Ex-CIA officer calls for new election
Bob Baer says there should be a new election in light of reports of Russian interference.
Click here for reuse options!…Baer appeared on air on Saturday to discuss a new Washington Post article that essentially claims the CIA believes Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win. During this discussion, Baer made the rather surprising claim that in light of these reports, he believes the U.S. has to hold a new presidential election…
“Having worked in the CIA, if we had been caught interfering in European elections, or Asian elections or anywhere in the world, those countries would call for new elections, and any democracy would,” Baer said. And I do not see it any other way, the Electoral College, before the 19th, has got to know whether the Russians had . . . affected American opinion.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
101 responses to Ex-CIA officer calls for new election
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Foundryman December 11th, 2016 at 11:26
There is no way trump should be allowed to take an oath or the Electoral college should be voting. We cannot allow a Russian puppet to be President, it’s as simple as that.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 11:31
A bi-partisan committee from Congress should be allowed to present the classified briefing materials, including the conclusion that there is reason to suspect Russian interference to all members of the electoral college prior to the vote.
It may not change a single thing. But it would at least indicate that Republicans in Congress have finally put the well being of the country ahead of the well being of their party. Frankly I do not expect that to occur. Since November 9, we have seen that nothing Donald Trump does will be criticized, despite the fact that the GOP hypocrites spent 8 years condemning Barack Obama for everything Trump now does with out a care.
Tommie December 11th, 2016 at 11:34
I can hear Trump now yelling, “New election, this system is rigged.”
mea_mark December 11th, 2016 at 11:39
I have been saying that for awhile. Is the obvious finally starting to sink in?
Maxx44 December 11th, 2016 at 11:43
Putin is trying to rebuild the USSR with the USA and its puppet president as one its new ‘states’. This charade has to be stopped.
Deplorable Ratso December 11th, 2016 at 11:44
This libnut blames terror attacks on ”right wing politicians”
Foundryman December 11th, 2016 at 11:57
Let me guess…. InfoWars bot? Breitbart addict?
Suzanne McFly December 11th, 2016 at 13:27
I think “rump supporter” is the best title and he doesn’t even realize how insulting it is to be called one of those.
whatthe46 December 11th, 2016 at 13:33
i don’t think they know what the term “deplorable” means. oh the stupid it burns. and the idiot believes in pizzagate.
Suzanne McFly December 11th, 2016 at 14:00
These fools thought an SOS was responsible for the deaths of an Ambassador and people on his team in a foreign nation. They also voted for a bloated orange to lead our country to “become great again”. These types have never been told they were too smart of their own good.
Hirightnow December 11th, 2016 at 16:48
They pay that well for trolls in Spain? Or are you one of those “clever” trolls with an IP hider, so you can DL “authentic pizza-gate pictures”?
Obewon December 11th, 2016 at 11:48
Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind U.S. election hacking! The CIA believes Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
trees December 11th, 2016 at 14:01
The left wing news in this country tried to “influence” the results of the presidential election.
CNN fed debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance.
Should we investigate this?
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 14:50
No need to investigate. Unlike you and the rest of the lying hypocrites on the American right, Ms. Brazile freely admits what she did.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 16:42
Brazile did not “freely admit” to doing this. In true Clinton fashion she initially denied the report, questioned the veracity of the information, and attempted to claim that the accusation was untrue. She initially tried to say that the Russians had forged a fake email. It was only after additional information came out, another email showing yet another supplied debate question, that resulted in CNN firing her, that she may have admitted to doing so…
All of Clinton’s supporters gushed over how well prepared Clinton was to answer debate questions.
“She’s so prepared with her answers that it almost appears as though they’re scripted”
lol…
Larry Schmitt December 11th, 2016 at 16:59
And the debates were not an operation of the government, but a private, unofficial enterprise. No laws were broken.
Snick1946 December 11th, 2016 at 14:02
I don’t know where this idea came from that we can just ‘hold another election’ if something goes bad with the one we had. There is NO constitutional basis for this, there ought to be but there isn’t.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:31
Agreed. Once an election is considered invalid, with the need for another, then all further elections can be challenged, invalidated, and then…
We have to hold another one, and then another, and so on…
Can you imagine the Constitutional crisis?
We had the election, we know the result.
It’s time to move forward.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 14:22
We need to examine carefully the substance of the emails released by Wikileaks and ask ourselves, what cost Clinton the election???
Russian hacking?
Hardly.
Clinton misconduct, lying about email, and her failed record.
That’s why she lost.
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 14:50
That’s why she lost…The Electoral College…
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:28
Why don’t you just say, “California and New York are the only states that matter…”
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 15:41
Your tRumpster is gambling with your life and my country.
Why don’t YOU just say my country doesn’t matter ?
