Liberals Need to Accept Election Results

[NYcarbineer]

When did you accept the election of Obama?

The next day after the election.

Denying reality does not change reality, nor does it help the country.

As 'your' candidate said, 'to challenge the election results undermines the very pillars on which our Democracy is built'.

What we are watching now is that Hillary would rather win at ANY cost, even if that means ripping the country apart, and we are seeing the truth about liberals - the complete LACK of tolerance.

Then why have you attacked Obama every day since?

 

[easyt65]

Then why have you attacked Obama every day since?

Why must you create false natratives and lie in order to defend what you believe.

The truth is I have NOT 'attacked Obama every day'. I have criticized him for failed policies / actions, spoken out on things I have agreed with him, and I have even complimented him on things he has done.

(With such 'thin skin' I recommend you never go into politics or showbiz...)

 

[gtopa1]

Are you confused about "hacking"? No one, to my knowledge, is talking about hacking voting machines - we're talking about Russia hacking the DNC and Wikileaks making it public.

Well, then the Russians are not guilty of rigging our election if that is the extent to the hack job. Seriously, according to your logic; if Podesta's kid had gotten on there and printed out his e-mails and mailed them somewhere, they would have been rigging the election too??? If you don't want it uncovered; don't perform the act in the first place.

Certainly it's dirty politics but far from evidence of their changing the election results.

If that is the extent of the CIA's evidence, they should be lampooned for wasting the public's time.

One thing about Trump's appointees so far; no lightweights.

Greg

Hope you're referring to their waistlines.

We have a Fast Food mogul for Labor secretary, a wrestling promoter for the head of the SBA and a HUD secretary he--Trump-- once said had the temerpment of a child molester.

From what I've read on each they seem quite competent and successful. It will be fascinating watching them adjust to actual Government. I'm expecting a great deal from them. Obviously they will fall short.

Greg

Its a different skillset. As a manager of a private sector operation, you make decisions and hire a staff to execute them. The ramifications of those decisions results in winners and losers. If you're effective, those in your organization are the winner and those outside are the losers. As a public sector superintendent, you make decisions as well. The problem is that there is nobody outside of your organization; your competition are the insurmountable opponents of not enough time and not enough resources. Effectiveness is usually determined by the how well the whole was positively affected; not a small percentage of the whole to which all of the appointees belong.

I'm skeptical that many of them give a flying fuck about those who will be affected by their departments; much less have the skillset/mindset that is necessary for seamless transition from the private sector to the public.

I will wait to be astounded.

"Winners and losers" is an old model for success. Competition matters of course but there are many other aspects; you build success within your organisation_ winner-winner. Healthy competition results in many in the marketplace being lean and effective. Customers are the big winners. I await the results.



Greg

 

[gtopa1]

When did you accept the election of Obama?

The next day after the election.

Denying reality does not change reality, nor does it help the country.

As 'your' candidate said, 'to challenge the election results undermines the very pillars on which our Democracy is built'.

What we are watching now is that Hillary would rather win at ANY cost, even if that means ripping the country apart, and we are seeing the truth about liberals - the complete LACK of tolerance.

Then why have you attacked Obama every day since?

Poor policies.

Greg

 

[candycorn]

Well, then the Russians are not guilty of rigging our election if that is the extent to the hack job. Seriously, according to your logic; if Podesta's kid had gotten on there and printed out his e-mails and mailed them somewhere, they would have been rigging the election too??? If you don't want it uncovered; don't perform the act in the first place.

Certainly it's dirty politics but far from evidence of their changing the election results.

If that is the extent of the CIA's evidence, they should be lampooned for wasting the public's time.

One thing about Trump's appointees so far; no lightweights.

Greg

Hope you're referring to their waistlines.

We have a Fast Food mogul for Labor secretary, a wrestling promoter for the head of the SBA and a HUD secretary he--Trump-- once said had the temerpment of a child molester.

From what I've read on each they seem quite competent and successful. It will be fascinating watching them adjust to actual Government. I'm expecting a great deal from them. Obviously they will fall short.

