Liberals Need to Accept Election Results

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Wrong.

The Trumptards are now determined to portray any criticism of Trump as being a symptom of not 'getting over' who won the election.

Are you going to let them insulate Trump with that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I say again, Donald Trump never got over Obama even being qualified to be president, and now his cult members want us to leave him alone, to show we've 'gotten over' it?

Fuck you people. I intend to have a lot more fun mocking Trump and his cult than you people ever did with your lame attempts to criticize Obama.

 

[Snouter]

NYcarbineer, quick question what high school did you graduate from and did you take any college courses? Answer the fucking questions punk! I have zero tolerance for retards who never attended college at all.

 

[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.

That is wise. The damage that was done to the Democrats was done by their own hand.

There were a lot of liberals that were not going to vote for Clinton because we already knew what her policies were. We had seen her in action. She was going to follow Obama and we are done with neoliberal policies. Neoliberalism is not center. The more she was "sold" the less she was liked. That doesn't mean most of us voted for Trump either.

And there are a lot more people on the right that voted for Trump but are really skeptical of him. It isn't that they think he is going to pull off all that he said. He has the capacity to destroy the GOP. Some have said so on this forum. Then they can elect people that represent..........you know, the people.
They watched the Republicans run to Clinton because the IMF said to.
That was not lost on anyone.

The Democrats need a come to Jesus moment. They need to decide who and what they represent.

Maybe.

Did u watch "The Circus" on showtime? They visited the different HQ on Election Day. The Trump camp looked like a funeral early on and the Clinton camp looked famously "cautiously optimistic".

I think a lot of HRC voters or potential HRC voters stayed out of it because her polling margin was so superior. A lot didn't vote for her because they didn't like either candidate...a lot assumed she had it locked up...and some assumed she hadn't earned their support but figured she would win anyway.

Now. As stated by this commentator numerous times, the DNC needs to steer away from the Pelosi brand of liberalism to a more pragmatic brand. At the same time; realize its funding comes from the coasts but victories come from places with more deer leases and duck blinds than wine bars and Starbucks

 

[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.

Wrong.

The Trumptards are now determined to portray any criticism of Trump as being a symptom of not 'getting over' who won the election.

Are you going to let them insulate Trump with that?

You're right in the first part. And it's been hilarious watching those who were most critical from the right now try to come off as "I told you so's".

Insulate Trump? No....but talk of hacked elections and oppression are silly. I'm skeptical of him too. I will still refer to him as a small fraction of a man. But he did legitimately win the election. That should be acceptable once the recounts are over

 

[JQPublic1]

when it doesn't happen I'm going to beat you over the head with your own indignation daily!

Good for you....you set low goals, as do all liberals, but at least you set one....kudos....

You're the liberal. You actually showed tolerance for a gambler and his dance hall girl when you voted for Trump. Us conservative would NEVER do that!

You fascist liberals are clueless....

Liberals can't be fascist, fool :

View attachment 101699

And you demonstrate your lack of education.....sad....but predictable for a liberal fascist...

View attachment 101700

No, actually I have demonstrated YOUR lack of education. you communist Trump-bot in republican clothing!

 

[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...

View attachment 101706

Why are you quoting Hilary in response to something i said? She didn't speak for me then and she doesn't speak for me now. You'll be hearing from millions of people who voted against Trump who won't accept the results of this rigged election. We believed trump now when he said it was rigged. We just didn't know it was rigged in HIS favor.

 

[Meathead]

I'd like to see the democratic party block every single one of your 19th century policies. Pay back...

What Democrats? The mayors?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Ive never agreed with you more...its crazy stuff. Atleast you seem to try and make.the best of it and think youll be pleasantly suprised..

 

[gtopa1]

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.

Third way democrats like yourself pushed a shitty candidate that ran a horrible campaign and shit on every democrat/lefty that disagreed. You have yourself to blame.

Well, the “shitty” candidate got more votes from we-the-people than her opponent. They ran the right candidate whose credentials are off the charts. The campaign she ran was like all of her campaigns; disappointing.

It's always about the swing states, Candy. Hillary just didn't appeal. Her message was off song. Whatever she was saying just didn't resonate. We all know that. It's over. President Trump is it as you quite rightly say.

