Why the left hates Trump so intensely

[Jaskalas]

That falls apart without California

I find it distasteful to view the popular vote as "If not for CA". Because, however much you slice it, CA is part of the Union.
They have a massive population and our fellow citizen's votes are all important. Do we feel a need to split?

 

[werepossum]

I find it distasteful to view the popular vote as "If not for CA". Because, however much you slice it, CA is part of the Union.
They have a massive population and our fellow citizen's votes are all important. Do we feel a need to split?

That's a fair point, but three counterpoints.
1. The same people who demand that voters all be equal want to have the President elected purely by California.
2. The national vote was down 5% over year 2012; California's vote was up 10%.
3. With all its massive wealth and one-party rule, California was counting votes two weeks after every other state. We're told that extra time was required for "correcting" mail-in ballots smeared with jelly, gravy, etc.

Put those last two things together and see if the sum justifies the first, overturning the electoral college. Were we to go strictly by the popular vote, either California would select our President every election, or every state would take up finding extra votes for two weeks after the election.

 

[Jhhnn]

What did Russia do to tear her down. They hacked to show what the DNC was doing which is a huge problem, but what did they do other than to expose against her and not him.

Read the report-

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...lligence-report-russian-hacking-2016-campaign

Donald called out to Vlad for more ammo & got it, perfectly timed, too.b

Finding themselves on the same side of the election as Russian oligarchs doesn't faze Trump supporters one teensy bit. "Wait... What? I'm with them?" isn't a question they can even approach.

If that's not scary I don't know what is.

 

[Jhhnn]

In terms of voter loss confined to the states that reduced it yes, it's small. If you are talking about total early votes then you are talking about something not being discussed. I asked about why the left did not turn out. Voter suppression in that context is likely small. I'm not making a claim about anything beyond that here.

It doesn't have to be large. Trump won by ~80,000 votes in 3 states.

 

[realibrad]

Read the report-

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...lligence-report-russian-hacking-2016-campaign

Donald called out to Vlad for more ammo & got it, perfectly timed, too.b

Finding themselves on the same side of the election as Russian oligarchs doesn't faze Trump supporters one teensy bit. "Wait... What? I'm with them?" isn't a question they can even approach.

If that's not scary I don't know what is.

Again, the hacking is a big issue. What do you think they did to tear her down? The hacks were not about her favorite tea flavors. The only argument I see is that the hacks unfairly aired her dirty laundry but not the other side's.

So, hacks by foreign country are a huge fucking deal. Russia did not do it for the lulz which is even worse. The claim about tearing her down is my question. What do you mean and what was it that tore her down.

 

[realibrad]

It doesn't have to be large. Trump won by ~80,000 votes in 3 states.

If you can't see how that is a pointless argument then I would ask you to answer the original question.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's a fair point, but three counterpoints.
1. The same people who demand that voters all be equal want to have the President elected purely by California.
2. The national vote was down 5% over year 2012; California's vote was up 10%.
3. With all its massive wealth and one-party rule, California was counting votes two weeks after every other state. We're told that extra time was required for "correcting" mail-in ballots smeared with jelly, gravy, etc.

Put those last two things together and see if the sum justifies the first, overturning the electoral college. Were we to go strictly by the popular vote, either California would select our President every election, or every state would take up finding extra votes for two weeks after the election.

Pure bullshit. All Americans deserve for their vote to count equally in selecting a President, not some voters are more equal than others. The only reason why we've kept the electoral college is because only rarely does it go against the popular vote. Prior to 2000, we hadn't had an anomalous result since 1888. The only reason Repubs defend it today is because it provides them with unfair advantage.

Clinton clearly had won CA long before the final tally was in. "Finding extra votes" is your usual innuendo, obviously, and a pretty silly one at that. There's no point in finding extra votes that don't count for anything. Unless it's a conspiracy of course.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you can't see how that is a pointless argument then I would ask you to answer the original question.

I pointed you at the IC report where you'll find answers. I'll offer this, as well-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...16af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.ccf7d4aa4af6

 

[realibrad]

I pointed you at the IC report where you'll find answers. I'll offer this, as well-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...16af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.ccf7d4aa4af6

So this is why you think huge amounts of voters did not turn out, fake news? See, before you said the news was filled with slime, but your link is fake news.

