed by the SCOTUS for doing so, his so called Immigration Reform. Presidents are not allowed to make law or create programs. Presidents take a very specific Oath of Office to ‘faithfully execute’, in other words… carry out and enforce the will of the people expressed by Congress in the laws THEY pass.

Presidents don’t rule… they carry out and enforce. If the Dems were really worried about illegal, unconstitutional and Dictatorial actions

(like creating whole cloth programs designed to specifically circumvent and ignore federal immigration laws), 

or Dictatorial ‘inactions’ 

(in refusal to enforce federal immigration laws already on the books) 

… taken by Presidents, they need look no further than the President we have had for the last 8yrs. He’s done plenty of that kind of thing without a peep from the Democrats, because it was their guy and they agreed with him. 

(For kickers… Hillary and the DNC are to blame, not Third Party Candidates or Racism… or the Russians. Watch the Video)

No, I’m not nearly as afraid that a President Trump would be as dangerous and damaging to our country and our freedoms and international relations as a President Hillary Clinton, who has been inching us closer to confrontation with Russia in rhetoric for months and was the architect, along with Obama, of the overthrow of a secular, non threatening Lybia, supporter of the Muslim brotherhood takeover/revolution in Egypt and wanted to overthrow Syria and ended up arming and supporting the Islamic Extremists who became ISIS. 

Constitutional Problems with a President Hillary

From her policies on gun control, which amount to almost complete gutting of the second amendment’s rights for citizens to protect themselves and their families from criminals, to her answers in the Debates regarding how she would consider Supreme Court Nominees… 

not one single word about Constitutional integrity or how they would interpret it, or how the nominee would apply it or the current laws to cases that the court reviews… (by the way that is the constitutional role of the SCOTUS… not to create new laws around congress)

… she didn’t even mention the Constitution that the SCOTUS is supposed to be using as the ‘Supreme Law of the Land’ when reviewing and deciding cases until Trump rebutted her answer.

International Problems…

A President Hillary Clinton would also, almost certainly if she had won, have brought in a majority Democrat House and Senate… not necessarily a bad thing IMO… and had little to no opposition at all to do what she wanted, including going to war in Syria, staying in and expanding our role in Iraq again, staying in Afghanistan, and possibly making good on HER rhetoric of increasing bullying and threats towards Russia as the scapegoat for America and the world finding out what a liar and criminal she and her staff really is due to Wiki Leaked emails.

Economic Problems… continuing our 8 year ‘Non-Recovery’

Aside from all that assumedly completely unopposed damage, she would continue the failed economic policies of the Obama era like…. increasing the National debt and ‘paying for it’ with continued QE… 

Quantitative Easing: ie. printing money out of thin air and borrowing it from the Federal Reserve AT INTEREST! 

No, these people don’t think we have a spending problem… they think we just have a ‘paying for it’ problem. That’s why we have Doubled the debt from just over 9 Trillion Dollars in all the years from George Washington to George W Bush, to 20 Trillion under Obama.

That’s ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS spent ‘paying for’ the economic policies of the Obama Era. A President Hillary Clinton would not have changed any of that. And if she would have, she never gave any indication during the campaign of HOW she would differ with Obama economic policies and change them to ramp down spending and the National debt.

Our unemployment rate right now, they say, is a bit over 4 percent. I don’t see how this is possible with the highest level of employment nonparticipation in the history of the United States. Only 62.8% of America’s workers are working. That’s roughly 94-95 million Americans out of the labor force… the highest in history, and you are really going to tell me that the unemployment rate is ONLY just above 4 percent? Bulls#!t.

They are playing with the numbers. Historically the highest numbers of people and families on food stamps, many more on unemployment than you think, and when their unemployment runs out… highest numbers of americans on Social Security Disability… in history.

Democratic and Obama economic policies have failed and have been destroying our country, they’re just really good at hiding the numbers and redirecting your attention from the damage they’ve done. And a President Hillary Clinton wouldn’t change anything. She would probably increase the spending spree, further killing jobs, small businesses and families.

