B-Man Posted November 26, 2016 Posted November 26, 2016 RECOUNT FREAKOUT If you’re a liberal, anything is better than admitting that you lost. So now, just weeks after cautioning Donald Trump’s supporters that they had better accept the results of the election (unlike the Democrats in 2000 and 2004), Democrats led by Jill Stein are demanding recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Left-wingers have donated millions of dollars, and the Hillary Clinton campaign has announced that it will participate in Stein’s recount efforts. The presidential election wasn’t particularly close: Trump won, 322-232. Still, if you convert Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to Hillary Clinton victories, she would edge Trump out, 278 to 276. That is obviously the basis on which those states were chosen. However, there is zero chance that a recount will change the result in any of those states, let alone all of them. Trump won Wisconsin by more than 20,000 votes, Michigan by 10,704 votes, and Pennsylvania by more than 70,000 votes. Lots of luck with those recounts. Jill Stein claims that she isn’t trying to favor one presidential candidate over the other, but only wants to assure a fair process. That is nonsense. The states she and other liberal activists have chosen to challenge are not those where the race was closest. How about New Hampshire, which Hillary Clinton won by around 2,700 votes? Or Nevada, which she won by a little over 26,000? Even Minnesota was a whole lot closer than Pennsylvania; with its notoriously lax ballot security, Minnesota could be fertile territory for questioning election results. Liberals know they aren’t going to overturn the result of the election through recounts, they just want to undermine Trump’s victory by making vague allegations of irregularities, “hacking,” and so on, which will circulate in the fever swamp for the next four years. It is, in other words, just another attempt by liberals to undermine our democracy.
Prickly Pete Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 I think it might be a good distraction for these nutjobs, to keep them occupied until the inauguration. They need something to focus on, and an adjustment period before complete acceptance. Just give them shrinking hopes to hold onto.
/dev/null Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 I think it might be a good distraction for these nutjobs, to keep them occupied until the inauguration. They need something to focus on, and an adjustment period before complete acceptance. Just give them shrinking hopes to hold onto. which nutjobs? The Snowflake Justice Warriors or the Trumspter Divers?
Prickly Pete Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 which nutjobs? The Snowflake Justice Warriors or the Trumspter Divers? The SJW's, obviously. There aren't any Trumpsters protesting in the streets, or attacking people, etc.
KD in CA Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 The SJW's, obviously. There aren't any Trumpsters protesting in the streets, or attacking people, etc. But a few dumb high school kids have painted swastikas as a prank so you know, we're basically now Germany in the 30s.
KD in CA Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 Liberals know they aren’t going to overturn the result of the election through recounts, they just want to undermine Trump’s victory by making vague allegations of irregularities, “hacking,” and so on, which will circulate in the fever swamp for the next four years. It is, in other words, just another attempt by liberals to undermine our democracy. Makes me wonder what kind of 'protests' we'd get from the other side if liberals were actually successful in undermining the democratic process and blatantly stole the election.
ALF Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 I think a recount is a good idea to find out if any hacking was done, to prevent in future elections. The results won't change whatever is found I would think.
Nanker Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 I know. What if we had a national vote id requirement to vote in a Presidential election - including background checks to verify citizenship? Game on Libs?
ALF Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 I know. What if we had a national vote id requirement to vote in a Presidential election - including background checks to verify citizenship? Game on Libs? I can't remember this trying to get passed during Republican congress and President in the past. Leaving the border open falls on most politicians.
B-Man Posted November 27, 2016 Posted November 27, 2016 Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser. Since winning state elections is what counts in the United States when running for president, Trump clearly outperformed Clinton. (Trump has 25% more electoral votes than Clinton.) What’s more, Trump’s margin of victory in the states he won was, on average, higher than Clinton’s. Of the state’s Trump won, he got 56.2% of the vote, on average. Of the states Clinton won, she got only 53.5% of the vote. The only reason that Clinton is beating Trump in the overall popular vote is that California gave Clinton a huge margin of victory — which currently stands at 61% to 33%. The thing is, California is a very populous and very liberal state — so far, it has counted more than 10.7 million ballots. As a result, California alone is dumping vast numbers of votes into the Clinton column — where she currently has 3 million more than Trump. But what if California’s vote was in line with all the other Democratic states, where Clinton beat Trump 53.5% to 40.2%? If that were the case, Clinton would have received 860,000 fewer votes in California. And if Trump had captured the same share he received in those same Democratic states, he’d have gotten 773,000 more California votes. In other words, if California was more like the average Democratic state, Trump would currently have a 400,000 vote lead in the nationwide popular vote. It’s no wonder Boxer wants to do away with the Electoral College, since it would let her state decide presidential elections, even if — as in this election — the Republican candidate did much better in far more states across the country. As IBD pointed out in a recent editorial, the Electoral College was specifically designed to prevent candidates from winning the presidency simply by appealing to a few heavily-populated, highly partisan regions of the country. The Electoral College forces candidates to compete nationwide if they want to be president. That’s a good thing.
