Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
I also think he was referring to the superdelegates and how the race between Bernie and Hilary would have been much closer, the fact the DNC tried to push Hilary and helped her in more ways than they supported Bernie. The media giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, "staging" interviews that weren't real. I think all that was lumped into the rigged system, and not necessarily that voter fraud was the only aspect of a rigged election. If I was Bernie or a Bernie supporter I would be pissed at some of those actions.
Intelligent points!
What? You guys are acting like he had clear ideas in his head when he was ranting about a rigged election. As though he was being logical and speaking about informed points at the time. I'm sure we all understand that that isn't the case.
No one was doing that, and I certainly wasn't I was just pointing out it was more than just voter fraud that makes up a "rigged" election and how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it. Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago. Much of the information came out way after his claims of a rigged election, and was more of a "see I told you it was rigged." I for one think it is a big issue some of the things the DNC and journalists did to help Hilary beat out Bernie, and probably were repeated throughout the election. I never said Trump had a clear idea of what was going on at the time. If you're a journalist and you participate in a rigged debate, or fake an interview to help a candidate, you should never be a journalist again. if you're head of a committee that is doing everything it can to get one candidate elected, that committee needs some reformation.
I also think he was referring to the superdelegates and how the race between Bernie and Hilary would have been much closer, the fact the DNC tried to push Hilary and helped her in more ways than they supported Bernie. The media giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, "staging" interviews that weren't real. I think all that was lumped into the rigged system, and not necessarily that voter fraud was the only aspect of a rigged election. If I was Bernie or a Bernie supporter I would be pissed at some of those actions.
Intelligent points!
What? You guys are acting like he had clear ideas in his head when he was ranting about a rigged election. As though he was being logical and speaking about informed points at the time. I'm sure we all understand that that isn't the case.
No one was doing that, and I certainly wasn't I was just pointing out how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it. Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago.
But the DNC is talking about reality - about actual numbers, and an actual investigation, no? Trump was babbling about some vague "rigging" while he himself wasn't even sure exactly what he meant by that. Do you really think these are comparable, even if you think the DNC is reaching?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
How about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes in this election? How about Benghazi? How about Muslims cheering the towers falling down on 9/11 from across the river in New Jersey?
I also think he was referring to the superdelegates and how the race between Bernie and Hilary would have been much closer, the fact the DNC tried to push Hilary and helped her in more ways than they supported Bernie. The media giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, "staging" interviews that weren't real. I think all that was lumped into the rigged system, and not necessarily that voter fraud was the only aspect of a rigged election. If I was Bernie or a Bernie supporter I would be pissed at some of those actions.
Intelligent points!
What? You guys are acting like he had clear ideas in his head when he was ranting about a rigged election. As though he was being logical and speaking about informed points at the time. I'm sure we all understand that that isn't the case.
No one was doing that, and I certainly wasn't I was just pointing out how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it. Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago.
But the DNC is talking about reality - about actual numbers, and an actual investigation, no? Trump was babbling about some vague "rigging" while he himself wasn't even sure exactly what he meant by that. Do you really think these are comparable, even if you think the DNC is reaching?
Trump was talking about reality, he just didn't know it at the time. And there's been no evidence of Russian hacking the election polls. The only reality is the release of emails, which was probably the smallest of many factors. Trump was complaining about the superdelegates from the very beginning. Probably only because he thought he'd have an easier time against Bernie though. If I don't think they are comparable it is only because the DNC is worse with their impact on the election. You have the DNC rigging their own election. Its been a while since I saw he data, but the race between Hilary and Bernie was a lot closer than the election results due to the superdelegates, and I think if they all would have gone to Bernie instead, he would have won. That's not an election, that's the DNC deciding who wins. And I would consider rigging a debate and faking interviews coming from within the system to favor one candidate is a bigger deal than leaked emails coming from outside the system. So I wouldn't compare the two, you're comparing corruption within the system, to influences outside of it.
Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
How about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes in this election? How about Benghazi? How about Muslims cheering the towers falling down on 9/11 from across the river in New Jersey?
Illegals voting is unknown Bengazi, I'm not aware of, I stayed away from that. Muslims cheering, I thought they were Israeli Jews?
I also think he was referring to the superdelegates and how the race between Bernie and Hilary would have been much closer, the fact the DNC tried to push Hilary and helped her in more ways than they supported Bernie. The media giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, "staging" interviews that weren't real. I think all that was lumped into the rigged system, and not necessarily that voter fraud was the only aspect of a rigged election. If I was Bernie or a Bernie supporter I would be pissed at some of those actions.
Intelligent points!
What? You guys are acting like he had clear ideas in his head when he was ranting about a rigged election. As though he was being logical and speaking about informed points at the time. I'm sure we all understand that that isn't the case.
No one was doing that, and I certainly wasn't I was just pointing out how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it. Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago.
But the DNC is talking about reality - about actual numbers, and an actual investigation, no? Trump was babbling about some vague "rigging" while he himself wasn't even sure exactly what he meant by that. Do you really think these are comparable, even if you think the DNC is reaching?
Trump was talking about reality, he just didn't know it at the time. And there's been no evidence of Russian hacking the election polls. The only reality is the release of emails, which was probably the smallest of many factors. Trump was complaining about the superdelegates from the very beginning. Probably only because he thought he'd have an easier time against Bernie though. If I don't think they are comparable it is only because the DNC is worse with their impact on the election. You have the DNC rigging their own election. Its been a while since I saw he data, but the race between Hilary and Bernie was a lot closer than the election results due to the superdelegates, and I think if they all would have gone to Bernie instead, he would have won. That's not an election, that's the DNC deciding who wins. And I would consider rigging a debate and faking interviews coming from within the system to favor one candidate is a bigger deal than leaked emails coming from outside the system. So I wouldn't compare the two, you're comparing corruption within the system, to influences outside of it.
(the part I underlined). but that's the whole point. he had zero idea waht he was talking about. he just happened to be (possibly) correct. neither side had any tangible reason to believe that "rigging" was taking place. which is why HRC dismissed it every time Trump brought it up. He was just saying that as a scapegoat for his eventual loss.
it's not hypocritical. if he had originally said 'I'll examine the evidence when the election is over" instead of "I won't concede", this would be a non-issue. Clinton said what she said because, to anyone's knowledge, this has not ocurred before, therefore there was no reason to not concede. She said she would, and she did. It wasn't her movement that started this recount stuff. She just joined it later as more info came to light.
Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
How about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes in this election? How about Benghazi? How about Muslims cheering the towers falling down on 9/11 from across the river in New Jersey?
Illegals voting is unknown Bengazi, I'm not aware of, I stayed away from that. Muslims cheering, I thought they were Israeli Jews?
If illegal immigrants voting is an unknown then how can Donald Trump claim millions of them voted against him? There's no evidence of that. An unproven conspiracy theory that helps his cause is endorsed by Donald. A case made by the CIA which does not help his cause is dismissed.
Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
How about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes in this election? How about Benghazi? How about Muslims cheering the towers falling down on 9/11 from across the river in New Jersey?
Illegals voting is unknown Bengazi, I'm not aware of, I stayed away from that. Muslims cheering, I thought they were Israeli Jews?
If illegal immigrants voting is an unknown then how can Donald Trump claim millions of them voted against him? There's no evidence of that. An unproven conspiracy theory that helps his cause is endorsed by Donald. A case made by the CIA which does not help his cause is dismissed.
I also think he was referring to the superdelegates and how the race between Bernie and Hilary would have been much closer, the fact the DNC tried to push Hilary and helped her in more ways than they supported Bernie. The media giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, "staging" interviews that weren't real. I think all that was lumped into the rigged system, and not necessarily that voter fraud was the only aspect of a rigged election. If I was Bernie or a Bernie supporter I would be pissed at some of those actions.
