She was a leader in defeat in a way I think Trump can never be as a winner. I would point out that he was already crying that it was a rigged system when he thought he was going to lose. Gore conceded when it became legally impossible for him to win the college.
Congrats, Trump voters. I'm willing to give this a shot, but I do reserve the right to say fuck this shit at any moment. Seriously, while I am skeptical, he at least deserves a chance before twats turn out in the streets to protest him. The butthurt is strong in those kids.
Considering our President elect spent considerable time and energy raising the subject of "rigged" elections does he really deserve a chance? I think the piece of shit should be treated with as much respect as he's shown for others.
We're in this situation because your guys refused to put up anyone other than some old tart who couldn't display a basic range of human emotions or answer one damn question about some of the questions raised late about the emails without trying to Jedi mind trick her way into talking about Russian hackers and tax returns. Like I said about Romney in 2012, this was her election to lose and she lost it mightily. She lost suburban, Oprah watching women for Christ's sake.
He was boisterous, loud, and offensive; but--at least--he showed some emotion and didn't come off as an automaton going through various states of breakdown.
Maybe, instead of bitching and protesting, these people would be better off trying to figure out how they lost Democratic bastions to Donald God damned Trump!
Considering our President elect spent considerable time and energy raising the subject of "rigged" elections does he really deserve a chance? I think the piece of shit should be treated with as much respect as he's shown for others.
Thanks to Wikipedia for being the only place I've been able to find so far that shows the actual total electoral votes for Trump, and isn't hiding behind "too close to call" to avoid posting the real total of 306. Many sites are still showing 274 or 279.
but yeah, that 1.7% really fucked you over, didn't they?
Yes.
Trump needed every single possible vote to beat the rigging. Johnson cucks made it that much more difficult to win and took the popular vote away from Trump.
Granted, in reality, he DID win the popular vote, but that extra 1.7 percent would have taken away the liberals' wedge issue by giving him that much more of a landslide.
The electronic scam worked in Hillary's favor by counting every one vote as 1.2 votes (or somewhere in that range). Meaning that you need landslide numbers to beat it if you don't have the same standard applied to you. The additional votes that went to Gary Retard Johnson would have given that much more umph to his victory. But now the public perception is that she got more votes, and should therefore be the one in office.
Trump won the war mind you. But this maimed his victory somewhat.
Trump needed every single possible vote to beat the rigging. Johnson cucks made it that much more difficult to win and took the popular vote away from Trump.
I love it when you call me dirty words you picked up from Stormfront. <3
The chain is unbroken. That metaphor originated among white nationalists before the alt-right popularized it. It's funny because some of those guys who throw it around the most aggressively would probably pay for the privilege of watching The Donald plow their wives or girlfriends while they watched.
On the contrary, the People who went to infinity during the Dashcon and Gamergate exoduses were the ones who hated the Alt Right and made fun of the stormers.
I didn't post on 4 prior to the Quinn debacle. I went straight to infinity when the Quinn shit storm ensued.
The scapegoating has begun, and the Left desperately needs it.
In fairness there was a scramble to explain why Romney lost in 2012, although I think it was then more a case of trying to understand why it happened, rather than to blame someone. I posted one of the editorials at the time. And the tendency was to blame Romney and his advisors for his failed campaign strategy, rather than voters for not voting for him.
It's also been pointed out that about 1 million black voters who voted in 2012, didn't vote democrat in 2016.
Quote:
Yet Democratic turnout dropped in the 2016 general election: Roughly 7 million fewer Democrats voted than in 2012’s. Despite all the media attention devoted to the Clinton campaign’s “ground game,” the Democratic Party simply failed to mobilize its base of voters and lost to the least popular presidential candidate ever.
verall voter turnout in the election was also quite low, likely reflecting widespread dislike of the candidates. Nearly half of eligible voters, 47 percent, did not vote in the election. Clinton and Trump each attracted about 25 percent of the eligible electorate in a closely divided election.
Perhaps it comes as no surprise then that the Democratic Party that chose to nominate the second-least popular presidential candidate ever — a Wall Street-backed neoliberal millionaire whose foreign-policy views were even more hawkish than those of her Republican rivals — had previously systematically undermined its best chance to defeat Trump.
Internal emails from the Democratic National Committee, released by the whistleblowing journalism organization WikiLeaks, show that the Democratic Party sabotaged Sanders’ campaign on behalf of Clinton.