Looking to the Future with Hope and Gratitude

At 70 years old now, a President Trump will most likely be a one term President. He won’t run for re-election because I think he never really ran originally to be elected, just to take out the Republicans main opposition to Hillary… he was originally just a spoiler. Hillary was supposed to win. It was her turn. But somewhere along the way, the Spoiler and his staff realized that there was a Nation being destroyed and that ‘more of the same’ was more than we could take. The Spoiler became a Candidate, then he became a Challenger, then a Threat, and finally… President Elect of the United States.

Will he bring ‘Balance to the Force’ of Government from the Outside? Who knows… let’s see

He will be hounded by both Major Parties and a good portion of the American People. He will either compromise and work with everyone, or be stifled and stuffed and made impotent and ineffective by the process. Either way, he will be in office only four years. He won’t run again and he won’t do all the damage we think he will.

A Preseident Trump may just be the best opportunity for the rest of us to work together for real Hope and Change that we’ve had in decades. Why not give him a chance? Why not give us all a chance?



40 thoughts on “DNC Staff: Arrogance Cost Hillary Clinton the Election vs. Donald Trump | The Run 2016 | US News

  1. How guilty have you been regarding this spreading and of false news”>? What effect do you think this has on people relying on a kind of gut check ‘trust’ scale regarding particular candidates? How often does one have to hear a blatant factually incorrect claim – repeated by enough people over time on various social media platforms like blogs – to start granting to it some power to influence?

    I am absolutely shocked – and I mean that sincerely – at how trivial, how uncaring, how disregarding, most Americans treat the direct Russian influence in this – in YOUR – American election… a hostile foreign power busy undermining and sabotaging American influence globally, a nation unconcerned with the human cost of physical expansion by military means and economic blackmail used repeatedly against American allies while gaining a dominant role in these regions? Why do you think Trump was used by the Russians? Seriously? Why Trump?

    Nothing else, no other issue, is as geopolitically explosive with historical ramifications as this direct intervention… an intervention used by the Trump campaign to effect MILLIONS of voters about a problematic email issue with hardly any Americans overly much concerned about the SOURCE. This level of geopolitical naivety and political stupidity – and I use that term to mean an astounding lack of intelligence – is the missing requirement no discovered necessary for Russia to either successfully threaten and if necessary militarily act on those threats in Europe.

    Were you even aware, for example, that the week of the American election NATO forces have had to go on high alert and call up an additional 300,00 troops to counter Putin’s latest saber rattling and troop movements in the Baltics? Do you even care? Or do you think a European war is trivial to American global interests?

    Liked by 1 person

        • Absolute and utter bullshit. There is compelling evidence for intelligence intervention by a foreign power bnoth domestically and from Russian governmental sources that you have been completely fooled. In this matter – one that you could help lead to a significant war. You are what Putin himself describes as a useful idiot. That’s who you are serving with your hand waving.


          • lol…that’s rich coming the same agency found guilty of spying on its own citizens.

            Assange Statement on the US Election
            8 November 2016
            By Julian Assange


            The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

            This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

            […] It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

            We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere . . . It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.


            Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

            This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

            The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

            […]The Clinton campaign . . . pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

            In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

            WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.


            Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

            Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.


      • Did you even read it?

        “That investigation also involves numerous officials from the intelligence agencies. Investigators, the officials said, have become increasingly confident, based on the evidence they have uncovered, that Russia’s direct goal is not to support the election of Mr. Trump, as many Democrats have asserted, but rather to disrupt the integrity of the political system and undermine America’s standing in the world more broadly.

        You might want to start here.

        The take-away no matter what the specifics are is that you think this is not a significant problem but an okay means for the Trump campaign to benefit… as long as it paints Hillary in a negative light.

        This is incredibly dangerous for so many people like you to have such back-asswards priorities. You’ve allowed your emotions to control your brain… and put all of us at much greater risk in real life to serve your rationalized partisan stupidity.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I don’t need to paint Hillary in a negative light—she did that all by herself. So your feigned outrage as to the source of the leaked information is irrelevant. And anyone perusing this thread will quickly conclude that you are the one who is being overly dramatic.


          • Is this going to become a standard tactic by you, to divert from the criticism by painting it as something emotional rather than substantive and therefore with little if any merit on that basis? Calling up 300,000 troops is not an emotional fact, Ron, that is somehow less important because you label it as such; it’s simply a fact you are avoiding as a substative demonstration of my points about the danger of maintaining the false equivalency that you think makes a Trump and a Clinton presidency similar.