Intelligent points!
What? You guys are acting like he had clear ideas in his head when he was ranting about a rigged election. As though he was being logical and speaking about informed points at the time. I'm sure we all understand that that isn't the case.
No one was doing that, and I certainly wasn't I was just pointing out how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it. Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago.
But the DNC is talking about reality - about actual numbers, and an actual investigation, no? Trump was babbling about some vague "rigging" while he himself wasn't even sure exactly what he meant by that. Do you really think these are comparable, even if you think the DNC is reaching?
Trump was talking about reality, he just didn't know it at the time. And there's been no evidence of Russian hacking the election polls. The only reality is the release of emails, which was probably the smallest of many factors. Trump was complaining about the superdelegates from the very beginning. Probably only because he thought he'd have an easier time against Bernie though. If I don't think they are comparable it is only because the DNC is worse with their impact on the election. You have the DNC rigging their own election. Its been a while since I saw he data, but the race between Hilary and Bernie was a lot closer than the election results due to the superdelegates, and I think if they all would have gone to Bernie instead, he would have won. That's not an election, that's the DNC deciding who wins. And I would consider rigging a debate and faking interviews coming from within the system to favor one candidate is a bigger deal than leaked emails coming from outside the system. So I wouldn't compare the two, you're comparing corruption within the system, to influences outside of it.
(the part I underlined). but that's the whole point. he had zero idea waht he was talking about. he just happened to be (possibly) correct. neither side had any tangible reason to believe that "rigging" was taking place. which is why HRC dismissed it every time Trump brought it up. He was just saying that as a scapegoat for his eventual loss.
it's not hypocritical. if he had originally said 'I'll examine the evidence when the election is over" instead of "I won't concede", this would be a non-issue. Clinton said what she said because, to anyone's knowledge, this has not ocurred before, therefore there was no reason to not concede. She said she would, and she did. It wasn't her movement that started this recount stuff. She just joined it later as more info came to light.
HFD, I thought Trump said that he would "decide at the time" and "keep us in suspense" during the debate?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I also think he was referring to the superdelegates and how the race between Bernie and Hilary would have been much closer, the fact the DNC tried to push Hilary and helped her in more ways than they supported Bernie. The media giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, "staging" interviews that weren't real. I think all that was lumped into the rigged system, and not necessarily that voter fraud was the only aspect of a rigged election. If I was Bernie or a Bernie supporter I would be pissed at some of those actions.
Intelligent points!
What? You guys are acting like he had clear ideas in his head when he was ranting about a rigged election. As though he was being logical and speaking about informed points at the time. I'm sure we all understand that that isn't the case.
No one was doing that, and I certainly wasn't I was just pointing out how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it. Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago.
But the DNC is talking about reality - about actual numbers, and an actual investigation, no? Trump was babbling about some vague "rigging" while he himself wasn't even sure exactly what he meant by that. Do you really think these are comparable, even if you think the DNC is reaching?
Trump was talking about reality, he just didn't know it at the time. And there's been no evidence of Russian hacking the election polls. The only reality is the release of emails, which was probably the smallest of many factors. Trump was complaining about the superdelegates from the very beginning. Probably only because he thought he'd have an easier time against Bernie though. If I don't think they are comparable it is only because the DNC is worse with their impact on the election. You have the DNC rigging their own election. Its been a while since I saw he data, but the race between Hilary and Bernie was a lot closer than the election results due to the superdelegates, and I think if they all would have gone to Bernie instead, he would have won. That's not an election, that's the DNC deciding who wins. And I would consider rigging a debate and faking interviews coming from within the system to favor one candidate is a bigger deal than leaked emails coming from outside the system. So I wouldn't compare the two, you're comparing corruption within the system, to influences outside of it.
