Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, fishcakes said:

They're desperate for her to be convicted of a crime or for her to be diagnosed with a neurological disorder or just have something, anything disqualifying come to light so that when Donald finishes flushing the United States down the toilet they can say, "but Hillary ..." It's not about facts, it's about their own culpability.

And also I think they need to keep up the anger at all those "others" because that's pretty much the thing they voted for. It's like Trump himself, still campaigning even after he's President Elect. 

[stillshimpy]

Yeah, I can accept that there are people who are simply lifelong Republicans who believe that the government should have a really tiny role in their lives, who simply couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a democrat.  I can even accept that otherwise decent human beings were able to convince themselves that the bile Trump spewed was about trying to pin down the Duck Dynasty vote (kindest way I could think to put that) and that he didn't mean all the hateful, terrible, awful, etc. etc. he actually said and claimed.  

I just am not going to waste my breath, or typing time trying to talk people out of believing patently absurd falsehoods about Hillary Clinton because it isn't within my power to introduce sense and reason to those that embrace absurdity and falsehood at that level.  

But I do think that the otherwise good, "I managed to convince myself it was all blow and bluster to appeal to the lowest mindsets and voted my party because we simply have differing views about the role of government in a life"  (although the Republican party has long been the party trying to force their choices on everyone else via law) vote for Trump holding their nose the entire time.  It's just by now it has to have reached "Oh ....shit.  What have I done?" moment because one of the first things he did was start appointing people who are not-so-secret cross-burners, hood wearers and hate mongers.    

Those cabinet picks are not about trying to woo people with IQs equal to bulb wattages.    

I'm assuming that the "oh ....no" revelation will be followed either by "I admit it, I made the wrong choice" or by "I will now engage in a marathon of rationalization"  and again, nothing I can do, or say in either instance will ever alter anything.   

But I accept that there are people who simply believe in different things, like small government, mainly run at the state level and that they are not evil, or unkind or stupid or anything of the sort.  I just don't have anything to say to them.    To the other people who enthusiastically voted for Trump, I genuinely have nothing in common with them other than being a fellow carbon-based lifeform.  

As for Hillary Clinton, my goodness, do I ever hope she simply retires and enjoys her life as she willingly took on the role of being American's Whipping Thing to try and help others.   I have a lot of admiration for that, even though I know she isn't perfect.  A life spent in politics requires compromise and choosing to do three good things while accepting the necessity of the fourth unpalatable thing. 

But anyone still attempting to kick her is just doing it because they like to kick things since she's out of the picture now.  It strikes me as a very odd hobby.   It won't prove the choice to vote for Trump right, the only thing that will do that is his actions and they certainly aren't looking promising. [/understatement meter just died from overuse]

Edited December 19, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Padma]

Did ANY Democrat (not commentator, but office-holder, past or present) speak out against Trump's "I won; You lost!" tours?  The more I think about them, the more appalling they are.

Imagine Hillary winning EC and Trump losing by 3 million votes.  Then she takes off--blowing through the $7 million transition fund and who knows what other "tricks" and "favors" incurred--to travel to battleground states for divisive pro-Hillary rallies of her most ardent supporters. 

And uses them as if she's still campaigning--(1) bragging about the election results in detail for an hour (the function usually served in speeches by the polls and primaries), (2) going through a litany of "golden oldie" talking points from the campaign; and (3) still smacking down the losing opponent and encouraging the crowd to do the same.

Yeah. That would really happen. 

Yet where is the outrage that Trump just did this incredibly divisive, narcissitic, costly, pointless (except for his ego) series of rallies--at our expense?  Where's the outrage, Democrats?  (sigh)

If the situation were reversed, Republicans would have been making so much noise about the "rigged" system that deprived Americans of the person the majority voted for.  No one would have dared to give 4 or 5 Victory Rallies.

Maybe the next four years will strengthen the backbone of our leaders.

[Padma]

Bill Clinton speaks up. Of course, he'll get no support and it will backfire: https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-trump-knows-how-to-get-angry-white-men-to-vote-for-him-160834383.html

[NewDigs]

Go Bill!

Especially loved the "single digit IQ" mention.

[Pixel]

I was thinking about how some people like to lob the accusation that Hillary supporters are just as blind as Trump supporters to their candidate's flaws, that she has this litany of horror in her past that the Hillary supporter refuses to see.

The thing is, I'm NOT a Hillary supporter.Yes, I voted for her. I'm a progressive modern liberal.  I also was extremely disappointed that she was the democratic candidate. I do not have blinders on because I love Hillary or thought it was her turn. I have done research into both candidates and have come away with a basic truth - Hillary is hated by many Trump voters for unsubstantiated lies and baseless accusations levied against her, and Trump is hated by NeverTrumpers for things that are true.  This is not me being blind or biased. This is the result of the research I did to suss out the fake stories from the true.  It was something I had to do for myself to come to terms with voting for a candidate that I viscerally did not like, Hillary Clinton. I discovered, in my research, that she's gotten an undeserved bad rap.  As politicians go, she's one of the better ones.  But remember, I didn't start out there - I had to do a lot of work and research to get to a point where I felt ok about voting for her. So, to say that I believe lies about Trump because I am a loyal Hillary supporter is simply ridiculous.  

