Will Hillary become president after recount?

[Tiassa]

Part the Second

Oh I get it now, but I was not saying that or anything like that. Only that most of his voters ignored his bigotry, supremacism and bullying and merely wanted to fuck over the "establishment", but hey we will find out, if you're right then in 4 years, if he has done nothing he promised or worse implements all the most racists and bigoted things he promised like the great wall of trump (which he has already downgraded to a fence), Muslims registry, and immigrant dea/ I mean "happy camps", then they will elect him again. Of course we could run Hillary Clinton again then he will win either way.

This gets to the heart of what has me so damn annoyed in general.

They didn't ignore the bigotry and supremacism and bullying; they reveled in it.

Is it that you want to exonerate them for personal sympathy, for existential sympathy, or for anti-Hillary sympathy? That is to say, are you shocked and appalled and feeling sorry for them, to the one; actually sympathizing with cause, to the other; or just looking for more self-satisfaction in someone having stopped Her?

Because letting them off the hook is how we empower them.

Yeah strange right. A black guy gets elected, twice! And yet now all the racists come out of the woodworks to vote? I would have thought they would have come out in mass to stop the black guy. Hmmm maybe there are other reasons they elected Trump, eeh?

They couldn't. Not with John McCain. Not with Mitt Romney. But a gaslighting sexual assailant versus the prospect of the first woman president?

You should probably also take a look at recent history. Conservatives went nuts. Frank Rich↱, for instance, circa 2010:

If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House―topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman―would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver―none of them major Democratic players in the health care push―received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.​

The perpetual intersection of supremacism with all these other concerns is obvious.

Eleven point eight. That's the number. In 2009, the best efforts to get information about or answers from House Republicans pertaining Birtherism suggsted eleven point eight percent of the House Republican Caucus (twenty-one of one hundred seventy-eight) backed the Birther line. Republicans just nominated and elected a Birther. That part is still pretty consistent.

Republicans will back cops shooting unarmed black people but aid and abet armed white people threatening to kill law enforcement.

I mean, seriously, this stuff has been scorching us in recent years.

Oh no he is not even president yet, just wait, our punishment is coming and yes the followers will be devoured first, but their suffering will be shorter than ours.

You really think his followers will blame him? On what evidence do you base this projection?

Well technically more riots before might have helped, now it is utterly useless, what would have been more helpful would have been more people showing up to vote, turnout was lower than 2012, and way lower than 2008, almost like we were running two of the most disliked candidates against each other. eeh? Had we had an inspiring candidate that people liked, to counter trump, the outcome would likely have been different.

The turnout canard is wearing thin. 2008: 129,446,839 votes total, 69m+ for historic winner (first black president). 2012: 126,849,299 votes total, 65,915,795 for winner. 2016: 134,265,339 votes total, 64,654,483 for loser, 62,418,820 for winner, 7,192,036 for others.

George W. Bush won 2004 with less votes than Donald Trump, taking 62,040,610 of 121,070,610 votes. He won 2000, despite losing the popular vote, 50,456,002 from all of 101,455,899 total votes.

Remember Bill? In '96 he won forty-seven million votes out of less than ninety-five million. He took just under forty-five million in '92, out of 103m+.

Additionally, depending on who and when we might have asked, voter turnout was either a twenty year-low (53.5%) or on par with 2012 (58%), and in the long term isn't so bad for the U.S. The vote turnout argument, just like the bit about historically unpopular candidates, is merely an excuse.

LOL! Had we paid attention to voters we would not have run Hillary Clinton!

Oh, for ....

No, seriously: Really?

If that was a jab aimed at me, what conspiracist identity?

You're the one legitimizing dishonesty.

I certainly did not win this election, not my president candidate, nor local candidates (thanks to the down ballot depression of low democrat turn out for Hillary) won.

Again, check the numbers. Look, man, whatever your damn problem is, you're just embarrassing yourself when you subordinate your narrative to irrationalism. Seriously, you're the guy who can talk about losing the primary when you want to tout your wisdom, but can't resist the chance to take a shot at Hillary Clinton so you turn around and claim voters picked another nominee. You're the one who's just fine with believing an acknowledged smear campaign just because it targets some woman you don't like. Try dealing with reality. True, it's a lot less gratifying in those moments of gnashing, sweaty fantasy, but you know, at least you're not ranting like a conservative.

But I will take an congratulation for "I told you so".

Priorities are as priorities do. This is yours.
____________________

Notes:

Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 28 March 2010. NYTimes.com. 29 November 2016. http://nyti.ms/1HH6NRf

Rosenberg, Paul. "We don't have 'two historically unpopular candidates': What the media gets wrong about candidate popularity". Salon. 6 October 2016. Salon.com. 29 November 2016. http://bit.ly/2e19pGd

―Fin―​

 

[Bells]

So you seem to think people are smart and consistent? This election will be a hard lesson learned for idiots, many will refuse to learn, only become more delusional and blame everyone but themselves.

You contradict yourself repeatedly in this post and this is just the start.

What is consistently clear is that for a large portion of those voters, it wasn't just the economy as it was about ensuring their small minded bigotry were protected for many of them.

People in these small poverty stricken towns were not even discussing the economy or healthcare. They were more concerned about things like gay marriage, LGBT rights, rights for minorities, Islam, Obama being a Muslim, etc.. They deliberately chose to vote against their economic best interest, to re-instate their bigoted world views.

Yes it is, I fail to see that is evidence against my argument. They think republicans are going to implement BETTER healthcare, because they are stupid, they think big bad government is what causes all their economic problems.

Read the articles.

Healthcare did not even come up in their reasons to vote for Trump. Listen to what they are saying..

"To be honest with you, a lot of folks in Owsley County went to the polls and voted against gay marriage and abortion, and as a result, I'm afraid they voted away their health insurance," Turner said. "Which was their right to do, I guess. But it's sad. Many people here signed up with Kynect, and it's helped them, it's been an absolute blessing."