Greg

Its a different skillset. As a manager of a private sector operation, you make decisions and hire a staff to execute them. The ramifications of those decisions results in winners and losers. If you're effective, those in your organization are the winner and those outside are the losers. As a public sector superintendent, you make decisions as well. The problem is that there is nobody outside of your organization; your competition are the insurmountable opponents of not enough time and not enough resources. Effectiveness is usually determined by the how well the whole was positively affected; not a small percentage of the whole to which all of the appointees belong.

I'm skeptical that many of them give a flying fuck about those who will be affected by their departments; much less have the skillset/mindset that is necessary for seamless transition from the private sector to the public.

I will wait to be astounded.

"Winners and losers" is an old model for success. Competition matters of course but there are many other aspects; you build success within your organisation_ winner-winner.

Good point.

Its rather amazing.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Microsoft:

Microsoft was founded by Paul Allen and Bill Gates on April 4, 1975, to develop and sell BASIC interpreters for the Altair 8800. It rose to dominate the personal computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s, followed by Microsoft Windows. The company's 1986 initial public offering (IPO), and subsequent rise in its share price, created three billionaires and an estimated 12,000 millionaires among Microsoft employees. Since the 1990s, it has increasingly diversified from the operating system market and has made a number of corporate acquisitions. In May 2011, Microsoft acquired Skype Technologies for $8.5 billion,[10] and in December 2016 bought LinkedIn for $26.2 billion.[11]

Your bringing up winner:winner is a strawman since it's in no way what I was saying. But it is interesting that the only people who seem to have made any money off of the Trump organization were named Trump. Please tell us about the "winners" of the Trump organization

Healthy competition results in many in the marketplace being lean and effective. Customers are the big winners. I await the results.
Greg

Yeah, that's just it. The government doesn't have any domestic competitors insofar as delivering mail, social security, vaccinations, the military, trade policy. If China's equivalent to IBM gets a contract to sell Sri Lanka a bunch of servers; it does nothing for IBM. There is no "win win".

 

[gtopa1]

One thing about Trump's appointees so far; no lightweights.

Greg

Hope you're referring to their waistlines.

We have a Fast Food mogul for Labor secretary, a wrestling promoter for the head of the SBA and a HUD secretary he--Trump-- once said had the temerpment of a child molester.

From what I've read on each they seem quite competent and successful. It will be fascinating watching them adjust to actual Government. I'm expecting a great deal from them. Obviously they will fall short.

Greg

Its a different skillset. As a manager of a private sector operation, you make decisions and hire a staff to execute them. The ramifications of those decisions results in winners and losers. If you're effective, those in your organization are the winner and those outside are the losers. As a public sector superintendent, you make decisions as well. The problem is that there is nobody outside of your organization; your competition are the insurmountable opponents of not enough time and not enough resources. Effectiveness is usually determined by the how well the whole was positively affected; not a small percentage of the whole to which all of the appointees belong.

I'm skeptical that many of them give a flying fuck about those who will be affected by their departments; much less have the skillset/mindset that is necessary for seamless transition from the private sector to the public.

I will wait to be astounded.

"Winners and losers" is an old model for success. Competition matters of course but there are many other aspects; you build success within your organisation_ winner-winner.

Good point.

Its rather amazing.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Microsoft:

Microsoft was founded by Paul Allen and Bill Gates on April 4, 1975, to develop and sell BASIC interpreters for the Altair 8800. It rose to dominate the personal computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s, followed by Microsoft Windows. The company's 1986 initial public offering (IPO), and subsequent rise in its share price, created three billionaires and an estimated 12,000 millionaires among Microsoft employees. Since the 1990s, it has increasingly diversified from the operating system market and has made a number of corporate acquisitions. In May 2011, Microsoft acquired Skype Technologies for $8.5 billion,[10] and in December 2016 bought LinkedIn for $26.2 billion.[11]

Your bringing up winner:winner is a strawman since it's in no way what I was saying. But it is interesting that the only people who seem to have made any money off of the Trump organization were named Trump. Please tell us about the "winners" of the Trump organization

Healthy competition results in many in the marketplace being lean and effective. Customers are the big winners. I await the results.
Greg

Yeah, that's just it. The government doesn't have any domestic competitors insofar as delivering mail, social security, vaccinations, the military, trade policy. If China's equivalent to IBM gets a contract to sell Sri Lanka a bunch of servers; it does nothing for IBM. There is no "win win".

