Post by: Lucifer on November 25, 2016, 02:37:32 PM
Post by: Mase on November 25, 2016, 02:58:35 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 25, 2016, 05:23:50 PM
Post by: bflynn on November 25, 2016, 08:34:27 PM
Hillary lost Pennsylvania by over 68,000 votes and Wisconsin by over 27,000. Recounts do not make up those kinds of margins.
Michigan has already done a recount and Hillary still lost.
Denial is a river in Egypt, not a way to look at elections. The left continues to do great harm to their cause.
Post by: PaulS on November 25, 2016, 09:28:42 PM
Who is Stein raising the money from?
Hillary lost Pennsylvania by over 68,000 votes and Wisconsin by over 27,000. Recounts do not make up those kinds of margins.
Michigan has already done a recount and Hillary still lost.
Denial is a river in Egypt, not a way to look at elections. The left continues to do great harm to their cause.
It's how elections are stolen.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 25, 2016, 09:29:48 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38112752
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 25, 2016, 10:05:28 PM
If you want to know what is going on, take ANYTHING someone on the Left says, and then realize it's psychological projection.
Post by: bflynn on November 26, 2016, 06:58:45 AM
Post by: DJTorrente on November 26, 2016, 07:46:50 AM
Post by: Number7 on November 26, 2016, 09:49:34 AM
Post by: acrogimp on November 26, 2016, 11:15:49 AM
Gimpy prediction, Trump Derangement Syndrome is going to make Bush Derangement Syndrome and Palin Derangement Syndrome look like the common cold compared to Ebola.
The fact that Obama has already stated he plans to ignore the 240 year tradition of EVERY President before him in terms of allowing the newly elected President to enact his own agenda without criticism or interference shows not only his complete and utter lack of personal respect or class, but also that the Left simply does not have any intention of listening to the will of the people if it does not agree with their radical agenda.
We are in for a very tough transition as the balkanization started under Obama will only accelerate as the marginalized Alt-Left Government-Media Complex lashes out at its loss of power.
'Gimp
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 12:21:02 PM
So are they going to do a total statewide recount, or like Gore where they go into only strong Democrat counties and look for "lost votes"?
Also, if Jill Stein is so concerned with Hillary losing the election, why did she even run? Stein siphoned off votes from Clinton, so in theory if Stein had bowed out then Hillary would have probably won.
I'm beginning to think that Stein's campaign debts will be paid off by the Clintons.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 26, 2016, 12:49:32 PM
The fact that Obama has already stated he plans to ignore the 240 year tradition of EVERY President before him in terms of allowing the newly elected President to enact his own agenda without criticism or interference ...
Do you have a reference for that? (I'm not doubting it, just would like the reference if you have it handy)
Thanks
Post by: bflynn on November 26, 2016, 01:23:50 PM
Of course what he means is that he will speak out of HIs ideals are being violated.
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 02:29:43 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/21/obama-says-hell-speak-out-against-trump-if-thinks-us-ideals-are-at-risk.amp.html
Of course what he means is that he will speak out of HIs ideals are being violated.
In other words, he'll do the same as others.
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 02:43:40 PM
In other words, he'll do the same as others.
Which previous presidents have come out and openly criticized their successors?
I don't recall LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB or GWB railing against their successors. I vaguely recall Clinton making some criticism of Bush, but nothing news worthy.
Post by: Mase on November 26, 2016, 02:49:58 PM
In other words, he'll do the same as others.
Reagan and both Bushes did a class retirement act and stayed out of the limelight. Slick Willie, not so much.
Post by: PaulS on November 26, 2016, 03:00:45 PM
In other words, he'll do the same as others.
Examples please, especially during the first year or two of a new presidency.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 26, 2016, 03:02:47 PM
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 03:17:11 PM
My bet is Obama will not be able tot stay away from a microphone and camera. Why else would he be staying in D.C. where there is easy access?
He's too much of an attention whore, and will believe he's still relevant. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and the NYT and WashPo will follow his every move and gladly stick a microphone in his face daily.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 26, 2016, 03:51:29 PM
In other words, he'll do the same as others.
um, did you read the same url I did?
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 26, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
Which previous presidents have come out and openly criticized their successors?
I don't recall LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB or GWB railing against their successors. I vaguely recall Clinton making some criticism of Bush, but nothing news worthy.
Lincoln was publicly criticized by some of his predecessors:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-lincoln-saved-the-union-and-freed-the-slaves-five-ex-presidents-tried-to-stop-him/2014/06/27/21de5d80-f0ba-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html?utm_term=.b690f70d80be (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-lincoln-saved-the-union-and-freed-the-slaves-five-ex-presidents-tried-to-stop-him/2014/06/27/21de5d80-f0ba-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html?utm_term=.b690f70d80be)
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 04:27:01 PM
Lincoln was publicly criticized by some of his predecessors:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-lincoln-saved-the-union-and-freed-the-slaves-five-ex-presidents-tried-to-stop-him/2014/06/27/21de5d80-f0ba-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html?utm_term=.b690f70d80be (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-lincoln-saved-the-union-and-freed-the-slaves-five-ex-presidents-tried-to-stop-him/2014/06/27/21de5d80-f0ba-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html?utm_term=.b690f70d80be)
I believe the conversation is about recent presidents in fairly recent history.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 26, 2016, 04:37:25 PM
I believe the conversation is about recent presidents in fairly recent history.
Acrogimp wrote "The fact that Obama has already stated he plans to ignore the 240 year tradition of EVERY President before him in terms of allowing the newly elected President to enact his own agenda without criticism or interference ..." so I assumed the same historical span.
Post by: Little Joe on November 26, 2016, 04:39:44 PM
Lincoln was publicly criticized by some of his predecessors:Big deal. What's your point. I mean your real point, not just the point of a technicality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-lincoln-saved-the-union-and-freed-the-slaves-five-ex-presidents-tried-to-stop-him/2014/06/27/21de5d80-f0ba-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html?utm_term=.b690f70d80be (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-lincoln-saved-the-union-and-freed-the-slaves-five-ex-presidents-tried-to-stop-him/2014/06/27/21de5d80-f0ba-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217_story.html?utm_term=.b690f70d80be)
Defending Obama?
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 04:44:37 PM
Acrogimp wrote "The fact that Obama has already stated he plans to ignore the 240 year tradition of EVERY President before him in terms of allowing the newly elected President to enact his own agenda without criticism or interference ..." so I assumed the same historical span.
But you quoted me. If your reply was meant for gimp, quote him. ::)
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 05:01:37 PM
Which previous presidents have come out and openly criticized their successors?
I don't recall LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB or GWB railing against their successors. I vaguely recall Clinton making some criticism of Bush, but nothing news worthy.