(the part I underlined). but that's the whole point. he had zero idea waht he was talking about. he just happened to be (possibly) correct. neither side had any tangible reason to believe that "rigging" was taking place. which is why HRC dismissed it every time Trump brought it up. He was just saying that as a scapegoat for his eventual loss.
it's not hypocritical. if he had originally said 'I'll examine the evidence when the election is over" instead of "I won't concede", this would be a non-issue. Clinton said what she said because, to anyone's knowledge, this has not ocurred before, therefore there was no reason to not concede. She said she would, and she did. It wasn't her movement that started this recount stuff. She just joined it later as more info came to light.
HFD, I thought Trump said that he would "decide at the time" and "keep us in suspense" during the debate?
at the debate, yes, he finally said that (which is why I said "originally"). but leading up to it he said he wouldn't concede.
Trump continues to just make claims about anything and everything and when it comes true, he's a genius, if not, dismiss and ignore. What a commander in chief he'll be. Good to know Miss Cleo is running the show now.
As the saying goes, "If you throw enough shit against a wall, some of it has gotta stick." That should have been his campaign motto.
Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
How about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes in this election? How about Benghazi? How about Muslims cheering the towers falling down on 9/11 from across the river in New Jersey?
Illegals voting is unknown Bengazi, I'm not aware of, I stayed away from that. Muslims cheering, I thought they were Israeli Jews?
If illegal immigrants voting is an unknown then how can Donald Trump claim millions of them voted against him? There's no evidence of that. An unproven conspiracy theory that helps his cause is endorsed by Donald. A case made by the CIA which does not help his cause is dismissed.
As I stated before trump was referring to a Harvard study on illegals voting, where it made the claim 1to3 million illegals voted in an election. He didn't just make up the illegals, the 911 celebrations or birtherism. I think he truly questioned those things, doesn't make him dumb or smart. Not sure what he really believes but he didn't lie or invent it, maybe he was duped fooled. What's the old saying in Tennessee.. fool me once shame on, shame on you. Fool me..you can't fool me again. Or the old Bosnian saying.. Whenever you land under sniper fire, just run with your head down to the vehicle.
Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
How about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes in this election? How about Benghazi? How about Muslims cheering the towers falling down on 9/11 from across the river in New Jersey?
Illegals voting is unknown Bengazi, I'm not aware of, I stayed away from that. Muslims cheering, I thought they were Israeli Jews?
If illegal immigrants voting is an unknown then how can Donald Trump claim millions of them voted against him? There's no evidence of that. An unproven conspiracy theory that helps his cause is endorsed by Donald. A case made by the CIA which does not help his cause is dismissed.
As I stated before trump was referring to a Harvard study on illegals voting, where it made the claim 1to3 million illegals voted in an election. He didn't just make up the illegals, the 911 celebrations or birtherism. I think he truly questioned those things, doesn't make him dumb or smart. Not sure what he really believes but he didn't lie or invent it, maybe he was duped fooled. What's the old saying in Tennessee.. fool me once shame on, shame on you. Fool me..you can't fool me again. Or the old Bosnian saying.. Whenever you land under sniper fire, just run with your head down to the vehicle.
Trump is actually really dumb in a lot of ways. Particularly in areas that require a smart president.
Again, Trump gleefully pointed to Super delegates and illegal immigrants voting as evidence of election rigging. Both notions were politically beneficial to him and his campaign. Potential Russian involvement in our election is not and is therefore summarily rejected by Trump. The hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Foreign influence is a problem, I would agree. But I think there is a big difference between players within the system trying to manipulate it with superdelegates, rigged debates and interviews, staging demostrations etc, and a foreign influence releasing information that can sway a voter.
Sure, but I'm not even arguing what's worse or what happened or what didn't happen. Trump was completely willing to push claims of fraud when he believed it would help his cause. Now he is completely disregarding intelligence reports that say something he doesn't like.
And it was the other way around with the DNC thought they had the election, claiming voter fraud doesn't exist. Now they lost, and immediately filed claims for a recount. Both sides had a complete flip.