The community's largest-circulation newspaper, the Three Forks Tradition in Beattyville, did not say much about Kynect ahead of the election. Instead, its editorials roasted Obama and Hillary Clinton, gay marriage, Islam, "liberal race peddlers," "liberal media," black criminals and "the radical Black Lives Matter movement."

"The people I talk to, health care wasn't even mentioned," said Gary Cornett, chairman of the Owsley County Republican Party. "In Southeast Kentucky, the social issues are important. We're a small, traditional, tight-knit community, and there are certain ways we do things."​

Take note.. Healthcare was not even something they mentioned or discussed. All they cared about was their bigotry and they supported the candidate they felt would protect and enshrine their bigotry into law. The very people for whom the economy should have been what they were voting for, the very people who need Obamacare more than others, deliberately chose to disregard the fact that they were supporting candidated who would end their access to healthcare, because they are more concerned about their bigotry.

You keep demanding that they were voting for the economy. They weren't. They don't give a hoot about integrity because they support Trump, a person who was clearly shown to have no integrity whatsoever. These people desperately need access to medical care and they came out in force and chose to vote against access to healthcare because they care more about gays not being allowed to marry and against black people having equal rights. This is literally what they are telling you.

So why do you choose to completely disregard it and them?

Yes many are bigots, are multiple congruent factors beyond you? The question is why did we win in 2008 and 2012?

Because the candidates the GOP put forth did not energise 'the base'. In other words, they were not right wing enough to get them out to vote.

Where were all these bigots then? Clearly they did not vote, voted for obama or others came out and countered their vote then, why did they not do that this time?

They didn't vote for Obama. They simply did not turn out to vote because McCain and Romney were too liberal for them. McCain and Romney did not pander enough to their bigoted viewpoints, did not swing so far to the right as to praise their bigotry and hatred.

Well 1) We ran a LOSER candidate, 2) They rallied stronger this time, but what could rally a butch of racist stronger than a black man running for president, twice, clearly it can't simply be racism.

You didn't run a "loser" candidate. You ran a candidate that was falsely maligned like she was some kind of monster. The reasons why they didn't turn out to vote for McCain and Romney are well documented. It is why Romney tried to pander to the evangelical ultra-right Christian factions just before the election, but he was still not 'right' enough for them to support. McCain was considered a "rino" for many and far too liberal.

They rallied stronger this time because they had a candidate that literally and willingly drove himself down to their level to pander their racist fears, who fed the racist narrative about Muslims and African Americans and Latino's, who fed their bigotry against LGBT and everyone who is not like them. From an economic standpoint, he lied to them (blue collar workers) and told them that everything would be like it was before. It won't be.

That is why little towns like those in Kentucky did not care about their access to healthcare, did not even discuss or mention it, because they were too busy railing against what they deem to be "liberal" and left wing policies like gay marriage, equality for minorities, etc.

The Democrats could have run any candidate and these people would still have turned out in droves to vote for a candidate that supported their bigoted standpoint.

Well multiple factors rallied them: the regressive left, wanting "real" change, economic stagnation resulting in scapegoating immigrants, scapegoating political corruption, etc, etc.

And you are still ignoring what these people are actually saying.

They don't want "real change". They want to go back to the 1960's. That's the dream they were sold by Trump and they fell for it with their slack jaws and arms wide open. They voted for how things used to be, not just economically, but socially. Listen to what they are saying.

Lessons for us to learn: Don't run a candidate the republicans have decades of dirt on, that has FBI investigations, that the public hates and feels untrustworthy. Focus on economic improvements for the labor class, do not focus on issues that most people don't give a fuck about and that rallies our opponents.

You contradicted yourself.. Again.. The Republicans ran a smear campaign against her lasting years and it was based on lies. Your election cycle was hijacked by the GOP's smears and mischaracterisations. What? You think Bernie would have won? They would have wiped the floor with him. Every single "socialist" ideal that Bernie espoused in their opinion, would have been demonised.

Once more, listen to what these people who voted for Trump are telling you.

They are literally telling you that what mattered more to them were social issues like marriage equality, etc. This is what they deliberately chose to vote against, even if that meant voting against their economic best interest.

Stop ignoring the writing on the wall that they put there in giant letters. These voters were energised by a candidate who spoke their language and spoke it directly to them. The only way the Democrats could have garnered their votes was to abandon every policy they have about things like marriage equality, racial discrimination, a woman's right to choose, fair and equal treatment and embraced policies that appeal to these people. They are literally telling you that this is what made them vote as they did.

 

[Kittamaru]

All said and done... as terrible as it seems... I can't wait for the generation(s) that hold onto these bigoted ideals to die off - maybe it's just the cross sample I've seen, but it seems that, for the most part, the current generation of young adults (30 and under) are generally more concerned about basic dignity and human rights than they are about "well that guy is sticking his pee pee in another guy that's wrong EWWW get rid of him!". It seems to be the old farts hanging onto their racism and anger... and sadly, I don't think the political entity will improve until said old farts aren't around to vote like-minded people into power...

 

[ElectricFetus]

This gets to the heart of what has me so damn annoyed in general.

They didn't ignore the bigotry and supremacism and bullying; they reveled in it.

Is it that you want to exonerate them for personal sympathy, for existential sympathy, or for anti-Hillary sympathy? That is to say, are you shocked and appalled and feeling sorry for them, to the one; actually sympathizing with cause, to the other; or just looking for more self-satisfaction in someone having stopped Her?

What are you talking about? All I want is for us to win next time, jeez.

Because letting them off the hook is how we empower them.

We have four years now in which we can poke and stab and jeer at how they got swindled by a talking pig boar. Hopefully they won't vote trump next time, or at least not vote at all or maybe even vote for our candidate, which ever, what is important now is we strategize and figure out how to win. But what is your strategy? Just keep calling them racist and sexist, how has that been working? Oh that right we got President Trump with that, thanks!