The link provided is a prime example of how a partisan can read whatever they want into a parsed-up quote.
Obama's remarks are simple: he'll give Trump room to govern without direct criticism. But he'll be happy to defend American ideals. This is no more or less than any of us would request. Anyone who has the ability to elevate themselves above blatant partisanship could accept that.
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 05:02:45 PM
I believe the conversation is about recent presidents in fairly recent history.
Your post asked for previous presidents. He gave you one.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 26, 2016, 05:04:46 PM
Plus, Trump is alpha, O is beta. IMHO, alpha has already rendered beta irrelevant.
Post by: acrogimp on November 26, 2016, 05:08:59 PM
Acrogimp wrote "The fact that Obama has already stated he plans to ignore the 240 year tradition of EVERY President before him in terms of allowing the newly elected President to enact his own agenda without criticism or interference ..." so I assumed the same historical span.Jim, that is a good example, but I would point out that it occurred during the single most contentious element in the history of our nation (and I would say for any nation with self-rule), and it happened more than 150 years ago, and is limited to one small stretch of time, and it involves men who were essentially recruited by the people in an effort to save the Union - which I believe still makes my point with respect to Obama who has clearly demonstrated over the past 8 years that he does not understand or agree with the view of our Nation as held by, at a minimum, a plurality if not majority of Americans.
If you look to the actual electoral results during Obama's 8 years the Democrats have gone from historically high levels of control and power, to their weakest in terms of actual seats held in a century - that suggests a rather wholesale rejection of the 'values and ideals' that Obama and the Democrat party have espoused, which suggests that in 'speaking out' he will not be protecting our 'shared' values so much, as trying to protect his legacy which is just crass IMO.
The larger point remains that Obama has essentially rejected a historic tradition of honoring the results of elections that stretches 240 years (except for about 5 years during the civil war).
'Gimp
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 05:09:15 PM
Your post asked for previous presidents. He gave you one.
Go back and read the post I wrote that Logajan quoted. Here, let me make it easy for you:
Quote
Which previous presidents have come out and openly criticized their successors?
I don't recall LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB or GWB railing against their successors. I vaguely recall Clinton making some criticism of Bush, but nothing news worthy.
Anybody with an ounce of reading comprehension can see I was making my reference to presidents of the past 50 years.
Then Logajan comes back and says he was replying to gimp, but felt the need to quote me.
Reading and comprehension is just hard for certain people.
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 05:14:19 PM
The link provided is a prime example of how a partisan can read whatever they want into a parsed-up quote.
Obama's remarks are simple: he'll give Trump room to govern without direct criticism. But he'll be happy to defend American ideals. This is no more or less than any of us would request. Anyone who has the ability to elevate themselves above blatant partisanship could accept that.
Obama will take every opportunity to inject himself into the news and take potshots at President Trump. Obama still thinks he is relevant and that somehow the american people will want him there doing it.
Obama is one of the most partisan politicians on the planet. Rise above partisanship? YGTBSM! Obama supporting american ideals? Again, YGTBSM!
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 05:19:57 PM
Go back and read the post I wrote that Logajan quoted. Here, let me make it easy for you:
Anybody with an ounce of reading comprehension can see I was making my reference to presidents of the past 50 years.
Then Logajan comes back and says he was replying to gimp, but felt the need to quote me.
Reading and comprehension is just hard for certain people.
Your words are those of a weasel. You asked a direct question. Here, let me make it easy for you to remember your own writing:
Quote from: Lucifer
Which previous presidents have come out and openly criticized their successors?
You then go on to list some recent presidents, but give no indication you intend to limit your question to "the last 50 years". If you'd like, I'll suggest some wording that would allow you to limit your question to presidents of "the last 50 years".
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 05:30:08 PM
Your words are those of a weasel. You asked a direct question. Here, let me make it easy for you to remember your own writing:
Yes, I asked a direct question to YOU in which you are obfuscating and ignoring because you don't have an answer.
You then go on to list some recent presidents, but give no indication you intend to limit your question to "the last 50 years". If you'd like, I'll suggest some wording that would allow you to limit your question to presidents of "the last 50 years".
Again, reading comprehension seems to be your weak point.
And once again, as you are so well known for, you've twisted the conversation as not to answer the direct question made to you in the thread.
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 06:57:08 PM
The larger point remains that Obama has essentially rejected a historic tradition of honoring the results of elections that stretches 240 years (except for about 5 years during the civil war).
'Gimp
No, he hasn't. You've read a partisan account of what is a perfectly fine position of a departing president. He'll make no direct criticism of Trump, allowing him the room to govern and acknowledging a time-honored tradition. But he'll not hesitate to defend American ideals if necessary. I'd ask no less of any president, no matter the party.
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 07:01:32 PM
Yes, I asked a direct question to YOU in which you are obfuscating and ignoring because you don't have an answer.
I don't intend to answer. It is not germane to Obama's remarks, which do not suggest he'll criticize Trump.
Post by: Mase on November 26, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 26, 2016, 07:29:24 PM
No, he hasn't. You've read a partisan account of what is a perfectly fine position of a departing president. He'll make no direct criticism of Trump, allowing him the room to govern and acknowledging a time-honored tradition. But he'll not hesitate to defend American ideals if necessary. I'd ask no less of any president, no matter the party.
I see the key to you is what one would call "American Ideals". I think Obama has a much different view of that than many others.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 26, 2016, 07:33:53 PM
Quote
So that is not the way our democracy works. We've been around for 240 years. We've had free and fair elections. We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. And that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day when you're whining before the game is even finished...
Hillary's quote from the third debate after Trump said he'd have to see what happens.
Seems like she's made a total 180.
Some other food for thought. The WI recount is being based on three areas that use the machines. They claim the results are not consistent with the results in areas using paper ballots so the machines must have been hacked. Seems more likely that the paper ballots were miscounted or tampered with in my humble opinion.
Post by: acrogimp on November 26, 2016, 07:35:23 PM
No, he hasn't. You've read a partisan account of what is a perfectly fine position of a departing president. He'll make no direct criticism of Trump, allowing him the room to govern and acknowledging a time-honored tradition. But he'll not hesitate to defend American ideals if necessary. I'd ask no less of any president, no matter the party.No. Wrong. I read what he said.
And to clarify, he will not defend 'American ideals', he will defend his legacy and his ideals - those are two totally and completely different, if not diametrically opposed things. To be honest, I think that the inability of most people to separate that is why nearly all previous Presidents do not insert themselves into the public sphere once they leave office.
Do you believe that Bush 43 ever felt, just a little, that Obama was stepping outside of American ideals, say with the apology tour, or opposing Israel's self defense, or encouraging and sustaining the fabrications that gave us Black Lies Matter, pushing for a radical Gay Rights agenda, or refusing to name Radical Islam, or not seeking to protect American jobs, or refusing to enforce the border, or the Iranian ransom and nuclear deals? Just a little? Any of those have had significant repercussions for us as a Nation and fell outside our ideals, again for a plurality if not a majority.
As an example, if you buy a house that you like but think it might take just a little tweak to make it perfect how would you describe that? Would you say you need to make a few minor changes, or would you say it needs a fundamental transformation?
Obama's ideals are NOT traditional American ideals or values, this has been demonstrated again and again in who he chooses to side with and who he chooses to let loose the dogs of war upon (see attacks on the police, military command structure, small business, big business, IRS targeting of conservative organizations, see his support of Black Lies Matter, Occupy Wall Street, etc.).
Identity politics is Anti-American, about as Anti-American as you can get IMO - anyone who uses or worse seeks a further balkanization of us as a people either does not understand American ideals, or does understand them and is actually opposed to them.
'Gimp
Post by: Lucifer on November 26, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
I don't intend to answer. It is not germane to Obama's remarks, which do not suggest he'll criticize Trump.
Absolutely pathetic.
You post:
In other words, he'll do the same as others.
And then were asked which other presidents have openly criticized their successors.
And, as usual, you don't have an answer.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 26, 2016, 09:53:12 PM
But you quoted me. If your reply was meant for gimp, quote him. ::)
You asked "Which previous presidents have come out and openly criticized their successors?"
I posted an answer.
Acrogimp was the only one to mention a time span, hence my reference to his post when you claimed a different time span.
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 10:54:53 PM
Absolutely pathetic.
You post:
And then were asked which other presidents have openly criticized their successors.
And, as usual, you don't have an answer.
When did you stop beating your wife?
I'm not sure why you think you get to dream up questions and force people to answer them. Obama did not say he will openly criticize his successor, thus my suggestion that he'll do similarly to other outgoing presidents. So feel free to project your partisanship on someone else and have them answer your query.
Post by: asechrest on November 26, 2016, 11:26:51 PM
No. Wrong. I read what he said.
And to clarify, he will not defend 'American ideals', he will defend his legacy and his ideals - those are two totally and completely different, if not diametrically opposed things. To be honest, I think that the inability of most people to separate that is why nearly all previous Presidents do not insert themselves into the public sphere once they leave office.
Do you believe that Bush 43 ever felt, just a little, that Obama was stepping outside of American ideals, say with the apology tour, or opposing Israel's self defense, or encouraging and sustaining the fabrications that gave us Black Lies Matter, pushing for a radical Gay Rights agenda, or refusing to name Radical Islam, or not seeking to protect American jobs, or refusing to enforce the border, or the Iranian ransom and nuclear deals? Just a little? Any of those have had significant repercussions for us as a Nation and fell outside our ideals, again for a plurality if not a majority.
As an example, if you buy a house that you like but think it might take just a little tweak to make it perfect how would you describe that? Would you say you need to make a few minor changes, or would you say it needs a fundamental transformation?
Obama's ideals are NOT traditional American ideals or values, this has been demonstrated again and again in who he chooses to side with and who he chooses to let loose the dogs of war upon (see attacks on the police, military command structure, small business, big business, IRS targeting of conservative organizations, see his support of Black Lies Matter, Occupy Wall Street, etc.).
Identity politics is Anti-American, about as Anti-American as you can get IMO - anyone who uses or worse seeks a further balkanization of us as a people either does not understand American ideals, or does understand them and is actually opposed to them.
'Gimp
I appreciate your detailed response but in my opinion it's over before it's begun. You've made an assumption that Obama will defend his legacy and ideals, but his own words (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru) indicate nothing about his own legacy, and are careful to mention the ideals of an American citizen. Perhaps you don't believe him, and it is your right to feel that way, but I don't expect we'll come together on that point.
I'll make a simple summary of Obama's remarks as I have read them:
- I'll respect the office and give Trump room to govern and put forth his platform and positions without criticism
- If I am questioned not about specifics but about general ideals of an American citizen, I will examine at that time whether to willingly defend them
You'll pardon me if I consider that acceptable for anyone. If I'm the outgoing president, and you ask me in an interview whether I am in favor of killing the innocent family members (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428719/kill-terrorists-families-gangsta-trump) of my enemies, I'll be more than happy to describe why I believe that is against American ideals. And I can even do so without criticizing anyone, whether or not the incoming president's view is diametrically opposed to mine.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 27, 2016, 06:44:37 AM
So what are they to do, well contact Stein and get her to do it and then they can just tag on to it like they are and always be able to deny that they started the movement.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
When did you stop beating your wife?
I'm not sure why you think you get to dream up questions and force people to answer them. Obama did not say he will openly criticize his successor, thus my suggestion that he'll do similarly to other outgoing presidents. So feel free to project your partisanship on someone else and have them answer your query.
You live in a liberal fantasy world.
Post by: Little Joe on November 27, 2016, 07:08:26 AM
Back to the original thread title here for a moment. I think this has the Clinton's finger prints all over it. We know Hillary would not contest the election herself because it would make her look like a fool after the way she reacted to Trump at the last debate.That makes perfect sense to me. And it would explain a lot.
So what are they to do, well contact Stein and get her to do it and then they can just tag on to it like they are and always be able to deny that they started the movement.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 07:09:06 AM
Back to the original thread title here for a moment. I think this has the Clinton's finger prints all over it. We know Hillary would not contest the election herself because it would make her look like a fool after the way she reacted to Trump at the last debate.
So what are they to do, well contact Stein and get her to do it and then they can just tag on to it like they are and always be able to deny that they started the movement.
Bingo! Like you said, it has Clinton written all over it.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 07:50:59 AM
Back to the original thread title here for a moment. I think this has the Clinton's finger prints all over it. We know Hillary would not contest the election herself because it would make her look like a fool after the way she reacted to Trump at the last debate.
So what are they to do, well contact Stein and get her to do it and then they can just tag on to it like they are and always be able to deny that they started the movement.
I think this is probably accurate. Some folks are still in the irrational denial phase.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 07:51:59 AM
You live in a liberal fantasy world.
On the contrary, I voted for Gary Johnson.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 07:53:50 AM
On the contrary, I voted for Gary Johnson.
You could have voted for Mickey Mouse, but that doesn't change the fact you live in a liberal fantasy world.
Post by: Anthony on November 27, 2016, 08:10:09 AM
On the contrary, I voted for Gary Johnson.
Who, for excepting a couple of libertarian points is.......a liberal.