But the CIA isn't the DNC and Trump is going to be President of the United States. The next POTUS is dismissing the CIA because what they are saying doesn't help his cause. That should be cause for concern for both sides.
He shouldn't be dismissing it. I'm just pointing out that for all the flack he is taking for this, is mostly coming from the same people who laughed at him for the same views when the shoe was on the other foot. So I can hardly blame him for simply repeating the same behavior that was shown him. And no, the CIA is not the DNC, but the DNC is an internal force along with other high profile figures influencing the election, which in my opinion, is a bigger issue than where these accusations started. They started with complaining wikileaks was Russia and they should not influence voters. Now if it can be proven they hacked into the polls and literally added votes, then yes that is a lot bigger, but that seems to be a newer theory, and from what I can tell has zero evidence behind it other than "How else can we explain how Trump won?"
I'm not defending the Democrats. Their conduct at times in this election cycle was embarrassing. I didn't vote for their candidate and I have no regrets because she didn't deserve my vote. BUT...Trump is going to be President. He needs to act that way. To simply repeat behavior because he believes it was done to him is beneath the office he sought out and won.
I agree, except there isn't evidence of any hacking. So until there is, he should dismiss it. If anyone has seen evidence I would like to see a link to it, because I haven't seen any. At this point, what should he do when there is no evidence of it?
No one has given us a classified intelligence briefing, either. We don't know what evidence does or does not exist. Donald Trump was super eager to believe all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories, none of which were signed off on by the CIA, right up until the moment those conspiracy theories stopped benefiting him.
What crazy conspiracy theories??
Are you serious? How about Birtherism?
I thought you were talking about during his campaign, by bad. That's one he did finally put to rest.
How about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes in this election? How about Benghazi? How about Muslims cheering the towers falling down on 9/11 from across the river in New Jersey?
Illegals voting is unknown Bengazi, I'm not aware of, I stayed away from that. Muslims cheering, I thought they were Israeli Jews?
If illegal immigrants voting is an unknown then how can Donald Trump claim millions of them voted against him? There's no evidence of that. An unproven conspiracy theory that helps his cause is endorsed by Donald. A case made by the CIA which does not help his cause is dismissed.
As I stated before trump was referring to a Harvard study on illegals voting, where it made the claim 1to3 million illegals voted in an election. He didn't just make up the illegals, the 911 celebrations or birtherism. I think he truly questioned those things, doesn't make him dumb or smart. Not sure what he really believes but he didn't lie or invent it, maybe he was duped fooled. What's the old saying in Tennessee.. fool me once shame on, shame on you. Fool me..you can't fool me again. Or the old Bosnian saying.. Whenever you land under sniper fire, just run with your head down to the vehicle.
I'm not saying he made any of these things up. I'm saying he embraced and endorsed every one of them, regardless of whether there was evidence to support them or not. I'm saying that he has dismissed the CIA and summarily rejected any suggestion that Russia involved itself in our election because he knows admitting otherwise is not to his political advantage. You can deflect to Hillary Clinton all you want to but she is largely irrelevant at this point. This is about Donald Trump and his hypocrisy.
I also think he was referring to the superdelegates and how the race between Bernie and Hilary would have been much closer, the fact the DNC tried to push Hilary and helped her in more ways than they supported Bernie. The media giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, "staging" interviews that weren't real. I think all that was lumped into the rigged system, and not necessarily that voter fraud was the only aspect of a rigged election. If I was Bernie or a Bernie supporter I would be pissed at some of those actions.
Intelligent points!
What? You guys are acting like he had clear ideas in his head when he was ranting about a rigged election. As though he was being logical and speaking about informed points at the time. I'm sure we all understand that that isn't the case.
No one was doing that, and I certainly wasn't I was just pointing out how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it. Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago.
But the DNC is talking about reality - about actual numbers, and an actual investigation, no? Trump was babbling about some vague "rigging" while he himself wasn't even sure exactly what he meant by that. Do you really think these are comparable, even if you think the DNC is reaching?