They couldn't. Not with John McCain. Not with Mitt Romney. But a gaslighting sexual assailant versus the prospect of the first woman president?

Imagine it was reversed, imagine this would be the first election of a male president, and that man's name is Richard Nixon, do you think I would be overjoyed to vote for the first male president? Even if it was Nixon verse Kim Kardashian I think I would have to seriously consider voting kardashian. You really do not understand how much Hillary is despised, there is reason 53% of white women voted trump instead of her. Yes of course she does not deserve all that hate, but the world is not fair, had we run Warren our chances of victory would have been much better.

You should probably also take a look at recent history. Conservatives went nuts. Frank Rich↱, for instance, circa 2010:

If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House―topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman―would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver―none of them major Democratic players in the health care push―received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.​

The perpetual intersection of supremacism with all these other concerns is obvious.

Oh so who won the presidency in 2012?

Eleven point eight. That's the number. In 2009, the best efforts to get information about or answers from House Republicans pertaining Birtherism suggsted eleven point eight percent of the House Republican Caucus (twenty-one of one hundred seventy-eight) backed the Birther line. Republicans just nominated and elected a Birther. That part is still pretty consistent.

Republicans will back cops shooting unarmed black people but aid and abet armed white people threatening to kill law enforcement.

I mean, seriously, this stuff has been scorching us in recent years.

Yeah and? This is new behavior for republicans?

You really think his followers will blame him? On what evidence do you base this projection?

Do you remember Bush Jr? Today it is hard to find a republican that openly says that war was a good idea, Trump ran on the war was wrong, retract the milltiary and make nato pay, isolationist stance, and he won handly in the primaries with that, his raping of Jeb Bush over the issue comes to mind.

It will all be a matter of how undeniable Trumps fuck-ups will be.

The turnout canard is wearing thin. 2008: 129,446,839 votes total, 69m+ for historic winner (first black president). 2012: 126,849,299 votes total, 65,915,795 for winner. 2016: 134,265,339 votes total, 64,654,483 for loser, 62,418,820 for winner, 7,192,036 for others.

Yeah it is called the political pendulum, after 8 years of a democrat president, the people seeing little improvement in their lives wanted to try something new, and horrible.

George W. Bush won 2004 with less votes than Donald Trump, taking 62,040,610 of 121,070,610 votes. He won 2000, despite losing the popular vote, 50,456,002 from all of 101,455,899 total votes.

Remember Bill? In '96 he won forty-seven million votes out of less than ninety-five million. He took just under forty-five million in '92, out of 103m+.

And what was the population then?

Additionally, depending on who and when we might have asked, voter turnout was either a twenty year-low (53.5%) or on par with 2012 (58%), and in the long term isn't so bad for the U.S. The vote turnout argument, just like the bit about historically unpopular candidates, is merely an excuse.

This election 54.0% of the voting age population voted, verse 54.9% in 2012 and 58.2% in 2008, 56.7% in 2004, 51.2% for 2000. So really have to go back to Gore verse Mush to get less turnout.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php
http://www.electproject.org/2016g

Oh, for ....

No, seriously: Really?

Yes really.

You're the one legitimizing dishonesty.

No reality legitimized dishonesty, who won? Trump won, Hillary could not even beat trump, had it been cruz or rubio she would have been utterly trampled! If you can't accept the obvious truth that their tactics won, that their smear won, I can't help you.

Again, check the numbers. Look, man, whatever your damn problem is, you're just embarrassing yourself when you subordinate your narrative to irrationalism.

narrative? irrationalism? What is irrational about determining how we fucked up and how we can win next time? How is that a narrative, is everything a story... oh god are we in Westworld???

Seriously, you're the guy who can talk about losing the primary when you want to tout your wisdom, but can't resist the chance to take a shot at Hillary Clinton so you turn around and claim voters picked another nominee.

Yeah because she lost, who is our president now? Donald Fucking Trump! You better believe I'm going to take shots at everyone that help make that happen.

You're the one who's just fine with believing an acknowledged smear campaign just because it targets some woman you don't like.

Because the smear campaigns WORKED! I can't snap my fingers and make millions of people not believe the smear, the best I could do was advocate and vote for running different candidates, and not enough others listened, and the result is President Trump. If I state that bullets kill, would you say I'm acknowledging bullets? No I'm acknowledging facts, the fact is Hillary Clinton lost to the most disgusting creature to ever run for president, clearly Hillary had very unelectable flaws, real or perceived by the voting populace, that hampered her to the extent of losing to that thing.

Try dealing with reality. True, it's a lot less gratifying in those moments of gnashing, sweaty fantasy, but you know

No you deal with reality, we got President Trump, deal with it! How do we not have him for 8 years should the the question, what is your strategy to not have 8 years of trump? "the racist won we are doom" is not a strategy.

at least you're not ranting like a conservative.

I don't smoke and don't eat meat, I guess that means I'm like Hitler too?

 

[iceaura]

But what is your strategy? Just keep calling them racist and sexist, how has that been working?

The Clinton team strategy and major media approach? It won the popular vote.

As far as me, or anybody like me, analyzing politics, it hasn't had any visible effect on any Trump voter. Certainly the Trump voters haven't been paying any attention - even the ones here, who might actually encounter it, don't seem to have bothered.

What is irrational about determining how we fucked up and how we can win next time?

Nothing. Why don't you quit namecalling and screwing around, and give that a shot? Because right now there isn't nearly as much "we" as you seem to think. You're dumping everybody like me, and everybody on the Clinton bandwagon (ignored economics, called people "racist"), and everybody who uses the word "racism" when talking about the influence of racism on US politics, and the core Republican voter: who's left in your "we" there?

