You must really be math challenged if the fact that almost 3 MILLION more Americans voting for Trump's opponent doesn't indicate that a great many Americans do give a $hit about the sentiments expressed by Meryl Streep.

And you are (not must be, but are) severely constitutionally challenged if you do not yet appreciate that we do not elect the president by a direct popular vote in this country.  But the election results are in, they are conclusive, and Hillary lost convincingly.  But you just can't swallow it, can you?  TDS is real.

I suspect the supporters of HRC feel quite marginalized when their candidate wins more votes but loses the election

How exactly do you become a functioning adult in this society but not come to realize that there are a vast many ways that our constitutional system defining a federal government of limited and enumerated powers has a vast many ways that a raw majority cannot simply exercise its will to oppress the minority?

but that fact doesn't make their disgust with the winner any less real.

Well, here we agree -- Politically speaking, leftists like Streep and yourself are quite disgusting.

What is the LEFT's fascination with an oppressive, violent, and totalitarian regime like Cuba that abuses its citizens regularly, and keeps them in enslaved poverty?  Why do they love the Castros so much?

It is the left's blindness to reality and to nature.  This blindness allows them to believe that man is on a "progressive" course to some utopian ideal.  They've constructed a belief that the way to achieve this vision is wealth redistribution by a centralized authority.  So they keep trying, and when it fails, as it always does, they must blame anything other than themselves. The oppression, violence, etc., is either a necessary step in the journey toward perfection, or it is a result of outside meddling by others (usually white males). Their obsession results from their rage that their experiment is obviously a failure, and their scramble to rationalize why it's the fault of anything but their unnatural ideals.

Conversely, adherents to free market capitalism can also suffer from utopian idealism.  But in general, as an economic system, capitalism works far better than collectivism.  The truth is reality is fluid and capitalism recognizes that reality; collectivism does not. Society will always change around with the flow of time. The nature of man as a living organism is to behave certain ways and make constant micro-decisions for individual and group survival. Capitalism takes advantage of this reality. Collectivism tries to kill it.

Because the left doesn't understand these realities, they're doomed to constant frustration as the world keeps insisting on working the way mother nature made it, that is: individuals seek to trade at a profit to both parties.  It's the most basic of human behaviors and the left's economic theories go straight opposite of it. Because they refuse to see humans as just another working part in the whole of nature (including such horrors as killing and eating other things with faces) they suffer from internal dissonance. They can't reconcile reality with their intellectually constructed notions.  By God they will prove that their theories work if they must torture and kill every human on earth in the process.

After thinking about this a while, I realized that it's similar to the time I wrote "Moochelle" and you challenged me on it.  I thought about that, too, and realized it is because I don't respect her, and it's hard for me to use the real name of someone who, in my opinion, is neither worthy (of a position, say) or respectable (because of their behavior).  I concluded then that I supposed I should consider a person's name sacrosanct, despite my feelings about them.  I could skip titles, though, as I often do with the current person residing in the White House.

On this issue of Obama's birthplace, here is the deal.  I simply do not trust him, or any of his minions, handlers, cohorts, and cadre.  I don't trust him, or them, asechrest, sir.  Really, AT ALL.  And why should I? Look what he has done to our country!  His only memorable quote in office was a lie!

One can pontificate about this and that, that he has done, and how wonderful he is, but the fact is that his tenure has been painfully disastrous for our country.  Fareed Zakaria did a CNN special on Obama's second term, admitting that it was a disaster, but claimed that "America has failed its President.  It was not ready for his ideas." 

Well, thank God we weren't ready for the compost heap he shoved down our throats and the cloak of despair he threw over our country!  Those who TRUSTED him, and voted for him, brought it all down upon us.  I. Do. Not. Trust. Obama.

I don't trust Trump, either.  My trust has to be earned.  I am watching.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, and don't think I deserve to be called "wildly partisan" and "inconsistent."  I am not a birther.  I didn't care when it was issue, and I don't care about it now.  There were much more important reasons to be concerned about him than where he was born. 

My lack of trust in the whole leftist machine, as we saw exercised in such a WILDLY PARTISAN manner in this election, causes me to trust NOTHING that they do or say.  They have brought it on themselves, and I am not alone amongst thinking, rational people in seeing the horrific tearing away of the mask of civility the leftists managed to hide behind, before they began rioting, blaming everything but themselves, and gnashing their teeth at November 8th's REAL NEWS that there was a large swath of American citizenry who didn't trust them, either.