I'm aware of media bias.  When the media had a field day with Trump saying that vets with PTSD weren't mentally strong, I knew it was just a ridiculous hullabaloo and that he didn't mean it the way it sounded. He meant it in a decent way, actually.  I mention this to point out that I didn't just knee jerk jump on everything Trump did or said as negative. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. This is just one small example where I felt the media unfairly vilified him or made him look stupid.  But...the bad and the stupid just kept piling on and piling on. I watched his rallies live when I had the chance, unencumbered by media commentary after the fact. What I saw was ludicrous and disturbing. And I decided that all on my own - not because of any love for Hillary. 

Sigh. I don't know. I guess I just wanted to express my frustration.  When someone says the Hillary supporter has blinders on just as much as the Trump supporter, well, that may be true for some, but not for me, so it's very angrifying ( I love that fake word) to have someone tell you that you have blinders on, when you're pretty well informed compared to the vast majority.

I'm not saying anyone has singled me out. This is a general rant. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Pixel
ETA: Final comment

[Duke Silver]

[PatsyandEddie]

2 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

Are you fucking kidding me? Rhetorical question I know. How stupid is this? Prosecute her for what? It's the PE who should be looking at prosecution. Gawd, the stupid just burns! 

Edited December 20, 2016 by PatsyandEddie

[Pixel]

8 minutes ago, PatsyandEddie said:

Are you fucking kidding me? Rhetorical question I know. How stupid is this? Prosecute her for what? It's the PE who should be looking at prosecution. Gawd, the stupid just burns! 

Shouldn't there be some sort of double jeopardy to stop this nonsense? How many more stupid witch hunts are the taxpayers going to have to pay for?  I really hope this is going nowhere, and that it's just a biased article. There are times when I hope the news I'm seeing has been exaggerated, because it's all just so insane. 

[MulletorHater]

9 hours ago, fishcakes said:

Hillary has been the victim of smear campaigns for more than 25 years, nothing has ever been substantiated, and the more that she gets investigated with no findings of wrongdoing, the more obvious it becomes that the accusations are nothing but lies and dirty politics. However, the existence of this long history of accusations did give people an excuse to vote against her, and had Hillary lost to an ordinary GOP candidate, I suspect her detractors would have put away their pitchforks just as they always do when she or Bill aren't running for something. Instead she lost to the most corrupt, least qualified person to ever run for President. Before he's even taken office, we have already seen that he's going to use the presidency to line his own pockets at the expense of the American economy, the working class, the middle class, the elderly, our national security -- basically everything the president is supposed to protect and defend. Trump supporters need to justify to themselves that making an incompetent, deviant, dangerous ignoramus the President was the right thing to do, which is why they need to continue to attack Hillary. They're desperate for her to be convicted of a crime or for her to be diagnosed with a neurological disorder or just have something, anything disqualifying come to light so that when Donald finishes flushing the United States down the toilet they can say, "but Hillary ..." It's not about facts, it's about their own culpability.

Excellent summation, Fishcakes!  It's fascinating watching the thought process of people who were so disappointed because they voted for Drumpf so that he would follow through on his promise to lock Hillary up.  Nothing else mattered.  Not the rule of law.  Not the danger that we could become a Banana Republic if Drumpf made good on his threat.  Not the precarious financial position of their fellow citizens; not even the knowledge that Drumpf is grossly unqualified and unhinged.  All they wanted was the satisfaction of seeing Hillary being led to the gallows, being boiled in oil, burned at the stake, and utterly publicly humiliated.  I still shudder at the way some of his supporters openly boasted that they would take up arms if she won.  Some of them considered it their duty to man the polls with their guns because their fuhrer told them to.

It's been instrumental seeing how it's only occurring to them now that maybe the Fanta Menace should stay off Twitter and act presidential.  Didn't they notice that shit before?  Or, the ones who are angry that he hasn't drained the swamp as promised.  He's a traitor to some now because he walked back his promise to "build that wall!" which is another thing these fools voted for.  For them to squawk now that he lied to get their votes is supremely disingenuous.  They want Hillary to be diagnosed with something; meanwhile, they studiously ignore the obvious signs that the man they voted for, admired and gave the "Heil!" salute to is a pathological liar, psychopath and narcissistic sociopath.  They want Hillary convicted of something, but have chosen to ignore Drumpf's blatant corruption and crimes.  "Was it all lies?" one Trumpgretter asks.  My response: What the fuck do you think?  Shrieking because Goldman Sachs people are in his cabinet?  They're fucking kidding me with that shit, right?  Only now terrified about the "Russian stuff?"  But, these same folks, along with their orange demigod, spent 8 years painting President Obama as less than patriotic, ineligible for the office and as some kind of Muslim sympathizer.  

