Old Thread About Election Consequences

terp said:
For those scolding NJ residents for not voting for Hillary may I point out that she carried NJ?  It doesn't matter who people here voted for, it would have had no effect on the result. 

 Well, you could have run up the count on the popular vote and made this ILLEGITIMATE President all that much more ILLEGITIMATE.

Some folks, after all, just have to be beaten with a blunt object to get any sense into them.

The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 oh the humanity!

Russia absolutely interfered with the election. There is plenty of evidence, and the government has determined this much. What we don't know and probably can't know is the measure of their success. How many votes were swung? We don't know.

And we definitely will never know what would have happened in a Sanders/Trump election. It's just too hypothetical.

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 oh the humanity!

It's ok if you are pro-violence, there are plenty of extremist groups you could join.  You might have to move though.

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 You took that literally?

author said:

...but anyway you get a candidate who considers half the country beneath her station.

 You need to study up on your algebra.

tom said:

author said:

...but anyway you get a candidate who considers half the country beneath her station.

 You need to study up on your algebra.

 Since she is a woman half the country is beneath her station. 

I may be back with an appropriate quote.

Here we go. Lady Astor:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/nancy_astor_108560

lord_pabulum said:

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 oh the humanity!

It's ok if you are pro-violence, there are plenty of extremist groups you could join.  You might have to move though.

 seriously?

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 oh the humanity!

It's ok if you are pro-violence, there are plenty of extremist groups you could join.  You might have to move though.

 seriously?

 Is anything conservatives say serious?  We have to wait for the election and let the people decide.... oh wait, now we don't.

In Trump's America, conservatives lie like normal people breathe.  

terp said:
For those scolding NJ residents for not voting for Hillary may I point out that she carried NJ?  It doesn't matter who people here voted for, it would have had no effect on the result. 

 It actually does because so many of them announced their intentions and likely led others, in states that Hillary lost, to vote for Stein, another candidate, or not vote at all.  Expressing disdain for a candidate when she is the only real alternative has consequences.

Steve said:

terp said:
For those scolding NJ residents for not voting for Hillary may I point out that she carried NJ?  It doesn't matter who people here voted for, it would have had no effect on the result. 

 It actually does because so many of them announced their intentions and likely led others, in states that Hillary lost, to vote for Stein, another candidate, or not vote at all.  Expressing disdain for a candidate when she is the only real alternative has consequences.

 Some of us thought she was not the only real alternative to fight trump. Some of us were concerned that she did not articulate or emphasize a coherent platform. Her complaints were valid. But how to address problems she identified, was not adequately put forth 

How'd that work out for you?

Steve said:
How'd that work out for you?

 Because of some hanky panky in the DNC? Not too well. Gonna do it again? The superdelegate shuffle? We will have the same results!

peaceinourtime said:

Steve said:

terp said:
For those scolding NJ residents for not voting for Hillary may I point out that she carried NJ?  It doesn't matter who people here voted for, it would have had no effect on the result. 

 It actually does because so many of them announced their intentions and likely led others, in states that Hillary lost, to vote for Stein, another candidate, or not vote at all.  Expressing disdain for a candidate when she is the only real alternative has consequences.

 Some of us thought she was not the only real alternative to fight trump. Some of us were concerned that she did not articulate or emphasize a coherent platform. Her complaints were valid. But how to address problems she identified, was not adequately put forth 

 I call BS! You had 2 choices... the Orange blob or Hillary. There was no other, no matter how hard you scrunched up your eyes and said "PLEEEEEEEEASE". You had the choice and you blew it. The first step toward redemption is to admit your mistakes.

^^^^This

This subject really brings out the dumb in people.

(was that vitriolic?)

eta: which is to be expected if the position you're taking is defending the fact you didn't vote for Hillary. There's no way to do that and sound smart.

sbenois said:
^^^^This

 Sure, but, in the grand scheme of things, which mistake had more of an effect on the election, folks voting for Stein or the Dems choosing a candidate so toxic that she could lose to a flaming orange pile of poop?  You seem very determined to blame the Stein voters (who I do, indeed hold responsible for some portion of this debacle) but you are very reluctant to admit that the HRC back room juggernaut shares some of the blame. 

If people are unwilling to be honest about what really happened it is hard to see how we will avoid these pitfalls in the future.

The horrible candidate got three million more votes than the guy who won the electoral college.   

We should all be so toxic.

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
^^^^This

 Sure, but, in the grand scheme of things, which mistake had more of an effect on the election, folks voting for Stein or the Dems choosing a candidate so toxic that she could lose to a flaming orange pile of poop?  You seem very determined to blame the Stein voters (who I do, indeed hold responsible for some portion of this debacle) but you are very reluctant to admit that the HRC back room juggernaut shares some of the blame. 
If people are unwilling to be honest about what really happened it is hard to see how we will avoid these pitfalls in the future.

 I should be drawn and quartered for this, but I can't resist. Hillary was the nominee because she GOT MORE VOTES than the guy who temporarily, and opportunistically,  decided to be a member of the party.. Full stop. Whatever her faults, we Dems chose her. All of us!  Despite  the bb's, and her own failures, she still WON, just not in the right places. So yes, those phony dems who would not support her bear FULL responsibility for this. Get over it, and help us right the wrong. 

^^^^ and this

For all the complaining I hear about Russian interference, the Democratic primary didn't exactly seem above board. In fact, we've seen much more evidence regarding collusion in the democratic primary than there is of Russian interference. 

terp said:
For all the complaining I hear about Russian interference, the Democratic primary didn't exactly seem above board. In fact, we've seen much more evidence regarding collusion in the democratic primary than there is of Russian interference. 

 um, no you haven't.

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
^^^^This

 Sure, but, in the grand scheme of things, which mistake had more of an effect on the election, folks voting for Stein or the Dems choosing a candidate so toxic that she could lose to a flaming orange pile of poop?  You seem very determined to blame the Stein voters (who I do, indeed hold responsible for some portion of this debacle) but you are very reluctant to admit that the HRC back room juggernaut shares some of the blame. 
If people are unwilling to be honest about what really happened it is hard to see how we will avoid these pitfalls in the future.

 The "Dems" who convincingly chose her over Bernie obviously didn't think she was toxic. Nor did the majority of the country who voted for her.

To say nothing of the fact that all of this "toxicity" was created by a hostile press corps (i.e. largely the NYT). Emails and speaking fees and Benghazi!! don't seem so important these days, does it?

@terp you think the Democratic party colluded with whom?

You know when they say "Well it's not illegal, but it's ethically questionable" that its not good.  IIRC, there was also a lot of coordination with the press including the NY Times. 

terp said:
You know when they say "Well it's not illegal, but it's ethically questionable" that its not good.  IIRC, there was also a lot of coordination with the press including the NY Times. 

Are you trying to argue that the NYT was in the tank for Hillary?

That's freaking hilarious. The NYT has been the single biggest thorn in the sides of the Clintons since they (the NYT) made up the Whitewater story.

I mean, did you happen to read any of the election year coverage?

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 oh the humanity!

It's ok if you are pro-violence, there are plenty of extremist groups you could join.  You might have to move though.

 seriously?

 ml1 questioning violence?

Same person, ml1, who advocates violence, rather than discussion, to resolve issues (namely, punch a nazi in the nose rather than attempt to persuade).

ml1, when will punching a nazi in the nose not be enough?

when will you take up punching those who support the Janus decision?

or, when will you take up more violent means against nazis (because punching them in the nose has not been effective)?

Can you agree that violence should be avoided and additional speech encouraged with those who have viewpoints which all of us strongly disagree with (such as nazis)?

drummerboy said:

terp said:
For all the complaining I hear about Russian interference, the Democratic primary didn't exactly seem above board. In fact, we've seen much more evidence regarding collusion in the democratic primary than there is of Russian interference. 

 um, no you haven't.

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
^^^^This

 Sure, but, in the grand scheme of things, which mistake had more of an effect on the election, folks voting for Stein or the Dems choosing a candidate so toxic that she could lose to a flaming orange pile of poop?  You seem very determined to blame the Stein voters (who I do, indeed hold responsible for some portion of this debacle) but you are very reluctant to admit that the HRC back room juggernaut shares some of the blame. 
If people are unwilling to be honest about what really happened it is hard to see how we will avoid these pitfalls in the future.

 The "Dems" who convincingly chose her over Bernie obviously didn't think she was toxic. Nor did the majority of the country who voted for her.
To say nothing of the fact that all of this "toxicity" was created by a hostile press corps (i.e. largely the NYT). Emails and speaking fees and Benghazi!! don't seem so important these days, does it?

 Remeber, HRC NEVER RECEIVED a MAJORITY of the popular vote.  HRC received 48.5% of the popular vote which is a plurality (NOT A MAJORITY).  HRC received 43.1% of the electoral college votes.  See https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/president

Making up facts (namely, HRC received a majority of the popular vote) is not helpful.  And, suggests that you likely have less than noble motives.

PS IMHO, the ends do not justify the means.  I despise DJT but I am not willing to embrace Machiavelli in order to promote my POV or issues.

drummerboy said:

terp said:
You know when they say "Well it's not illegal, but it's ethically questionable" that its not good.  IIRC, there was also a lot of coordination with the press including the NY Times. 

Are you trying to argue that the NYT was in the tank for Hillary?
That's freaking hilarious. The NYT has been the single biggest thorn in the sides of the Clintons since they (the NYT) made up the Whitewater story.

I mean, did you happen to read any of the election year coverage?

 I would never do such a thing.

RealityForAll said:

 ml1 questioning violence?
Same person, ml1, who advocates violence, rather than discussion, to resolve issues (namely, punch a nazi in the nose rather than attempt to persuade).
ml1, when will punching a nazi in the nose not be enough?
when will you take up punching those who support the Janus decision?
or, when will you take up more violent means against nazis (because punching them in the nose has not been effective)?
Can you agree that violence should be avoided and additional speech encouraged with those who have viewpoints which all of us strongly disagree with (such as nazis)?

Since you brought this up, how’re you making out with the PEN report, the New Yorker article (if there’s a firewall, it’s worth the cover price) and the Weinstein video?