2
0

The moment Hillary Clinton was forced to give up her dream


 invite response                
2017 May 1, 5:01pm   5,171 views  27 comments

by MAGA   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

http://nypost.com/2017/04/30/the-moment-hillary-clinton-was-forced-to-give-up-her-dream/

Hillary's dream would have been America's nightmare.

The expression on Bill's face is priceless. I'm sure it's the thought of having to "service" Hillary.

Comments 1 - 27 of 27        Search these comments

1   FortWayne   2017 May 1, 5:05pm  

She'll just have to make Bill happy now the way she is.

3   Dan8267   2017 May 1, 6:03pm  

Booger says

And if land, rather than people, mattered, this would mean a lot.

4   Ceffer   2017 May 1, 6:34pm  

All that bitch rage implosion, and nowhere to go.

5   Patrick   2017 May 1, 6:40pm  

The Democrats just could not defeat democracy.

Did they learn anything at all? Will they actually consider how their abandonment of labor came back to haunt them?

https://patrick.net/1305439/2017-04-27-dems-need-to-abandon-davos-ideology

6   FortWayne   2017 May 1, 7:10pm  

Dan8267 says

And if land, rather than people, mattered, this would mean a lot.

You liberals know nothing about America. Electoral college worked out just as it was designed to work. States rights sonny boy, you should learn about those.

8   Dan8267   2017 May 1, 7:59pm  

FortWayne says

You liberals know nothing about America. Electoral college worked out just as it was designed to work. States rights sonny boy, you should learn about those.

You hypocrite! You don't believe in state's rights. If you did, you would have supported state legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. Furthermore, if the conservative left moved into your states and took over political control, you'd be opposing states rights immediately. Yeah, I'm sure you'd support the state passing a law taxing you to pay for abortions because enough pro-choice people moved to your state.

The intent of the electoral college was bad. States don't have rights, and states don't have opinions. People have rights and opinions, and those opinions aren't determined by where they live at the moment.

9   NDrLoR   2017 May 1, 9:12pm  

Dan8267 says

conservative left

Say what?

10   PaisleyPattern   2017 May 1, 10:46pm  

Trump demonstrated competence by winning the electoral college vote. That is the vote which determines who will become president. If the popular vote had been the determinant, then Trump would have focused on winning that vote. Trump won because he accurately assessed the concerns of the American population and addressed those concerns in a way that would allow him to win the electoral college vote and become president. Hillary demonstrated incompetence by failing to win the electoral college vote, despite having the largest campaign fund ever, as well as the support of the incumbent president and 80 to 90% of the media. Her failure to win the election demonstrates how out of touch she was with the concerns of United States population,and her poor leadership skills, and is a very likely indication of how well she would have performed as president. Donald Trump demonstrated impressive leadership skills, confidence, ability to understand the population , and an ability to form a connection with them and to communicate his message. These are all very important qualities in the leader of our nation, especially in times of crisis when the President needs to connect to and inspire the population. This election accurately selected the strongest and potentially most effective leader for the country at this time.

11   FortWayne   2017 May 2, 8:34am  

Dan hasn't been taking his meds lately.
Thinks left is conservative.

P N Dr Lo R says

Dan8267 says

conservative left

Say what?

12   joeyjojojunior   2017 May 2, 9:00am  

"Trump represented the will of American people."

Actually Trump represented the will of the minority of people to be precise. Just under 46% of voters.

13   Dan8267   2017 May 2, 10:40am  

FortWayne says

Dan hasn't been taking his meds lately.

Thinks left is conservative.

I can justify that the left is conservative. In fact, I've done that in exquisite detail in the thread Leftists and Social Justice Warriors are Conservatives. You have given absolutely no reason why the left are not conservative or why the left is liberal. You cannot.

The conservative left believes in none of the liberal principles.
1. All people are equal under law. We are a nation of rights, not privileges, and everyone has the same right.
2. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. There should be no victimless crimes. This includes that people have the right to free speech no matter how controversial or offensive.
3. Government should be transparent and accountable for its actions.

