Welp, Pennsylvania has just said they aren't doing a recount Looks like our nations hopes hinge on the investigation into Russian interference bearing fruit (or, even better, the Treason charges sticking!)
Oh, and where is the evidence to support that assertion? What the Russian hacking did was provide a platform for right wing conspiracies like Pizzagate where right wingers such as yourself created a whole bizarre conspiracy out of nothing...kinda like the many other baseless right wing, i.e. Republican, conspiracies over the course of the last 2 and a half decades. Unfortunately, right wing conspiracies don't need much to grow. They just need plenty of ignorant and not too bright sycophants and Lord knows the American right wing is loaded with them. Who is they kemosabe...the American intelligence community? Because that is who is blaming the Russians. Where is your evidence of democratic deception tactics? They certainly aren't in the hacked emails. Further, it's kind of ironic for right wingers like you to accuse others of deception tactics. Almost every time Trump opens is mouth he lies. The writer of his book invented a term to describe Trump's prolific lies. He called it "truthful hyperbole", but as he admits, there is nothing truthful about Trump's "truthful hyperbole". Fact checkers found your man Trump lied 75% of the time. That's more than 3 times the norm. Lies and deception are the norm in right wing circles. Just tune into Fox News or right wing radio on any given day and it won't take long for a reasonably well informed person to begin hearing the lies and deceptions. That's why since 1992 Republicans have only been able to win the national popular vote one time. This is yet another great example of Republican, i.e. right wing, ignorance, deception, and gullibility. Where is your evidence that a debate moderator provided Hillary with the questions in advance? Let me guess, it's with the evidence Hilary is a serial murder, child sex trafficker, etc. It doesn't exist. Again, what DNC deception? In order to persuade folks who are not right wing Kool-Aid drinkers, you need evidence and you have none. That's why right wingers like you have only been able to win the national popular vote 1 time since 1992. The irony here is that Trump is the least transparent candidate the nation has seen. Unlike Clinton who disclosed 39 years of tax returns, Trump has refused to disclose ANY of his tax returns. Further, Trump has and continues to refuse to disclose anything about his business dealings. That's unprecedented in modern times. Furthermore, per his recent public statements on the matter, he has no intention of publicly divorcing himself from all his business dealings while in office. For Christ's sake, he even used his government provided transition website to hawk is businesses. Knowing as little as we do about Trump's business dealings, we do know he will, beyond any doubt, be the most conflicted POTUS in modern history. So for you and your fellow Republicans to say or insinuate that Trump is in some way transparent is a blatant fraud. So you think people exercising their right to a recount makes people zombies? When I see and hear people like you make statements like yours, I'm always reminded of Matthew 7:3, ""Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?". Those words were never more appropriate. Speaking of con artists, there was only one candidate who has been legally charged with fraud, and that's the Republican candidate, and he paid huge sums to make those charges go away, e.g. Trump University. It was found Trump used the word "university" fraudulently and forced him to stop using it. His "students" sued him for fraud and he settled with them by paying them millions of dollars. No, the party of illusion and deception is in control of our government, and that's not good for anyone. Republicans lost the popular vote in this country by more than 3 million votes. The trumping of democracy isn't a good thing for freedom loving people. It's a road to trouble. When the will of the majority is trumped by the will of the few as it has been, that's not a democracy. That's the road to fascism. Only fascists think that is a "good thing".
joepistole, much of these stems from the fact that almost all of the Wikileaks emails are fantastically mundane, hence why you have right wing conspiracy nuts trying to turn pizza into child sex. Even the ones that do point to nefariousness are pretty mundane, For example consider this one https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 It seems to show Donna Brazile giving John Podesta a question Hillary would be asked during the debate between her and sanders. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ry-clinton-debate-question-podesta-emails-cnn While dishonest, but not really a crime. Yes Trump is far less transparent, thanks to the Russians no less, but as of yet real political dirt* has not been uncovered on him, I doubt that it will take long once he is president. *: for some reasons his business history of being a huckster is not equated with carrying on in politics, don't get me started on how people build such a mental block, I can't comprehend it.