Post by: acrogimp on November 27, 2016, 09:07:54 AM
Back to the original thread title here for a moment. I think this has the Clinton's finger prints all over it. We know Hillary would not contest the election herself because it would make her look like a fool after the way she reacted to Trump at the last debate.Like when her staff created the whole birther issue when she first ran against Obama, she never came out and said it but both Liberal as well as Conservative journalists have agreed that it did in fact originate from within her camp.. keeping her at arm's length to feign plausible deniability Pretty clever.
So what are they to do, well contact Stein and get her to do it and then they can just tag on to it like they are and always be able to deny that they started the movement.
Really goes to show that movement Liberals and especially the radical Alt-Left-Government-Media-Complex just don't respect elections when they lose. When we lived in New Mexico this happened all the time. Close election? Oh look, we found a box of ballots left in a gymnasium bathroom, outside the legally required chain of custody, and when we counted them, the liberal candidate who had lost had now won, election over, you dare not challenge the sanctity of the election. Or when they counted until Stuart Smalley won MN in 2008, going from a 215 vote loss to a 312 vote win with all challenges from his Republican opponent dismissed.
Real small 'd' democracy such as practiced in our representative Republic is an impediment to them that is to be suffered when the outcome they want is attained, and to be overturned by any means necessary if it is not.
'Gimp
Post by: acrogimp on November 27, 2016, 09:21:08 AM
I appreciate your detailed response but in my opinion it's over before it's begun. You've made an assumption that Obama will defend his legacy and ideals, but his own words (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru) indicate nothing about his own legacy, and are careful to mention the ideals of an American citizen. Perhaps you don't believe him, and it is your right to feel that way, but I don't expect we'll come together on that point.Asechrest you are too clever to fall for this.
I'll make a simple summary of Obama's remarks as I have read them:
- I'll respect the office and give Trump room to govern and put forth his platform and positions without criticism
- If I am questioned not about specifics but about general ideals of an American citizen, I will examine at that time whether to willingly defend them
You'll pardon me if I consider that acceptable for anyone. If I'm the outgoing president, and you ask me in an interview whether I am in favor of killing the innocent family members (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428719/kill-terrorists-families-gangsta-trump) of my enemies, I'll be more than happy to describe why I believe that is against American ideals. And I can even do so without criticizing anyone, whether or not the incoming president's view is diametrically opposed to mine.
He is creating the opening for his constant criticism by suggesting to the Alt-Left-Government-Media Complex how to get it from him, and he is making it easy by staying in the swamp.
Do you recall when W left office, he went back to his ranch in TX, and he kept mum. On the limited occasions when the press begrudgingly sought him out for an opinion he humbly refused to offer one out of his deep respect for the office and the results of the election.
Obama is going to essentially stay in DC, 2 miles away from the White House, where his fellow-traveller water-carriers in the Alt-Left-Government-Media Complex can easily just traipse across town and ask him what he thinks an American citizen's reaction might be to the latest manufactured scandal or stereotypical dumb-Republican decision as you know they will do, every day if they want - it is a fucking formula for them.
No President has elected to remain in DC after keaving office for almost a century (Woodrow Wilson in 1921).
Can you not see that with the clear-and-present danger that the Wikileaks scandal has laid bare with respect to open coordination between the Democrats and the media how dangerous this is?
'Gimp
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 09:34:52 AM
Asechrest you are too clever to fall for this.
He is creating the opening for his constant criticism by suggesting to the Alt-Left-Government-Media Complex how to get it from him, and he is making it easy by staying in the swamp.
Do you recall when W left office, he went back to his ranch in TX, and he kept mum. On the limited occasions when the press begrudgingly sought him out for an opinion he humbly refused to offer one out of his deep respect for the office and the results of the election.
Obama is going to essentially stay in DC, 2 miles away from the White House, where his fellow-traveller water-carriers in the Alt-Left-Government-Media Complex can easily just traipse across town and ask him what he thinks an American citizen's reaction might be to the latest manufactured scandal or stereotypical dumb-Republican decision as you know they will do, every day if they want - it is a fucking formula for them.
No President has elected to remain in DC after keaving office for almost a century (Woodrow Wilson in 1921).
Can you not see that with the clear-and-present danger that the Wikileaks scandal has laid bare with respect to open coordination between the Democrats and the media how dangerous this is?
'Gimp
Time has a tendency to whitewash our memory of things. Bush didn't hide in a hole and refuse to speak. He was happy to defend (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/) his positions without direct criticism of his successor.
I don't find anything in Obama's recent remarks that suggest he'll do any more or less.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 09:35:30 AM
Who, for excepting a couple of libertarian points is.......a liberal.
Not hardly, but a good try.
Post by: Number7 on November 27, 2016, 09:36:26 AM
The lies, slants, twists and turns will glide out of their mouths because that's what denial does to liberals.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 09:37:49 AM
You could have voted for Mickey Mouse, but that doesn't change the fact you live in a liberal fantasy world.
It does change that fact, actually. Those living in a fantasy world voted for their liberal fantasy candidate, Ms. Emails.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 09:39:41 AM
Quote
“Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States,” he (GWB) said to huge cheers.
How...how..how dare he make such a statement!!!! (faux outrage)
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 09:41:37 AM
It does change that fact, actually. Those living in a fantasy world voted for their liberal fantasy candidate, Ms. Emails.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. Keep posting liberal talking points and liberal garbage while trying to convince everyone you don't believe that tripe.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 27, 2016, 09:45:26 AM
Set these weasels loose in a sea of ballots and they will claw and gnash until they twist votes and words and "news" to Castro themselves to their desired outcome.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 27, 2016, 09:48:41 AM
It does change that fact, actually. Those living in a fantasy world voted for their liberal fantasy candidate, Ms. Emails.Or Ms. Castro, Jill Stein. Apparently she swung some states to Trump, assuming her votes would have gone to HRC.
Perhaps the recount is her way out of avoiding the suicide by shots in the back of her head.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 09:52:13 AM
The hypocrisy from this years election is overwhelming. How many times did the liberals demand Trump acknowledge if he lost he would not seek a recount or challenge the election, and the media was in a feeding frenzy that he might contest the election. And we have Hillary lecturing everyone on how unamerican it would be to contest the election.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 09:55:08 AM
Or Ms. Castro, Jill Stein. Apparently she swung some states to Trump, assuming her votes would have gone to HRC.
Perhaps the recount is her way out of avoiding the suicide by shots in the back of her head.
This whole scam by Stein is about money, nothing else. Stein and the Green Party are in debt and need to pay it off. Just watch, after this is over there will be some "donations" made to retire Stein's debt.
Stein and the Clintons are using the angst of the liberal voters for one last shakedown.
Follow the money.
Post by: PaulS on November 27, 2016, 10:04:47 AM
Okay, I am worried about this recount idiocy. In my state we had a close governor's race and the Dems took THREE recounts to get the result they wanted.
Set these weasels loose in a sea of ballots and they will claw and gnash until they twist votes and words and "news" to Castro themselves to their desired outcome.
You are right to be worried, this is how they steal elections and Hillary wouldn't get involved unless she thought this could be turned into her favor. It's going to be a rough 60 or so days.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 10:35:20 AM
You are right to be worried, this is how they steal elections and Hillary wouldn't get involved unless she thought this could be turned into her favor. It's going to be a rough 60 or so days.
Only about 22 more until the EC votes, and then January 6th when congress declares the President and Vice President.
Remember, Clinton has conceded, the election is over.
Also, these recounts are such a long shot no one has the slightest hope of a flip. Stein is doing it for the money. Remember the liberal saying "Never let a crisis go to waste".
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 10:57:18 AM
Denial is not a river in Egypt. Keep posting liberal talking points and liberal garbage while trying to convince everyone you don't believe that tripe.
I know you have an innate need to denigrate those you can't force to conform to your views, but when all you have is a hammer...
Let's recap. Obama says he won't directly criticize Trump, but may defend general American ideals if pressed. This is what previous presidents have done. I provided a link to show Bush doing the same.
And you claim I'm regurgitating liberal talking points. No, I read the guy's unfiltered words, did a bit of research about how previous presidents have handled themselves, and then formed an opinion.
/fin
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 11:05:23 AM
I know you have an innate need to denigrate those you can't force to conform to your views, but when all you have is a hammer...
Let's recap. Obama says he won't directly criticize Trump, but may defend general American ideals if pressed. This is what previous presidents have done. I provided a link to show Bush doing the same.
And you claim I'm regurgitating liberal talking points. No, I read the guy's unfiltered words, did a bit of research about how previous presidents have handled themselves, and then formed an opinion.
/fin
And in your liberal fantasy land, only your opinion counts.
(http://s.quickmeme.com/img/1a/1a6c93c71aefe2b524e8a40ec27a0800e7f0f49ff8d71545dff2c9235f099771.jpg)
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 11:08:27 AM
And in your liberal fantasy land, only your opinion counts.
(http://s.quickmeme.com/img/1a/1a6c93c71aefe2b524e8a40ec27a0800e7f0f49ff8d71545dff2c9235f099771.jpg)
You struggle with this forum thing. We all have opinions, and this is where we argue about them. If I thought mine was the only one that mattered, I'd have put you on ignore long ago, like you did Jeff. ;) Safe space and all that.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 11:12:17 AM
You struggle with this forum thing. We all have opinions, and this is where we argue about them.
And then you try to stifle anyone who argues against you. Again, pure liberal mentality.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 27, 2016, 11:30:38 AM
And then you try to stifle anyone who argues against you. Again, pure liberal mentality.I don't want to ignore you, Lucifer, but you're beginning to tempt me to do so.
We have a liberal here willing to discuss, who provides really thoughtful replies. He does not stifle. I value that. You seem uncomfortable with it.
Done!
So, asechrest, I am anxious to get your take on the recount thing. What thinkest you?
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 12:04:06 PM
I don't want to ignore you, Lucifer, but you're beginning to tempt me to do so.
And I do discuss. But when someone begins twisting and confuscating in order to make some inane point, I will take them to task.
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/12923255_999984256763283_5210284822769258893_n_zpsphm7v2ha.jpg)
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 12:15:49 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html
Quote
The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose.
The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.
Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time Pthis happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.
If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.
Post by: Mase on November 27, 2016, 12:38:12 PM
I know you have an innate need to denigrate those you can't force to conform to your views, but when all you have is a hammer...
Let's recap. Obama says he won't directly criticize Trump, but may defend general American ideals if pressed. This is what previous presidents have done. I provided a link to show Bush doing the same.
And you claim I'm regurgitating liberal talking points. No, I read the guy's unfiltered words, did a bit of research about how previous presidents have handled themselves, and then formed an opinion.
/fin
This entire argument is nuts on both sides.
Time will tell. My opinion is that B.O. will grab the spotlight at every opportunity, but no one really knows. His actions will eventually make it all clear. I can wait.
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Time will tell. My opinion is that B.O. will grab the spotlight at every opportunity, but no one really knows. His actions will eventually make it all clear. I can wait.
I agree with you. Just listen to what he has said since the election and how he firmly believes he is relevant and how much the American people agree with him and support his positions.
Also, he has spent 8 years blaming most of his failures on GWB. He will, IMO, take every cheap shot at Trump and the republicans as long as there is a microphone and camera willing to be in front of him.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 03:03:17 PM
And then you try to stifle anyone who argues against you. Again, pure liberal mentality.
You feel stifled, as one in a sea of conservatives here, by a guy who is arguing with you on the internet from likely thousands of miles away? How snowflakish.
Post by: Little Joe on November 27, 2016, 03:11:01 PM
I don't want to ignore you, Lucifer, but you're beginning to tempt me to do so.@Lucifer, please pay attention to this post.
We have a liberal here willing to discuss, who provides really thoughtful replies. He does not stifle. I value that. You seem uncomfortable with it.
Done!
So, asechrest, I am anxious to get your take on the recount thing. What thinkest you?
You know that I agree with you a thousand times more than I agree with Asechrest, but he has proven that he is able to look past at least some of the Democrat/MSM talking points. Look at him as more of a worthy opponent that needs convincing, not belittling.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 03:12:02 PM
I don't want to ignore you, Lucifer, but you're beginning to tempt me to do so.
We have a liberal here willing to discuss, who provides really thoughtful replies. He does not stifle. I value that. You seem uncomfortable with it.
Done!
So, asechrest, I am anxious to get your take on the recount thing. What thinkest you?
I think they are prolonging my liberal brethrens' denial. Trump won decisively, and the sooner we accept that, analyze what went wrong, and start the rebuilding process, the better.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 03:15:53 PM
Post by: Lucifer on November 27, 2016, 03:17:54 PM
Look at him as more of a worthy opponent that needs convincing, not belittling.
Sorry, I don't see it that way.
When someone is spewing pure bullshit they need to be called out on it.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 06:38:11 PM
Sorry, I don't see it that way.
When someone is spewing pure bullshit they need to be called out on it.
You're so strange sometimes. I've given my opinion based on a reading of Obama's remarks. Remind me, Mr. Guy-who-says-I-only-care-about-my-own-opinion, how is it pure bullshit? Please give specifics.