No, it is not simply a yes or no question. You know the answer to this question, and I know why you are asking. The answer is more convoluted than you think.

YES, CBC members in 2010 introduced a resolution to limit the power of the OCE. It had no support from House Democratic leadership, and at the proposal of the bill, twenty of the forty two members of the CBC supported the resolution. Less than half of the CBC. House Whip Jim Clyburn, a CBC member in 2010, didn't support the measure and neither did Speaker Pelosi. It never made it further than a headline or two for a day and fulfilled a week's worth of programming on conservative media outlets (I'm just spitballing on this one). The resolution died soon after introduced.


Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!

Mark I appreciate the answer but it is yes or no - that they failed or that it did not have 100% support at the time is irrelevant other than that is the same situation as the recent GOP approach, also not 100% supported, and also not successful.  Simple fact is that the first attempt to gut this office was from the Democrats themselves, 7 years ago.

The real issue is that the Dem's created OCE, in 2008, for the express purpose of weaponizing ethics investigations because it is against the law for HCOE to share details during an investigation - the only problem is, as it always has been, they expected to always be in control of everything but the OCE actually investigated ethics breaches of Dem's as well as Republicans, the CBC felt singled out and pushed for similar limitations as were recently proposed, in 2010.

There is already an office responsible for handling these types of issues (HCOE), and it actually has rules similar to the innocent until proven guilty protections we mere proles enjoy - that was not enough for the Dem's and so they created OCE thinking they could use it against Republican's by making accusations, in public.

'Gimp

The American media is accusing Russia of rigging the US election by exposing how the DNC rigged a US election?

Trump drew more people to rallies, HRC had close to 3 MILLION more votes.  Yeah, he won an overwhelming victory. 

304 to 227, pretty overwhelming to me, especially coupled in context with the devastation Barack Obama has visited on the Democrat party since his election in 2008, more than 900 State legislative seats, 12 governships, 69 seats in the House, 13 seats in the Senate - ALL GONE. 

They are now by any reasonable logic a coastal/regional party, if they did not have effective one-party rule in NY, and CA and a near monopoly in the alt-left government-media- news-complex, they would be a minor party, barely more influential than the Libertarians

I am completely fine if those of you on the Left never get it, since your derangement and cognitive dissonance is so bloody entertaining - America has systematically and overwhelmingly rejected Barack Obama, his policies, and his party - this is clear in election results.

Once again, Clapper offered no actual proof of the claimed Russian plan to influence the election, only notional thoughts and opinions and innuendo - but he stated explicitly there was absolutely no hacking of the results.

The fake news is the story that anyone 'hacked the election' - did not happen, is not alleged to have happened, and DNI himself has stated very clearly there is no such evidence or accusation.

The only people, for whom there is actual, unchallenged evidence of clear attempts to influence the election, are, once again, the Democrat Party and their fellow travellers in the media - who rigged the Democrat Primary and then colluded at levels unseen in prior years, to elect Hillary Clinton.  They basically stole one election and almost stole a second - in broad daylight - because the fox is guarding the henhouse.

We know this thanks to Wikileaks - and you bozos cannot have it both ways, if Assange was a hero when he released the Snowden material, if you cheered when he released the (boring) Sarah Palin e-mails, then you need to cheer him on now as well - if his sources were unimpeachable before (or more likely unimportant so long as he was gunning for the other team), then the same should be true now.

That the DNC was so easily penetrated, and then refused to cooperate with respect to FBI access to the servers to find any actual proof is the real news story - let that sink in for a second - the DNC alleges the Russians hacked their servers, and then REFUSED TO LET FBI EXAMINE THE SERVERS - the FBI statements are being made based on suspicion, fuelled by the DNC itself, there is no proof of hacking because FBI was not allowed to search for it.

So please, cling to the 3 million popular vote argument (nearly all from CA and NY btw), keep MAKING fake news stories about fake news - the adults are about to be in charge again and shit is about to get real.

'Gimp

One of the all time , all common liberal strategies is to put things out of bounds by making them into a joke. All that does is assuage the snowflakes about things that might hurt their little feelings.
IF Barack Obama had nothing to hide, he, or his handlers, wouldn't have gone to such trouble to hide everything that would prove the things he claims about himself.
The fact that progressives go nuclear every time the subject is raised just proves how insecure they are about their total devotion to whatever lies they've been fed about him.

Some people are just delusional, indoctrinated, and culturally impaired.