            You are a fool to maintain this reality-denying equivalency. And such a foolish belief translates into a danger to all of us. Your beliefs matter when acted upon… like pretending there’s a lovely set of clothes on your Little Emperor.

            There isn’t a ‘feigned’ sentiment in my anger and concern that I think is obviously legitimate to be directed towards those who have confused their anti-Clinton beliefs to be accurate depictions of reality. There is nothing ‘feigned’ about my frustration that so many people think this hostile foreign involvement should be trivialized or of little concern by the gullible. Those are not emotive terms I’m using, Ron; they are accurate descriptions of your alternative reality. Waving these criticisms away on the basis of such terms as if too ‘dramatic’ rather than not reasonable for your sensibilities to handle is the tactic of die hard creationists and other reality-denying believers. It is a diversionary tactic with zero substantive merit to consider the merit of the criticisms independent of whoever raises them. That’s why what you’re doing is Denialism 101: ignore reality if it dares to digress from your beliefs.

            You need to change that.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Mrs. Clinton is the one who’s eager to engage in new military conflicts. Calling up 300,000 troops was Obama’s last ditch attempt to divert public attention from the corruption exposed by the leaked emails. I hope President Trump makes good on his promise to have her jailed.


              • You’re determined to be an idiot, I see. The call was from the head of NATO. Not Obama.

                But again, see what you did there? You couldn’t give two shits about the REALITY of a potential European military conflict escalating into real people dying. You only care to vilify Clinton, vilify Obama, and deny anything and everything that competes with your little denialist world that maybe, just maybe, Russian activity in your government during an election may be a slightly more important an issue than carrying pictures of Weiner’s genitalia on a private server. Not to you, of course. You are more than willing to just wave the activities of a foreign hostile government in your leadership election to significant effect, and claim pointing it out and revealing why it’s such a huge issue is just an emotional argument if anyone raises it. But a poor reflection on the idiots that were duped into thinking it’s a non-issue? Deny, deny, deny. Trump gets away with it. Why not you?

                Nice company you keep.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Yes, the call was from the head of NATO, whose directions were received from the Pentagon via strategic headquarters located in Norfolk, Va. In short, NATO is (and always has been) a proxy for advancing U.S. interests abroad.

                And the issue isn’t about Anthony’s wiener. It’s about the fact that a former U.S. Secretary of State used a private server to disseminate classified information and then made light of the issue. It’s also about the fact that the DNC deliberately subverted the democratic process in selecting its nominees. And most important (for me) it’s about the fact that Mrs. Clinton is a warmonger.


              • The most probable reason that someone, not proven that it was the Russian government, was able to hack the DNC email system was that they had a backdoor thru Hillary’s unsecured private server for her emails… Comey said less secure than Google.
                If people can’t understand the danger and position that Hillary put the classified information in, some secret and even top secret, then they are either ignorant of what the federal governments security procedures are meant for or they are the biased ones, not those who couldn’t vote for Hillary with good conscience, not even to vote against trump. I voted for neither.


              • The issue? No, Ron. Emails through a private server is not the issue of importance here. Russian aggression and subverting your political process making so many useful idiots out of the electorate to serve their foreign policy needs is one part of the issue. A large part. You being okay with it (because it’s anti-Hillary even if it is of extremely contrary to your national security interests) is another and all the confirmation I need that you are one because the two are not even in the same ballpark of equivalency.

                Liked by 1 person

              • There is no proof the Russian government had anything whatever to do with the hacked emails. It’s a misdirection. The question is not who hacked, but why they were able to be hacked and what they tell us about Hillary’s corruption and mishandling of secret and top secret classified materials.


              • I see. You know better than the head of Homeland Security. Figures.

                “In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security, the government said the leaked emails that have appeared on a variety of websites “are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

                The emails were posted on the well-known WikiLeaks site and two newer sites, DCLeaks.com and Guccifer 2.0, identified as being associated with Russian intelligence.

                “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the statement said.”

                Oh, who cares, right? You already know that anything that interferes with your belief in the sulfur smell of Clinton must be false.