Trump was talking about reality, he just didn't know it at the time. And there's been no evidence of Russian hacking the election polls. The only reality is the release of emails, which was probably the smallest of many factors. Trump was complaining about the superdelegates from the very beginning. Probably only because he thought he'd have an easier time against Bernie though. If I don't think they are comparable it is only because the DNC is worse with their impact on the election. You have the DNC rigging their own election. Its been a while since I saw he data, but the race between Hilary and Bernie was a lot closer than the election results due to the superdelegates, and I think if they all would have gone to Bernie instead, he would have won. That's not an election, that's the DNC deciding who wins. And I would consider rigging a debate and faking interviews coming from within the system to favor one candidate is a bigger deal than leaked emails coming from outside the system. So I wouldn't compare the two, you're comparing corruption within the system, to influences outside of it.
Great post. As far as we should be concerned, the DNC has very little credibility and trustworthiness. Obama and the mainstream media want to talk about Russia interfering with our election, but our own DNC, Who is absolutely involved and included in these headlines, was caught cheating... in OUR ELECTION. What does this say about our country let alone Russia Russia Russia??
the supposed rigging of the primaries against bernie.
I know what he thinks, but what I'm asking for are precise details as to how they were "caught cheating". People in the DNC picking a favorite during an primary election campaign isn't cheating.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Whatever the Democrats and the DNC did or didn't do to Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with whether or not the Russians involved themselves in our election.
Please do tell what I specifically choose not to believe. Because the use of superdelegates, firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil slipping questions prior to debates, etc. etc. actually happened.
Please do tell what I specifically choose not to believe. Because the use of superdelegates, firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil slipping questions prior to debates, etc. etc. actually happened.
everything that we know of (FACTS) that lead to HRC winning the primary were all legal under DNC rules. you call it rigging. I call it shady, but legal. I think the system should be changed, but the rules are there for all to see. it sucks, I wish Bernie would have won too.
point out something they did that was against the rules of the DNC, not what you THINK IS UNETHICAL, and we may have something to talk about.
It appears beyond supposed rigging to me. The whole superdelegate thing is designed so they can elect whoever they want. Bernie had enough votes where he could have won if they voted for him instead of her. Essentially they got the deciding vote. The DNC even announced a public apology to Bernie after the leaked emails disclosing their biased tactics. Members of the DNC were involved with releasing debate questions as well. It is well beyond "supposed rigging."
Please do tell what I specifically choose not to believe. Because the use of superdelegates, firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil slipping questions prior to debates, etc. etc. actually happened.
Not sure who you're talking to. Still just waiting for you to explain how cheating happened during the primaries, since the use of superdelegates, firing Wasserman, and a couple of obvious general questions being volunteered to Clinton during the general campaign aren't instances of cheating.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Superdelegates aren't cheating, as they get to write their own rule book and they wrote it. Just seems really dumb. At least the electoral college, although not completely obligated to vote for anyone, would be completely unheard for more than 1 or 2 to not vote according to the vote. They (in theory) represent the voter. Superdelegates represent no one. They have a system designed that as long as the race is within about 10-15%, they can chose the winner of the election. Faking interviews and staging debates could be seen as "cheating," especially if the committee is aware of it.
It is quite telling that despite the shitty way Bernie was treated by DNC he still chose to work his ass off to defeat Donald Trump. He didn't see the election as choice between two equally bad choices. Far from it.
It appears beyond supposed rigging to me. The whole superdelegate thing is designed so they can elect whoever they want. Bernie had enough votes where he could have won if they voted for him instead of her. Essentially they got the deciding vote. The DNC even announced a public apology to Bernie after the leaked emails disclosing their biased tactics. Members of the DNC were involved with releasing debate questions as well. It is well beyond "supposed rigging."