Post by: nddons on November 27, 2016, 08:25:52 PM
It seems the GOP has a new obstacle to overcome in winning national elections: Beyond the media bias leading up to the election; they have always had to overcome the "Margin of Fraud", which mysteriously only breaks in the Democratic direction. Now it would seem that Republicans also have to win any election beyond the "Margin of Litigation". If Hillary could have won the election by flipping any one state, I have no doubt that she would have sent in her army of lawyers (paid for by tax-free Clinton Foundation donations, nach); done some ready forum shopping for a like-minded judge, and set about the business of stealing the election after the fact rather than before. She conceded so late on election night only once it became clear that even presuming she won Michigan, she would need to flip two other states between PA, OH, and WI, in order to get to 270. That was clearly, as they say, a bridge too far.
That is the same leftist playbook that has been used in Wisconsin since 2010. Once the GOP got the Governorship, the Assembly, and the Senate, EVERY SIGNIFICANT PIECE of legislation was dragged through the state AND federal courts. None have been ultimately overturned, but some have been delayed sufficiently to delay their successes - from Act 10, Voter ID, Right to Work, etc. etc.
And this is in addition to the "do-over" that the leftists demanded in the recall vote - you know, the one where Scott Walker earned more votes than he earned in his election two years earlier.
They really define "pathetic" when they lose.
Post by: nddons on November 27, 2016, 08:32:09 PM
In other words, he'll do the same as others.Prove it. No more petulant, childish US president has existed in my lifetime. Not one.
Post by: asechrest on November 27, 2016, 09:14:42 PM
Prove it. No more petulant, childish US president has existed in my lifetime. Not one.
Uh, how do you propose I prove something that hasn't happened yet? I'm merely fighting against the notion that Obama "already stated he plans to ignore the 240 year tradition of EVERY President before him in terms of allowing the newly elected President to enact his own agenda without criticism or interference..." (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=1697.msg30038#msg30038). He's said nothing of the sort.
Will he hold to his word? I don't know, but I hope so.
Post by: nddons on November 27, 2016, 09:16:28 PM
The link provided is a prime example of how a partisan can read whatever they want into a parsed-up quote.Which American ideals do you think Obama means? Freedom of Speech? Sure, unless a non-profit makes a movie critical of a presidential candidate, in which case Obama felt emboldened to embarrass the Supreme Court, and his party's platform calls for a Constitutional Amendment to silence political speech? That ideal?
Obama's remarks are simple: he'll give Trump room to govern without direct criticism. But he'll be happy to defend American ideals. This is no more or less than any of us would request. Anyone who has the ability to elevate themselves above blatant partisanship could accept that.
How about the ideal of the right to keep and bear arms? You know, the one where his party's platform calls for severe gun control measures, including renewal of an "assault weapon" ban? That ideal?
Show me a democrat who can elevate themselves above blatant partisanship, and I'll show you a liar.
Post by: bflynn on November 28, 2016, 06:30:07 AM
Uh, how do you propose I prove something that hasn't happened yet? I'm merely fighting against the notion that Obama "already stated he plans to ignore the 240 year tradition of EVERY President before him in terms of allowing the newly elected President to enact his own agenda without criticism or interference..." (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=1697.msg30038#msg30038). He's said nothing of the sort.
Will he hold to his word? I don't know, but I hope so.
Begging your pardon but he has. Presidential tradition has been to keep quiet and let the next guy be president even when you think your ideals are being compromised. Obama has said that he will not keep quiet and that he will criticize. I have previously provided the quote. He has absolutely said something of the sort.
Without judgement of whether or not he should treat people the way he would like to be treated (or would like the next Democrat president to be treated), your statement is false.
Post by: asechrest on November 28, 2016, 07:40:34 AM
Begging your pardon but he has. Presidential tradition has been to keep quiet and let the next guy be president even when you think your ideals are being compromised. Obama has said that he will not keep quiet and that he will criticize. I have previously provided the quote. He has absolutely said something of the sort.
Without judgement of whether or not he should treat people the way he would like to be treated (or would like the next Democrat president to be treated), your statement is false.
Couple problems with your post. First, presidential tradition has not been to keep quiet. It has been to avoid direct criticism of your successor. I showed this up-thread (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/) by linking to former President Bush's remarks during the first year of Obama's presidency. Further, while I grant that words go through the filter of each individual's interpretation of them, I do not get what you do out of Obama's remarks:
Quote
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Ah. Look, I've said before, President Bush could not have been more gracious to me when I came in. And my intention is to, certainly for the next two months, is finish my job. And then, after that, to take Michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls, and do some writing, do some thinking. So I want to be respectful of the office and give the President-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance.
As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then I'll examine it when it comes. But what I do know is, is that I have to take Michelle on vacation. (Laughter.)
In essence: I won't criticize, but may defend general American values and ideals.
Post by: asechrest on November 28, 2016, 07:54:38 AM
Which American ideals do you think Obama means? Freedom of Speech? Sure, unless a non-profit makes a movie critical of a presidential candidate, in which case Obama felt emboldened to embarrass the Supreme Court, and his party's platform calls for a Constitutional Amendment to silence political speech? That ideal?
How about the ideal of the right to keep and bear arms? You know, the one where his party's platform calls for severe gun control measures, including renewal of an "assault weapon" ban? That ideal?
Show me a democrat who can elevate themselves above blatant partisanship, and I'll show you a liar.
Remind me, was that the assault weapons ban that Trump -- is/was/might be/oh wait maybe not -- in favor of?
Anyway, which American ideals might Obama defend? Perhaps the American ideal that says we don't target and murder innocent civilians. Or the one that says we have First Amendment freedom of the press and can't just "open up the libel laws". Or maybe the one that says we don't determine a judge is unfit for duty simply because of his heritage.
These are just examples, of course. Show me a conservative who can see beyond his own opinion and I'll show you a liar. (I'm being sarcastic with that last remark, since I don't see the world in black and white like many of you.)
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 28, 2016, 09:13:45 AM
In essence: I won't criticize, but may defend general American values and ideals.
Obama has no idea what American values are.
Post by: Anthony on November 28, 2016, 09:24:39 AM
Obama has no idea what American values are.
Yes he does. He has worked for eight years as President, and many other years previously to subvert them.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 28, 2016, 09:43:57 AM
Good point. He also is supposedly a "Constitutional Scholar." I'm sure he studied and became an expert in order uphold the intent of the document and amendments.
Yes he does. He has worked for eight years as President, and many other years previously to subvert them.
Post by: Little Joe on November 28, 2016, 10:31:23 AM
Couple problems with your post. First, presidential tradition has not been to keep quiet. It has been to avoid direct criticism of your successor. I showed this up-thread (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/bush-takes-swipes-at-policies-of-obama/) by linking to former President Bush's remarks during the first year of Obama's presidency. Further, while I grant that words go through the filter of each individual's interpretation of them, I do not get what you do out of Obama's remarks:While there may be just a little overlap, for the most part, Obama's idea of "general American values and ideals" are quite different from my idea of "general American values and ideals".