P.S. A majority is still a majority, you know, something you didn’t achieve.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:46
Beg your pardon? Are you unable to understand simple math?
How many electoral college votes did Clinton win?
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 15:49
Please pay attention, you know I refer to popular vote.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:54
Are you unable to understand the election process?
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 15:58
Are you able to talk without deflecting ?
Are you going to answer my question or not.
You’d be surprised how much I know about elections. You know, for a guy that threw his vote away on a libertarian, you seem quite awfully content with your new president…
gibbs slap December 11th, 2016 at 16:10
the popular vote dosne’t mean shat… it’s the electoral college that’s important….. she lost… get over it and move on….
and the russians had nothing to do with it…. just a bunch of pissed off americans did…..
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 16:13
Butt out and stick to the topic or be gone tRumpanze. I won’t waste my time on you.
gibbs slap December 11th, 2016 at 17:25
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d0cf9e2e7c396bdf9955059770138da82381a59bc2621b89a65597526c47c13.jpg
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 03:18
Because YOU live in a binary worldview, but other’s DON’T? Why do you think that he implied that? I never got that from “The electoral college is why she lost” to paraphrase.
Logical Fallacy, Strawman arguments, misrepresentation of facts, claims that are CONTRARY to actual facts, projecting your shortcomings – a veritable cornucopia of trollishness.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 14:53
Clinton misconduct, lying about email, and her failed recordThe votes of people like those in Kentucky who love KyNect but hate Obamacare (without which KyNect would not exist)
That’s why she lost.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 14:42
Anyone paying attention has noticed this chain of events.
Belief in an inevitable Clinton win was rampant among her supporters, they were convinced she couldn’t lose.
On election eve they gathered to celebrate this inevitable election, this continuation of the Obama “legacy”.
They lost.
At first there was stunned silence.
Then, there was grief.
Then, the grief gave way to anger….
Since then, it’s been anything they can think of to try and obstruct “the smooth transition of power”.
“She won the popular vote”, “He can’t be President, he’s too unstable”, “There were voting irregularities, the vote needs to be audited”, and finally…
“The Russians hacked the election”, morphing into, “The Russians interfered in our election”
You should all be ashamed
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 14:45
The CIA provides a classified briefing to a US Senate committee concluding that Russians attempted interference and all you can do is recite right wing talking points.
You are pathetic. It is you who should be ashamed.
Unless you were present in that briefing, you should really shut the f*ckup.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:14
If the situation were reversed you’d be railing over the potential costs to the taxpayers that yet another congressional investigation into political corruption was going to cost….
Now, for political expediency you’re clamoring for an investigation.
How much money are you proposing we spend on your investigation?
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 15:22
No unlike you and much of the right wing I am not a hypocrite. If we had a President-elect Clinton and an official CIA briefing indicating that foreign power attempted to influence the results, I would be as vocal as any citizen could be about the need to investigate and quickly.
So please stop assuming I suffer from the same ethical shortcomings as you right wingers, I do not.
As far as the price tag, again I do not suffer from the same ethical shortcomings as you right wingers. When I ask them how much they want to spend to stay in Iraq, I get nothing but spin. But I will answer your question directly.
The hearings into Russian interference should be funded for a fiscal year 2017 for $7million which is the current estimate of cost for the Benghazi hearings. Further funding could be approved if after expending that budget, additional evidence requiring further investigation is needed.
Next question.
trees December 13th, 2016 at 12:14
Not a problem, I think we need to investigate fully the cyber security breaches during the Obama administration, and what, if any, steps were taken to address the matter.
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 14:54
You’re the one not paying attention.
You should be concerned.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 14:59
please answer a simple yes or no question if you are capable of doing so without deflecting into irrelevant spin and nonsensical footballmetaphors.
Just a straightforward answer.
Should Sen. Lindsey Graham be ashamed? Yes or No?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/politics/lindsey-graham-russia-democracy/
On Sunday Graham amplified his concerns about Russian interference in American elections through a statement with a bipartisan group of senators.
“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks,” said the statement from Graham and fellow GOP Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as incoming Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Jack Reed, the top Armed Services Committee Democrat.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:16
“to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks,”
I have no problem investigating the National Security failures of the previous administration. How much money are you proposing we spend on this??
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 15:23
you did not answer my question.
typical.
I repeat
Should Sen. Lindsey Graham be ashamed? Yes or No?
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:43
Lindsey Graham is not calling for a new election as a result of “Russian interference”. If he were, yes, he should be ashamed.
Are you calling for a different result than the one that was determined by this past Presidential election?