There are many things to consider with a Gov enterptrise. I found this a while ago and didn't give it a lot of thought at the time; quite basic stuff really.

But before all that, there was just Donald Trump and the 11 winning negotiating tactics that are at the heart of The Art of the Deal. Each of Trump's tactics is listed below, accompanied by quotes from the book. Give them a try and see how they can turn your deals into winners, too.

1. Think big

"I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big."

2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself

"I always go into the deal anticipating the worst. If you plan for the worst--if you can live with the worst--the good will always take care of itself."

3. Maximize the options

"I never get too attached to one deal or one approach...I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."

4. Know your market

"I like to think that I have that instinct. That's why I don't hire a lot of number-crunchers, and I don't trust fancy marketing surveys. I do my own surveys and draw my own conclusions."

5. Use your leverage

"The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead."

6. Enhance your location

"Perhaps the most misunderstood concept in all of real estate is that the key to success is location, location, location...First of all, you don't necessarily need the best location. What you need is the best deal."


7. Get the word out

"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better...The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you."

8. Fight back

"In most cases I'm very easy to get along with. I'm very good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard."

9. Deliver the goods

"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."

10. Contain the costs

"I believe in spending what you have to. But I also believe in not spending more than you should."

11. Have fun

"Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game."

11 Winning Negotiation Tactics From Donald Trump's 'The Art of the Deal'

2,3,4,7,9,10 apply to Gov enterprises wrt leadership. The product MUST BE FIT FOR PURPOSE at the best possible cost. Sound business attitudes regarding efficiency and productivity apply. Nothing outlandish there.
But winner/winner must apply if one is to have a sustainable supply chain. Trump companies are not end users. They require customers like everyone else. They can only be successful over the longer term if their own suppliers are successful. But he is a TOUGH negotiator.

Imagine you want to sell your products to a huge chain. You enter the office of the chain’s top buyer. To make it worse, imagine he comes from New York City.

Do you suppose he will welcome you with warmth? “So nice to meet you. I’ve heard good things about your products. I’m anxious to learn more.”

Nah. Double nah.

Instead, he will pin your ears to the wall. “I’m not impressed with what I’ve heard. Your stuff is crap. Your prices way too high. Your deliveries are slow. Why should I spend my time with you?”

He is a master of business negotiating. Do you realize how much of this he has had to do in his work? With tenants and prospective tenants. With construction companies. And architects. Partners. Lenders. Suppliers. Regulators. Unions. Zoning czars. City and state governments. And all of the above in various countries. Negotiating shrewdness is probably the single most important quality for a successful international developer.

There is a simple reason why his critics are blind to what he is doing. They have no experience in business. They have no experience in the type of bulldog negotiating he loves and mastered.

If you view him through the lenses of a Macy’s buyer you will see what he is up to. And you might look forward to how he deals with the challenges of his new office.

Understanding Donald Trump

Negotiations are NOT for the weak hearted. But if you are able to get on the supply chain, you win.

Greg

 

[Wyatt earp]

When did you accept the election of Obama?

The next day after the election.

Denying reality does not change reality, nor does it help the country.

As 'your' candidate said, 'to challenge the election results undermines the very pillars on which our Democracy is built'.

What we are watching now is that Hillary would rather win at ANY cost, even if that means ripping the country apart, and we are seeing the truth about liberals - the complete LACK of tolerance.

Then why have you attacked Obama every day since?

Because he was a socialist Marxist pinko commies liberal..


And..


He didn't know how to lead

He didn't know how to compromise

He didn't abbide by the constitution



With out those three things it's hard for the opposition either democrat or republicans to have any respect for the President.



.

 

[easyt65]

'I won.'
'Elections have consequences.'
'You can come along, but you have to get in the back of the bus.'
'If Congress will not act (pass the legislation I want) I will do it.'
'If you want something different, win some elections.'
-- Barak Obama

Prophetic words / sound advice to liberals from their dear leader.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When did you accept the election of Obama?

The next day after the election.

Denying reality does not change reality, nor does it help the country.

As 'your' candidate said, 'to challenge the election results undermines the very pillars on which our Democracy is built'.