B-Man Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 PRAISE BE, MISS NANCY RETAINED!: Pelosi, the perfect Democrat leader................... House Democrats elected Nancy Pelosi to another term as minority leader on Wednesday, rejecting a challenge from Rep. Tim Ryan, of Ohio, who called for a leadership shakeup after the party’s poor election performance. Pelosi won with a little more than two-thirds of the vote, 134-63, a few weeks after she predicted that about two-thirds of the caucus would back her. The early morning vote occurred in a House office building committee chamber. It was closed to the public and the media. Lawmakers made their choice via secret ballot. Pelosi’s victory came after a group of Democrats stood up and praised her as a strong leader who has kept the caucus united and who is “battle-tested, “seasoned,” and “tough. Yes, she’s seasoned. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/praise-be-miss-nancy-retained-pelosi-the-perfect-democrat-leader-house-democrats-elected-n/
B-Man Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 The Democratic Party enters the wilderness. Lisa Boothe: What is left is the reality that the Democratic Party has been propped up by the personal likability of President Obama that pushed them past the finish line in 2008 and 2012. Now they are grappling with what is next in a post-Obama landscape. But in stead of shifting leadership or messaging strategies, they are poised to reelect the same people and failed ideas that led them into the darkness of irrelevancy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, will likely stay at the helm. Rep. Ben Lujan, who ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and picked up only an embarrassing six seats for his party in the House, will stay in command as well. Chuck Schumer has already been tapped to lead Democrats in the Senate as minority leader. A separate race for the Democratic National Committee has exposed how liberal and out of touch the party truly is right now. Candidate Rep. Keith Ellison, who once called for a separate country for black Americans, has received the endorsement of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Ellison has also been accused of anti-Semitism and has ties to the Nation of Islam. The Daily Caller has also identified law school columns in which Ellison calls the Constitution “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.” The Democratic Party will likely continue its sharp turn left. Steve’s Second Law of Holes says that when you’re opponent is in one, hand them a bigger and nicer shovel. PARTY OF YOUTH: Curtis Kalin@CurtisKalin 30m30 minutes ago The average age of the House Republican leadership is 47. The average age of the House Democratic leadership is 76. Reminder: I'm so old that I can remember (several on this board) "worried" about the GOP shrinking into a "regional party" .
Nanker Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 As the highest ranking elected Democrat official, she's literally the "face" of the Democrat party. Their most engaging candidate for POTUS wasn't even a Democrat until a few months ago. He had Hillary running to the left faster than the NASCAR drivers at Daytona. That's the future of that party - Cargo Cultists/SantaClaus/Socialism.
KD in CA Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 As the highest ranking elected Democrat official, she's literally the "face" of the Democrat party. Their most engaging candidate for POTUS wasn't even a Democrat until a few months ago. He had Hillary running to the left faster than the NASCAR drivers at Daytona. That's the future of that party - Cargo Cultists/SantaClaus/Socialism. Yes it is the future of that party; they are doubling down on the leftism and the scary part is Bernie might have won. And even scarier considering the most likely candidate for 2020 as of right now is Warren. First woman + Bernie style socialism without the drag of being a hateful c--t in the public spotlight for 25 years (like Hillary) will create a lot more excitement on the left than this year. Trump will need to win new converts over the next four years to hold the Great Lakes states and get reelected.
B-Man Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 Philadelphia City Attorney named in Anti-Trump Vandalism “If the image of an upper-middle class city attorney clad in a blazer and sipping wine while vandalizing an upscale grocery store with an anti-Trump message strikes you as perhaps the most bourgeois sight imaginable, that’s because it is.”
keepthefaith Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 As the highest ranking elected Democrat official, she's literally the "face" of the Democrat party. Their most engaging candidate for POTUS wasn't even a Democrat until a few months ago. He had Hillary running to the left faster than the NASCAR drivers at Daytona. That's the future of that party - Cargo Cultists/SantaClaus/Socialism. and Trump is about to steal even more voters from the Dems with his Pro-American Jobs agenda. The only place for Dems will be even further to the left. This will be most entertaining to watch.
Chef Jim Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 Someone posted on FB that because Trump is considering Patraeus as SOS who gave classified info to his mistress can now STFU about Hillary's email. It was followed by libs posting how disgusting it was that Trump would consider him. I posted "so let me get this straight. Someone who is careless with classified info is not fit for the position of SOS but is fit for the position of POTUS?" Killed that thread real quick.
Prickly Pete Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 . Someone posted on FB that because Trump is considering Patraeus as SOS who gave classified info to his mistress can now STFU about Hillary's email. It was followed by libs posting how disgusting it was that Trump would consider him. I posted "so let me get this straight. Someone who is careless with classified info is not fit for the position of SOS but is fit for the position of POTUS?" Killed that thread real quick. They are running into the walls they created. Sad.
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2016 Author Posted December 1, 2016 . They are running into the walls they created. Sad. But those "walls" don't count, because they're a product of Western European philosophy and dialectic, and oppresses the use of narrative, storytelling, and "make your own reality" analysis. Therefore, is invalid, and stop trying enslave blacks, you !@#$! [/CRT]
4merper4mer Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 Someone posted on FB that because Trump is considering Patraeus as SOS who gave classified info to his mistress can now STFU about Hillary's email. It was followed by libs posting how disgusting it was that Trump would consider him. I posted "so let me get this straight. Someone who is careless with classified info is not fit for the position of SOS but is fit for the position of POTUS?" Killed that thread real quick. Two wrongs don't make a right. Both Hillary and Patraeus were very dumb with sensitive information. Personally i don't think either is fit. I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's face it, they are prone to doing stupid things with technology. Add to that Hillary's desire to hide her correspondence......I don't think the General had that intent at least not to the same degree.....add to that that they both are prone to honey traps,,,,GP with the broad and Hillary with Huma.....and neither should be SOS IMO. Do I like GP? Sure. But he effed up. Do I like Hillary? Do I think she had nefarious intent that GP didn't? Do I think her transgressions were far greater than his? None of those answers really matters because two wrongs don't make a right. If the email scandal investigations were truly over then Trump is right not to start them again. It stinks to high heaven and lap dog Comey sure helped, but over is over. The Comey swamp should be drained though. On the flip side he should not shut down any ongoing investigation of either the email or especially the Clinton Foundation.
Recommended Posts