                Good grief. I am not impressed you are dedicated to your false equivalency. It demonstrates a closed mind.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Sorry tildeb, you are the one who is biased. I’m done discussing this with you. Thanks for the comment. I’m sorry we don’t agree, but I’m OK with that. Can you be?


              • Classified materials being sent and received thru a private server less secure than Google per FBI director Comey, emails that are supposed to be archived and kept available in perpetuity per governmental records laws being wholesale deleted by the tens of thousands to hide and cover up that she was sending and receiving classified info on a private server outside of protocols and even federal laws, none of this is the real issue?
                Either you are incredibly ignorant of the level of information security required at the highest levels of government, or you are being intentionally kind and biased toward Clinton. Either way, as a foreign national, I’d say you and others like you who are heavy Clinton fans and are pissed off at the results of our election have been more guilty of attempting to subvert and influence the outcome during the campaign and after the election tally was done than anything Russian can be proven to have done.
                Please, mind your own store. I wouldn’t dare tell you how to vote or bully or harass you ad nauseum for how you voted in a way I disagreed with in Canadian elections. I’ve done a lot to try to clarify for you my position, and yet all you’ve done is call me names and treat me with utter contempt and irrationality.
                Tildeb, it’s not even your election. Please find a way to deal with the results of our election. It’s not perfect. It’s not pretty. It’s not even what I wanted, but it is what has happened. Throwing a constant tantrum on this post and deriding those who would dare not vote the way you wanted them to is not going to change anything and it won’t do anything to make for respectful conversations.
                Classified materials freely exchanged and able to be hacked because she put them on a private server to avoid scrutiny on government servers and have the freedom to delete what she didn’t want others to see… this is not the issue? You’ve got to be kidding. I won’t be responding to your further comments on this line of reasoning. I’m past it, and so should you be, especially since it’s not your country’s election.


              • ,,, deleted by the tens of thousands to hide and cover up that she was sending and receiving classified info on a private server — this is debatable. She has given reasons for deleting the emails. It depends on who you want to believe.

                From my perspective, it seems tildeb’s primary point is not against Hillary and her private server or the deleted emails. It’s that a foreign government influenced the election. There are many who agree with this, just as there are others (yourself) who feel it’s more about the deletion of Hillary’s emails.

                One other thing that seems rather inconsistent is you say the election was not even what I wanted. Since you didn’t vote for either candidate, how can you make this statement? Unless you wanted Sanders and if so, perhaps you should indicate such.


              • I voted… just not for either of the two major parties. As I see it, this binary, only two major parties, and piting the american public against each other is what has been leading to the every increasing Demonization and ever widening Gulf between a people who should be as diversely represented as they are in society.
                the two party system is to blame for the rhetoric of hate and vitriol that drives us all into just two extreme camps, against each has other. It was not meant to be so. We were not founded this way as a nation.
                I didn’t vote for either Hillary or trump, they both represent the worst our system has to offer. I voted my conscience for a candidate on the ballot that I knew had next to zero chance of actually winning. I didn’t expect my candidate to win. I will not be pushed into voting for someone who I don’t actually support, just to vote against the other guy. That type of drummed up voter manipulation by fear and hatred was used by both sides of the two major party system. It’s fraudulent in my opinion.
                I didn’t get what I wanted. What’s new? In this system, the only people who do are the ones in control of both major parties. Which is really only one system of control and illusion of choice and freedom.


              • But I am a member of a NATO country, KIA, and this makes it my issue, too.

                On the one hand you claim that Clinton was a security threat and therefore unfit for the Presidency. On the other, you absolutely refuse to recognize that Trump IS an ongoing security threat and continue to claim he is deserving of the Presidency.

                You claim emails sent by private servers revealed national security secrets and that this was unpardonable to put such secrets at risk of discovery. On the other, you absolutely refuse to recognize that Trump calling on foreign powers to hack these servers is a treasonous act in itself and using hacked emails for his personal political gain is pardonable.

                On the one hand, you claim Clinton as a potential security for using a private server breach is simply unforgivable. On the other, you forgive the real security breach (and the politicizing of the FBI to serve partisan politics) by Trump.

                Your position is hypocritical because you use a double standard that elevates the non criminal to be a greater crime than the actual criminal activities undertaken.

                You have a demonstrated bias.