What we are watching now is that Hillary would rather win at ANY cost, even if that means ripping the country apart, and we are seeing the truth about liberals - the complete LACK of tolerance.

Then why have you attacked Obama every day since?

Because he was a socialist Marxist pinko commies liberal..


And..


He didn't know how to lead

He didn't know how to compromise

He didn't abbide by the constitution



With out those three things it's hard for the opposition either democrat or republicans to have any respect for the President.



.

Your opinions are not formed by any semblance of intelligent thought and as such are of no value.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When did you accept the election of Obama?

The next day after the election.

Denying reality does not change reality, nor does it help the country.

As 'your' candidate said, 'to challenge the election results undermines the very pillars on which our Democracy is built'.

What we are watching now is that Hillary would rather win at ANY cost, even if that means ripping the country apart, and we are seeing the truth about liberals - the complete LACK of tolerance.

Then why have you attacked Obama every day since?

Because he was a socialist Marxist pinko commies liberal..


And..


He didn't know how to lead

He didn't know how to compromise

He didn't abbide by the constitution



With out those three things it's hard for the opposition either democrat or republicans to have any respect for the President.



.

Your opinions are not formed by any semblance of intelligent thought and as such are of no value.

It's not opinions it's hard core facts


BTW I wished it was an opinion ..this country would be in so much of a better place.



.


.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals never get over anything. When they don't get their way, they obstruct and destroy. Even when they get their way, they still obstruct and destroy.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump's the man you get after calling decent, good Americans "racist" and "sexist" for 8 years. We got tired of your crap.

 

[hadit]

As if that needed to be said!!!

Look, there are 2 separate questions here.

Did Russian hackers (or hackers of any nationality for that matter) try to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. I would be shocked if they didn’t try. I’d be equally shocked if our election officials were so inept that they would allow such a hack to go unreported. While there is some truth to not wanting to reveal that you’ve been breached; there is zero chance that a breach would be kept under wraps.

Second question is this:

Did it influence the outcome of the elections. I supported Ms. Clinton from the word “go” in both 2008 and 2016. I can tell you that if you think the answer is “yes”, you’re wearing blinders.

She lost because Trump ran the better campaign in 2016 and she lost in 2008 because Obama ran a better campaign then too as well. SHE IS A DISAPPOINTING CAMPAIGNER!!!! Some people got it and some people don’t. Whatever the secret sauce is that makes one pull a lever next to her name…she ain’t got it. Further evidence of this all-too-clear-fact are the states that Trump won. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now, if he had won one of these states and lost the EV…someone like me would have said, “Hmm…that’s interesting.” Only because he won all 3 and won the EV do some folks like me (liberals) want to raise questions. To take this stance wounds your credibility. In the first place…One would have to wonder why the hackers spared Virginia—a very contentious state to be sure. Were they feeling generous? Secondly, the states that Mr. Trump did win are historically Blue states with solid governmental infrastructures. Are sensible persons to believe that the elections officials in 3 states have suddenly been retarded to the point where a hack would not be noticed…or reported…by anyone in that hierarchy of the group?

Relax guys. Trump won. Get over it.

Trump won. Time to get over it and work to make sure that he cannot do too much damage.

I am not so sure he DID win. I think there was skulduggery by Trump-bots that literally disenfranchised thousands of Democrat voters. If we don't do anything about it we are sending a signal that vote tampering and suppression is OK. That kind of acquiescence by Democrats could keep the republicans in power indefinitely. We must act now to get vote recounts in those key states and thoroughly investigate all discrepancies. Obama, this is your chance...

He won't go anywhere near that for several reasons:

1. States handle their own voting procedures, not the federal government.
2. If we really dug into the entire voting situation, we would find a lot of things embarrassing to democrats. He wouldn't want that.

 

[hadit]

Liberals never get over anything. When they don't get their way, they obstruct and destroy. Even when they get their way, they still obstruct and destroy.

It is interesting that no matter what victories they win, they're never, ever happy. They're always angry about something.

 

[candycorn]

As if that needed to be said!!!

Look, there are 2 separate questions here.

Did Russian hackers (or hackers of any nationality for that matter) try to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. I would be shocked if they didn’t try. I’d be equally shocked if our election officials were so inept that they would allow such a hack to go unreported. While there is some truth to not wanting to reveal that you’ve been breached; there is zero chance that a breach would be kept under wraps.

Second question is this:

Did it influence the outcome of the elections. I supported Ms. Clinton from the word “go” in both 2008 and 2016. I can tell you that if you think the answer is “yes”, you’re wearing blinders.

She lost because Trump ran the better campaign in 2016 and she lost in 2008 because Obama ran a better campaign then too as well. SHE IS A DISAPPOINTING CAMPAIGNER!!!! Some people got it and some people don’t. Whatever the secret sauce is that makes one pull a lever next to her name…she ain’t got it. Further evidence of this all-too-clear-fact are the states that Trump won. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now, if he had won one of these states and lost the EV…someone like me would have said, “Hmm…that’s interesting.” Only because he won all 3 and won the EV do some folks like me (liberals) want to raise questions. To take this stance wounds your credibility. In the first place…One would have to wonder why the hackers spared Virginia—a very contentious state to be sure. Were they feeling generous? Secondly, the states that Mr. Trump did win are historically Blue states with solid governmental infrastructures. Are sensible persons to believe that the elections officials in 3 states have suddenly been retarded to the point where a hack would not be noticed…or reported…by anyone in that hierarchy of the group?

Relax guys. Trump won. Get over it.

Trump won. Time to get over it and work to make sure that he cannot do too much damage.

I am not so sure he DID win. I think there was skulduggery by Trump-bots that literally disenfranchised thousands of Democrat voters. If we don't do anything about it we are sending a signal that vote tampering and suppression is OK. That kind of acquiescence by Democrats could keep the republicans in power indefinitely. We must act now to get vote recounts in those key states and thoroughly investigate all discrepancies. Obama, this is your chance...

Well, yes. When you close hundreds of polling places that is what you’re doing; lowering the turnout.

That happened 6 weeks ago. And, as they say, that is a lifetime in Politics. So what do you do? Sit around and bitch about it for at least 4 and probably 8 years? Or do you do something about it? I say do something about it.

You can either move the mountain or you can go to the mountain yourself. We know that the GOP will use every dirty trick in the book to achieve their goals. And while they are in control, the Democrats have shown that they too will take a few pages out of the GOP playbook too. In the meantime, when they are not in control…perhaps it would behoove the Democrats to stop bitching about “not being able to get to the polls” and just show the fuck up and vote???? Just throwing that out there. If the Democrats are dependent upon a group of people who are so inept that they don’t want to go to the polls and vote, don’t want to acquire the proper ID to vote, or can’t “risk” coming that close to the authorities…they deserve to lose.

The good news for the party that is out of power is that the arts community is usually at odds with whomever is in control. You start seeing movies, television, installations, demonstrations, murals, music, poetry, and discussions at odds with the status quo. Once that starts, the “soft” supporters of the status quo begin to be coopted from the herd and you have the standard withering of the Congress followed by the supplanting of the Party that occupies the oval. Only in rare instances does the Party in power not experience the cyclical abandonment. This is why the discussion about the “bench” is silly. The GOP supposedly had a “deep bench” for 2016 and not one of them became the nominee. Leaders will emerge if you are the Democrats. If you’re in the GOP, your wagon is hitched to Donald Trump for 8 years (more than likely). Good luck with that.

 

[basquebromance]

Look, we're divided. I really have no problem with the Left not accepting Trump as their President. I didn't accept Obama.

Free country.

 

[JQPublic1]

As if that needed to be said!!!

Look, there are 2 separate questions here.

Did Russian hackers (or hackers of any nationality for that matter) try to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. I would be shocked if they didn’t try. I’d be equally shocked if our election officials were so inept that they would allow such a hack to go unreported. While there is some truth to not wanting to reveal that you’ve been breached; there is zero chance that a breach would be kept under wraps.

Second question is this:

Did it influence the outcome of the elections. I supported Ms. Clinton from the word “go” in both 2008 and 2016. I can tell you that if you think the answer is “yes”, you’re wearing blinders.