Here are some interesting facts. -This past April, a Russian hacker was sentenced in an Atlanta court after creating a piece of malware that automated attacks on banks and financial institutions. It is estimated that his work helped cyber criminals infect more than 10 million computers and caused over $1 billion is economic damage. -Also this year, a Russian hacker gang was accused of seeding websites with malware that gave them access to their Russian victims’ computers and eventually their bank accounts. The estimated damage was over $25 million before they were shut down this past June. -A US federal prosecutor has noted that Russian and Ukrainian hackers were behind the largest cyber-crime case in US history, costing companies over $300 million in bank-card fraud from 2010 to 2013. According to a World Economic Forum report, the cost of cybercrime to the global economy was $445 billion in 2014. -Well-paid Russian “trolls” created a fake crisis in 2014 when a flood of eyewitness reports of a chemical leak in Louisiana made its way onto several mainstream media Twitter accounts. This disaster claim was, of course, all a hoax, but proved the extent to which Russian trolls can manipulate US interest using social media. -US computer databases are a favorite target of foreign spy services. The Russians have shown an aggressive appetite for personal records that include data such as travel and medical records. Personal information used to breach IRS records in 2015 helped Russian hackers claim $50 million in fraudulent tax refunds. - See more at: http://www.techpolicydaily.com/technology/russians-hacking-dnc-america/#sthash.vHeOkxif.dpuf The reason this is interesting is this has happened under Obama, yet I hardly heard anything about Russian hacking, until after Hillary lost the election. I was curious why this was not more mainline earlier, especially since Obama was in charge, at the time of all these hacks. The way the Democrats are so upset, I assumed it is about nationals security and not sour grapes. If the DNC had not been hacked, or if Hilary had won, do you think the Democrats would be suddenly interested?
I heard of Russian hackers doing X before, I think a hacking that helped a US election outcome is a new level for it introduces the possibility that the Russians manipulated the election to get Trump, fraud and trolling simply does not compare.
Well, that's probably because you weren't listening or paying attention. Hacking is always in the news and it has been in the news for decades. Hacking isn't a new phenomena unique to the Obama administration. It has occurred under every POTUS for decades. Hacking is old news. What's new news, what is unprecedented, is a hostile foreign power has intervened in an American election. And if an appropriate response isn't marshaled, it won't be the last time. If American politicians of either party have to be wary of what Russia did to Clinton happening to them, that's a big win for Putin and a big loss for the American people whither you can see that through your partisan blinders or not. If you had won the 500 million dollar lottery prize you would be a lot richer, if you had been born as Donald Trump, you would be a lot richer. But you weren't. You can deal in if's all you want. But in the real world we deal with reality. You so called "conservatives" are very fond of justifying the unjustifiable by saying, well Democrats would have done the same. You don't know what the Democrats would have done or not done, and in any case it doesn't justify your putting partisan interests above the interests of the nation as you and your fellow Republicans have repeatedly done, e.g. repeated attempts to cause a debt default.
Well the electoral college elected trump, only 2 trump voters defected, yet, and this is a testimony to how hated Hillary Clinton is, 8 electors defect or tried to defect from voting for Clinton! http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/50618...cure-electoral-college-win-with-few-surprises So I think we can say this thread is over.
Well, I don't think think the Democratic defections are indicative of Hillary dislike. What did they have to lose by voting for someone else? Nothing, they could have all voted for Hillary, it would have made no difference. So they made a statement by voting for Bernie. Bernie is kinda old for the job. But who knows? He may be back in 2020.
Well only one managed to vote Bernie, the ones in my state were thwarted, who would have thought Colin Powell though? With bernies age I'm a little uncomfortable for him trying in 2020, I think warren still would be best, though many have been turned off by spinlessness in standing up against the Clintons. I have been hearing interesting stuff about Tulsi Gabbard, she young, she has military service under her belt, she is extremely progressive and she resigned from vice chair of the Democratic National Committee in order to support bernie sanders which means she has a spine and principles over political posturing.
They most likely wanted to make a statement about Hillary; otherwise, there would be no point in voting for someone else. It does look like signs of cracks in the foundation. I'm thinking Bernie will be getting too old for the job by 2020. Will be watching the party over the next few years.
So . . . . . back to the OP: Will Hillary become president after recount? Evidently NOT during this election cycle . . . . . .