No I'm acknowledging facts, the fact is Hillary Clinton lost to the most disgusting creature to ever run for president, clearly Hillary had very unelectable flaws, real or perceived by the voting populace, that hampered her to the extent of losing to that thing.

Other than being a rightwing authoritarian politician and major obstacle to the left and libertarian agenda (which is only a flaw from the point of view of me and people like me), the main flaw Clinton had, compared with Trump, was being targeted by lies and slanders - how do you propose to prevent the next candidate from being targeted by lies and slanders?

You really do not understand how much Hillary is despised, there is reason 53% of white women voted trump instead of her.

Clinton had a better than 60% approval rating when she left the State Department. She was one of the most popular national politicians in the country. What do you think happened?

Yeah because she lost, who is our president now? Donald Fucking Trump! You better believe I'm going to take shots at everyone that help make that happen

Did you check out the mirror? Because you don't seem to have realized what happened, and if that's how you were talking to undecided voters your cluelessness probably cost Clinton a few votes.

Meanwhile, one major and immediate concern of those who don't want to see a repeat of Trump as there was with Reagan and W, is the voter suppression and whatever is going oddly and unidirectionally wrong with the voting machine tallies in the swing States. This is a pretty good chance to get something done about that, a problem hanging over our heads since 2000. We can piggyback in on the recount.

 

[Tiassa]

What are you talking about? All I want is for us to win next time, jeez.

Then perhaps dealing with reality might help.

We have four years now in which we can poke and stab and jeer at how they got swindled by a talking pig boar. Hopefully they won't vote trump next time, or at least not vote at all or maybe even vote for our candidate, which ever, what is important now is we strategize and figure out how to win. But what is your strategy? Just keep calling them racist and sexist, how has that been working? Oh that right we got President Trump with that, thanks!

No, that's not the whole of it. However, one of the first questions is whether or not to coddle bigotry, and the answer on that pretty much remains no. You, on the other hand, seem to think collaboration, support, legitimization, will help find a compromise point with them.

And it won't.

Imagine it was reversed, imagine this would be the first election of a male president, and that man's name is Richard Nixon, do you think I would be overjoyed to vote for the first male president? Even if it was Nixon verse Kim Kardashian I think I would have to seriously consider voting kardashian. You really do not understand how much Hillary is despised, there is reason 53% of white women voted trump instead of her. Yes of course she does not deserve all that hate, but the world is not fair, had we run Warren our chances of victory would have been much better.

I wonder what the large text, there, was (size=6, bold).

You really do not understand how dangerous it is for you to go around legitimizing these people. Then again, we had an episode like this a while ago, when you were pretending to arbitrarily rearrange philosophy because why not. It is not surprising you show such similar flexibility again.

And, yeah, you know, finding some way to force Elizabeth Warren to run would have been great optics.

To the other, no: Imagine you had to vote for a criminal. No. Because nobody can force you to vote for a criminal. It's just like asking you to vote for someone you desperately and irrationally want to believe is a criminal despite the lack of evidence? You know, dude, screw that. There is nothing respectable about your argument.

Oh so who won the presidency in 2012?

Do you actually have a point?

Yeah and? This is new behavior for republicans?

No, really, do you actually have a point, or is changing subjects in a desperate attempt to keep your extraordinarily terrible behavior going all you're capable of?

We can say it wasn't new behavior but a sharp escalation. Or we could try to say there was some new behavior in there.

Do you remember Bush Jr? Today it is hard to find a republican that openly says that war was a good idea, Trump ran on the war was wrong, retract the milltiary and make nato pay, isolationist stance, and he won handly in the primaries with that, his raping of Jeb Bush over the issue comes to mind.

Do you remember Bush Jr.? Today, eight years after his presidency, it might be harder to find a Republican who blah blah blah than it should, but in the moment, despite his lies and betrayals, Americans re-elected him.

It will all be a matter of how undeniable Trumps fuck-ups will be.

What do you think constitutes "undeniable"?

Yeah it is called the political pendulum, after 8 years of a democrat president, the people seeing little improvement in their lives wanted to try something new, and horrible.

That's not the political pendulum.

And what was the population then?

This is an interesting bit: I provided voter turnout numbers, and you corrected them with older, less accurate numbers based on outdated projections. What's really weird, though, is that you went to the point of skipping the voter turnout number in order to ask the question, and then you answered yourself with a bogus number.

Yes really.

Alright. Now we know you're trolling:

• Then Bernie jumped in and was getting all this attention and enthusiasm and individual donors, so I voted for him, well I lost the primary ....

• Had we paid attention to voters we would not have run Hillary Clinton!​

Within the course of the same post↑, you managed to take those two opposite stances. As I already noted, you're the guy who can talk about losing the primary when you want to tout your wisdom, but can't resist the chance to take a shot at Hillary Clinton so you turn around and claim voters picked another nominee.

No reality legitimized dishonesty, who won?

Hillary Clinton, by well over two million votes, in excess of one and a half percent. That is, when you get right down to the actual raw numbers.

Trump won, Hillary could not even beat trump, had it been cruz or rubio she would have been utterly trampled! If you can't accept the obvious truth that their tactics won, that their smear won, I can't help you.

Well, I'm not going to be abolishing the Electoral College anytime soon without a serious nationwide discussion of states rights, first, but other than that, if you can't accept that Hillary Clinton won more votes than Donald Trump, I can't help you.

The obvious truth is that the smear campaign wasn't enough to tip the popular vote.

narrative? irrationalism? What is irrational about determining how we fucked up and how we can win next time? How is that a narrative, is everything a story... oh god are we in Westworld???

Nothing is irrational about determining how we fucked up. But if we do it according to your irrational demands, we won't accomplish anything. The amount you need us to recalibrate reality is the problem with your narrative. That is, the story you're telling eventually makes sense ... if we change enough of the facts.

Yeah because she lost, who is our president now? Donald Fucking Trump! You better believe I'm going to take shots at everyone that help make that happen.