A) yes
B) no
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 15:45
You still have not answered my question. My question contained no hypotheticals. I answered both your questions directly. Kindly extend the same courtesy to me or do not ask me any more questions.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 15:52
Please define your question then, and do not leave it open ended and vague. Specifically, what is it that Senator Graham should be ashamed of? Asking for an investigation into the state of our cyber security, or asking for a “do-over” election? Because in the above, that you’ve cited, the subject isn’t a call for another election, but the investigation of our National Security…
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 15:59
You started this thread with an open ended vague accusation
“You should all be ashamed”. Those are your words.
But you say my question is open ended and vague?
I posted a link to comments by Sen. Graham. I am asking you if his call for an investigation is something he should be ashamed of, and requested a simple yes/no answer. All I get from you is deflection and spin.
Your posts are a microcosm of the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that permeates the American right. You ask me how much should we spend, and I give you a specific dollar amount. No obfuscation, criticism of the question, hypotheticals etc etc. I gave you a straightforward answer. I further clarified that I would insist on hearings no matter who won the EC if there was a CIA briefing indicating foreign interference.
You on the other hand, bend over backwards avoiding a direct answer to a simple question.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 16:02
No, I answered your question. Senator Graham has no reason to be ashamed. Senator Graham is asking for an investigation into the state of our cyber security.
Let me ask you a question, should this latest Presidential election be invalidated because of suspected Russian interference?
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 16:08
No, the election should not be invalidated.
If a full, fair investigation reveals wrongdoing on the part of the President-elect, Congress can rectify that with impeachment powers.
Any wrongdoing on the part of his staff can be addressed by the US Justice Dept in federal court.
Finally, although I do not think we can or should hold another election, I see no reason why those who hold that opinion should be ashamed.
Birthers were not ashamed. Birthers never resigned themselves to “moving forward”. and there was no official intelligence briefing to support their concerns.
They fought tooth and nail to keep their myth going for 8 years. So why should new election advocates whose concerns are supported by information provided by the American intelligence community, not WorldNetDaily and right wing blogs be any less diligent?
trees December 11th, 2016 at 16:13
If it was wrong when the birthers did it, then it is wrong now for the Russian conspiracy theorists to do so.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 16:18
The fact is that right or wrong, aided and abetted by the now President-elect of the United States, they did it.
and let me fix your post
If it was wrong when the birthers did it, then it is wrong now for
the Russian conspiracy theoriststhose who believe the conclusions of the CIA and two of our most knowledgeable foreign policy and national defense Senators who have no interest in electing Hillary Clinton to do so.trees December 11th, 2016 at 17:57
It would be a major mistake by your party to try and impeach Trump over supposed Russian involvement in this past election. But, you guys on the left seem pretty determined to engage in irrational behavior and insist on doubling down on the positions that cost you the election…
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 18:08
You guys on the right seem remarkably unconcerned about a CIA intelligence review. I guess that is the difference between us lefties and you right wingers.
We care about the welfare of our republic above and beyond any political party. You on the other hand attempt to sweep under the rug a CIA finding as “supposed Russian involvement”.
If finding the truth means the Democratic party loses more elections, I have no problem with that. The truth matters to the left. If a desire to find the truth is “irrational”, well that is the kind of moral bankruptcy I have come to expect from the political right.
The diligent efforts of right wingers to avoid finding the truth, tells me that you guys have a much different priority.
trees December 13th, 2016 at 12:12
And you on the left have never called for any such investigation until after you lost an election. There are those on your side who are actually making the claim that the election result is invalid, because of some leaked email. This whole campaign by the left is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the election result, and declare the winner as uncertified.
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 16:21
C’mon trees answer my question. I’ll humor you for derailing the thread if you do. Are you going to tell me you’re not remotely concerned about the security of OUR country should any of this shite is true ?
trees December 11th, 2016 at 16:23
What is it that you’re alleging?
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 16:33
Deflection. Please pay attention.
Why don’t YOU just say my country doesn’t matter ?
The only reason you getting a load of shite here is because you started it by posting flippant remarks and by being way off topic which suggests to me your either full of it too or you’re a damn moran for doing so. Feel free to answer that one too.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 16:51
No, the will of the people will have been subverted.
Agreed. Any result, other than the one we all recognize, should not be tolerated. The electors are pledged to deliver the vote of the people they represent. If they weren’t, then the process of conducting elections would be meaningless.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 16:58
We are not governed by your OPINION.
We are governed by the United States Constitution.
No, the electors are not pledged to anything. Nothing in the 12th amendment pledges the EC delegate to any candidate.
It would be no more a subversion of the will of the people than the fact that the loser of the popular vote can win the EC.