Perhaps, but their votes weren't important and they knew that. The same could not be said of Trump electors. Bernie may well be too old to run in 2020. He might not want to run in 2020. It doesn't really matter. Cracks in the foundation, that sounds more like right wing hope than anything resembling reality. I think Hillary lost the Electoral College when she selected Kaine as her VP pick. She needed someone like Bernie or Warren on the ticket with her. Kaine, while competent, was just too damn boring. Republican voters need to be entertained. I'm not sure who the Democrats select in 2020. I think much will depend on how the next 4 years go with Trump. We'll have to see how Republicans handle it. But I'm deeply afraid Republicans will fuck it up, and if they do Democrats won't need much to win in 2020. Thus far Trump is on target to screw things up good. I hope the President Trump will be very different from the candidate Trump. If he screws up healthcare, it will be his name on it. If Republicans screw things up, it will be their names on it. So let's see what happens. Right now the markets are soaring based on the belief that Trump will deliver a multi-trillion dollar stimulus package in the form of infrastructure improvements, increased defense spending, and tax cuts for the wealthy. The irony here is that for the last 8 years Republicans have steadfastly and even zealously fought against government spending and now, if the markets are right, on the verge of implementing unprecedented government spending programs which will add more than 13 trillion dollars to the national debt. For the last 8 years debt mattered, even to the point of attempting to force the government into default on multiple occasions. But now that a Republican has been elected POTUS and Republicans control both houses, what debt? Democrats have been injured, there is no doubt of that. But unlike Republicans, they aren't mortally wounded. Democrats lost this election cycle even after winning a vast majority of the vote. Republicans won only because of the very undemocratic aspects of our government. The long term prognosis for the Democratic Party is good. The Democratic Party is the majority party and the party is growing stronger in key demographic groups. Demography favors Democrats. Democracy favors Democrats. Republicans are a dying party as their demographic continues to shrink while the Democratic demographic continues to grow.
I feel safe now in saying no. I felt safe when the post first went up. But now I am certain Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's what the Dems were saying after Reagan won in 1980, and W in 2000 - at least now, Dems said, the Republicans will get the blame for what they do. That's not what happened. Those two were re-elected - by larger margins - after screwing up so badly that there has been a full time PR campaign just to make what they did appear equally the fault of non-Republicans.
That's not my recollection, and I was there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Carter came into office on a wave of optimism. He was and is a nice guy, but he isn't a good leader. And the nation needed a leader. Most Americans were happy to see Carter go and warmly welcomed Reagan to the White House. As much as Carter was a nice guy, he just wasn't a good leader, and he bungled a lot of things including the rescue of hostages in Iran. Most people were happy to see him go. Reagan was no Donald Trump. We have never before seen anyone like Trump in the White House. So for you to equate the two is just flat out wrong. Reagan was a charismatic leader at a time when the nation needed a charismatic leader. Reagan had a brain and he used it. Reagan was sane. He had a moral backbone. Trump has and is none of those things. Reagan had a Democratic Congress which worked with him to get things done. Democrats and Republicans worked together. They had disagreements, but they worked together. They accomplished much during Reagan's tenure. Democrats in Congress cooperated with Reagan. There wasn't anything close to the animosity we see today. It didn't exist back then.
Go back and revisit the news, the speeches, etc. Improve your recollections with information. For example, this is false: As was clear then and we have confirmed since, Carter did not bungle the rescue of hostages in Iran. Instead, Reagan and/or his supporters appear to have committed treason during the 1980 campaign, by interfering in US foreign policy to the nation's detriment and their own political advantage (side deals with Iran). Trump's entanglements with the Russians, and campaign advantage gained thereby, is an obvious parallel. (W's best-buddy alliances with the Saudis file here as well). Most of Carter's "bungled" stuff was Republican campaign stuff more or less equivalent to the "bungling" of Clinton - a small core of fact, misrepresented and used to deceive - much as we saw in Trump's campaign. Trump has a ton of charisma, demonstrated leadership abilities (of small groups of insiders) and a significantly "better" (smarter, faster, better informed) brain than Reagan had - certainly by 1984. I think you may be forgetting how much of a joke, a mocked figure of obvious inadequacy, Reagan was, until he won. In what way other than vulgarity of expression does Trump actually differ, significantly, from Reagan? The Democratic Congress rolled over for Reagan - with consequences we suffer to this day. "Animosity", although more prevalent than you seem to recall, was in much shorter supply than it should have been. That's part of how the Republicans have dodged the blame for what Reagan did - much as they have so far dodged the blame for the Iraq War.