I wonder how long it will be before they become like many of the German people after the end of WWII, who had the gall to wonder how things could have gotten that far.  At worst, they pretended they didn't know all those atrocities were occurring despite the horrible smells no one could miss.  This, while ignoring that Hitler was invited, cheered on, and encouraged to do the horrible things he did.

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

Shouldn't there be some sort of double jeopardy to stop this nonsense? How many more stupid witch hunts are the taxpayers going to have to pay for?  I really hope this is going nowhere, and that it's just a biased article. There are times when I hope the news I'm seeing has been exaggerated, because it's all just so insane. 

Double jeopardy only applies if you've been tried and found not guilty (or for that matter, if you've been found guilty, you can't later be tried for the same crime again).

But the beauty of endless witch hunts, particularly Congressional witch hunts, is that you can go on-and-on-and-on.  If a prosecutor kept investigating this, perhaps you might eventually be able to make out a case for abuse of process or something similar.  But there's really nothing to stop a Congressional investigation except public or peer pressure.

Plus, do you -- i.e. Republican leadership -- really want Hillary Clinton tried and convicted?  Aside from criminalizing politics in a way that could eventually be turned against them, they have to worry about what to tell their supporters when, after her conviction, millions of jobs haven't magically returned from China, India, Mexico, etc and everything is all better.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Constantinople

[slf]

11 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Here is a head start for Hillary's 2020 run strategy:

http://americanlookout.com/report-california-is-the-only-reason-for-hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead/

Here's a question: so? Is California not a part of the union? This is becoming a common refrain "well once you deduct California and New York..." Why would we? They're Americans. Why should their votes not matter? The votes of sparsely populated red states that are heavily dependent on blue states to survive are counted, matter, are never discarded. What a bizarre argument. "Well, once you deduct the most heavily populated state in the country..." LOL. 

Well, once you deduct the votes of red staters HRC won by an even larger margin.

[theredhead77]

11 minutes ago, slf said:

Here's a question: so? Is California not a part of the union? This is becoming a common refrain "well once you deduct California and New York..." Why would we? They're Americans. Why should their votes not matter? The votes of sparsely populated red states that are heavily dependent on blue states to survive are counted, matter, are never discarded. What a bizarre argument. "Well, once you deduct the most heavily populated state in the country..." LOL. 

Well, once you deduct the votes of red staters HRC won by an even larger margin.

I really want to tell people who go around saying that "well if we don't count then you can't have our money".

[Zuzubee]

As a NY-er, here is my feelings regarding Hillary and all that went wrong. I think she was a decent First Lady and a damn good, hardworking Senator for our state. But 8 years ago, I was an early supporter of Obama. Why, being a woman with no real gripe against her? Because I was tired of the Bush/Clinton pass off and wanted change. 

For two years, I have been screaming in my head at the DNC. Don't lock her in. Not a good idea. No one went for it 8 years ago. What has changed? And no one is entitled to it. Was thrilled and surprised when Bernie challenged her. I have been a fan of his for years as he most closely represents my political ideal. Was shocked when he got traction. 

The DNC so totally misjudged the mood of the nation, as did the Clinton campaign. That, with a little help from the Russians, lost the election (at least electorially) to someone who should have been so beatable.

I do feel bad for Hillary. She also was a very competent SOS and I did vote for her this time.  The supposed scandals and mud slinging never bothered me. But it wasn't in the cards because the US doesn't want entitled people of a dynasty as president. DNC, you really f'd it up and because of you, we are left with a total disaster.

A man, who will be at best, a president in absentia, spending most of his time in Trump Tower, coming out occasionally for his narcissistic love fests, babbling stuff.

[Chicken Wing]

16 minutes ago, slf said:

Here's a question: so? Is California not a part of the union? This is becoming a common refrain "well once you deduct California and New York..." Why would we? They're Americans. Why should their votes not matter? The votes of sparsely populated red states that are heavily dependent on blue states to survive are counted, matter, are never discarded. What a bizarre argument. "Well, once you deduct the most heavily populated state in the country..." LOL. 

Well, once you deduct the votes of red staters HRC won by an even larger margin.

I've seen this "point" made elsewhere, too. It's probably the stupidest argument ever.

Should Barack Obama's 10 million vote win over John McCain be lessened because of his 3 million vote advantage in California alone? In 2012 Obama won the popular vote by 5 million -- should we reduce the strength of that win, too, because 3 million of that vote also was because of California? Newsflash, folks: California has a lot of votes. It's the most populous state in the country. More people in the United States live in that state than in any other state. Why should those votes, and those voters, be discounted because they're all in the same spot? Did I mention this is the stupidest argument ever?

[theredhead77]

The more time they spend on witch hunts for someone not even in politics the less time they have to fuck other things up. Right?

[NewDigs]

8 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

The more time they spend on witch hunts for someone not even in politics the less time they have to fuck other things up. Right?

Smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand.