Starting with the person who won the popular vote, it seems.

Because the smear campaigns WORKED! I can't snap my fingers and make millions of people not believe the smear ...

You could at least have the basic human decency to not deliberately reinforce and support the smear.

... the best I could do was advocate and vote for running different candidates, and not enough others listened, and the result is President Trump. If I state that bullets kill, would you say I'm acknowledging bullets? No I'm acknowledging facts, the fact is Hillary Clinton lost to the most disgusting creature to ever run for president, clearly Hillary had very unelectable flaws, real or perceived by the voting populace, that hampered her to the extent of losing to that thing.

And here you are legitimizing, by your metaphor, the shooting of other people for the sake of greed.

Congratulations, dude. This is how low you've sunk in your hatred.

No, seriously, there is a difference between stating that bullets kill and lending your sympathies to the shooter. So, sure, point out that bullets kill. You still owe us, however, an explanation of your sympathy for the murderer. You know, as in, it's okay to shoot since you don't like her, anyway.

This is the difference: If someone slanders someone else, and you hear another repeat that slander, are you going to do anything to correct the record, or does that depend on whether or not you personally like the object of slander?

You chose to honor and repeat and advance the slander.

No you deal with reality, we got President Trump, deal with it! How do we not have him for 8 years should the the question, what is your strategy to not have 8 years of trump? "the racist won we are doom" is not a strategy.

No, it's not a strategy, but even you are capable of reciting platitudes about an "honest painful and detailed review of ourselves". Acknowledging the role of supremacism, including its relationship to any other asserted policy goal in voting for Trump, is part of that. So, also, is recognizing the value of smear campaigns. The problem with your approach to the latter is that you wish to honor them when they attack people you don't like. This makes your analysis unreliable, both methodically and ethically.

So, you know, if you want to be all petulant and childish and rubber-glue about dealing with reality, please stop citing incorrect statistics; please stop making false claims about the vote result; please stop deliberately misrepresenting yourself.

I don't smoke and don't eat meat, I guess that means I'm like Hitler too?

(guffaw!)

I don't see why you would include cigarettes and meat. How you see yourself is how you see yourself. And, you know, the inclination to defend what you see is perfectly human.

To the other, quite frankly, your opinion was disqualified long before you crossed the Godwin line.

(Edit: Syntax. 30 Nov 2016 08.49 PT)​

 

[billvon]

Oh so that is why obama was not elected?

No. He was not facing an opponent willing to go as low as Trump.

How come all of Hillary's smear did not get her free airtime?

Because all she had was weak tea. If she had said "Trump is a rapist! He raped his wife! He raped a 13 year old girl! Rapist Trump should not be elected. Rapist Trump is not presidential material. Our president should not be a rapist. Who will he rape in office? Rapist Trump is a danger to the US" etc etc she would have gotten similar airtime.

But she didn't. She "went high when he went low." She said "unfit to be president" instead of focusing on crime and fraud and rape and assault. How did that work out for her?

Was hours and hours of C-Span watching congress roast her alive about her private emails or bengazi or what ever other controversy they could glue to her not enough for her to get free airtime?

No, that was free airtime for her opponents. Likewise, if the Clinton campaign could have gotten their hands on similar material showing him being grilled by the FBI, that would have hurt him.

Your just in denial billvon, I'll give you a few months and maybe we can come back to this.

OK you're right. Hillary went high and she won. You keep telling yourself that (at least until January.)

 

[Kittamaru]

I think we need to stop feeding the troll guys...

 

[spidergoat]

He was not facing an opponent willing to go as low as Trump.

Good, we don't need to become the enemy.

 

[billvon]

Good, we don't need to become the enemy.

Even if that means letting him win?

 

[wellwisher]

The entire recount is a scam to make money, by giving hope to the disillusioned. Hillary wants in. Trump should request a recount in all places where dead people are not, taken off the voter registration rolls; liberal states.

According to a recent report by the Pew Center the American voter registration system is in dire need of an upgrade.
** Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
** More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
** Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

The reason the electoral college is used, instead of the popular vote, is because the founding fathers wanted the states, and not the federal government, to have the most power. If we elected the president, by the popular vote only, both political parties would target the top 5-10 populous states/cites and ignore the rest. They would then make deals, with promises of tax payer money, with just those states. The other 40-45 states, pay and get less. If you could get California, NY and Texas you are almost there. The Democrats are already willing to sell out the country, so selling out states would not even bother them. This is why they don't teach the truth of this, to their base, nor does liberal dominated education teach this, as matter of fact.

With the electoral college, every state become important, and can't be taken for granted, even if small. This allows all states to have sufficient leverage to have a say in the future of the country and how their taxes are skimmed and scammed by lobbyists.

Trump and most Teas Party People are for limited federal government and more states rights. Instead of government mandates on social issues, states are given the final say for their populations. If one does not like what is done in their state, move, if it means that much to you.

Trump is going to level the playing field and restore natural selection, since this is good enough for nature. Natural selection is based on eco-systems and not one size fits all eco-systems. Artificial selection is not natural. Liberal policies of unnatural selection are like genetically modified food. They have no precedent in nature and make people concerned with possible harmful side affects.

 

[joepistole]

The entire recount is a scam to make money, by giving hope to the disillusioned. Hillary wants in. Trump should request a recount in all places where dead people are not, taken off the voter registration rolls; liberal states.

Oh please...as is always the case with you and those like you, you have no evidence to support any of that crap. In no small part, because none exists. You don't know what Hillary wants. Hillary isn't getting any money from the recount. If fact, it's costing her.

If Trump wants a recount, he should call for one. Remember, he is suppose to be a billionaire. Money doesn't matter to him, because the has so much of it - remember? Further, there are dead people in all places. All voter rolls have the names of dead people on them, because people are always dying. I know that's a shocker for you, but there isn't a voter roll anywhere that doesn't have the names of dead people on them, because people die. It's an ongoing thingy.

