President Elect Trump

11516182021104

Comments

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    JimmyV said:

    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.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 9,697
    edited December 2016
    PJ_Soul said:

    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.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,393
    mace1229 said:

    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
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,515
    JC29856 said:

    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 changed by not changing at all..."
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 9,697
    PJ_Soul said:

    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.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    JimmyV said:

    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?
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,148
    mace1229 said:

    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.
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,515
    JC29856 said:

    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 changed by not changing at all..."
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,148
    JimmyV said:

    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.
    because "I'm, like, a smart guy".
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,321

    (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
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,148
    benjs said:

    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.
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • tbergstbergs Posts: 10,301
    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.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    JimmyV said:

    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.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,430
    JC29856 said:

    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.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,515
    JC29856 said:

    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 changed by not changing at all..."
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    mace1229 said:

    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??
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,393
    How were the DNC "caught cheating"??
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,148
    PJ_Soul said:

    How were the DNC "caught cheating"??

    the supposed rigging of the primaries against bernie.
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    I swear some only believe what they want to believe.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,148
    Free said:

    I swear some only believe what they want to believe.

    the exact same could be said right back atcha.
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,393

    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
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,515
    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.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    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.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,148
    Free said:

    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.
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 9,697
    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."
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,393
    Free said:

    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.

    :confused: 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
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 9,697
    edited December 2016
    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.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,515
    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.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    mace1229 said:

    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.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    JimmyV said:

    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.
This discussion has been closed.