Keep your eye on the ball, if you can.

[ruby24]

Bill didn't win a majority of the vote, but he DID win the popular vote in '92. It was a three way race- he got 43%, Bush I got 37% and Ross Perot got 19%.

So yes, he won the most votes that year. Not a single president of the 20th century came in without the popular vote.

And frankly, I don't even think we should be comparing to those two 19th century elections where the loser of the vote won the electoral college (the third, John Quincy Adams, didn't win the vote OR the electoral college, amazingly enough), because we didn't HAVE a popular vote back then! Women couldn't vote, minorities couldn't vote, the only people who could really vote were rich, white, landowning males.

This system has NO place in a modern society. None. It erases democracy. It's done so twice now- with Bush and with Trump. The people did not choose either, even more egregiously with Trump. This is a ludicrous subversion of democracy and for NO reason.

Edited December 20, 2016 by ruby24

[Stuffy]

25 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

 

Schools really have to do a better job of education people on the elections in the US .

Schools do teach the constitution and electoral college in both middle school and high school. It's also a requirement in college or at least it was at mine.

I'm assuming you don't mean talking about the candidates because that's against the law and grounds for being fired. 

[Stuffy]

People aren't confused.  They just view the electoral college as outdated. Losing by almost three million is ridiculous. It's not a democracy if your vote doesn't count. I live in a red state my vote doesn't count. I didn't vote for trump but that's where all my state's electoral votes went. They don't represent me or my vote. My vote is counted in the popular vote though. Yes I know how the electoral college works, but it doesn't change my feelings. 

I'm also a Christian, and I don't like that our supposed leaders like Franklin Graham are sell outs for party politics. Trump bragged about sexual assault, and we hand wave it because he says he's pro-life. This is not what Jesus would do. His heart would be broken for all those women, for the beauty contestants who had their privacy violated, for anyone who is facing bigotry. He was the physical embodiment of God's love and now our so-called religious leaders are leading with hate. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Stuffy

[Padma]

1 hour ago, ruby24 said:

Bill didn't win a majority of the vote, but he DID win the popular vote in '92. It was a three way race- he got 43%, Bush I got 37% and Ross Perot got 19%.

So yes, he won the most votes that year. Not a single president of the 20th century came in without the popular vote.

And frankly, I don't even think we should be comparing to those two 19th century elections where the loser of the vote won the electoral college (the third, John Quincy Adams, didn't win the vote OR the electoral college, amazingly enough), because we didn't HAVE a popular vote back then! Women couldn't vote, minorities couldn't vote, the only people who could really vote were rich, white, landowning males.

This system has NO place in a modern society. None. It erases democracy. It's done so twice now- with Bush and with Trump. The people did not choose either, even more egregiously with Trump. This is a ludicrous subversion of democracy and for NO reason.

It's bizarre when you think of it (and Republicans would not stand for it) that of the 16 years of 21st century presidencies so far, half of them were won cleanly and legitimately by a Democrat and half of them were won under questionable circumstances by two Republicans who both didn't get the most votes, but became president anyway (and while Obama reversed the damage in many ways, it is likely Trump will do as Bush did in destroying the country with wars, economic failures and lies--only I think Trump will be 10x worse).

Prior to Bush's ascendance (thanks to the SC intervention in 2000), that hadn't happened since 1888.  More than 125 years later, we have Donald Trump. I really don't think this is what the Founders had in mind (and after seeing the behavior of electors today, it's hard to think that the system has not outlived its original purpose--and its usefulness.) 

[Chicken Wing]

9 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

No I don't mean the candidates, you are correct in that assumption. Yeah, I know they teach it in schools, I guess the one who are going around after the election saying But, Popular Vote! aren't retaining their learning. I feel for teachers, because lately I have been in a world of "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".  It is such a simple concept, the electoral college. California's votes counted. Every single vote counted in that state. Hillary won that state, Hillary's electoral votes went to Hillary. She just didn't win enough states to become president. 

Like Stuffy replied, the people arguing about the electoral college are not ignorant or uneducated about it. They understand exactly how the concept of the electoral college works but feel it's an unfair and antiquated system that needs to be reformed if not retired. The logic behind its creation in the 18th century is largely irrelevant to how the nation and the individual states operate today, and for many people it does not feel like a democratic system at all when your vote actually doesn't count.

I made a suggestion a while back, probably in another thread, for a way to combine the logic of the electoral college with the fairness of representing the popular vote by eliminating the winner-take-all aspect of the state popular vote and allocate electoral votes (now thought of in terms of just "points" instead of actual electors) by a candidate's winning margin -- win all of the electoral votes if you win by at least 10 percentage points, split the votes 2:1 if you win by at least 2.5 points but less than 10, and split them 50/50 if it's closer than that (i.e. a virtual tie). That way, the states in general are still represented by electoral votes in the "actual" race so that basic logic of small state/large state representation remains intact, but there is more attention paid to what the actual vote is in each state -- because there is a difference between winning a state by 30 percentage points like Hillary did in California and winning a state by two-tenths of a percentage point like Trump did in Michigan, yet in both cases they each win all of that state's electoral votes. It should matter that just about the same number of people voted for the other candidate as they did the winner and it should reflect in the number of electoral votes awarded. The winner take all aspect of the electoral college eliminates the relevance of the people's vote.