              • I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m sorry we disagree. Calling me idiot and biased doesn’t do anything to have any kind of respectful discussion. The email thing is a real problem. It speaks to her judgement, her lack of integrity and corruption, it speaks to her arrogance and temperament. It speaks to her capability to be trusted with highly sensitive, classified information that affects the lives of real people around the globe. I’m sorry you don’t understand that or just chose to ignore it. From two months ago… on CNN no less… before one of the debates… a discussion that may help you understand what is at stake and how important this email thing is. Again, her unsecured server is probably the backdoor that whoever hacked the DNC used to get in. It was Hillary’s fault. It’s much less important who did the hacking than that it was able to be hacked because of how Hillary handled these classified materials, and what they contained. But I will not continue the discussion any further with you, tildeb. If need be, I will close further comments on this post.


      • Canada, but like many multi-generational families mine is mostly divided between our two countries but also Europe and Australia. I have close family in four different states and so my perspective is sourced not only from them and American media but also Canadian with public media and international views.


    • And I’m not biased at all. I didn’t vote for either of them. I think both trump and Clinton are monsters and unfit for the office. But those were the choices our fraudulent two party system gave us. I voted for neither. I wouldn’t vote for Trump but I couldn’t vote for clinton either. You may not believe it, and that’s fine, but she would have been much worse. I’m not going to argue the merits of either of them.


      • You keep raising this point as if it somehow justifies a false equivalency. It doesn’t. It’s a non sequitur. My criticism is that by upholding this false equivalency you are being played a fool, a tool used to divert attention from the real issue here: a not so subtle meddling by a foreign power to disrupt and influence in their favour the election of someone inexperienced, prevaricating on significant historical defense polices, polarizing the voter base to extremes never before seen, able to lie without being held to account, and undermine the European alliance in every important way. In addition, the domestic FBI was used intentionally to give the impression with much public fanfare that one candidate was being investigated for ‘security’ cause (while the other – a person facing significant criminal charges busy undermining the United States with very public and disruptive foreign policy announcements – was not. You think all of this is equivalent. It’s not. It’s so biased that only someone completely duped would think it wasn’t. Remember, Trump already laid the groundwork for disputing the election if he lost.. yet another example of how this candidate and only this candidate was willing to undermine the electoral process itself. But talking heads and many bloggers simply ignore this issue because the results favoured their sympathies.

        You were not only duped but still are, KIA. You are still pretending the results were either not manipulated by a foreign hostile power or the issue isn’t worth your concern. It is. Very much. And you need to pull your head out of your ass and wake up. Stop being such a fool.

        Liked by 1 person

        • No equivalency at all. Theyre both unacceptable, but hillary just has more government corruption experience and baggage. No way I could vote for her, not even to vote against trump. Sorry if you disagree but I’m not going to argue with you on it


          • Trump just appointed Mike Flynn to be national security adviser, a man who has been on the payroll of Turkey during the election specifically to lobby on Erdogan’s behalf, who was paid to stand with Putin for pictures and was a guest of honour at a dinner gala ‘celebrating’ Russian state TV. Now he is to receive full access to all the US’ most highly classified and sensitive security documents.

            But by all means be concerned more about Hillary’s emails – for which no charges have been or ever will be laid because no criminal activity has been uncovered despite the glaring publicity during the announcement that the case was being reviewed – than the influence of hostile foreign powers well documented having direct access through their paid agents at the highest levels of your government.

            Good grief. Your false equivalency has consequences and not the good kind.


  2. I’ve said since months before the Presidential election that the real issue at stake wasn’t about Trump vs Clinton but about foreign manipulation of the American electorate, about how much Russian involvement and American corruption there was throughout the democratic process by intentionally damaging the Clinton campaign actively supported and aided by so-called patriots of the Trump campaign?

    Well, it looks like this issue has legs. And (finally) we’re going to start finding out just how much collusion there was – and continues – between unpatriotic Americans now established in the Administration and their authoritarian handlers in the Kremlin (aka Putin). I predict that this will become far bigger an issue than a mere Watergate scandal. And anyone who was manipulated by the fake news cycle really to affect their vote for or withholding their vote from candidates needs to understand just how complicit they have been in helping to undermine western liberal democracy in their pursuit of their partisanship in national politics.


Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s