That's right. If people want to excuse the DNC for questionable behavior, that's on them. The fact is, The leaked emails and the Podesta emails just showed exactly how corrupt the party is. Some here, may think that's legal along with biased journalists, and journalists releasing questions prior to debates in interviews ( is this even legal?) Shady shit right there, pulling fast ones on the public, the voters, the ELECTION. Everyone pointing fingers at Russia need to point fingers at who exactly corrupted this election. It was the DNC and Trump. Looking at Russia for our troubles and our problems is just us pretending there's nothing wrong with our leaders and biased media.
Sure an investigation should happen but the focus should strictly be on Trump and not the DNC like they're making it out to be.
It is quite telling that despite the shitty way Bernie was treated by DNC he still chose to work his ass off to defeat Donald Trump. He didn't see the election as choice between two equally bad choices. Far from it.
And he continues to still work for the greater good of this country, the people.
Comments
I was just pointing out it was more than just voter fraud that makes up a "rigged" election and how both sides have had a complete 180 turn. 6 weeks ago Trump was saying it is rigged with a potential of voter fraud and the DNC was saying it's impossible and to stop being a cry baby about it.
Now it has completely flipped. I wasn't defending Trump or anyone else, just pointing out what seems like irony to me that, in both cases, the claims were made when it seemed to benefit that party. Seems hard to deny that given the circumstances just 6 weeks ago.
Much of the information came out way after his claims of a rigged election, and was more of a "see I told you it was rigged." I for one think it is a big issue some of the things the DNC and journalists did to help Hilary beat out Bernie, and probably were repeated throughout the election. I never said Trump had a clear idea of what was going on at the time.
If you're a journalist and you participate in a rigged debate, or fake an interview to help a candidate, you should never be a journalist again. if you're head of a committee that is doing everything it can to get one candidate elected, that committee needs some reformation.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And there's been no evidence of Russian hacking the election polls. The only reality is the release of emails, which was probably the smallest of many factors. Trump was complaining about the superdelegates from the very beginning. Probably only because he thought he'd have an easier time against Bernie though.
If I don't think they are comparable it is only because the DNC is worse with their impact on the election. You have the DNC rigging their own election. Its been a while since I saw he data, but the race between Hilary and Bernie was a lot closer than the election results due to the superdelegates, and I think if they all would have gone to Bernie instead, he would have won. That's not an election, that's the DNC deciding who wins. And I would consider rigging a debate and faking interviews coming from within the system to favor one candidate is a bigger deal than leaked emails coming from outside the system. So I wouldn't compare the two, you're comparing corruption within the system, to influences outside of it.
Bengazi, I'm not aware of, I stayed away from that.
Muslims cheering, I thought they were Israeli Jews?
it's not hypocritical. if he had originally said 'I'll examine the evidence when the election is over" instead of "I won't concede", this would be a non-issue. Clinton said what she said because, to anyone's knowledge, this has not ocurred before, therefore there was no reason to not concede. She said she would, and she did. It wasn't her movement that started this recount stuff. She just joined it later as more info came to light.
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
As the saying goes, "If you throw enough shit against a wall, some of it has gotta stick." That should have been his campaign motto.
What's the old saying in Tennessee.. fool me once shame on, shame on you. Fool me..you can't fool me again. Or the old Bosnian saying.. Whenever you land under sniper fire, just run with your head down to the vehicle.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
point out something they did that was against the rules of the DNC, not what you THINK IS UNETHICAL, and we may have something to talk about.
www.headstonesband.com
Still just waiting for you to explain how cheating happened during the primaries, since the use of superdelegates, firing Wasserman, and a couple of obvious general questions being volunteered to Clinton during the general campaign aren't instances of cheating.
They have a system designed that as long as the race is within about 10-15%, they can chose the winner of the election.
Faking interviews and staging debates could be seen as "cheating," especially if the committee is aware of it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Sure an investigation should happen but the focus should strictly be on Trump and not the DNC like they're making it out to be.