For now, we go by the electoral college as is, and by that system, yes, the popular vote is largely irrelevant to the matter. It's a good bit of incidental trivia, but irrelevant. And for all but five of this country's 58 quadrennial elections, the whole debate has been irrelevant. But it's a lot more relevant this time than the other four times it did happen, as the popular vote winner/election loser has never lost despite winning nearly 3 million more votes. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by a little over 500,000. Hillary Clinton won by nearly 3 million. It just doesn't seem right. It doesn't seem just. It doesn't seem democratic that a candidate can win 3 million more votes than the opponent and lose the contest -- and she did so because she got almost the same number of popular votes as Trump in several states but didn't take a single one of their electoral votes. She lost three of her "firewall" states, and thus all 46 of their electoral votes, despite only losing their popular votes by a combined 77,000 -- five-tenths of a percent of their total 13.9 million votes and five-hundredths of a percent of the total national vote of 136 million. She won the country at large by a margin of 3 million but lost the election because of 77,000 people in three states. That ... makes no sense.

And yes, I realize that her three-million winning margin is accounted for by her margin in California alone, but so what? Again, California is home to more people than any other state. Of course a large chunk of the popular vote is found there. It's where the largest chunk of people live! California is always going to provide a huge portion of the overall popular vote, more than the national winning margin between the two candidates. That state alone provides some 15 million total votes to the pot.

And it's only going to get worse. I think we're going to start to see the electoral college/popular vote split happen a lot more often in the future. The population is only going to get bigger and bigger, and most of that population is going to be concentrated in urban areas -- mostly in traditional blue states. We're going to see more elections where the democratic candidate's popular vote tally is padded superfluously by the ever-bigger populations in blue states while contributing nothing additional to their electoral vote count -- and thus increasing the potential for a split. The system really does need to change. There shouldn't be any superfluous votes. We need a system where every vote actually matters.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[sistermagpie]

12 hours ago, slf said:

Here's a question: so? Is California not a part of the union? This is becoming a common refrain "well once you deduct California and New York..." Why would we? They're Americans. Why should their votes not matter? The votes of sparsely populated red states that are heavily dependent on blue states to survive are counted, matter, are never discarded. What a bizarre argument. "Well, once you deduct the most heavily populated state in the country..." LOL. 

I think the understanding of people making that argument is that California might be part of the union, but those people aren't "real Americans." Real Americans live in red states and it's unfair any time something they disagree with happens because those city people or coastal elites like it. They've been pushing that "we're the real Americans" meme for a long time and really do believe it. Even when they're threatening to seceded from the Union or waving the flags of enemies of that union (like the Confederate flag or Nazi-style swastikas) they're always the real Americans. So that's always underlying these things about how it's only because of California and New York that HRC won the popular vote. 

 

4 hours ago, Chicken Wing said:

Like Stuffy replied, the people arguing about the electoral college are not ignorant or uneducated about it.

Yeah, I don't know how anybody could think the problem here is that people don't get what happened. We've lived with this conflict twice in this century already as well as learning it in school. 

[choclatechip45]

I find it amazing the same people who blame Hillary for Benghazi admire Condoleezza Rice. I don't agree with Hillary on everything, but at least she testified and tried to help. Condoleezza Rice tried to do everything she could to get out of testifying in front of the 9/11 commission. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by choclatechip45

[LisainCali]

I'm not sure I understand why Hillary lost more electors than Trump.  The advertising money spent on asking electors to Vote Their Conscience was pretty clear about wanting to get Trump out.

  I haven't heard one word from anyone suggesting they protest Hillary's nomination, and humiliate Hillary by voting against her as the Democratic candidate.  

[Padma]

Those three Washington votes for Powell over Hillary seemed especially odd and coordinated. Why?  It's especially bizarre to undermine her after all the news of Putin and his puppet over the past few weeks.

And what a waste of $500,000 that "Celebrities" ad buy was.

A sad start to the "resistance".

Edited December 20, 2016 by Padma

[LisainCali]

Forgot to mention.....I've heard that the CIA has suspicians Russia's hacking, (or whoever's hacking) was achieved via Hillarys unsecured server years ago.  John Podesta's happened to be the most snarky and embarrassing, so his got leaked much more.  

It makes sense because no one on the Republican side has had so many leaks.

[Chicken Wing]

12 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

I'm not sure I understand why Hillary lost more electors than Trump.  The advertising money spent on asking electors to Vote Their Conscience was pretty clear about wanting to get Trump out.

  I haven't heard one word from anyone suggesting they protest Hillary's nomination, and humiliate Hillary by voting against her as the Democratic candidate.  