The DNC is supposed to be bound to impartiality, but clearly favored Clinton from the beginning. In an ensuing scandal after the leaks, four top DNC officials were pressured to resign, including chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a former co-chair for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Mere minutes after Schultz resigned from the DNC, the 2016 Clinton campaign hired her.
An internal campaign email released by WikiLeaks also demonstrates how the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC intentionally fueled the rise of Trump, helping to create the far-right Frankenstein monster that defeated her.
Even after the Democratic Party betrayed him and undermined his campaign, Sanders, fearing a potential Trump presidency, endorsed Clinton and campaigned for her, alienating many of his supporters.
Yet Sanders also spoke out and warned that the Democratic Party was on the path to disaster. When the U.K. surprisingly voted in June to leave the European Union, in the so-called Brexit vote, Sanders penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled “Democrats Need to Wake Up.”
That "far right Frankenstein monster" is also known as the American people.
Against this screed-writer's own points, between the DNC/Hillary Clinton's betrayal of the Sanders voters, the leaked DNC e-mails of their treachery within their own party, Wikileaks' revealed DNC e-mail racism toward blacks and Hispanics, Hillary believing you need "a public strategy and a private strategy" (i.e, tell the public one thing and then pursue an opposite secret agenda), and the various crimes and treasons of Hillary evident but not prosecuted. millions of DNC previous 2012 voters just couldn't hold their nose and vote for the evil thing we call Hillary Clinton. Blacks, Hispanics, millennials, union workers, Reagan Democrats, displaced coal industry and fossil feul workers all turned from voting Democrat as they did in 2012, and either voted Trump, or stayed home.
The 'bigoted, racist" Donald Trump scored a few percentage points higher among all these racial and demographic groups. Far from exclusive, Trump's voting bloc looks like a cross-section of America! A cross-section tired of the usual race/class demagoguery of the last 8 years, of DNC leaders enabling and stoking cop-killing, of anti-capitalist, job-killing cultural Marxist slop that's being fed to them by the Democrats. They chose this year to feed elsewhere.
Hannity gave a good overview last night of what Trump did today toward transition, and what he needs to do. And the uncivility of the Democrat Left in crybaby protests and one case riot, just because their candidate didn't win :
O'Reilly's opening editorial also summed it up well:
Donald Trump's victory on Tuesday has caused outrage among some Twitter users, including those who have called for the assassination of the president-elect and his vice presidential counterpart, Mike Pence.
Since the race was called early Wednesday morning, angry Americans have flooded the social media platform. "Can someone assassinate Trump and fix this huge mistake," wrote one user on Thursday, echoing the sentiments of others upset by the outcome of the election.
Others have responded by mocking those users, pointing out that if someone were to assassinate Trump, he would simply be succeeded by Pence, whom many consider more ideological. (Video)
The Secret Service does not comment publicly on its protective operations, but threats of assassination on social media have resulted in investigations in the past. As reported by The Atlantic, the organization's "Internet Threat Desk," founded in 2000, handles these kinds of cases and has seen its responsibilities expand in recent years.
The unit, which identifies and assesses online threats against the president, was expanded in 2009 following the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
Mashable reported back in March, before Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, that those making threats against the then-candidate had received calls and visits from the Secret Service.
Anti-Trump sentiments on Twitter mirrored the in-person protests that broke out across the country on Wednesday. Gatherings of protesters were reported in Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Boston and Portland on Wednesday.
One angry Trump protester in Los Angeles told CNN that she was ready for a civil war. "There will be casualties on both sides. There will be, because people have to die to make a change in this world," she said.
Nice image to expose your young children to, Democrat values at work! Basically advocating lynching or assassination.
I think it's safe to assume that anti-Trump protestors burning American flags, and waving Mexican and/or Soviet flags, hate America. That's beyond hating Trump, and directing hate against America itself.
"Fuera Obama", and hating America, a perfect unison of ideologies.
"FIGHT CAPITALISM". That's again about hating American values, not just hating Trump.
Y'know, maybe brownshirt thugs in the streets trying to slander and intimidate their way to victory, utilizing tactics far more common with Nazis and Leninists, are the ones who are truly "Nazi" and not Trump.
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.
Those wishing to "CONQUER FEAR" don't generally march in a threatening manner, wear the symbol of the Anarchy movement, and hide their faces with hoods and masks. They are generally the ones creating fear.
"MAKE AMERICA MEXICO AGAIN". Yeah, that's not exactly what an immigrant melting into American society would say. She's on the wrong side of the border.
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.
