jared_7 wrote:These exact discrepancies existed on mass in the Democratic primaries - huge deviations between exit polling and actual results, and deviation between electronic results and paper ballots, combined with the the subsequent unveiling of the DNC's actions behind the scenes - and people were told they were tin foil hat conspiracists and needed to move on.
Would that be the election where Clinton ended with more votes over Sanders than she has over Trump?
And has been noted, the DNC supported Clinton back in 2007/8, but changed to support Obama when he proved a more popular candidate. This isn't a group looking to support Clinton come what may.
jared_7 wrote:These exact discrepancies existed on mass in the Democratic primaries - huge deviations between exit polling and actual results, and deviation between electronic results and paper ballots, combined with the the subsequent unveiling of the DNC's actions behind the scenes - and people were told they were tin foil hat conspiracists and needed to move on.
Would that be the election where Clinton ended with more votes over Sanders than she has over Trump?
And has been noted, the DNC supported Clinton back in 2007/8, but changed to support Obama when he proved a more popular candidate. This isn't a group looking to support Clinton come what may.
You do realise the people who work at the DNC change, don't you? DWS and other top positions haven't remained unchanged. They were almost certainly a group who were going to support Clinton come what may, its no longer even opinion after the leaks.
But anyway, this is all irrelevant. My point was there have been signs of fraudulent voting throughout this process, and many of the people screaming from the rooftops now were the same people telling others to "suck it up" just 3-4 months ago. If it wasn't so worrisome I'd say they got a nice dose of karma.
If I lived in the US I would go running for the hills if the result is overturned, all those armed to the rooftops will have lived for this very moment.
jared_7 wrote:These exact discrepancies existed on mass in the Democratic primaries - huge deviations between exit polling and actual results, and deviation between electronic results and paper ballots, combined with the the subsequent unveiling of the DNC's actions behind the scenes - and people were told they were tin foil hat conspiracists and needed to move on.
Would that be the election where Clinton ended with more votes over Sanders than she has over Trump?
And has been noted, the DNC supported Clinton back in 2007/8, but changed to support Obama when he proved a more popular candidate. This isn't a group looking to support Clinton come what may.
You do realise the people who work at the DNC change, don't you? DWS and other top positions haven't remained unchanged. They were almost certainly a group who were going to support Clinton come what may, its no longer even opinion after the leaks.
But anyway, this is all irrelevant. My point was there have been signs of fraudulent voting throughout this process, and many of the people screaming from the rooftops now were the same people telling others to "suck it up" just 3-4 months ago. If it wasn't so worrisome I'd say they got a nice dose of karma.
If I lived in the US I would go running for the hills if the result is overturned, all those armed to the rooftops will have lived for this very moment.
The DNC supported Clinton when Sanders couldn't win. They'd have been negligent not to turn their minds to the general election at that point.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I don't know why one would consider the DNC would support Clinton come what may when just one nominee before they didn't support her and instead supported Obama once Obama started bringing in the votes. There not only no history of the DNC supporting Clinton no matter what transpires there's the exact opposite.
Not surprising, really. Though Clinton's foreign policy looked a lot more dangerous, you never know what's going to happen after the election, and it's difficult to see the US changing course, regardless who's in the White House. Look at Obama, got the Nobel Peace Prize then spent every single day of his two-term presidency waging war on other countries. Anyway, my preference was Stein, not Trump, but in regards to foreign policy Clinton was a mushroom cloud waiting to happen.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
That's a strange comment, even from you. Russia and China have actually strengthened their relationship this year. & who is Russia's mouthpiece supposed to be? Trump - because he doesn't want to start WWIII with them like a certain other candidate in the recent US elections?
Oookay...
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:Not surprising, really. Though Clinton's foreign policy looked a lot more dangerous, you never know what's going to happen after the election, and it's difficult to see the US changing course, regardless who's in the White House. Look at Obama, got the Nobel Peace Prize then spent every single day of his two-term presidency waging war on other countries. Anyway, my preference was Stein, not Trump, but in regards to foreign policy Clinton was a mushroom cloud waiting to happen.
Every single person knew and repeatedly told you that he was an international liability.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
rowan wrote:Not surprising, really. Though Clinton's foreign policy looked a lot more dangerous, you never know what's going to happen after the election, and it's difficult to see the US changing course, regardless who's in the White House. Look at Obama, got the Nobel Peace Prize then spent every single day of his two-term presidency waging war on other countries. Anyway, my preference was Stein, not Trump, but in regards to foreign policy Clinton was a mushroom cloud waiting to happen.
Every single person knew and repeatedly told you that he was an international liability.
Oh, so suddenly you're imagining I'm a Trump supporter and that you and every other person on this planet told me something I didn't know. I see Even though I never supported him, never even took him seriously, in fact. I supported nobody but Stein, and simply wrote that Clinton was a bigger liability than Trump - which remains true. This issue is a storm in a tea cup. You just can't wait to find fault in Trump and parade this as 'indisputable proof' that you were right and anybody who doesn't think as you do was wrong. But if you think Trump is a bigger liability in terms of foreign policy than Clinton, you are still wrong - very wrong.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Even though she wanted to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, along with yet another regime change, and draw Russia into World War III while she was at it?
Ooookay
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Clinton would have been able to resist going on Twitter to bait other nations, but then she was overwhelmingly a stronger and more ethical candidate. Against which the State Department could use a bit of a kicking, though it'd be better not to have a cretin performing that service
Digby wrote:Clinton would have been able to resist going on Twitter to bait other nations, but then she was overwhelmingly a stronger and more ethical candidate. Against which the State Department could use a bit of a kicking, though it'd be better not to have a cretin performing that service
Clinton of the email scandals fame, you mean? The "stronger and more ethical candidate" who destroyed Libya and laughed about it, you mean? The one who supported the invasion of Iraq? The one who waivered a ban on child soldiers so America could continue fueling civil war in Sudan. The selfsame Clinton who supported a coup in the Honduras and wanted to get rid of Syria's internationally recognized leader and provoke Russia into war?
Oooookay
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Even if he'd lost the election, he probably would've been TIME's Person of the Year. He was the one perpetually all over the news, so it's a logical choice.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
cashead wrote:Even if he'd lost the election, he probably would've been TIME's Person of the Year. He was the one perpetually all over the news, so it's a logical choice.
No, it would have been Hillary for sure, only she would've been Time's WOMAN of the year, which would've been great - if only she hadn't been a war criminal complicit in the deaths of many thousands of women (and children and men, of course) in the Middle East & elsewhere.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
cashead wrote:Even if he'd lost the election, he probably would've been TIME's Person of the Year. He was the one perpetually all over the news, so it's a logical choice.
No, it would have been Hillary for sure, only she would've been Time's WOMAN of the year, which would've been great
Why? They've used "Person of the Year" since 1999 and there have been 5 women who have been named as such since then.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
Even though I never supported him, never even took him seriously, in fact. I supported nobody but Stein, and simply wrote that Clinton was a bigger liability than Trump - which remains true. This issue is a storm in a tea cup. You just can't wait to find fault in Trump and parade this as 'indisputable proof' that you were right and anybody who doesn't think as you do was wrong. But if you think Trump is a bigger liability in terms of foreign policy than Clinton, you are still wrong - very wrong.
