patronising my *rse ... you don't have to be a pseudo intellectual bleeding heart liberal to be depressed at having a psycho pussy grabber as president. Either introduce an IQ test to disbar brainless freaks from voting or have some jury service element brought into democracy ... old fashioned REPRESENTATIVE democracy is failing, it's being subverted by a conspiracy of evil jokers and morons. I like and respect thoughtful open-minded people from whatever class thy choose to be identified with, but sod democracy - Trumpers should all definitely be shot - not all Brexiteers mind, just most of them

Ok, looking elsewhere it appears the smears bit could be tenuous, but it's a bit wrong in my opinion to claim you're a president for children and women when you're prepared to knowingly defend a guilty child rapist.

With regards to the emails, again, we'll have to wait and see what happens, but it's come out that she instructed her maiden to print classified emails for her [Link] which could spell trouble. She also 'couldn't remember' a lot of things during the investigation [Link] , and now that she's not running for the presidency, the FBI might not be as lenient (the case is still open).

The smear was more than tenuous. It was factually incorrect. She was a public defender who was assigned a case and followed the consitutional right for an individual to have representation. Anything else is just bollocks.

As I said, on the emails I think I have less sympathy. And yes getting the maid to print stuff off (who have never been vetted and I believe the FBI have been obstructed from interviewing) may constitute inappropriate behaviour (illegal?).

HRC was a poor candidate. Her saving grace was meant to be that she was against an even worse one.

Given the turnout in this election was down to 2000 levels and the candidates picked up materially less votes than their predecessors (Trump 2m less than Romney, HRC 6m less than Obama) I think it is fair to say that neither of them come out looking good. But in the end he walks into the WH.

In the long run it may be benefical for the Democrats. Changing demographics still favour them (Texas for example will be in play within the next decade) and they can now try and find a genuinely exciting candidate.

Plus the Donald will likely be frustrated at every turn. He is naturally a socially liberal, despite what he has said. And that the Senate and Congress will block. And he is a fiscal conservative but wants protectionism, which the Senate and Congress will block.

He's going to have to fight to get through his reform packages and in 2 years time the houses may be winnable for the Democrats. Then 2 more years of completely frustrated Trump and a 2020 defeat. In the long run the Republicans have to find a way to win in a new environment. This election defeat was meant to give them the impetus to do that soul searching. Instead they've won and it's the Dems who will go away and regroup.

Edited by OknotOK (09 Nov 2016 4.06pm)

OK, she was a public defender, she was assigned to the case despite her protests.
The Lab lost the only evidence the prosecution had in the case, she laughed in disbelief at that fact they lost the only evidence, says as much on the tape. The Prosecution then approaches her and asks for a plea deal, and despite knowing they have no evidence, she convinces the guy to accept the lesser charge anyway.
You could say she took a child molester off the streets for a couple of years as the prosecution would likely have failed.
Or you can say she cruely defended a child rapist and laughed in the childs face aftwerards, depending on what you really want to believe.