It was mostly due to four (of the eight) electors in Washington state. There was a movement of sorts among the anti-Trump crowd for electors in Clinton-won states to abstain from voting for Clinton in a bid to convince Trump state electors to abstain from voting for Trump as well. The idea was that many of those Trump electors may not really want to vote Trump in, but they certainly didn't want Clinton to benefit from Trump losing electoral votes. So the Clinton electors thought that if they took away some of Clinton's electoral votes, thereby ensuring that she wouldn't benefit from Trump losing his, those Trump electors would feel more secure in denying Trump some of his votes. The plan never really caught on, partly because it makes so little sense and partly because they had no way of knowing if any of the Trump electors would actually change their vote regardless. (Clearly they are not familiar with prisoner's dilemma.) Not sure why those Clinton electors bothered. All they ended up doing was diminish Clinton's actual victory by depriving her of four more electoral votes (plus one more in Hawaii) for no reason.

[LisainCali]

2 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

It was mostly due to four (of the eight) electors in Washington state. There was a movement of sorts among the anti-Trump crowd for electors in Clinton-won states to abstain from voting for Clinton in a bid to convince Trump state electors to abstain from voting for Trump as well. The idea was that many of those Trump electors may not really want to vote Trump in, but they certainly didn't want Clinton to benefit from Trump losing electoral votes. So the Clinton electors thought that if they took away some of Clinton's electoral votes, thereby ensuring that she wouldn't benefit from Trump losing his, those Trump electors would feel more secure in denying Trump some of his votes. The plan never really caught on, partly because it makes so little sense and partly because they had no way of knowing if any of the Trump electors would actually change their vote regardless. (Clearly they are not familiar with prisoner's dilemma.) Not sure why those Clinton electors bothered. All they ended up doing was diminish Clinton's actual victory by depriving her of four more electoral votes (plus one more in Hawaii) for no reason.

Ahhhh, thanks.  That makes sense, in a nonsensical way! ?

[fishcakes]

35 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

I'm not sure I understand why Hillary lost more electors than Trump.  The advertising money spent on asking electors to Vote Their Conscience was pretty clear about wanting to get Trump out.

As part of the "Hamilton Electors," there were three votes for Colin Powell from Washington state, which were meant to be a show of good faith from Democrat electors to Republican electors. Basically, it was the Democratic electors who were willing to incur "faithless elector" penalties in order to encourage Republican electors to do the same and vote their conscience against Trump. It wasn't meant to undermine Hillary; Hamilton electors knew that, at best, they could only deny Trump the EC vote, but they knew that those Republican electors were never going to vote for Hillary, only another Republican. (ETA: or, what @Chicken Wing just said).

There was also one protest vote by a faithless Democrat elector in Washington state. Robert Satiacum (who's known mostly because his father was a convicted murderer and fugitive from justice) long ago said he would not vote for Hillary. He cast his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American tribal leader from South Dakota. There was also one Bernie vote from an elector in Hawaii. Those are the only two protest votes against Hillary that are confirmed, I think, although there were also three non-Hillary votes from three other states that were disallowed by those state election committees and I don't know if those were protest votes or Hamilton elector votes.

13 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

Forgot to mention.....I've heard that the CIA has suspicians Russia's hacking, (or whoever's hacking) was achieved via Hillarys unsecured server years ago.  John Podesta's happened to be the most snarky and embarrassing, so his got leaked much more.  

It makes sense because no one on the Republican side has had so many leaks.

Hillary's server was never hacked. Russia probably wasn't even aware it existed.

Edited December 20, 2016 by fishcakes

[Padma]

5 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

Forgot to mention.....I've heard that the CIA has suspicians Russia's hacking, (or whoever's hacking) was achieved via Hillarys unsecured server years ago.  John Podesta's happened to be the most snarky and embarrassing, so his got leaked much more.  

It makes sense because no one on the Republican side has had so many leaks.

Heard? From where?

And, no, it doesn't make any sense it happened years ago via her server. Because if they hacked her server, they would have released HER email and never just settled for Podesta's. Also, the intelligence report said the hacking of DNC and Podesta were all this year--and included recent email as well as the old ones. It's been described how he was incorrectly directed by campaign advice to respond to a password prompt this year that was phishing for info.

I have seen some Republicans--like Karl Rove--picking up Trump's lie that "If it wasn't for her illegal (sic) server, the Russians never could have hacked Podesta."  This sounds like a variation on that--and its false.

[sistermagpie]

14 minutes ago, Padma said:

I have seen some Republicans--like Karl Rove--picking up Trump's lie that "If it wasn't for her illegal (sic) server, the Russians never could have hacked Podesta."  This sounds like a variation on that--and its false.

And probably already embraced since the whole email thing has long since morphed into one big smear. It works especially well if you don't actually understand the story, I guess. Hillary's email server was talked about so much as a security risk it must have led to the security breach.

Meanwhile Trump's many threats to security don't matter.

[Moose135]

42 minutes ago, LisainCali said:

It makes sense because no one on the Republican side has had so many leaks.

There weren't many leaks on the Republican side because it wasn't in the best interests of the leakers to leak Republican emails.

[KIMBERLYANN11]

34 minutes ago, Moose135 said:

There weren't many leaks on the Republican side because it wasn't in the best interests of the leakers to leak Republican emails.

I suspect there are a number being held for blackmail purposes.

[Duke Silver]

I'm being a masochist by continuing to read accounts like this, but I can't help myself.  Ugh...such a disconnect.

[jhlipton]

3 hours ago, choclatechip45 said:

I find it amazing the same people who blame Hillary for Benghazi admire Condoleezza Rice. I don't agree with Hillary did at least she testified and tried to help. Condoleezza Rice tried to do everything she could to get out of testifying in front of the 9/11 commission. 

And when she did testify: "No one gave me a plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"  It was your job to come up with a plan, dumb-ass.

[choclatechip45]

21 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

And when she did testify: "No one gave me a plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"  It was your job to come up with a plan, dumb-ass.

I know. I remember she didn't want to testify and it was in 2004 ( a election year) 9/11 families were pissed. George Bush made her testify and also he said he would testify not under oath with Cheney to make up for the bad publicity.

[stillshimpy]

And probably already embraced since the whole email thing has long since morphed into one big smear. It works especially well if you don't actually understand the story, I guess. Hillary's email server was talked about so much as a security risk it must have led to the security breach.

Right?  Hillary's email server was responsible for the Good Times Virus!! And all the lost socks of the world!! And the need for sunscreen!! And the loss of jobs in Middle America.  And trans fats being bad for us!! And dog fighting rings  and...and...and...and.....and ....

This is not difficult math.   It truly isn't.  The Russian leaked what it was advantageous to them to leak, not simply what they had.  They are not some overseas freedom of information act. 

There weren't many leaks on the Republican side because it wasn't in the best interests of the leakers to leak Republican emails.

The Russians wanted the Republicans to control both houses and install a Republican president.  Comey's announcing that the investigation was being reopened when ALL it had to do with was Anthony Wiener's overactive dick wandering into "hello, that person is underage" and poor Huma's tragic inability to cut her losses at the time it first happened, makes it clear....but here's the gig:  Hillary's fucking emails were boring as hell.  People peed themselves at Vlad's command and still don't understand that Vladimir Putin sang "Dance, monkey, dance" to them and they started grinding the organ. 

[theredhead77]

5 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think the understanding of people making that argument is that California might be part of the union, but those people aren't "real Americans." Real Americans live in red states and it's unfair any time something they disagree with happens because those city people or coastal elites like it. They've been pushing that "we're the real Americans" meme for a long time and really do believe it. Even when they're threatening to seceded from the Union or waving the flags of enemies of that union (like the Confederate flag or Nazi-style swastikas) they're always the real Americans. So that's always underlying these things about how it's only because of California and New York that HRC won the popular vote.

I swear to fucking god this makes me so goddamn stabby. I've been a "flag waving patriot" for nearly 40 years, supported the troops since Gulf War v.1.0, tried to join the military, registered Republican until the Christian Extremists hijacked the party, volunteer for the USO, and listen to country music (oh, and work/pay crazy taxes to support their backassword states). What more do they want?!

[Padma]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

And probably already embraced since the whole email thing has long since morphed into one big smear. It works especially well if you don't actually understand the story, I guess. Hillary's email server was talked about so much as a security risk it must have led to the security breach.

Meanwhile Trump's many threats to security don't matter.

This is so bizarre. If you've ever known someone investigated for a security clearance, the FBI questions are still pretty old school. They want to know if the person has affairs, has a lot of debt, has any addictions like gambling/drinking/drugs.  In other words, if they are easy marks for blackmail that could be used to compromise nation security.

Here we have a President who would NEVER pass a security clearance.  Many affairs--and the inappropriate behavior and judgment preceding them.  Addictions? He's impulsive and his business shows many imprudent gambles. Eichenwald the other day mentioned amphetamine use and it certainly matches his habits (sleeplessness) and concerns (weight loss, sexual energy, general "pep").  And, of course, let's not get started on the idea of "debt"--including millions to at least two foreign government-run banks (China and Germany). We don't know the financial striings with Russia, but you can bet there are some.

Trump is a security risk even WITHOUT the incriminating Russian hack of his opponent (and all the info collected via the RNC that they aren't using publicly).

The 2016 press did a good job in some ways and completely failed us in others.

[anyanka323]

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think the understanding of people making that argument is that California might be part of the union, but those people aren't "real Americans." Real Americans live in red states and it's unfair any time something they disagree with happens because those city people or coastal elites like it. They've been pushing that "we're the real Americans" meme for a long time and really do believe it. Even when they're threatening to seceded from the Union or waving the flags of enemies of that union (like the Confederate flag or Nazi-style swastikas) they're always the real Americans. So that's always underlying these things about how it's only because of California and New York that HRC won the popular vote. 

 

Yeah, I don't know how anybody could think the problem here is that people don't get what happened. We've lived with this conflict twice in this century already as well as learning it in school. 

The whole idea of who is a "real American" pisses me off to put it nicely.  I live in Wisconsin which is more of a purple state.  I'm just as much a real American living in Madison as some of the white flight Republicans who live in Waukesha County.  My tax dollars help fund roads, social programs, and education both in Wisconsin and in the entire US.  Only difference is that for every dollar that Wisconsin contributes to federal taxes, we maybe get less than half of that back.  Red states like South Dakota, Iowa, and Kansas are more taker states than giving states in terms of federal spending.   I'm not sure I want to know how much money is thrown away to corporate farmers that have utter contempt for environmental regulations and food safety in the form of crop subsidies, both for agriculture and livestock. 

[stillshimpy]

I swear to fucking god this makes me so goddamn stabby. I've been a "flag waving patriot" for nearly 40 years, supported the troops since Gulf War v.1.0, tried to join the military, registered Republican until the Christian Extremists hijacked the party, volunteer for the USO, and listen to country music (oh, and work/pay crazy taxes to support their backassword states). What more do they want?!

I'm far more likely to bring up my Scottish mom, as I am the daughter of an immigrant, or her dad, who was a coal miner in Scotland, but here's the thing: on the other side, I'm really quite blue-blooded, registered with the DAR (I didn't do it, it was done for me at birth by my godmother ) and can trace my damned lineage back to the freaking ship after the Mayflower.  One of my ancestors is Rebecca Nurse, which isn't a big claim to fame, as the lady had ten children but for a frame of reference, she was one of the people hanged as a witch in Salem.  My dad was a veteran. 

Please, come at me with the "not a real American" bro.  

[callmebetty]

2 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

 

I'm far more likely to bring up my Scottish mom, as I am the daughter of an immigrant, or her dad, who was a coal miner in Scotland, but here's the thing: on the other side, I'm really quite blue-blooded, registered with the DAR (I didn't do it, it was done for me at birth by my godmother ) and can trace my damned lineage back to the freaking ship after the Mayflower.  One of my ancestors is Rebecca Nurse, which isn't a big claim to fame, as the lady had ten children but for a frame of reference, she was one of the people hanged as a witch in Salem.  My dad was a veteran. 

Please, come at me with the "not a real American" bro.  

Damn that's impressive lineage stillshimpy. And you got frame of reference when the next witch hunts begin. You know cause us liberals and bleeding hearts somethings off about us.

[stillshimpy]

If you're going to be descended from one of the Salem witches, Rebecca Nurse is the most likely one.  She was old when they killed her (72) and part of what was odd about her is that while many, many people were prolific breeders back then, her children were apparently very hardy and survived....went on to breed prolifically and in many cases produced increasingly neurotic, wordy New Englanders.   One of whom was an ancestor of mine. 

So it's only impressive in that apparently they didn't get the "Puritans were anti-sex" memo.    I once worked with a girl (because we were both young at the time) who was also descended from Rebecca Nurse.  She was six feet tall, blond and Nordic.  We gave each other quite the "WTF?" look when we were talking about it one day. 

The only time that whole thing comes in handy is when someone decides to tell me I'm not a real American because can I ever shut that shit down, like whoa. 

[ruby24]

Turns out the warrant issued for the emails on Huma's computer was complete garbage. They had no probable cause.

Is James Comey happy with himself? Did he really want this to happen? What a despicable man.

Edited December 20, 2016 by ruby24

[stillshimpy]

Is James Comey happy with himself? Did he really want this to happen? What a despicable man.

Yeah, he's a disgusting human being.  I hope he never knows peace or happiness again, then twists eternally on the devil's fork.  

What a jackass.  Tool of the former KGB darling Putin.  I hope he has daily bouts of food poisoning.  

[jhlipton]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

The 2016 press did a good job in some ways 

Name one.

[EyewatchTV211]

I thought someone mentioned wanting to see the actual warrant, but I can't find the post now. Anyway, here it is http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/i-am-appalled-attorney-who-sued-to-release-fbis-clinton-warrant-says-it-shows-no-probable-cause/

[stillshimpy]

1 hour ago, jhlipton said:

3 hours ago, Padma said:

The 2016 press did a good job in some ways 

Name one.

 

Guess it depends on what their end goal was.  If validating and helping to install an Orange-Tinted Tyrant with the self-control of a toddler three hours overdue for a nap, thereby endangering literally every person in the world was the goal?  Man, did they ever nail that one.

[PatsyandEddie]

46 minutes ago, VMepicgrl said:

I thought someone mentioned wanting to see the actual warrant, but I can't find the post now. Anyway, here it is http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/i-am-appalled-attorney-who-sued-to-release-fbis-clinton-warrant-says-it-shows-no-probable-cause/

Might have been me. I saw a bit piece about Huma Abedin wanting to see it.