The conservative left believes in all of the conservative principles.
1. People are not equal under law. Some people should have more rights than others, and some people should have privileges.
2. People should not be allowed to do what they want even if it does not affect others. People should conform to a state-sponsored culture.
3. The government should not be held accountable for its actions and not punished for crimes.

And I have demonstrated in detail why all of the above is true in that post I've linked to above.

I can tell everyone right now that you aren't man enough to demonstrate why I am wrong on any of these points or why the conservative left should be considered liberal. You simply cannot do that, and so you are delusionally wrong.

In fact, I challenge anyone to demonstrate why the conservative left is liberal. Anybody in the entire world.

14   Dan8267   2017 May 2, 10:42am  

joeyjojojunior says

This should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

The key phrase being "anyone with a brain".

15   joeyjojojunior   2017 May 2, 11:01am  

"Hey tatty, are you going to be whining about the "popular vote" for the next 4 years, even though that hasn't been the way presidents win elections in over 200 years?"

No, I just enjoy pointing out how ridiculous your reasoning is sometimes--arguing that the electoral college is needed to ensure that everyone's vote counts equally. When, in fact, the electoral college does the exact OPPOSITE of that, ensuring that some votes are worth much, much more than others.

Like Dan said--can you give any reason why that should be?

16   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 May 2, 11:08am  

The President has always been chosen by the Electoral College total, not by the popular vote, although the two often go together.

There is no national "popular vote" issue as that is not how elections are decided and never have been.

Under the rules in play, Hillary had to win the Electoral College and she was defeated by a substantial, non-trivial margin. She lost several states that went Democrat for decades, and others that went for Obama twice.

17   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 May 2, 11:15am  

The Electoral College was part and parcel of the balance between big states and small states that was a key element in getting the Constitution approved and replacing the inadequate Articles of Confederation.

It's more important we do away with Congressional Districts entirely and assign representatives nationally by proportion of votes. That will make the widespread corruption more difficult, and free Representatives from having to consider provincial interests over the national interest. State interest is vested in the Senate, which should return to being chosen by the State Legislature.

The only reason we elect representatives by district is because of technological limitations which no longer exist, they are the people's direct reps to the Federal Government.

18   joeyjojojunior   2017 May 2, 11:18am  

"There is no national "popular vote" issue as that is not how elections are decided and never have been."

Obviously. I think everyone here understands that. The discussion is about the fairness of the electoral college and whether it is in the best interests of the country to have some votes count more than others.

19   joeyjojojunior   2017 May 2, 11:19am  

"Can you please repost your complaints about the EC after the 2008 and 2012 elections. I don't believe I remember reading them."

Why would I have complained about the electoral college when it reached the same result as the popular vote?

20   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 May 2, 11:19am  

joeyjojojunior says

Obviously. I think everyone here understands that. The discussion is about the fairness of the electoral college and whether it is in the best interests of the country to have some votes count more than others.

For those in smaller states, they would be totally ignored in Presidential Races if it was popular vote only, so they'd be stupid to go with any change. Nobody would spent a moment in New Hampshire and waste time that would be more profitably spent in Texas or California.

21   joeyjojojunior   2017 May 2, 11:23am  

"For those in smaller states, they would be totally ignored in Presidential Races if it was popular vote only, so they'd be stupid to go with any change. Nobody would spent a moment in New Hampshire and waste time that would be more profitably spent in Texas or California."

And how is that different than now? The majority of states get no visits under the current system where candidates spend 90% of their time and money in probably 10-15 states.

22   curious2   2017 May 2, 2:26pm  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

he Electoral College was part and parcel of the balance between big states and small states that was a key element in getting the Constitution approved and replacing the inadequate Articles of Confederation.

I would be curious to see primary contemporaneous sources on that point. It's become a fashionable opinion lately, but I think the founders had a simpler reason: trust.