She lost because Trump ran the better campaign in 2016 and she lost in 2008 because Obama ran a better campaign then too as well. SHE IS A DISAPPOINTING CAMPAIGNER!!!! Some people got it and some people don’t. Whatever the secret sauce is that makes one pull a lever next to her name…she ain’t got it. Further evidence of this all-too-clear-fact are the states that Trump won. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now, if he had won one of these states and lost the EV…someone like me would have said, “Hmm…that’s interesting.” Only because he won all 3 and won the EV do some folks like me (liberals) want to raise questions. To take this stance wounds your credibility. In the first place…One would have to wonder why the hackers spared Virginia—a very contentious state to be sure. Were they feeling generous? Secondly, the states that Mr. Trump did win are historically Blue states with solid governmental infrastructures. Are sensible persons to believe that the elections officials in 3 states have suddenly been retarded to the point where a hack would not be noticed…or reported…by anyone in that hierarchy of the group?

Relax guys. Trump won. Get over it.

Trump won. Time to get over it and work to make sure that he cannot do too much damage.

I am not so sure he DID win. I think there was skulduggery by Trump-bots that literally disenfranchised thousands of Democrat voters. If we don't do anything about it we are sending a signal that vote tampering and suppression is OK. That kind of acquiescence by Democrats could keep the republicans in power indefinitely. We must act now to get vote recounts in those key states and thoroughly investigate all discrepancies. Obama, this is your chance...

Well, yes. When you close hundreds of polling places that is what you’re doing; lowering the turnout.

That happened 6 weeks ago. And, as they say, that is a lifetime in Politics. So what do you do? Sit around and bitch about it for at least 4 and probably 8 years? Or do you do something about it? I say do something about it.

You can either move the mountain or you can go to the mountain yourself. We know that the GOP will use every dirty trick in the book to achieve their goals. And while they are in control, the Democrats have shown that they too will take a few pages out of the GOP playbook too. In the meantime, when they are not in control…perhaps it would behoove the Democrats to stop bitching about “not being able to get to the polls” and just show the fuck up and vote???? Just throwing that out there. If the Democrats are dependent upon a group of people who are so inept that they don’t want to go to the polls and vote, don’t want to acquire the proper ID to vote, or can’t “risk” coming that close to the authorities…they deserve to lose.

The good news for the party that is out of power is that the arts community is usually at odds with whomever is in control. You start seeing movies, television, installations, demonstrations, murals, music, poetry, and discussions at odds with the status quo. Once that starts, the “soft” supporters of the status quo begin to be coopted from the herd and you have the standard withering of the Congress followed by the supplanting of the Party that occupies the oval. Only in rare instances does the Party in power not experience the cyclical abandonment. This is why the discussion about the “bench” is silly. The GOP supposedly had a “deep bench” for 2016 and not one of them became the nominee. Leaders will emerge if you are the Democrats. If you’re in the GOP, your wagon is hitched to Donald Trump for 8 years (more than likely). Good luck with that.

The Democrats DID show up and vote:

Thousands of those votes weren't counted.

How crosscheck helped Trump.

in Michigan, the Crosscheck purge list eliminated 449,922 voters from the rolls, while Trump claimed victory in that state by just 13,107 votes. In Arizona, the Trump victory margin was 85,257 votes, while a total of 270,824 voters were eliminated by Crosscheck. The Trump victory margin in North Carolina was 177,008, while the Crosscheck purge list accounted for 589,393 voters knocked off the rolls.

Palast notes that “the electoral putsch was aided by nine other methods of attacking the right to vote of Black, Latino and Asian-American voters … including ‘caging,’ ‘purging,’ blocking legitimate registrations, and wrongly shunting millions to ‘provisional’ ballots that will never be counted.”

 

[kaz]

The world is laughing at our democrats.....

No, they are laughing at the people who voted for Trump. Laughing and scared that Americans can be so stupid.

The butt hurt rages on

 

[kaz]

As if that needed to be said!!!

Look, there are 2 separate questions here.

Did Russian hackers (or hackers of any nationality for that matter) try to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. I would be shocked if they didn’t try. I’d be equally shocked if our election officials were so inept that they would allow such a hack to go unreported. While there is some truth to not wanting to reveal that you’ve been breached; there is zero chance that a breach would be kept under wraps.