Greg

Well, let me say this about that. The resonance of Trump is based on voters buying his garbage. It was detailed pretty well by bear513 once upon a time. I’ll link to it but you probably won’t bother to read it…

Let's think about this for a second, the American public is bombarded with ho hum what else is new news story's..

Along comes Trump " let's build a wall and make mexico pay for it"
He just got a few hundred million people's attention for weeks ~ he got people to focus on his message
Then trump goes and says " not really but I got your attention, it is a problem and we need to talk about it

Along comes trump on ISIS and obama created them...
He got a few hundred million people talking about it for a few weeks
Then trump goes on to say " not really but I got your attention and something we need to talk about "

Along comes Trump and says we need mandatory maternity leave
He got a few hundred million people talking about it for a few weeks
Then trump goes on to say " not really but I got your attention and something we need to talk about "

Responsible politicians didn’t do this sort of thing up till now. If you want to be concerned about something; the 2020 election should be great because there is nothing to stop whomever the Dems run from making every promise under the sun and just pass it off as “hyperbole” later on…

Hillary could have done the same thing. During a debate once she got into a little dust up with Bernie over the federal minimum wage. She was suggesting a wage of $12 or something like it. He was for $15 an hour. In the debate, Bernie said something along the lines of, “I”m surprised to hear you are not supporting a $15/hr FMW”. She clarified that she would support a $15 FMW but it was unrealistic but if Congress passed it, of course she would sign it.

She should have promised $20 an hour to those in MI, WI, and PA who believed Trump could bring their jobs back; neither is going to happen.

I anticipated Trump's failure many times but he kept on winning. By the time the Election came around he had exhausted those anticipations. I agree he was amateur. No surprise there. But he had a basic message; JOBS. The illegals weren't just a pestilence as the Dems tried to pin on Trump; they were a cause of lower wages. (not the only one of course but a factor. Throw in leaking jobs OS and you have an integrated strategy.) That was a heartland message that the rust belt got. City folk thought it was just racism; it was not. It was the drying up of entry level jobs and jobs that would pay a living wage. I have said for many years that it is a fallacy that illegals do the jobs that yanks won't do. Yanks won't do those jobs for the same pittance wages and conditions paid to illegals. Hence I consider it a situation where employers are exploiting illegals. My own view? Quite simple really. Similar to here. If an employer is caught paying BELOW legal wages then they are prosecuted and back wages and penalties paid to those employees. I would make that Law even apply to illegals. That way they'd at least go home with a few bob in their pockets.

I wonder how employers of illegals would like them apples?

The wall? We don't need one; we're a big island. A barrier definitely will be built and is already being built. What is important is that it be a PRIORITY that needs to be integrated with other policies. Sanctuary cities? Some civic leaders should be JAILED over those. Of course they are "well meaning" but they are not in America's interests.
I don't even see it as an "America First" issue. I see it as giving Americans a fair go. One of my own great memories was days spent picking tobacco back when I was a young fellow having a break from Uni. It was a hard slog for a pittance(minimum rural wage) but I wouldn't have missed that for the world; and there was no guarantee at the time that I wasn't going to be doing such work for life. Seems to me that the "yanks won't do it" argument is just a justification by exploiters. I don't accept it.

Maternity leave: I'm in favour of it. We have it here but it is a hot issue. Not that there should be some but at what level; eg, a woman earning $200,000 pa should get six months off at say 70% while a drudge gets 70% of $20,000? If Government backed should each person get the same amount PLUS their employer contribution? Should men get it too? If not why not? Yes: you DO need to talk about it. I find it quite exciting actually. I would have made a killing and spent a lot of time with the kids.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

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.

Third way democrats like yourself pushed a shitty candidate that ran a horrible campaign and shit on every democrat/lefty that disagreed. You have yourself to blame.

Well, the “shitty” candidate got more votes from we-the-people than her opponent. They ran the right candidate whose credentials are off the charts. The campaign she ran was like all of her campaigns; disappointing.

And lost. I'm going to tell it like it is. Clinton was not a good candidate. Her team ran a horrible campaign. They ignored states they needed votes from, didn't campaign there just considered it a lock.

The DNC did everything in their power to push a flawed, underperforming candidate to the front. A candidate that unknown Sanders gave a run for her money. A robotic candidate hard to believe or trust, stiff and off putting to the public. A candidate that didn't campaign enough and whose strategy was to lay low and hope the other guy looks worse. A candidate who passed out and was loaded into a van. I can go on.