People mistrust strangers in other states, and with good reason. Do you really want the "Honorable" Katherine Harris to certify the popular vote and bind the whole country? How about a Diebold/PES machine running proprietary code with no paper trail, and thus no possibility of auditing? The electoral college provides a firewall to prevent shenanigans in one state from burning down the whole national election. Democrats are enacting NPVIC, imagining that easily hacked machines controlled by Republicans will somehow be "more democratic". If you want the Deep State to choose the President, because you believe they're smarter, OK, that's an opinion, but at least know what you're getting into. The Deep State has tended to become self-aware and self-serving, including promoting endless war and surveillance on behalf of the MIC. They are also vulnerable to groupthink, hivemind problems, as you can see with their attitudes towards Islam and Russia. So, even though "intelligence" professionals are generally smarter than the average voter, that doesn't mean they would necessarily choose a better President for the whole country.

Likewise with Representatives, I would agree that at-large representation would work better within each state, but I would not suggest enacting a national version at least until such time as we have national standards implementing voting rights including counting the votes. If Greens or Libertarians can vote for their preferred Representatives regardless of state, that might become a pyrrhic victory if their votes get deleted or swamped by proprietary Diebold/PES machines in another state with no paper trail. The corruption among southeastern Republicans, in particular, is limited only by their own imaginations. Chicago Democrats are also notorious. State firewalls are imperfect but until somebody enacts a better safeguard, they're what we have.

23   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 May 2, 3:17pm  

All praise the NYS School System and the Board of Regents!

Didn't ya'll get taught about the Sherman Plan, the Virginia Plan, the Great Compromise? I can even remember the handout in my mind with the outline of Virginia State on it. Then again, I never knew who Fremont was until College.

Here's a col site breakdown of how the arguments progressed and the various sides, and all the ideas that was presented. Hamilton wanted the national government to be able to veto state legislatures! Delware threatened it would find a foreign power to protect it if the Delegation approved unmitigated proportional representation.
https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html

24   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 May 2, 3:27pm  

curious2 says

Likewise with Representatives, I would agree that at-large representation would work better within each state, but I would not suggest enacting a national version at least until such time as we have national standards implementing voting rights including counting the votes. If Greens or Libertarians can vote for their preferred Representatives regardless of state, that might become a pyrrhic victory if their votes get deleted or swamped by proprietary Diebold/PES machines in another state with no paper trail. The corruption among southeastern Republicans, in particular, is limited only by their own imaginations. Chicago Democrats are also notorious. State firewalls are imperfect but until somebody enacts a better safeguard, they're what we have.

Good ideas. But I definitely want a low qualifier for party representation - no less than 3%.

Ideally, the best thing about national voting is that every vote counts... it doesn't matter how Deep Blue Coastal MIC States like California are.

And we definitely need paper voting, or at least machines that give a receipt and a unique number for tracking and verification purposes.

If find the "we can't make machines that spit out paper receipts" the most audaciously stupid excuse coming from a company that makes ATMs found in everywhere from Madison Square Garden to some Tumbleweed blown gas station in the middle of the desert, from the Muskeg of Canada to Port Famine in the Argentine subarctic, and you've heard the rest of my spiel before, probably.

25   Dan8267   2017 May 2, 4:36pm  

Ironman says

Can you please repost your complaints about the EC after the 2008 and 2012 elections. I don't believe I remember reading them.

You go find them. I'm not wasting my time on that. I know I've been against the electoral college since at least the sixth grade. It goes against the very principle of equality under the law.

If you want to make the case that I'm in favor of the electoral college or ever was, you go find a quote where I say anything nice about it. The burden of proof is on you.

26   Dan8267   2017 May 2, 4:45pm  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

And we definitely need paper voting, or at least machines that give a receipt and a unique number for tracking and verification purposes.

I don't mind a paper trail as long as it doesn't compromise security or anonymity, but it adds no security. See National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). I go into detail in that thread on how electronic voting machines should work.

27   Dan8267   2017 May 3, 9:22am  

Reposting censored response.

Ironman says

I can't support my assertion of sour grapes from this past election.

No. You cannot support your assertion, and it is your assertion.

I've gone on the record stating explicitly that I wanted Hillary to lose even though that meant a Trump presidency. So I obviously have no sour grapes about the electoral college causing Trump to win the election even though Hillary won the popular vote.

#rechargeableBatteriesDumbass

I guess CIC has no response to these facts.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions