It is completely irresponsible to argue that a president who reaches 270 electoral votes is not “elected” and legitimate, right, Hillary Clinton? Only a shameless partisan with no concern for democracy or our system of government would insist that president is not elected, long after he’s taken the oath of office. Trump is insanely irresponsible to suggest that this election may be rigged and the outcome fraudulent. Why, who on earth would ever make such a charge?
At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been “selected” president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue.
Lol, ah the scramble and desperate attempt for a "the other guy did it too" argument. This would be comparing Trump's constant claims heading into an election that he appears to be losing with claims that it's rigged.
Lol, ah the scramble and desperate attempt for a "the other guy did it too" argument.
When a republican makes claims about an election being rigged or about not accepting the results, you clutch your pearls and rant:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
...he weakens this country with his talk about rigged polls and elections if the polling is down and he thinks he's going to lose. That is not anybody you would really want as the most powerful office in the world.
As demonstrated above, Hillary Clinton previously claimed a prior election was rigged (by the Supreme Court, etc.). You have stated that such talk renders one unfit to hold the presidency.
So, either you're a hypocrite or Hillary is--by your own stated standard--unfit to hold the presidency.
Will be you voting Gary Johnson, leaving that line on the ballot blank or writing in another name?
On his Thursday, Oct 20 2016 program (about 10 minutes in) Hannity detailed all the hypocritical times these same Democrats condemning Trump for POTENTIALL challenging the fairness of the current election, are the same people who divided the nation in challenging the 2000 and 2004 elections, and have continued to do so going forward, and have never ceased or retracted their remarks.
As Gingrich partially adds, the 1824 and 1876 elections were also highly contested.
The 1960 Kennedy/Nixon election was undeniably rigged.
And given the amount of collusion between the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Debbie Wasserman-bitch-cunt-Schultz, the admitted DNC/Hillary campaign-funded "double-wall" deniable funding of violence at Trump rallies, and deliberate fake voters and double-voting in favor of the Democrats, as well as other corrupt revelations from WikiLeaks and Project Veritas, Donald Trump is absolutely justified in challenging the trustworthiness of the Nov 8th election. Way before the election, the potential rigging of the election by Democrats is plain to see.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
False equivalency. The supreme court did play a role in deciding the 2000 election. Gore did win the popular vote. Gore to his credit conceded for the good of the country. Your piece of shit candidate is undermining the process because he knows he's not going to win.
Al Gore is not the first candidate to LEGALLY lose with the popular vote, to a candidate who won the electoral vote. That is what the electoral vote is supposed to do, so that smaller states are not rendered eclipsed and unrepresented by a few large states like New York, Florida, California and Texas. You dementedly say that as if the electoral college were somehow illegal. Those are the rules!
Gore finally conceded AFTER he tried to only do re-counts in the districts that favored him, and deceitfully tried to exclude districts and military absentee ballots that favored W. Bush. AFTER he tanked the stock market and cost many middle class Americans their savings. It should also be pointed out that the liberal media falsely called Florida for Al Gore (unprecedentedly BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED), and did not correct the error until AFTER the polls closed, suppressing (by comparison to the previous 1996 and 1992 Florida turnout) Republican turnout by between 10,000 and 37,000 votes, that would have decisively given the state to W. Bush, way beyond any need for a re-count.
If Trump loses, the DNC itself has been complicit with the liberal media in doing every trick in the book to rig the election. John Harwood, the New York Times and Politico have coordinated with the Hillary Clinton campaign, have given the Clinton campaign the ability to approve articles or prevent them from being published.
Donna Brazile fed a debate question verbatim from CNN to the Hillary Clinton campaign, so that when the same question was asked verbatim she was completely prepared for it.
Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have had illegal meetings with Loretta Lynch, have corruptly influenced FBI director James Comey not to prosecute despite overwhelming evidence.
And the entire DNC leadership (as revealed in the WikiLeaks exposure of DNC internal e-mails) had contempt for Bernie Sanders and conspired at every turn to destroy his candidacy. When all this was revealed and DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman bitch-cunt Schultz was forced to resign, she was immediately re-hired to the highest position in the Hillary Clinton campaign. Far from Hillary Clinton criticizing Wasserman-Schultz's lack of ethics, Hillary Clinton basically said Well done, my faithful and evil servant.
And the same DNC and liberal media have likewise coordinated against Trump. PROVEN, thanks to WikiLeaks.
The very worst you can allege about Donald Trump, still only alleged and not proven, pales beside the even worse (and largely proven!) sexual allegations against Bill Clinton. He paid Paula Jones $850,000 in a settlement. He is alleged, way beyond groping, to have raped Juanita Broaddrick. Likewise Kathleen Willey. And Hillary Clinton was part of the attack machine to destroy them, slander them, and to intimidate them into silence. Including some others who died in very mysterious circumstances the Clintons may have had killed.
You can say that Bill Clinton's sexual liasons are irrelevant because he is not running for President, Hillary is. But (1) she personally took part in the slanderous destruction and intimidation of these women Hillary knew to be telling the truth, and (2) Hillary has vowed to make Bill Clinton a centerpiece of her administration if elected. So Bill Clinton remains very relevant to the discussion.
That's not even including Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm, Hillary's insider trading where she made a 100-fold fortune on her very first investment while first lady of Arkansas, Travelgate, Filegate, and so many other scandals from the 1970's to 2001. Let alone the four different types of treason she's been involved with in the Clinton Foundation and as Secretary of State, and the myriad transgressions revealed by WikiLeaks.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Your problem isn't the media but the horribly flawed candidate that Trump is. I'm guessing your going to lose big time because voters are going to reject the pile of shit.
Just a little emotional about it, aren't you, M E M?
When your candidate is Hillary Clinton, you really have no moral high ground to call her opposition a "pile of shit". Relative to Hillary's PROVEN crimes and jaw-dropping lack of any ethics. Re-read what I typed above. That's really just the tip of the iceberg regarding the incredible unworthiness of Hillary Clinton.
Trump being Trump is your problem. I respect the rule of law btw.
Your party leadership demonstrably does NOT.
As the IRS/Lois Lerner scandal, the Benghazi lies and cover-up, Donna Brazile, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the stream of revelations from WikiLeaks and Project Veritas abundantly demonstrate.
The only reason your party is winning is the media is 80% liberal, and they would favorably cover Josef Stalin if he were the Democrat candidate.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Yeah, that 80% number is from Bernard Goldberg's statistics in his 2002 book BIAS, on the statistically quantifiable liberal bias of the media in every poll of news reporters (who identify as "liberal" or "very liberal" in every poll of reporters, consistent in polls spanning the previous 50 years).
But more recently, that number may be much higher than even that long-standing 80% number. As I quoted Tim Groseclose many times, Washington DC-based reporters supported Obama at a ratio of 93%, that Groseclose pointed out is a higher ratio of DNC support among reporters than in the most densely Democrat/liberal regions of the country, such as Boston, Massachusetts, and Berkeley, California.
A statistic released over the last few days cites that 96% (!!!) of all donations by reporters to the two presidential candidates all went to Hillary Clinton. No bias in reporting, I'm sure. None at all.
Especially in recent weeks. WikiLeaks exposes so much criminality among Hillary's closest advisors and in the wider DNC leadership, and collusion with the lapdog media. And yet they almost 100% coverage to the women who accuse Trump of groping her, and just a scant few seconds to mentioning WikiLeaks.
I can't believe so many out there would vote for Hillary Clinton, given the mountain of PROVEN criminality and treason, by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
I think there is no denying that the media favour Clinton, but I don't think that is driven by bias. The barrage of anti-Trump reports I read out of the NYT and the Washington Post should be better marked as opinion. But they're clearly partisan.
They're hardly part of the grand media conspiracy.
The temptation to blame the media and not the candidate or the process by which the candidate is selected is something people should resist. If the GOP had a half-decent candidate, then the GOP would have easily beaten Clinton. It seems trite to blame the media for an exceptionally poor candidate choice.
They're hardly part of the grand media conspiracy.
I've already explained that. You seem deliberately resistant to the clear situation, that there are establishment Republicans who have been collaborating with the establishment Democrats since at least the NAFTA agreement 20-plus years ago, both collaborating with lobbyists to enrich themselves with lobbyists, some of them globalists undermining U.S. sogereignty and national security. John Boehner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Paul Ryan, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, George HW Bush and Geoerge W the younger, are all establishment Republicans. The Wall Street Journal and many pundits like Charles Krauthammer and George Will are likewise establishment Republicans who resisted or openly opposed Donald Trump from day one.
Trump and the Tea Party wing of the Republican party, on the other hand, stand in contrast to that, are nationalists who want to restore our borders, our sovereignty, our economic self-reliance, and rebuild our military. Things Hillary Clinton has sold out and vocally opposed EVEN BEFORE she has ever become president. She is a Benedict Arnold 4 times over.
Pat Buchanan has termed the collaboration of establishment Democrats with establishment Republicans, in racking up 20 trillion in debt, in collaboratively voting for limited foreign wars our military is not fully allowed to win, in collaboratively passing trillions in trillions in unfunded new social spending (4 of the 5 trillion new debt in W Bush's term alone), and offshoring of jobs and factories to Southeast Asia (hollowing out America's industrial base) what Buchanan calls "bipartisan economic treason".
You seem oblivious and immune to that point, no matter how many times it is made.
You also seem to have a burning need to rail on Trump's alleged character flaws, while simultaneously ignoring the FAR surpassing criminality, treason, avarice and vindictive pettiness of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The very worst you can say about Donald Trump is that (if fully true, and I think it is, to some degree) that he gropes women as a perk of his wealth and power. But.. even if that is fully true, if the very worst allegations are all true, that still only approaches the sexual abuses, rapes and pedophilia of William Jefferson Clinton. Who is as much of a package deal with Hillary Clinton as Mike Pence is part of the Trump package. But far FAR beyond Bill Clinton's predatory sexual transgressions, there is the vilest of political corruption, using the powers of government agencies to unleash vengeance on their real or perceived political enemies, or (in the case of Filegate) destroying the tiniest of non-partisan bureaucrats just because they unwittingly got the slightest bit in their way.
In 1993-2001, the Clintons used the IRS to vindictively audit prominent conservative pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly every year they were in power. Oddly, those audits began again right after Barack Obama was inaugurated.
Likewise, under Obama, Lois Lerner and other leadership in the IRS that withheld 501-status to Tea Party and religious conservative groups, crippling their ability to fully organize and fundraise. As well as subjecting many of these Tea Party leaders (the IRS passing on their information to other agencies for further targeting by federal harassment and raids) by ATF, OSHA, EPA, FBI and other federal agencies. Obama won in 2012 with 51% of the vote, and that IRS discrimination (along with several key voting districts mysteriously voting 100% OR MORE than 100% for Obama) is part of an illegal machine that circumnavigated the rule of law and rigged the 2012 election.
Observe also the way Bill Clinton met on a plane (illegally) with Justice Dept attorney general Loretta Lynch on her private plane (ex parte) while Lynch was deciding whether to prosecute Bill and Hillary Clinton over Hillary's private email server compromising national security, and her pay-to-play antics at the Clinton Foundation. Lo and behold, 2 days after the meeting on the plane with Lynch, FBI director James Comey had a press conference and said despite Hillary demonstrably with evidence being guilty of all charges, "no reasonable person" would prosecute her. Plus the above posted article, where the ASSISTANT FBI director was likewise corrupted/bought off by the Clintons with a $675,000 donation to the assistant director's wife's state Senate campaign.
This is what Hillary has been doing BEFORE she is able to take the most powerful office. One can only imagine the unparalleled corruption and treason she will engage in if elected for 4 or 8 years.
You apparently are immune to the facts in front of you.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