Meanwhile Trump was holding a rally every day, he campaigned tirelessly.

That she has more of the popular vote doesn't matter. If she was a good candidate it wouldn't even have been close, against a candidate with zero experience.

Hillary was a disaster for the Democratic party, and all that contributed to it including yourself need to get real and learn from your massive mistakes. Tools like Debbie WS have lead the party to losing elections all over the country, losing the Senate, state governors, etc. And the dumb fuck DNC kept her in charge as long as possible, then when she was fired Hillary welcomed her into her campaign.

Idiots like you that keep supporting this bullshit are destroying the Democratic party.

Except for that last line I agree very much. I have looked at Candy's comments over the last couple of years and often found myself agreeing(often NOT of course), and of course she's going to back her tribe. I don't consider her an idiot. A bad candidate is one thing; a poor policy mix is another. One must have policies that aren't just good but which RESONATE with the electorate. Hillary didn't have them.

Greg

 

[JQPublic1]

NYcarbineer, quick question what high school did you graduate from and did you take any college courses? Answer the fucking questions punk! I have zero tolerance for retards who never attended college at all.

The move along, you are in the presence of University graduates...not mere jr. college graduates.

 

[gtopa1]

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.

Third way democrats like yourself pushed a shitty candidate that ran a horrible campaign and shit on every democrat/lefty that disagreed. You have yourself to blame.

Well, the “shitty” candidate got more votes from we-the-people than her opponent. They ran the right candidate whose credentials are off the charts. The campaign she ran was like all of her campaigns; disappointing.

And lost. I'm going to tell it like it is. Clinton was not a good candidate. Her team ran a horrible campaign. They ignored states they needed votes from, didn't campaign there just considered it a lock.

The DNC did everything in their power to push a flawed, underperforming candidate to the front. A candidate that unknown Sanders gave a run for her money. A robotic candidate hard to believe or trust, stiff and off putting to the public. A candidate that didn't campaign enough and whose strategy was to lay low and hope the other guy looks worse. A candidate who passed out and was loaded into a van. I can go on.

Meanwhile Trump was holding a rally every day, he campaigned tirelessly.

That she has more of the popular vote doesn't matter. If she was a good candidate it wouldn't even have been close, against a candidate with zero experience.

Hillary was a disaster for the Democratic party, and all that contributed to it including yourself need to get real and learn from your massive mistakes. Tools like Debbie WS have lead the party to losing elections all over the country, losing the Senate, state governors, etc. And the dumb fuck DNC kept her in charge as long as possible, then when she was fired Hillary welcomed her into her campaign.

Idiots like you that keep supporting this bullshit are destroying the Democratic party.

Yours is a wholly unsophisticated and frankly pretty juvenile understanding of presidential politics. I agree that there is a need for new blood in the party. The Party gained seats in both Houses of Congress and won the electoral vote. I’d much rather be in the Democrats chair today than the GOP chair from 4 years ago. And in a certain light, If the Trump administration follows through on it’s promises, things will look very good for the Dems in 2020.

Jobs in the Stainless Steel belt, secure borders and better trade deals?? Not so good for Dems in 2016. Plus the contact with the people. A "thank you" tour when Hillary was subbed by Podesta?

No Candy; I disagree with you there.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Third way democrats like yourself pushed a shitty candidate that ran a horrible campaign and shit on every democrat/lefty that disagreed. You have yourself to blame.

Well, the “shitty” candidate got more votes from we-the-people than her opponent. They ran the right candidate whose credentials are off the charts. The campaign she ran was like all of her campaigns; disappointing.

And lost. I'm going to tell it like it is. Clinton was not a good candidate. Her team ran a horrible campaign. They ignored states they needed votes from, didn't campaign there just considered it a lock.

The DNC did everything in their power to push a flawed, underperforming candidate to the front. A candidate that unknown Sanders gave a run for her money. A robotic candidate hard to believe or trust, stiff and off putting to the public. A candidate that didn't campaign enough and whose strategy was to lay low and hope the other guy looks worse. A candidate who passed out and was loaded into a van. I can go on.

Meanwhile Trump was holding a rally every day, he campaigned tirelessly.

That she has more of the popular vote doesn't matter. If she was a good candidate it wouldn't even have been close, against a candidate with zero experience.