In essence: I won't criticize, but may defend general American values and ideals.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 28, 2016, 11:45:52 AM
Post by: Little Joe on November 28, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
Looks like Stein is really just trying to raise money to pay off her debt. There is a disclaimer at her site saying all of the money raised for the recount effort may not be used for the recount. Imagine that.Man, that gives me a good idea on how I might be able to get that new Mooney Acclaim! I could raise the money right here in town in a few days going door to door asking for money to lobby the EC to write in Bernie Sanders. But all the money may not used for the lobby effort.
Post by: asechrest on November 28, 2016, 03:22:39 PM
Man, that gives me a good idea on how I might be able to get that new Mooney Acclaim! I could raise the money right here in town in a few days going door to door asking for money to lobby the EC to write in Bernie Sanders. But all the money may not used for the lobby effort.
Or maybe set up a charitable foundation called the Frump Foundation, collect money, and then spend it on yourself. ;D
Post by: Little Joe on November 28, 2016, 03:32:12 PM
Or maybe set up a charitable foundation called the Frump Foundation, collect money, and then spend it on yourself. ;DNaw, that's amateur hour. I'd call it the Billary foundation and score hundreds of millions from foreign governments
Post by: Number7 on November 28, 2016, 03:45:22 PM
Another day, another liberal swindle attempt against he American people...
Post by: PaulS on November 28, 2016, 04:13:14 PM
Naw, that's amateur hour. I'd call it the Billary foundation and score hundreds of millions from foreign governments
I'm pretty sure that gravy train has ended with her inability to close the deal.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 28, 2016, 04:40:19 PM
I just heard on the radio while driving home that the attempt at fraudulently hijacking the results of the drubbing Hilary Clinton received along with the rest of the democrat party was failing due to Pennsylvania refusing the recount demand because they missed the filing deadline.
Another day, another liberal swindle attempt against he American people...
They've done what lefties know how to do best and are suing the state of PA.
Post by: Lucifer on November 28, 2016, 05:32:19 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 28, 2016, 07:01:31 PM
I just heard on the radio while driving home that the attempt at fraudulently hijacking the results of the drubbing Hilary Clinton received along with the rest of the democrat party was failing due to Pennsylvania refusing the recount demand because they missed the filing deadline.
Another day, another liberal swindle attempt against he American people...
wait for the ACLU to file suit claiming that the deadline for filing is arbitrary (kind of like their suits wrt to the deadlines to register to vote)
Post by: Number7 on November 29, 2016, 09:07:13 AM
Post by: asechrest on November 29, 2016, 09:35:09 AM
Post by: nddons on November 29, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
The recount stuff is just noise, wasted money, and denial. Nothing will come of it.Noise that is costing every polling district in Wisconsin to have employees work overtime to deal with this distraction.
What a country.
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2016, 04:03:39 PM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 03, 2016, 11:33:11 AM
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 03:26:13 PM
Noise that is costing every polling district in Wisconsin to have employees work overtime to deal with this distraction.Some people would feel the exact same way about the multiple Benghazi investigations Congress conducted.
What a country.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 03, 2016, 03:43:37 PM
Some people would feel the exact same way about the multiple Benghazi investigations Congress conducted.
Some people are blind to the crimes and lies of the democrats, even when people die.
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 03:56:46 PM
Some people are blind to the crimes and lies of the democrats, even when people die.Some people buy into hyperbole, emotion, and innuendo.
Others are more interested in facts.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 03, 2016, 04:16:45 PM
Some people buy into hyperbole, emotion, and innuendo.
good description of MSM
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 04:29:28 PM
good description of MSMBegs the question what sources of media you'd consider trustworthy.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 03, 2016, 04:54:58 PM
Begs the question what sources of media you'd consider trustworthy.
For myself, I don't trust any news reports. I want to see the data.
Think about any news reports you read/hear involving aviation. We all know had badly they bungle stories in domains in which we have experience and/or expertise. Why would anyone trust that they get it right in other domains?
Post by: MarkZ on December 03, 2016, 05:16:46 PM
For myself, I don't trust any news reports. I want to see the data.Very well said.
Think about any news reports you read/hear involving aviation. We all know had badly they bungle stories in domains in which we have experience and/or expertise. Why would anyone trust that they get it right in other domains?
If that be the case, would it not be safe to say that it would be foolhardy to draw conclusions when there is no evidence or data?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Number7 on December 03, 2016, 06:13:17 PM
Some people would feel the exact same way about the multiple Benghazi investigations Congress conducted.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
And they would be partisan, blind, hacks, doing everything in their power to keep their little secret about the utter incompetence and corruption of the Clintons.
Post by: bflynn on December 03, 2016, 10:20:43 PM
The Michigan recount has been dropped, I suspect because they already did a recount before certifying the results.
Any recount in Pennsylvania will not affect the outcome.
Post by: Mase on December 03, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
It looks like there will be no recount in Pennsylvania.
Sour grapes abound:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/jill-stein-drops-pennsylvania-recount/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/jill-stein-drops-pennsylvania-recount/index.html)
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 12:21:51 AM
It looks like there will be no recount in Pennsylvania.
Sour grapes abound:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/jill-stein-drops-pennsylvania-recount/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/jill-stein-drops-pennsylvania-recount/index.html)
She's made her money. Stein scammed all of those liberals who had pinned their hopes on her kooky scheme.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 04, 2016, 05:30:15 AM
Post by: PaulS on December 04, 2016, 05:42:38 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on December 04, 2016, 05:44:27 AM
It's not done, she is suing in federal court on Monday.
If nothing else, lawyers are getting rich off her scam.
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 07:34:27 AM
It's not done, she is suing in federal court on Monday.
Just part of the scam. She knows it won't go anywhere, she's just appeasing her
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 04, 2016, 07:47:01 AM
It's not done, she is suing in federal court on Monday.
A way to get the tax payers to pay for it instead. The Fed court should stay out of it. Presidential election is the state's business.
Post by: Lucifer on December 04, 2016, 12:09:33 PM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 04, 2016, 12:31:19 PM
When are these idiots going to start doing something productive for the country, instead of repeatedly staging events that make them look ever stupider?
Post by: Anthony on December 04, 2016, 12:33:19 PM
She said this is not about Donald Trump. Then why hold your whinefest at Trump Tower?
When are these idiots going to start doing something productive for the country, instead of repeatedly staging events that make them look ever stupider?
Because all they want to do are things COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for the country because they hate it so much. Don't you know it is the USA's fault that we have man made climate change, horrible carbon footprint, and a worldwide colonial exploitation policy that uses brown people for profit?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on December 04, 2016, 10:02:38 PM
Because all they want to do are things COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for the country because they hate it so much. Don't you know it is the USA's fault that we have man made climate change, horrible carbon footprint, and a worldwide colonial exploitation policy that uses brown people for profit?
Ummmm... Brown People. The other white meat.
Post by: Lucifer on December 08, 2016, 01:05:43 PM
Post by: bflynn on December 08, 2016, 04:38:38 PM
It is over except for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Post by: Anthony on December 08, 2016, 04:43:07 PM
Judge has stopped the Michigan recount. The Wisconsin recount is going nowhere.
It is over except for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Another Dem/Media driven plea for attention, and a cry for "ITS NOT FAIR" Waaaaaahhhhhhh! But, but the popular vote!!!!
Now, MSN, that leftist biased Microsoft outlet is saying a survey shows Trumps transition isn't popular. Oh no! Tell me its not so!!!
Quote
Donald Trump may be speeding through his administration appointments — as of Wednesday he’s more than halfway through announcing his Cabinet picks — but the majority of Americans disapprove of how he’s handling his transition.
According to a survey released Thursday by Pew Research, just 41% of Americans approve of the job the president-elect has done making clear his “policies and plans.” That number is significantly lower than past presidents.
President Obama had the highest transition approval going into his presidency in December 2008, at 72%. Former president Bill Clinton had 62% in January 1993 and George W. Bush had 50% in January 2001, according to Pew.
The majority of Americans also aren’t thrilled with his Cabinet selections: Forty percent approve of his picks for Cabinet and high-level posts.
What a crock of SH*T.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-unhappy-with-trumps-transition/ar-AAljVhf?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 08, 2016, 04:45:42 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 08, 2016, 04:59:37 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 08, 2016, 05:00:53 PM
https://www.facebook.com/etsisk/posts/1383921741620376?comment_id=1384183721594178&reply_comment_id=1385119798167237¬if_t=feed_comment_reply¬if_id=1481165094000863
If you go look at his wall there are several of these every day.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 08, 2016, 05:16:36 PM
Now, though, I find myself wondering whether to write to them on that website to offset what seems to be a majority of idiots on there!
I can only hope the electors will do what they are supposed to do for us.
Post by: Little Joe on December 08, 2016, 05:37:03 PM
That's just bizarre. I wouldn't have beseeched my electors to vote for Trump if HRC had won, and she's as vile and unsuited for power as they come.If they don't, I wonder if conservatives will riot.
Now, though, I find myself wondering whether to write to them on that website to offset what seems to be a majority of idiots on there!
I can only hope the electors will do what they are supposed to do for us.
I doubt it, but if that doesn't incite it, nothing will.
Post by: Lucifer on December 08, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
I can only hope the electors will do what they are supposed to do for us.
They will. There may be a few that "make a statement" but it won't change the outcome. Like the moron in Texas (Republican Elector) that is voting for Kasich, this will be his last electoral college and probably the end of anything to do within the Republican Party of Texas.
The same crybabies that are crying about the EC will just start crying "impeachment" come January 20th. You'll see beyond bizarre behavior on that one.
Post by: bflynn on December 08, 2016, 09:19:26 PM
This is just one post from one of my FB friends
https://www.facebook.com/etsisk/posts/1383921741620376?comment_id=1384183721594178&reply_comment_id=1385119798167237¬if_t=feed_comment_reply¬if_id=1481165094000863
If you go look at his wall there are several of these every day.
Wow. Those two sound like a couple of children fighting over which divorced parent is best, except that they each only got half the story.
Regrettably I see the same thing all over.
Post by: Anthony on December 09, 2016, 02:32:16 AM
Post by: DJTorrente on December 09, 2016, 09:55:52 AM
That's just bizarre. I wouldn't havebeseechedberated my electors to vote for Trump if HRC had won, and she's as vile and unsuited for power as they come.
Minor edit, more accurate. The left has come completely unhinged. TDS is Real.
Post by: Ron22 on December 09, 2016, 11:39:04 AM
This is just one post from one of my FB friends
https://www.facebook.com/etsisk/posts/1383921741620376?comment_id=1384183721594178&reply_comment_id=1385119798167237¬if_t=feed_comment_reply¬if_id=1481165094000863
If you go look at his wall there are several of these every day.
What people seem to miss is the the political parties already picked the electors. The election just picked which parties electors are going to vote.
So 99.9% of the electors are going to go with their party. I can not believe you can any people that the Republican selected to be electors will vote for Hillary.
So the next option is they wright in someone else. Not very many are going to do that because again THEY DO NOT WANT HILLARY TO WIN.
Post by: DJTorrente on December 09, 2016, 06:30:21 PM
Post by: asechrest on December 09, 2016, 06:50:35 PM
The point is not to get Hillary a win, the point is the Democrats' continuing campaign to delegitimize Trump's presidency, exactly as they tried to do with Bush. Just this election cycle I've heard media pundits who were treated like sane people state that the Supreme Court cost Gore the 2000 election, and those people weren't laughed out of the studio with the network's apologies to its audience.
De-legitimizing the winning candidate is par for the course after every election. After all, Obama was a Manchurian candidate born in Kenya, right?
Let it be known that I don't support the rioting and recalls. It is only that I am keenly aware that idiocy is bi-partisan.
Post by: Anthony on December 10, 2016, 08:06:41 AM
Hillary - GONE
Bill - GONE
Chelsea - GONE
Huma - GONE
Valerie Jarrett - GONE
Bernie - GONE
Holder - GONE
EPA head - GONE
IRS head - GONE
DOJ head - GONE Buh bye Loretta Lynch
Thank GOD!
Post by: Lucifer on December 10, 2016, 08:15:01 AM
Jill Stein - GONE
Hillary - GONE
Bill - GONE
Chelsea - GONE
Huma - GONE
Valerie Jarrett - GONE
Bernie - GONE
Holder - GONE
EPA head - GONE
IRS head - GONE
DOJ head - GONE Buh bye Loretta Lynch
Thank GOD!
And soon, Obama GONE!
41 days till the end of an ERROR
Post by: Number7 on December 11, 2016, 08:06:20 AM
And soon, Obama GONE!
41 days till the end of an ERROR
The SWEETEST words I've ever heard....
"FORMER President Obama"
Post by: Anthony on December 11, 2016, 08:13:20 AM
And soon, Obama GONE!
41 days till the end of an ERROR
YES! How could I leave him out??? However, we all know Valerie Jarrett was the real "president".
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 11, 2016, 11:37:57 AM
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?iso=20170120T00&p0=263&msg=Time+left+until+Obama+leaves+office&csz=1