I agree with you. I think Trump should call for a national recount, and he should spend a couple hundred million of his dollars to do so. After all, stupid is as stupid does.

The reason the electoral college is used, instead of the popular vote, is because the founding fathers wanted the states, and not the federal government, to have the most power. If we elected the president, by the popular vote only, both political parties would target the top 5-10 populous states/cites and ignore the rest. They would then make deals, with promises of tax payer money, with just those states. The other 40-45 states, pay and get less. If you could get California, NY and Texas you are almost there. The Democrats are already willing to sell out the country, so selling out states would not even bother them. This is why they don't teach the truth of this, to their base, nor does liberal dominated education teach this, as matter of fact.

Except, that's not true either. The Electoral College was created to preserve the institution of slavery.

"The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president.[15] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.[16] However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromiseand Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he was elected by the Congress.[17] Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[18]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Original_plan

Contrary to your assertion, the reason the founding fathers created the Constitution and our current government was to foment a stronger central government, i.e. to take power away from the states. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation which did empower the states over the central government.

Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows, facts matter and not everyone is as ignorant as you need them to be.

With the electoral college, every state become important, and can't be taken for granted, even if small. This allows all states to have sufficient leverage to have a say in the future of the country and how their taxes are skimmed and scammed by lobbyists.

If every state is important under the electoral college system then why is it presidential campaigns don't campaign in every state? Why is it we have "swing states" under the electoral college system? Why is it presidential candidates only campaign in a handful of states?

The fact is that under the electoral college system every state isn't important. Only the swing states are important under the electoral college system, and that's why presidential candidates spend all their time campaigning in swing states while ignoring every other state in the Union.

Trump and most Teas Party People are for limited federal government and more states rights. Instead of government mandates on social issues, states are given the final say for their populations. If one does not like what is done in their state, move, if it means that much to you.

Are they? What exactly makes you think that? What have they said or done to make you think that? What does "limited federal government" mean? Trump has been advocating torture as a legitimate method of interrogation for a year and a half now...you think that's limited government?

Trump is going to level the playing field and restore natural selection, since this is good enough for nature. Natural selection is based on eco-systems and not one size fits all eco-systems. Artificial selection is not natural. Liberal policies of unnatural selection are like genetically modified food. They have no precedent in nature and make people concerned with possible harmful side affects.

LOL....what can I say? What Trump is doing is staffing up his administration with lobbyists and billionaires. What Trump is doing is more of the same. The irony is thick. Trump, the man of the people, is a man who was born to great wealth. He has never known what it's like to be middle class.

 

[spidergoat]

Even if that means letting him win?

Our side can't lie like the other can. Our supporters are too smart.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Look at all the usual suspect, the regressives (that claim they don’t exist, you’re specters now?) that start dogpiling me, because I don't bend the knee and instead rightfully blame them, at least in part, for the cthulhuian nightmare of President Trump. I can only reply to one of you at a time because I have a life, and it is hard enough dealing with your ilk IRL at my DFL meetings, at my university democrat meetings, at political action groups, etc.

Then perhaps dealing with reality might help.

Yes Tiassa, please deal with reality.

No, that's not the whole of it. However, one of the first questions is whether or not to coddle bigotry, and the answer on that pretty much remains no. You, on the other hand, seem to think collaboration, support, legitimization, will help find a compromise point with them.

How is focusing on economic improvement for the labor class and anti-corruption “collaboration, support, legitimization” them? As for coddling bigots: You and your ilk calling everyone bigots has alienated too many, has helped caused President Trump! You and your ilk powered the alt-right, you and your ilk caused millions of liberals not to come out and vote, disgusted by their own side. You are the ones cuddling bigots: you think calling them names, attacking their livelihood will convince them to be less bigoted? No they double down! Now they even get off at this point in offending you and are inspired to vote for what offends you most. You called everyone sexist, misogynist, bigots, fascists, etc, that left no one left.

You really do not understand how dangerous it is for you to go around legitimizing these people. Then again, we had an episode like this a while ago, when you were pretending to arbitrarily rearrange philosophy because why not. It is not surprising you show such similar flexibility again.

I will state it again, it is you that has legitimized them, not I, I tried to warn you then, and you called me a bigot, now we have President Trump. Welcome to reality Tiassa!

And, yeah, you know, finding some way to force Elizabeth Warren to run would have been great optics.

Oh we were finding ways to force her to run, is that how you see it? Raising a bunch of money for her to run is “forcing” now, she was soo forced that she declined.

To the other, no: Imagine you had to vote for a criminal. No. Because nobody can force you to vote for a criminal. It's just like asking you to vote for someone you desperately and irrationally want to believe is a criminal despite the lack of evidence? You know, dude, screw that. There is nothing respectable about your argument.

Let me per-empt your coming question to test my purity: I do not think Hillary Clinton is a criminal, I would have been find with her as president, sure I was not pleased with her moderatism, her hawkishness, but I personally put no value in the scandals attributed to her. My problem was how hard it was going to be to get her in as president, because unlike you, I understand that millions of Americans, both on the right and the left, do think she is a criminal, do not trust her, hate her, and overall would not vote for her.

Do you actually have a point?

Despite all happened in the first four Obama years, a Latina in the supreme court, a women

as speaker of the house, all these things that supposedly the white supremacist must have been peeling their nails out over, they could not managed to come out and win in 2012.

No, really, do you actually have a point, or is changing subjects in a desperate attempt to keep your extraordinarily terrible behavior going all you're capable of?

My behavior? If you have some kind of contention with my behavior please PM me and we can discuss in private what I have done wrong.


As for a point: you stated blantant truths about republicans, and I ask for what your point is, and your reply accuses me of nebulous behavioral infractions and then ask me for a point.

We can say it wasn't new behavior but a sharp escalation. Or we could try to say there was some new behavior in there.

there nothing new there, as for the escalation that the fault of your ilk.

Do you remember Bush Jr.? Today, eight years after his presidency, it might be harder to find a Republican who blah blah blah than it should, but in the moment, despite his lies and betrayals, Americans re-elected him.

How long had the war been going in 2004, a year, a year and a half, not enough time for people to realize what a Vietnam it was. The economic did not start collapsing until after 2004.

What do you think constitutes "undeniable"?

By the end of Bush’s presidency he had ~20% approval: so massive unending wars, near economic collapses is “undeniable” enough that only 20% are still delusional enough to think he was doing a good job. Let us hope we don’t need nearly as bad from trump but would not be surprised if we get worse.

That's not the political pendulum.

Ok so what is it?

This is an interesting bit: I provided voter turnout numbers, and you corrected them with older, less accurate numbers based on outdated projections.

Those are the numbers as is now. If you have a better source provide them.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Oh boy this was a waste of my life; continue on:

Alright. Now we know you're trolling:



• Then Bernie jumped in and was getting all this attention and enthusiasm and individual donors, so I voted for him, well I lost the primary ....
• Had we paid attention to voters we would not have run Hillary Clinton!

Within the course of the same post↑, you managed to take those two opposite stances. As I already noted, you're the guy who can talk about losing the primary when you want to tout your wisdom, but can't resist the chance to take a shot at Hillary Clinton so you turn around and claim voters picked another nominee.

No you are just failing to understand that “the voters” is not democrat primary voters, it is ALL American voters, outside the centrist democrat echochambers that thought Hillary was the Bees-Knees The Voters hated Hillary, had we listen to them, we would not have fielded Hillary.


Oh what is that, that is “legitimizing” their hate? Oh so what did not legitimizing their hate get us? Oh it got us President Trump!

Hillary Clinton, by well over two million votes, in excess of one and a half percent. That is, when you get right down to the actual raw numbers.


Well, I'm not going to be abolishing the Electoral College anytime soon without a serious nationwide discussion of states rights, first, but other than that, if you can't accept that Hillary Clinton won more votes than Donald Trump, I can't help you.


The obvious truth is that the smear campaign wasn't enough to tip the popular vote.

Did I already tell you the world is not fair?, Oh I did. You understand that it does not matter she won more votes, she did not win ENOUGH votes to win the election, that is what matters. Too few came out to vote for her and too many voted for Trump instead. Despite that 46% of Americans were too disgusted to vote at all. The smear campaign cost her enough votes to makes her lose the election, all this despite the unelectabilty of Trump. The popular vote is not some conciliatory price, sorry, world is not fair.

Nothing is irrational about determining how we fucked up. But if we do it according to your irrational demands, we won't accomplish anything. The amount you need us to recalibrate reality is the problem with your narrative. That is, the story you're telling eventually makes sense ... if we change enough of the facts.

Utter projection! Here you are just a paragraph before “but but she won the popular vote!” yeah so? She lost the election, facts are too much for you, end of story. Your narrative is that racist and bigot and fascists, oh my, came out in mass and voted Trump, despite the inevitable golden electability of Hillary Clinton destine to be first female president. Ok fine lets go with your narrative: so based on that how do we win next time?

You could at least have the basic human decency to not deliberately reinforce and support the smear.

There is no reinforcing and supporting the smear now, it I already did its job.. unless is she going to run again in 2020? God please no.


If you can’t accept the fact the smear won, there is no helping you.

And here you are legitimizing, by your metaphor, the shooting of other people for the sake of greed.

No, seriously, there is a difference between stating that bullets kill and lending your sympathies to the shooter. So, sure, point out that bullets kill. You still owe us, however, an explanation of your sympathy for the murderer. You know, as in, it's okay to shoot since you don't like her, anyway. Congratulations, dude. This is how low you've sunk in your hatred.

No that your contrive interpretation, but I will try to work with it: See I did not tell them to “shoot”, I was doing my best to try to not get her shot (I campaigned for her) I’m just pointing out now that she has been shot that you should have listen to me earlier in not putting her out to be shot. I don’t sympathize with the murderer, only seek to get the murderer not to murder again.

This is the difference: If someone slanders someone else, and you hear another repeat that slander, are you going to do anything to correct the record, or does that depend on whether or not you personally like the object of slander?

Oh how I tried, door to door. “She has got the experience, she has sane, sensible policies verses his lack of sanity, have you actually read the leaked emails? There nothing in them but conspiracy theory based on contrived interpretations of words, yes yes she had a private emails server, they all did, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, both definitely exchange classified information via private emails. No she was not responsible for Benghazi, there was no cover-up multiple senate hearings failed to find fault with her.” Over and over again, door to door. Now that all that work came to nothing, work I did despite my reservations, I’m going to talk freely: the smear won, that is a fact, accept reality now.

No, it's not a strategy, but even you are capable of reciting platitudes about an "honest painful and detailed review of ourselves". Acknowledging the role of supremacism, including its relationship to any other asserted policy goal in voting for Trump, is part of that. So, also, is recognizing the value of smear campaigns. The problem with your approach to the latter is that you wish to honor them when they attack people you don't like. This makes your analysis unreliable, both methodically and ethically.

Honor them? How? Ok where has your oh so reliable methodically and ethically, analysis got us, oh that right it got us President Trump.

To the other, quite frankly, your opinion was disqualified long before you crossed the Godwin line.

Now we all know I make spelling and grammar errors, but the rate you have been making them, I think you might need to relax a little. Honestly how much time and money did you put in the campaign, I’m the one that should be livid, but after taking some benzos, I’m over it.​

 

[iceaura]

Look at all the usual suspect, the regressives (that claim they don’t exist, you’re specters now?)

Yes. These phantoms of your addled mind do not exist here.

that start dogpiling me, because I don't bend the knee and instead rightfully blame them,

You should grow up, and quit blaming other people for your own failures of persuasion.

