As Tony Stark loves to point out, Hillary got 3 million more votes and thats why she should've won.
But that's exactly the reason she SHOULDN'T have won. I'm going to assume for a minute that no illegal voted and every person that voted for Hillary was actually voting for her and not "against Trump". Now when you can have 3 million more people on your side and you still lose, what does that say about you? It says you're a piss poor strategist that simply thinks having the numbers means you don't need to actually do any strategy.
Why is that bad, you ask? There is a saying that how you do one thing is how you do everything.
America has the biggest military. How bad of a screw up would it be to put someone with bad strategy as the commander in chief of the largest military? I mean, if you can't win an election with an overwhelming majority of votes, how can you win a war even with an overwhelming military?
We have a huge economy. How bad of a screw up would it be to assume we will win at trade simply because our economy is larger than the rest of the world? You have to have a strategy or you'll lose.
If it was just this election that proved her bad strategy, you MIGHT be able to sum it up as a fluke, but the fact is, she won the primaries with the most votes in 2008 against Obama, but didn't get the nomination due to bad strategy with not getting the superdelegates on her side. She didn't even learn her lesson in 2008 that getting more votes means squat without a good plan which just further proves she can't learn from her mistakes.
And thats why it's best for America that Hillary didn't win. Even if she did get more votes. Leaders need strategy no matter how big or small their country is and Hillary didn't have a strategy.
And that's why she wasn't qualified to be president.
But that's exactly the reason she SHOULDN'T have won. I'm going to assume for a minute that no illegal voted and every person that voted for Hillary was actually voting for her and not "against Trump". Now when you can have 3 million more people on your side and you still lose, what does that say about you? It says you're a piss poor strategist that simply thinks having the numbers means you don't need to actually do any strategy.
Why is that bad, you ask? There is a saying that how you do one thing is how you do everything.
America has the biggest military. How bad of a screw up would it be to put someone with bad strategy as the commander in chief of the largest military? I mean, if you can't win an election with an overwhelming majority of votes, how can you win a war even with an overwhelming military?
We have a huge economy. How bad of a screw up would it be to assume we will win at trade simply because our economy is larger than the rest of the world? You have to have a strategy or you'll lose.
If it was just this election that proved her bad strategy, you MIGHT be able to sum it up as a fluke, but the fact is, she won the primaries with the most votes in 2008 against Obama, but didn't get the nomination due to bad strategy with not getting the superdelegates on her side. She didn't even learn her lesson in 2008 that getting more votes means squat without a good plan which just further proves she can't learn from her mistakes.
And thats why it's best for America that Hillary didn't win. Even if she did get more votes. Leaders need strategy no matter how big or small their country is and Hillary didn't have a strategy.
And that's why she wasn't qualified to be president.