 

[Jhhnn]

So this is why you think huge amounts of voters did not turn out, fake news? See, before you said the news was filled with slime, but your link is fake news.

Fake news is just one kind of slime, much of which was formulated by Repub operatives using Russian ammo. Hell- they'd already softened America's brains with a year of conspiracy theories & innuendo wrt her email as SoS.

 

[realibrad]

Fake news is just one kind of slime, much of which was formulated by Repub operatives using Russian ammo. Hell- they'd already softened America's brains with a year of conspiracy theories & innuendo wrt her email as SoS.

So your argument is that everyone is stupid. Do you get nose bleeds up there?

Also, do you think Hillary had and flaws? That was my original question.

 

[ivwshane]

So your argument is that everyone is stupid. Do you get nose bleeds up there?

Also, do you think Hillary had and flaws? That was my original question.

Stupid would indicate that they know the truth and refuse to believe it. I believe the word you are looking for is gullible. Smear was spread at elevated levels with an existing layer of bs already baked in.

Hillary's flaws are only flaws when viewed from a flawed perspective. She's not a politician and it has shown throughout her career. She's not good with messaging, she's not good with pivoting, and she's not good at appealing to mass tv audiences and low information voters. None of those things make a good leader of course but they are necessary in order to get elected.

She lost this election because she didn't have a message that resonated with the people (hell, I doubt anyone could tell you what he message was). She lost because, like all the other Republicans, she played trumps game instead of the one she knew how to play. She reacted to trumps crap and kept the focus on trump being unqualified when she should have been ignoring him completely and focusing on her policies, both the big picture stuff and the details and nuance.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a fair point, but three counterpoints.
1. The same people who demand that voters all be equal want to have the President elected purely by California.

Only if California comprises 51% of the voters. Last time I checked it wasn't even close. Do you have trouble with basic math?

2. The national vote was down 5% over year 2012; California's vote was up 10%.

Why are you against Californians taking their civic duty more seriously than other states? Maybe you should learn from them.

3. With all its massive wealth and one-party rule, California was counting votes two weeks after every other state. We're told that extra time was required for "correcting" mail-in ballots smeared with jelly, gravy, etc.

Put those last two things together and see if the sum justifies the first, overturning the electoral college. Were we to go strictly by the popular vote, either California would select our President every election, or every state would take up finding extra votes for two weeks after the election.

If you are alleging voter fraud then provide evidence. If you can't, say as much. This 'who, me?' shit is stupid.

 

[Jhhnn]

So this is why voters on the left chose not to vote for Clinton. Wow, just wow!!!

Yep. It worked even well enough to even squelch liberal turnout. Crooked Hillary! Can't trust Hillary! She must be hiding something! No Clinton dynasty! Poor Bernie, so cheated!

 

[Jhhnn]

That's well reasoned, but those two groups weren't enough to elect Trump. That fell to a third group, who believed that the Dems have been so bad for them that even Trump couldn't be worse.

Why would they believe that after the invasion of Iraq & collapse of the housing bubble followed by 8 years of Repub obstructionism?

Well, other than because of astounding propaganda?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Yep. It worked even well enough to even squelch liberal turnout. Crooked Hillary! Can't trust Hillary! She must be hiding something! No Clinton dynasty! Poor Bernie, so cheated!

Poor lil' baby. Here let me find your woobie and your binky. Now, now, everything will be better soon. I'll sing the poor lil' Hillary supporter a nighty night lullaby so you can sleep until after the big bad Donald goes away.

 

[Ichinisan]

How may I simplify the comment for you to understand?

I support the electoral college system, but...

We do not elect presidents directly by popular vote. Hence, the majority in this election di prevail.

Your statement does not make sense.

 

[werepossum]

Stupid would indicate that they know the truth and refuse to believe it. I believe the word you are looking for is gullible. Smear was spread at elevated levels with an existing layer of bs already baked in.

Hillary's flaws are only flaws when viewed from a flawed perspective. She's not a politician and it has shown throughout her career. She's not good with messaging, she's not good with pivoting, and she's not good at appealing to mass tv audiences and low information voters. None of those things make a good leader of course but they are necessary in order to get elected.

She lost this election because she didn't have a message that resonated with the people (hell, I doubt anyone could tell you what he message was). She lost because, like all the other Republicans, she played trumps game instead of the one she knew how to play. She reacted to trumps crap and kept the focus on trump being unqualified when she should have been ignoring him completely and focusing on her policies, both the big picture stuff and the details and nuance.

lol So the first flawless Presidential candidate was defeated by freakin' Donald Trump. Yeah, that doesn't sound crazy at all.

 

[werepossum]

Only if California comprises 51% of the voters. Last time I checked it wasn't even close. Do you have trouble with basic math?

Why are you against Californians taking their civic duty more seriously than other states? Maybe you should learn from them.

If you are alleging voter fraud then provide evidence. If you can't, say as much. This 'who, me?' shit is stupid.

Hey, I voted. And unlike the "people" who gave Hillary a three million popular vote lead, my ballot did not need to be "corrected", as it was not covered in gravy, jelly or drool.

 

[IronWing]

Hey, I voted. And unlike the "people" who gave Hillary a three million popular vote lead, my ballot did not need to be "corrected", as it was not covered in gravy, jelly or drool.

Point of order: California banned gravy.

 

[Ichinisan]

That's well reasoned, but those two groups weren't enough to elect Trump. That fell to a third group, who believed that the Dems have been so bad for them that even Trump couldn't be worse. It's also worth pointing out that these people are typically former Democrat voters, often union members, and they voted for Cheeto Jesus even knowing that he too outsources everything he can in search of profit because he's literally the only voice even paying lip service to what's been happening to them. Rather than even devote that much thought to these Americans, the Dems elected to merely throw mud, blanket the media with commercials, and concentrate of motivating the truly faithful to turn out. For want of a nail . . .

I know at least 2 people that were very leftists. Pro-union. Pro-littleguy. In one case, basically a religious socialist. Both of them voted for Trump. I couldn't stomach voting for that man.

My own answer to the Supreme Court argument was that if we elect someone as loathsome as Trump (or HRC) because of SCOTUS nominees, then we guarantee that's the caliber of candidates we will get from now on. Part of having a party has to be a willingness to abandon that party, or we're not thinking, moral beings.

This x10,000,000

 

[fskimospy]

Hey, I voted. And unlike the "people" who gave Hillary a three million popular vote lead, my ballot did not need to be "corrected", as it was not covered in gravy, jelly or drool.

Haha, a perfect 'who, me?'

It's funny that you guys keep claiming that Clinton benefitted from millions of illegal votes but magically can't seem to find any evidence for it.

Don't worry, I'm sure you guys will uncover that massive voter fraud operation ANY DAY NOW! And if you don't? Well you can just keep pretending that you did like you do now. It keeps those scary and uncomfortable thoughts away.

 

[realibrad]

Stupid would indicate that they know the truth and refuse to believe it. I believe the word you are looking for is gullible. Smear was spread at elevated levels with an existing layer of bs already baked in.

Hillary's flaws are only flaws when viewed from a flawed perspective. She's not a politician and it has shown throughout her career. She's not good with messaging, she's not good with pivoting, and she's not good at appealing to mass tv audiences and low information voters. None of those things make a good leader of course but they are necessary in order to get elected.

She lost this election because she didn't have a message that resonated with the people (hell, I doubt anyone could tell you what he message was). She lost because, like all the other Republicans, she played trumps game instead of the one she knew how to play. She reacted to trumps crap and kept the focus on trump being unqualified when she should have been ignoring him completely and focusing on her policies, both the big picture stuff and the details and nuance.

You dont believe she has flaws unless you view her in a flawed way?

She is absolutely a politician. Perhaps she is not great at engaging voters, but she is great at politics. To argue otherwise is confusing.

 

[Lash444]

Hey, I voted. And unlike the "people" who gave Hillary a three million popular vote lead, my ballot did not need to be "corrected", as it was not covered in gravy, jelly or drool.

You are better than this. Pull your head out.

 

[fskimospy]

You are better than this. Pull your head out.

Considering he has been making similar insane accusations of far reaching liberal conspiracies for years now I feel like at some point we have to conclude that he's not better than this, haha.