Election [I]was[/I] stolen -- but not by Russian hacking.

[Shadow Wolf]

Just one difference, we didn't go completely off our rocker complaining about the process only the results. Sure we didn't like that Obama won, but he did win and we accepted it. We lost and accepted the fact and got to the serious business of complaining about his agenda after he was in office.

It's a completely different situation. The Right was harping on about Obama not having a mandate after 2012, and pretty much every state had a petition going on to succeed. And now when the election has went so askew, on top of having a proven "rights killer" with him, and the Left is expected to just shut up? Rather than blame the problems of how it came to this--including the fact the two party system ran through two very unpopular candidates through, leaving America to plug its nose only to find the one it did pick isn't being put in office, we're supposed to just deal with it? Really, it's so bad the Right is abandoning one of its rally cries these past few years, all because now suddenly it's just not an issue.
No, the Left shouldn't shut up about it because this election proves the things most people on all sides loathe about our system are the only things keeping Republicans in power. Without gerrymandering and the EC, these past few elections would have been a total disaster for Republicans, rather than the many close calls that have been saving them.
And, why should we shut up when Trump has such strong Russian connections, is loading his board with pro-Russian connections, and has put a lot of talk into "strengthening the military?" It's pretty bad when I can say "back when I was a kid, we'd of crucified someone trying to run for office with such pro-Russian connections." At this point, it seems while those Left and Right complain about alliances with nations like Saudi Arabia, the Left is the one complaining about a potential future equally embarrassing alliance with a nation that has no real concept of "freedom of speech," or "association," or many of the other things we really should regard as global standards.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We vote in the next election. I didn't like the results, but those are the results. You're right, "get over it" is a lazy response designed to deligitimize political opposition for next time.

Voter turnout was why we lost. Many, many people did not vote who could have and should have.

I'm optimistic that 2018 might be an election year under the rallying cry "Nueter Trump" with a democrat supermajority.

We can do this!!

If the Democrats play their cards wisely, they can storm Congress in two years. But, if that happens, I see a much greater probability of Trump getting a second term. Likely again because of the EC.
Really, I wont be satisfied until gerrymandering and the EC are a thing of the past. Then Conservative Republicans wont win, the Libertarians (who are just looking lazier every election for failing to ride the right-winged resentment against Conservative Republicans - which itself would probably had averted Trump if the Libertarian party had stepped up to the plate when the Tea Party emerged) can have the doors swung wide open for them, and we can focus on economic issues rather than both economic issues and social issues that shouldn't even be an issue.
But, yes, in all honesty this doesn't have to be a defeat, and the momentum can easily be shifted against the Republicans, but the need a real ballbuster like Frank Underwood working behind the scenes and someone with the charisma of Obama and the positions of Sanders to run in 2020. Really, they can play straight from the pages of Milton himself, but I'm not so sure if I have the confidence in them to act, because they really needed to have started on election night when it became apparent in the early evening hours the EC was probably going to Trump.

 

[YmirGF]

I think you might have misunderstood what was written or I wasn't clear enough. Let's try again
Now you see how some of us felt about the Obama years.
Just one difference, we didn't go completely off our rocker complaining about the process only the results. Sure we didn't like that Obama won, but he did win and we accepted it. We lost and accepted the fact and got to the serious business of complaining about his agenda after he was in office.

I don't often agree with you, @esmith, but you echo my sentiments well. Did people react in horror when Obama was elected not once, but twice, by comfortable margins? Sure they did. Did they go into complete meltdown? Some did, perhaps, but for the most part people went back to their drawing boards.

What is absolutely hilarious here is that most of us thought Hillary was going to win and that it was a done deal. Literally no one predicted that Trump would win. I suppose that is why there is this weird backlash this time because there are too many people in denial so there MUST have been some skullduggery involved. The problem with that is that Trump was supposedly so unpopular with the Republican establishment.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If the Democrats play their cards wisely, they can storm Congress in two years. But, if that happens, I see a much greater probability of Trump getting a second term. Likely again because of the EC.
Really, I wont be satisfied until gerrymandering and the EC are a thing of the past. Then Conservative Republicans wont win, the Libertarians (who are just looking lazier every election for failing to ride the right-winged resentment against Conservative Republicans - which itself would probably had averted Trump if the Libertarian party had stepped up to the plate when the Tea Party emerged) can have the doors swung wide open for them, and we can focus on economic issues rather than both economic issues and social issues that shouldn't even be an issue.
But, yes, in all honesty this doesn't have to be a defeat, and the momentum can easily be shifted against the Republicans, but the need a real ballbuster like Frank Underwood working behind the scenes and someone with the charisma of Obama and the positions of Sanders to run in 2020.

Trump will start his presidency with the lowest approval rating in modern history.

His biggest enemies for much of his agenda will come from the right. They will fight him on infrastructure, foreign policy, and tariffs. . . Which is most of his released agenda so far.

Trump does have a few benefits than the average republican. He's really not in bed with evangelicals. . . He doesn't owe them a damn thing. They drive the social issue nonsense.

I loved how god and faith played absolutely no part in any of the debates, and was pretty much a non-issue after Iowa. If there is any good to come from the future of US politics, it could be this pandering to religious folk. . . 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump, and he won't end up giving them a damn thing except a little "Merry Christmas" pandering.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I don't often agree with you, @esmith, but you echo my sentiments well. Did people react in horror when Obama was elected not once, but twice, by comfortable margins? Sure they did. Did they go into complete meltdown? Some did, perhaps, but for the most part people went back to their drawing boards.

I would also agree. But right wing histeria does exist after losing a tough election, it just takes on a different form.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Trump will start his presidency with the lowest approval rating in modern history.

His biggest enemies for much of his agenda will come from the right. They will fight him on infrastructure, foreign policy, and tariffs. . . Which is most of his released agenda so far.

Trump does have a few benefits than the average republican. He's really not in bed with evangelicals. . . He doesn't owe them a damn thing. They drive the social issue nonsense.

I loved how god and faith played absolutely no part in any of the debates, and was pretty much a non-issue after Iowa. If there is any good to come from the future of US politics, it could be this pandering to religious folk. . . 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump, and he won't end up giving them a damn thing except a little "Merry Christmas" pandering.

He has been underestimated at every turn, and he must not be further underestimated. People haven't mentioned it, but that reason more than anything other reason is probably how he won. But people still underestimate him, and if the Democrats are to turn this into a gain, that must stop.
And while he himself didn't pay lip service to the Religious Right, his VP is, to them, a paragon of Conservative ideals and morality. His cabinet appointees aren't looking too much different. I too enjoyed the relatively "godless election," and say it of its own a significant mark of progress, but realistically, and now, Trump didn't have to pay lip service to the Religious Right because Pence himself is already very deeply in bed with them.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

He has been underestimated at every turn, and he must not be further underestimated. People haven't mentioned it, but that reason more than anything other reason is probably how he won. But people still underestimate him, and if the Democrats are to turn this into a gain, that must stop.
And while he himself didn't pay lip service to the Religious Right, his VP is, to them, a paragon of Conservative ideals and morality. His cabinet appointees aren't looking too much different. I too enjoyed the relatively "godless election," and say it of its own a significant mark of progress, but realistically, and now, Trump didn't have to pay lip service to the Religious Right because Pence himself is already very deeply in bed with them.

Yeah, that's true about Pence. But it seems like he'll have his hands full with foreign policy, as Trump's "too smart" to learn anything.

On underestimation. . .

No one underestimated Trump. Everyone overestimated the electorate.

 

[Nietzsche]

Quit whining. Until Trump gets into office the media can say whatever they want. After that they're going to get sued.

Because **** freedom of the press and freedom of expression, right?

 

[Kemosloby]

Because **** freedom of the press and freedom of expression, right?

Truth needs to enter into it, since slander is illegal. Freedom to lie?

 

[Revoltingest]

Truth needs to enter into it, since slander is illegal. Freedom to lie?

Slander is not illegal.
Moreover, the press is protected against suits for slander
or libel by a fairly high legal hurdle in suing for damages.
Elements of Libel and Slander - FindLaw

 

[Kemosloby]

Slander is not illegal.
Moreover, the press is protected against suits for slander
or libel by a fairly high legal hurdle in suing for damages.
Elements of Libel and Slander - FindLaw

Not after Trump gets in there. The News should be telling truth, or go tell it on the gossip station.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No one underestimated Trump. Everyone overestimated the electorate.

From day one, even as he was rising through the Republican primaries, people kept downplaying him, saying he was going to go away, fade out, and a bunch of people even said he wouldn't win the election. Techncially, even my prediction of people in the end choosing to pick Hillary and send a Republican Congressional representative after her wasn't incorrect, but even then I was one of the earlier deniers, until I realized he was gaining momentum and noticed many others were simply in denial.
No, the EC wasn't considered, but nevertheless people have to stop doubting and underestimating Trump. The Democrats must plan the next four years carefully if they want to win, and it won't happen if people keep assuming Trump won't do it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Truth needs to enter into it, since slander is illegal. Freedom to lie?

The Freedom to lie is better than the "Freedom" to follow a rigid set of rules approved by someone with an agenda.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Gawd are liberal democrats such an intolerant bunch.

It's all All spouting equality and fair play until things don't go their way.

Hypocrites.

 

[Acim]

Liberals are to blame

This is all that needs to be said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just one difference, we didn't go completely off our rocker complaining about the process only the results.

2012 state petitions for secession - Wikipedia
In 2012, a number of state petitions to allow state secession were set up using the White House's petitioning system. The petitions, which had no legal standing, were set up after President Barack Obama won the 2012 presidential election. Ultimately, six petitions crossed the threshold of 25,000 e-signatures necessary to trigger a response from an Obama administration official.
Krauthammer: "Obama Won But He's Got No Mandate" | RealClearPolitics
Krauthammer: "Obama Won But He's Got No Mandate"
If Obama had "no mandate," as we commonly heard after 2012, Trump doesn't even have a pot to **** in.

 

[Nietzsche]

Truth needs to enter into it, since slander is illegal. Freedom to lie?

Oh, so they're lying? Are you sure about this?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Gawd are liberal democrats such an intolerant bunch.

It's all All spouting equality and fair play until things don't go their way.

Hypocrites.

Do you really think all liberals democrats are hypocrites, or that every single one of them is contesting this election?

I'm a liberal, and I accept the results. Almost all liberals accept the results.

An example of unfair play when things don't go their way would be the North Carolina Republican Party. The people elected a democrat in a close race, and their congress just passed a law stripping the governorship of much of its power in an emergency session.

North Carolina GOP strips some power from incoming Democratic governor

THAT is what not playing fair actually looks like. I'm not sure what you're taking about.

 

[Acim]

The media are abuzz with discussions of convincing -- but secret -- CIA/FBI evidence of Russian election hacking, but is this just a diversion from the real elephant in the room: voter suppression?

There were the usual long lines and lack of voting forms in minority districts; the usual caging and changed polling places, and the gerrymandered districts carefully drawn by sophisticated computer algorithms, but this was the first general election in 50 years without the protections of the Voting Rights Act, and the GOP has gone into overdrive instituting new, restrictive voting regulations. The result: millions of legitimate voters disenfranchised, and millions of (mostly Democratic) votes purged.

Republicans were wildly successful at suppressing voters in 2016


Comments? reactions? conclusions?

I see this as spin, and thus debatable. I've read through much of this link and the links from this link. They are liberal spin. Wanna debate what's said here, then let's have that debate.

Example of spin:

Republican governors and state legislatures implemented new laws restricting when, where, and how people could vote — laws that disproportionately harmed students, the poor, and people of color.

The "people of color" link says,

But Desmond, a lifelong Floridian, can’t cast a vote for his own wife. That’s because he has a felony conviction from more than a decade ago.
He is one of more than 1.5 million people in Florida alone permanently barred from voting, running for office, or serving on a jury due to a criminal record.

Which helps explain the spin.

The "students" and "the poor" are also spin, and are ongoing political game being played, filled with spin galore.

Some of us believe (via spin) that a portion of Clinton's individual voting base come from illegal votes. Not easy to track down, and not worth most people's time. But we are happy now that voter I.D. is required in some states to help address illegal voting. I think if IDs were freely given to everyone (legal) in America, some would refuse to take it, so that after election they could then claim their vote was suppressed and that they never had an opportunity to get an ID, because the man is holding them back.

 

[esmith]

Not after Trump gets in there. The News should be telling truth, or go tell it on the gossip station.

I'm a staunch conservative but I totally reject your premises. In addition I do not think there are many who support your ideas.
.