Still, I theorized that the level of turnout would be enough to override the fraud and he'd get the popular. I was wrong. So I'll eat that shit sandwich.
We all know however, that if they audit the vote--and I hope the do--there'll be, at least, well over 1.6 million fraudulent votes. And it goes without saying that those votes will all be owned by Clinton.
This really can't be overstated. In fact, 1.6 million is probably an understatement when you get down deep into the weeds of what really went on at the voting centers.
MLordandGod discusses the full implications of Trump's surge and the mountain of shit he had to dig through to beat the Clinton machine on her own fraudulent terms:
Imagine what the result would be were it not for the Clintons' bullshit tactics.
I don't necessarily agree that Trump doesn't have a mandate (what with the electoral landslide), but it's certainly lessened by the perception that he lost the popular vote--and, for that matter, at least two or three more states that would have been swung (I'm thinking of NV, CO, NH, and possibly MN).
I didn't find that last YouTube video very clear or well made. It has a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton (backed by George Soros) for some reason felt it would be too much of a reach to steal the election entirely, but felt it would be credible to the public to (1) stack up fake votes that make Hillary win the popular vote, while losing the Electoral College vote. And that (2) having Trump win only the Electoral count while more actual votes (faked) shows Hillary won popular consensus, and thus undermines Trump's mandate to lead the nation.
I don't really buy either premise. I certainly think the Democrats cheat at every opportunity, and two incredibly corrupt successive DNC chairpersons (Wasserman-Schultz, and Brazile) in a row manifests how corrupt the very core of the DNC is, not just one or several persons, but the entire core.
That said, if the Dems could steal the popular vote, they would certainly steal the Electoral College as well if they could. And I fully expect that they stole as much as they could, but still fell short of what they needed to steal because (A) they didn't anticipate such a low black, Hispanic and millennial voter-turnout for the DNC, and (B) they didn't anticipate such a large white, blue collar/union, Reagan-Democrat turnout for Trump!
Originally Posted By: Pariah
I don't necessarily agree that Trump doesn't have a mandate (what with the electoral landslide), but it's certainly lessened by the perception that he lost the popular vote--and, for that matter, at least two or three more states that would have been swung (I'm thinking of NV, CO, NH, and possibly MN).
I'm not at all clear what your point is regarding "NV, CO, NH and possibly MN."
The blue/Democrat-voting areas tend to be crowded urban areas, and rural black areas in the South. And high crime areas. Apparently criminals vote Democrat!
The fraud is made manifest in a combination of three forms: a) illegal aliens, b) "malfunctioning" electronic ballots, and c) programming voting machines to input votes for Hillary as a float rather than an integer.
I don't think I have to explain illegal aliens and duplicate voters.
For the ballots however, counties in Texas and Florida, among other states, reported that Trump's name would either be changed to Hillary at the moment before submission, remove his name completely, or mark down Hillary's name on a straight republican ticket. Many people would probably catch this discrepancy, but some don't, and those are votes for Hillary the fraudulent nature of which cannot be proven without confirming with the voter what choice he made--a logistical nightmare.
Certain machine brands were caught inputting votes for Hillary as a floating point value, a decimal number, whereas Trump's were inputted as integers, whole numbers, as they're supposed to be. Provided the fractional value is small enough, it would give her further padding of, at least, one additional vote for every ten votes, but was probably closer to 1.2 (anymore than that would produce a noticeable discrepancy). In a general election, a would-be cheater has discrepancy window of between 1 and 2 percent before he (she) will get caught (primaries are far more lenient, offering a 5-10% window). That means Hillary's cheating ceiling is between 1.210 million and 2.420 million. Aside from the fact that only a fractional amount of those numbers are required to steal the popular vote, it's important to note that Trump achieved his electoral landslide with the barest of margins at 106 thousand plus votes spread across multiple states. As such, similar margins could have been realized in NV, CO, NH, and MN with either an absence of the large amount of fraudulent votes or an increase of votes that Trump would have otherwise had were it not for the Soros-owned voting machines (he owns Smartmatic).
And then, of course, there were the assholes in Browered and elsewhere who was caught destroying Trump ballots.
Democrats don't have to try and steal the popular votes most of the time of course since California will always give it to them. But they have to assure that the fraudulent votes they manage to sneak by the scrutiny will be evenly divided among the states--within the 2 percent margin of course.
I would add though, that this election is particularly unusual in the level of turnout motivated by Trump. So California or no, it's not improbable to assume that Hillary's now 500 thousand vote popular lead would be erased were she not attempting to operate within a fraudulent margin.