Hillary was a disaster for the Democratic party, and all that contributed to it including yourself need to get real and learn from your massive mistakes. Tools like Debbie WS have lead the party to losing elections all over the country, losing the Senate, state governors, etc. And the dumb fuck DNC kept her in charge as long as possible, then when she was fired Hillary welcomed her into her campaign.

Idiots like you that keep supporting this bullshit are destroying the Democratic party.

Yours is a wholly unsophisticated and frankly pretty juvenile understanding of presidential politics. I agree that there is a need for new blood in the party. The Party gained seats in both Houses of Congress and won the electoral vote. I’d much rather be in the Democrats chair today than the GOP chair from 4 years ago. And in a certain light, If the Trump administration follows through on it’s promises, things will look very good for the Dems in 2020.

Disagree. What you call my "juvenile and unsophisticated understanding" is the blunt truth. You gloss over the massive failures like they didn't happen. Agreeing that there is a need for new blood in the party is an understatement. The third way dems and ageing boomers have failed. If they remain in charge they will keep losing.

In what direction would you like to see the party go?

So in general, Blue Dog or Bernie? Or something else?
.

Blue dog it PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! Schweitzer; this is YOUR HOUR!!!! (Montana Gov was)

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Liberals have a history of refusing to accept the results of the presidential election when they are on the losing end.
They wouldn't accept the results of 2000, blaming the SCOTUS for stopping the recount in Florida.
They wouldn't accept the results of 2004, claiming the GOP stole the election, especially in Ohio.

Didn't do 'em much good.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Third way democrats like yourself pushed a shitty candidate that ran a horrible campaign and shit on every democrat/lefty that disagreed. You have yourself to blame.

Well, the “shitty” candidate got more votes from we-the-people than her opponent. They ran the right candidate whose credentials are off the charts. The campaign she ran was like all of her campaigns; disappointing.

And lost. I'm going to tell it like it is. Clinton was not a good candidate. Her team ran a horrible campaign. They ignored states they needed votes from, didn't campaign there just considered it a lock.

The DNC did everything in their power to push a flawed, underperforming candidate to the front. A candidate that unknown Sanders gave a run for her money. A robotic candidate hard to believe or trust, stiff and off putting to the public. A candidate that didn't campaign enough and whose strategy was to lay low and hope the other guy looks worse. A candidate who passed out and was loaded into a van. I can go on.

Meanwhile Trump was holding a rally every day, he campaigned tirelessly.

That she has more of the popular vote doesn't matter. If she was a good candidate it wouldn't even have been close, against a candidate with zero experience.

Hillary was a disaster for the Democratic party, and all that contributed to it including yourself need to get real and learn from your massive mistakes. Tools like Debbie WS have lead the party to losing elections all over the country, losing the Senate, state governors, etc. And the dumb fuck DNC kept her in charge as long as possible, then when she was fired Hillary welcomed her into her campaign.

Idiots like you that keep supporting this bullshit are destroying the Democratic party.

Yours is a wholly unsophisticated and frankly pretty juvenile understanding of presidential politics. I agree that there is a need for new blood in the party. The Party gained seats in both Houses of Congress and won the electoral vote. I’d much rather be in the Democrats chair today than the GOP chair from 4 years ago. And in a certain light, If the Trump administration follows through on it’s promises, things will look very good for the Dems in 2020.

Disagree. What you call my "juvenile and unsophisticated understanding" is the blunt truth. You gloss over the massive failures like they didn't happen. Agreeing that there is a need for new blood in the party is an understatement. The third way dems and ageing boomers have failed. If they remain in charge they will keep losing.

Yours is tantamount to the guy in class who was given the answers and then tries to explain how “smart” he is by virtue of getting 100 on the test.

New blood is part of the equation. But the situation is nowhere near as dire as one would think by listening to you. What I expect the Dems to do is basically triangulate the way Bill Clinton did; absorbing the best from both sides and presenting the middle viewpoint that will appeal to the most voters.

The “blunt truth” as you put it is that HRC had superior credentials and the backing of most (if not all) democrats. The campaign she ran in the General was ineffective. If you’re right about anything, it is that folks like me were giving her the “thumbs up” the entire way. And that was bore out by the polling; which turned out the be wrong.

I've been looking at polling from just prior to the election. Nate Silver picked up the swing to Trump in the rust belt. Fascinating looking back. But swings of 10% in a week for some polls?? I shall just say that the quality of the polling varied.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Well, the “shitty” candidate got more votes from we-the-people than her opponent. They ran the right candidate whose credentials are off the charts. The campaign she ran was like all of her campaigns; disappointing.