I can only reply to one of you at a time because I have a life, and it is hard enough dealing with your ilk IRL at my DFL meetings, at my university democrat meetings, at political action groups, etc.

You aren't. You seem to have spent almost no time at all in the company of anyone like me, for example. Everything you say about people like me is the same clueless insult I can hear from some Republican doofus on my TV whenever I want to find out what the Trump faction is pouring into the ears of the "salt of the earth" this week. Why do you give credence to that stuff?

Honor them? How? Ok where has your oh so reliable methodically and ethically, analysis got us, oh that right it got us President Trump.

According to you, it was your ethical and reliable and respectful approach that was beaten by the smear.

Why are other people to blame for that? Aside from the people doing the smearing, and the ones believing the smear, anyway. On the evidence, you should have tried my approach - attack Trump as a mainstream Republican, like W, who would screw up everything he touched, like W, because all his friends are wingnuts and nasty-boys and flat-out whackjobs - like W's. Quit talking about Bernie and Trump as a pair, start talking about W and Trump as a pair - progeny of the rich and powerful, born on third base and act like they've hit a triple, in over their heads on this one.

You and your ilk calling everyone bigots has alienated too many, has helped caused President Trump! You and your ilk powered the alt-right, you and your ilk caused millions of liberals not to come out and vote, disgusted by their own side

Now you have pretzeled your logic so far around your neck you think the Alt-Right was powered by its reactions to actual lefty political analysis, and millions of liberals stayed home not because (as you had it a moment ago) Clinton was a bad campaigner and failed to address their concerns or inspire their allegiance, but because they were ashamed to be on the same side as those hordes of lefties they saw campaigning hard for Clinton - hour after hour - ranting on their TV and namecalling on their cable news stations and screaming "fascist" and "racist" at regular folks on - lessee, that would have to be NPR/MPR/BBC (there isn't much else for radio lefties).

Does that sound like MPR's style, to you? BBC's? It's been a while since I listened much, but I distinctly recall a quite different tone. And I don't recall lefties being all that strident in their approval of Clinton anyway.

Meanwhile, there wasn't much of anyone like me on any TV station ever at all - maybe a couple of folks on Larry Wilmore's show, or Bill Maher's. There was some kind of boycott of lefties, especially libertarian ones - maybe to make room for Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich, back from wherever the rock was I hope they had been hidden under. The only screaming and irrational people labeled "left" I saw in the mass media were on video clips provided and labeled by the Republican campaign on social media - lord knows from where, although they had a fondness for featuring black screamers associated with "Black Lives Matter" (no doubt a coincidence - since I'm told racism was not centrally involved in these economic matters).

 

[billvon]

Our side can't lie like the other can. Our supporters are too smart.

That may well be true - in which case we may face the prospect of decades of republican rule.

 

[iceaura]

That may well be true - in which case we may face the prospect of decades of republican rule.

Unlikely - they can't handle the job, the actual work involved. They will crash. Like W.

Fascists do not make the trains run on time. Instead, they screw up the accounting and the timetables. This catches up with them.

 

[Tiassa]

Look at all the usual suspect, the regressives (that claim they don’t exist, you’re specters now?) that start dogpiling me, because I don't bend the knee and instead rightfully blame them, at least in part, for the cthulhuian nightmare of President Trump. I can only reply to one of you at a time because I have a life, and it is hard enough dealing with your ilk IRL at my DFL meetings, at my university democrat meetings, at political action groups, etc.

(chortle! snort! guffaw!) Oh, fuck. Poor you.

How is focusing on economic improvement for the labor class and anti-corruption “collaboration, support, legitimization” them?

Who is "focusing on economic improvement for the labor class and anti-corruption"?

As for coddling bigots: You and your ilk calling everyone bigots has alienated too many, has helped caused President Trump! You and your ilk powered the alt-right, you and your ilk caused millions of liberals not to come out and vote, disgusted by their own side. You are the ones cuddling bigots: you think calling them names, attacking their livelihood will convince them to be less bigoted? No they double down! Now they even get off at this point in offending you and are inspired to vote for what offends you most. You called everyone sexist, misogynist, bigots, fascists, etc, that left no one left.

Yes, yes, we know. Give us what you want, or you will hurt people. We've heard it before, and we'll hear it again, and we reject that excrement.

The only reason to defend it is that you covet such destructive power.

Now, in the first place, ignoramus, it's coddle, not cuddle. I'm sorry, but it's how long later and you still can't stop with the intimate fantasies?

And look, dude, we've been through this before. You aren't smart enough to justify bigotry. Indeed, the only thing you manage to prove by bawling for the bigots is that you aren't smart enough to not try.

Futility is your right. That you would waste it in support of bigots and bullies who require harm to others is pretty indicative of your character.

So beg for the bigots and bullies all you want. We know why you do. And no, envy is never an attractive, useful, or even decent fashion on someone.

Meanwhile, as you have to attack spittle-flecked, apoplectic caricatures since you're not capable of anything more honest or useful, I think you might finally have made a point:

Oh boy this was a waste of my life ....

We'll take it to heart.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Tiassa,

Do you ever wonder with the amount of projection you do, that you might be wrong?

Who president now?

I don't envy or covet or justify bigots, etc, as I have said over and over again I merely want to know what went wrong, find solutions, implement them and win next time.

Now to the question you have failed to answer: Your narrative is that racist and bigot and fascists, oh my, came out in mass and voted Trump, despite the inevitable golden electability of Hillary Clinton destine to be first female president. Ok fine lets go with your narrative: so based on that how do we win next time?

I'm open minded here, please give me your solution to what you believe is the problem, I open that question up to all of you that think the above "narrative", what ever you wish to call yourselves

That may well be true - in which case we may face the prospect of decades of republican rule.

Redistricting is up in 2020 and with republicans ruling most states congresses and governor positions we are likely to lose the house again for another 10+ years.