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.
Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.
“Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,” he added.
According to current indications, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 630,000 votes, although around 7 million ballots remain uncounted.
Virtually all of the votes cast by 3 million illegal immigrants are likely to have been for Hillary Clinton, meaning Trump might have won the popular vote when this number is taken into account.
Vote fraud using ballots cast in the name of dead people and illegal alien voters was a huge concern before the election.
On the morning of the election there were 4 million dead people on U.S. voter rolls.
Although some states require some form of ID before voting, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. all require no identification before voting.
On top of this, less known sites have pointed out that not all absentee ballots have been counted. Historically, that portion of the vote always pulls, at least, 63% republican since its consists primarily of military personnel. They theorize that, even without acknowledging the level of illegal immigrant voter fraud, Trump may have won the popular vote by approximately 700,000 votes regardless.
That's disturbing. I suspected there were a huge ratio of fraudulent votes by various means (as evidenced in links I posted regarding the 2012 election, and with no Justice Dept pushback or price paid, why wouldn't Democrats do the same or worse in the 2016 election?
Some pundits have said that Trump winning proves the system isn't rigged. But the truth is, Trum won in spite of the system being rigged. That Trump would have won the popular vote as well if not for Democrat fraud is something that I didn't think of. Disturbing stuff. This might be the last presidential election Republicans are allowed to win.
Looking at political cartoons of Trump and the election, the cartoonists are so apoplectically angry toward Trump, they seem unable to come up with anything truly funny.
Likewise, this one. The liberal nightmare of Trump's America:
The Nazi theme is rampant among liberal cartoonists on the subject of Trump. But then, so was the W. Bush/Nazi theme 10 years ago. These cartoonists seem oblivious to the fact that it is the Democrats who weaponized FBI, ATF, EPA, OSHA, IRS and other federal agencies against their conservative opponents (Catherine Englebrecht/True The Vote, Frank Vandersloot, EPA/Gibson guitars...) Somehow that never makes a blip on their radar.
Apparently, Democratic Underground's website was recently hacked in a major way. You can read their own posted account of it here. And it still displays some delicious wank-and-cry posted opinions from the Left about Trump's election.
I don't agree with this one, but still thought the idea was well-executed:
Two thoughts: 1. If we accept the cartoonists' premise, every Republican president was a "devolution" from previous ones? Reagan and George HW Bush were "worse" than "Tricky Dick" Nixon? 2. I thought we were told the past eight years that depicting a president as a chimp or ape was racist. So now it's okay again?
O'Reilly in this clip gives a sampling of what Soros is involved in funding, on pretty much a daily basis over several decades...
...but that's really just the tip of the iceberg.
Detailing what Soros is and his multitude of "progressive" think tanks, liberal media mainstream channels and propaganda websites (MediaMatters, etc.) and front groups (such as apparent religious pundits, who are truly undermining and advocating de-Christianizing America)...
...is a plan to overthrow the U.S. as a sovereign Constitutional republic, and enslave us into a globalist system, destroy our nationalism through massive waves of both legal and illegal immigration, compromise our borders, melt us (penultimately) into a North American Union, and (ultimately) into a globalist system, where the U.S. no longer has the ability to independently act diplomatically, economically or militarily in the world, to in any way resist the globalist elites Soros is part of. Crushing the U.S.'s ability to even act in self-preservation.
In WikiLeaks e-mails just before election day, Clinton aides Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta openly discussed setting up a fake Catholic front group (liberal secularist progressives, fronting themselves to be grassroots Catholics, demanding change in Catholic policy inconvenient to liberal progressives) as a way to leverage liberal/progressive/anti-Catholic change within the Catholic church through typical deceptive progressive/Marxist insurrection tactics.
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.
Radio host Todd Kincannon from The Kincannon Show tweeted today that a CNN reporter told him Hillary Clinton became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight last Tuesday as the presidency was slipping away.
Quote:
CNN reporter tells me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.
— The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 14, 2016
Hillary Clinton did not make it on stage that night. She sent John Podesta out instead.
Hillary was drunk.
Quote:
She was. I posted about that too. She was in a "psychotic drunken rage" according to my reporter friend. Doctor added sedatives to the mix. https://t.co/jZv376ydDM — The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 15, 2016
e reporter said CNN would not publish the story!
Quote:
The CNN reporter didn't fail to report it. His editors would not let him. CNN has banned all "Hillary in the bunker" stories.
— The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) November 15, 2016
The nation really dodged a bullet on November 8th.
