HRC - "Trump/Sanders capitalized on anger, I beat both, 3rd party ppl are crazy"

[Adam Griffin]

In all likelihood, her quote about "plus, you know, the crazy third party people" was almost certainly referring to the candidates and not the voters, if you care about/actually follow the context of that sentence - and it's totally accurate. I only wish Hillary were so sassy as to imply the alternative.

[Adam Griffin]

In all likelihood, her quote about "plus, you know, the crazy third party people" was almost certainly referring to the candidates and not the voters, if you care about/actually follow the context of that sentence - and it's totally accurate. I only wish Hillary were so sassy as to imply the alternative.

Someone as flawed as Hillary, should not be sh**t*ting on 3rd party people struggling very hard against enormous challenges by calling them "crazy". That is downright insulting especially coming from a fraud.

But anyways you are wrong here. She specifically called 3rd party voters as crazy, not the candidates.

When I mention MSNBC’s hiring of conservatives including George Will, and the New York Times’ new climate-change-skeptic opinion columnist, Bret Stephens, her brow furrows. “Why … would … you … do … that?” she says. “Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It’s clearly a commercial decision. But I don’t think it will work. I mean, they’re laughing on the right at these puny efforts to try to appease people on the right.”

Something tells me English isn't your first language. Allow me to explain:

The sentence structure doesn't make logical sense in the way you and others are implying. Clinton isn't a dunce; she's not Trump and doesn't speak in fragmented thoughts. The purpose of the sentence was to illustrate that Trump did not win the popular vote, nor did he come even close.

Here are two examples of that sentence: which one makes more sense?

"A bunch of people voted for me, plus even more voted for some wackadoos" <-- what she was actually saying
"A bunch of people voted for me, plus there are a bunch of wackadoos in this country" <-- what you and some others imply she's saying

The latter - what you're trying to say she said - is a Trumpian sentence. It crams two unrelated thoughts together into one sentence.

The former - what she actually said - doubles-down on the point she is trying to make ("I got more votes than Donald Trump, and there were in addition millions more who rejected him by voting for an assortment of losers").

[Adam Griffin]

Blah blah blah

I read the full quote when I read the article. I understand fully what was said then, as I do now. You don't. English isn't your native tongue and when combined with your partisan hackery, you're gonna read into it how you wanna read into it.

Nobody with a lick of coherency speaks in sentences like what you're describing. She said "I got more votes than Trump, and even more votes were cast for crazy third party people [candidates]". She didn't say "I got more votes than Trump plus there are crazy people in this country!". Logical sentence structure in the English language applies here. Careful and calculated politicians don't cram unrelated thoughts together in the same sentence. You even acknowledged this (unknowingly) with the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the point was to outline how many votes were not cast for Trump; 66m for her and several million more for the nutty third partiers.

The context is very obvious to anybody not blinded by ideological zeal and determined to write Russian-influenced press releases on this forum constantly. It was obvious to me the moment I read it, but I recognized the ability for spin to be used on the way it was phrased.

[Adam Griffin]

English IS my first language, it is my mother's 1st language. Every book, every paper from school to university to masters, that I have had to read or every examination that I had to take part in, was in English. It is only language in which I can comfortably write. I find it highly insulting that you will resort to such slander & insults based on falsehoods. As someone, who was reading Charles Dickens/Mark Twain from the age of 7 and who has read entire plays of Shakespeare from the age of 12, I find it preposterous that someone like you will question my English language proficiency. I have a small library at my home, a large share of family have a Ph.d & I am a person who has been a part of various literary societies & has written/acted in plays in English. Your attack is deplorable & you should apologize.

No reasonable & honest person will agree with you here. Hillary never said the 3rd party candidates were crazy. She explicitly talks about the total people against Trump -  66M people who voted for her + the crazy 3rd party people (There is nothing in that sentence to say she was referring to the 3rd party candidates as crazy).

I wouldn't accuse of being a Hillary hack, because that's not what this is. This is flat out "Cognitive dissonance". You made a claim which turned out to be total BS. Your thought process now is "If I admit my mistake, it is a personal embarrassment". Hence, you are creating "alternative" explanations & twisting words to suit your theory. (Everyone makes mistakes, I don't get why you are behaving this way).

OK, now I'm even more intrigued. It genuinely wasn't meant as an insult, but...there is no way you write in the manner that you do, have advanced formal education and speak English as your first language. I can see any two of those being true, perhaps, but not all three.

And no, I didn't make a claim "that turned out to be total BS". What I implied in my first reply is what I'm still stating: the structure of the sentence and the natural flow of thought humans have make it far more likely that she meant what I've been saying than what you are claiming. Your claim essentially means that she constructed a sentence made of logical apples and oranges. Again, not difficult stuff:


Initial context: responding to why MSNBC would chase conservative hosts; implying there are more anti-Trump people in this country than pro-Trump people

Correct: "66 million people voted for me [and] several million more voted for crazy third party candidates"
Incorrect: "66 million people voted for me [and] several million third party voters are crazy"

In the former, the first and second portions of the sentence agree with one another logically; akin to subject-verb agreement: a number of people voted for her and an additional number of people voted for other candidates. In the latter, it's a disjointed blurb where b does not follow a.

Clinton is not stupid, and she does not speak like this. The only politician who speaks in fragmented segments like this where b does not follow a is Trump.