Second question is this:

Did it influence the outcome of the elections. I supported Ms. Clinton from the word “go” in both 2008 and 2016. I can tell you that if you think the answer is “yes”, you’re wearing blinders.

She lost because Trump ran the better campaign in 2016 and she lost in 2008 because Obama ran a better campaign then too as well. SHE IS A DISAPPOINTING CAMPAIGNER!!!! Some people got it and some people don’t. Whatever the secret sauce is that makes one pull a lever next to her name…she ain’t got it. Further evidence of this all-too-clear-fact are the states that Trump won. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now, if he had won one of these states and lost the EV…someone like me would have said, “Hmm…that’s interesting.” Only because he won all 3 and won the EV do some folks like me (liberals) want to raise questions. To take this stance wounds your credibility. In the first place…One would have to wonder why the hackers spared Virginia—a very contentious state to be sure. Were they feeling generous? Secondly, the states that Mr. Trump did win are historically Blue states with solid governmental infrastructures. Are sensible persons to believe that the elections officials in 3 states have suddenly been retarded to the point where a hack would not be noticed…or reported…by anyone in that hierarchy of the group?

Relax guys. Trump won. Get over it.

Trump won. Time to get over it and work to make sure that he cannot do too much damage.

I am not so sure he DID win. I think there was skulduggery by Trump-bots that literally disenfranchised thousands of Democrat voters. If we don't do anything about it we are sending a signal that vote tampering and suppression is OK. That kind of acquiescence by Democrats could keep the republicans in power indefinitely. We must act now to get vote recounts in those key states and thoroughly investigate all discrepancies. Obama, this is your chance...

Well, yes. When you close hundreds of polling places that is what you’re doing; lowering the turnout.

That happened 6 weeks ago. And, as they say, that is a lifetime in Politics. So what do you do? Sit around and bitch about it for at least 4 and probably 8 years? Or do you do something about it? I say do something about it.

You can either move the mountain or you can go to the mountain yourself. We know that the GOP will use every dirty trick in the book to achieve their goals. And while they are in control, the Democrats have shown that they too will take a few pages out of the GOP playbook too. In the meantime, when they are not in control…perhaps it would behoove the Democrats to stop bitching about “not being able to get to the polls” and just show the fuck up and vote???? Just throwing that out there. If the Democrats are dependent upon a group of people who are so inept that they don’t want to go to the polls and vote, don’t want to acquire the proper ID to vote, or can’t “risk” coming that close to the authorities…they deserve to lose.

The good news for the party that is out of power is that the arts community is usually at odds with whomever is in control. You start seeing movies, television, installations, demonstrations, murals, music, poetry, and discussions at odds with the status quo. Once that starts, the “soft” supporters of the status quo begin to be coopted from the herd and you have the standard withering of the Congress followed by the supplanting of the Party that occupies the oval. Only in rare instances does the Party in power not experience the cyclical abandonment. This is why the discussion about the “bench” is silly. The GOP supposedly had a “deep bench” for 2016 and not one of them became the nominee. Leaders will emerge if you are the Democrats. If you’re in the GOP, your wagon is hitched to Donald Trump for 8 years (more than likely). Good luck with that.

The Democrats DID show up and vote:

Thousands of those votes weren't counted.

How crosscheck helped Trump.

in Michigan, the Crosscheck purge list eliminated 449,922 voters from the rolls, while Trump claimed victory in that state by just 13,107 votes. In Arizona, the Trump victory margin was 85,257 votes, while a total of 270,824 voters were eliminated by Crosscheck. The Trump victory margin in North Carolina was 177,008, while the Crosscheck purge list accounted for 589,393 voters knocked off the rolls.

Palast notes that “the electoral putsch was aided by nine other methods of attacking the right to vote of Black, Latino and Asian-American voters … including ‘caging,’ ‘purging,’ blocking legitimate registrations, and wrongly shunting millions to ‘provisional’ ballots that will never be counted.”

Only allowing people to vote once? It's just so undemocratic

 

[kaz]

I am going to get over it and accept Trump as president in the exact same way you Trumpbots got over it and accepted president Obama.

Well, then you're going to really need to tone down the hysteria to get down that far