And lost. I'm going to tell it like it is. Clinton was not a good candidate. Her team ran a horrible campaign. They ignored states they needed votes from, didn't campaign there just considered it a lock.

The DNC did everything in their power to push a flawed, underperforming candidate to the front. A candidate that unknown Sanders gave a run for her money. A robotic candidate hard to believe or trust, stiff and off putting to the public. A candidate that didn't campaign enough and whose strategy was to lay low and hope the other guy looks worse. A candidate who passed out and was loaded into a van. I can go on.

Meanwhile Trump was holding a rally every day, he campaigned tirelessly.

That she has more of the popular vote doesn't matter. If she was a good candidate it wouldn't even have been close, against a candidate with zero experience.

Hillary was a disaster for the Democratic party, and all that contributed to it including yourself need to get real and learn from your massive mistakes. Tools like Debbie WS have lead the party to losing elections all over the country, losing the Senate, state governors, etc. And the dumb fuck DNC kept her in charge as long as possible, then when she was fired Hillary welcomed her into her campaign.

Idiots like you that keep supporting this bullshit are destroying the Democratic party.

Yours is a wholly unsophisticated and frankly pretty juvenile understanding of presidential politics. I agree that there is a need for new blood in the party. The Party gained seats in both Houses of Congress and won the electoral vote. I’d much rather be in the Democrats chair today than the GOP chair from 4 years ago. And in a certain light, If the Trump administration follows through on it’s promises, things will look very good for the Dems in 2020.

Disagree. What you call my "juvenile and unsophisticated understanding" is the blunt truth. You gloss over the massive failures like they didn't happen. Agreeing that there is a need for new blood in the party is an understatement. The third way dems and ageing boomers have failed. If they remain in charge they will keep losing.

Yours is tantamount to the guy in class who was given the answers and then tries to explain how “smart” he is by virtue of getting 100 on the test.

New blood is part of the equation. But the situation is nowhere near as dire as one would think by listening to you. What I expect the Dems to do is basically triangulate the way Bill Clinton did; absorbing the best from both sides and presenting the middle viewpoint that will appeal to the most voters.

The “blunt truth” as you put it is that HRC had superior credentials and the backing of most (if not all) democrats. The campaign she ran in the General was ineffective. If you’re right about anything, it is that folks like me were giving her the “thumbs up” the entire way. And that was bore out by the polling; which turned out the be wrong.

Seems her credentials were lacking after all....

Credentials no; performance Yes.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Obamacare will be repealed in the first 100 days....your unilateral democrat fascism will come to a horrific end for you....

when it doesn't happen I'm going to beat you over the head with your own indignation daily!

Good for you....you set low goals, as do all liberals, but at least you set one....kudos....

You're the liberal. You actually showed tolerance for a gambler and his dance hall girl when you voted for Trump. Us conservative would NEVER do that!

You fascist liberals are clueless....

Liberals can't be fascist, fool :

View attachment 101699

Nope.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Yours is a wholly unsophisticated and frankly pretty juvenile understanding of presidential politics. I agree that there is a need for new blood in the party. The Party gained seats in both Houses of Congress and won the electoral vote. I’d much rather be in the Democrats chair today than the GOP chair from 4 years ago. And in a certain light, If the Trump administration follows through on it’s promises, things will look very good for the Dems in 2020.

Disagree. What you call my "juvenile and unsophisticated understanding" is the blunt truth. You gloss over the massive failures like they didn't happen. Agreeing that there is a need for new blood in the party is an understatement. The third way dems and ageing boomers have failed. If they remain in charge they will keep losing.

In what direction would you like to see the party go?

So in general, Blue Dog or Bernie? Or something else?
.

I would like to see the party move away from being controlled by clinton third way corporate democrats. If they don't I don't vote for them. I'm sure candyasscorn will be along presently to label my opinion as "juvenile and unsophisticated".

Both parties are controlled by big corporate interests. Trump winning is a surprise since he appears to be uncontrolled by those interests, but time will tell.

Trump IS the big corporate interest.

He's made his money and wealth. He has a good head on his shoulders. He is taking wise advice, He'll do just dandy; he will take the people WITH him.

Greg

 

[basquebromance]