1. The winner of the EC is the President of the United States.
2. EC delegates have no Constitutional obligation to follow the vote of their state.
Interesting how you interpret a fully Constitutional outcome as subversion of the will of the people, only when that outcome conflicts with your personal opinions.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 17:21
From the text of the 12th…
Now, let’s examine the text. It says they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President. Note, it doesn’t allow them to vote for a candidate outside of the election, and neither does it allow them to vote for a candidate that did not win the votes of their state…
So, IF the electors SHOULD happen to vote for someone OTHER than the one elected by the people, what happens then? Is the one the Electors submit the dutifully elected?
No.
It goes to the House.
Why?
Because clearly the result submitted does not conform to the will of the electorate.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 17:34
Your interpretation is your OPINION. It is not settled law. Your premise is based on assumption not supported by any court case in American jurisprudence
My opinion is that if Hillary Clinton or Tim Kaine or Mike Pence or Paul Ryan or for that matter, John Boehner received 300 EC votes on the first ballot, they would be elected President.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called “faithless Electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 17:47
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called “faithless Electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.
The term “faithless elector” should cause you to pause.
The elector is appointed because of the belief that they will vote as the people have voted. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. Should the elector act in a way that is not in keeping with the desires of the electorate then there are penalties that should be levied.
Further, should enough of the electors rebel against the will of the people, then the House takes up the matter.
So, if the electors are truly free to do as they desire, and if, they exercise their will, ignoring the will of the people, the electorate, why wouldn’t the result be accepted and confirmed?
Like it, or not, Trump will be confirmed as POTUS.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 18:02
The House takes up the matter only if the no one receives a minimum of 270 votes. I realize Mr. Trump will likely be confirmed whether I like it or not. No need for you to state the obvious.
Like it or not, refusing to vote for Donald Trump and voting for Hillary Clinton or John McCain or anyone else who was not on the ballot would be no less Constitutional and no more a repudiation of the will of the people than what will most likely happen on December 19, 2016.
I would only point out, that leftist filmmaker Michael Moore predicted a Trump victory, including carrying his home state of Michigan. He is now making noises about something “unexpected” in the EC vote.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3786000/michael-moores-electoral-college-prediction-something-crazy-and-unexpected-might-happen/
trees December 11th, 2016 at 19:33
Michael Moore..lol…
That would be his opinion..lol…
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 03:09
No, the will of the people will have been subverted.
Apparently, it’s not just ENGLISH that you don’t understand well, but also NUMBERS.
Trump – 62,793,872
Clinton – 65,432,202
So, obviously it’s not the will of the PEOPLE that’s been subverted. Less is NOT more.
Could it be the EC that would be subverted? Well, if the EC votes, it hasn’t been subverted because IT MADE THE DECISION. So, unless the EC isn’t allowed to vote, it ain’t subverted.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 16:38
I have another direct question for you.
29 states have laws requiring their EC delegates to vote in accordance with statewide results. Violations of that law are seen as misdemeanors. There is no provision in the US Constitution to disregard a vote by an EC delegate due to violation of state laws controlling their vote.
If a sufficient number of EC delegates decide to break those laws and vote for Hillary Clinton, it would be a fully Constitutional election result.
If that occurred, would you come to this forum insisting that Constitution has been followed and we should move on?
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967
There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions.
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 02:59
He doesn’t deal honestly with your questions. Or anyone’s questions. He doesn’t use the language in the same way you and I use it. He doesn’t think the standards he imposes should pertain to him. He’s here solely to boost his own ego by trying to cut others down, go against the flow, throw out BS just to be a dickhead and disruptive.
And those are his GOOD qualities.
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 15:48
Deflection, not really your style is it ?
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 15:48
He’s on record for not voting for tRump “he’s not my guy”
He claims he’s a libertarian.
Obewon December 11th, 2016 at 18:46
‘trees posted that he was for and ‘wrote in Rubio’-teabagger trees.
oldfart December 11th, 2016 at 19:20
Well I guess his sham will become my hobby.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 19:28
I’m opposed to Clinton. How is that a “sham”?
You know who else was opposed to Trump?
Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
Not really a Trump supporter, but definitely not a Clinton supporter.
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 02:54
“You know who else was opposed to Trump?
Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.”
Assumes facts not in evidence. The guy who emphatically urged voters to vote FOR Trump was OPPOSED to Trump? Do words even MATTER to you? Do you think NOBODY can tell when you are full of shite?
“…then vote Republican — Donald Trump…”
Paul Ryan op-ed on CNN.com Nov. 6, 2016.
“I know which way I want to go” Paul Ryan says about Clinton v. Trump.
“Let’s bring the Clinton era to an end by voting for Donald Trump on Tuesday,” Ryan said in one his most forceful endorsements of Trump yet.”
Again, Paul Fricking Ryan said that.
Oppose – verb – disapprove of and attempt to prevent, especially by argument; actively resist or refuse to comply with (a person or a system).
Obviously, you have your OWN definition, but ENGLISH disagrees.
oldfart December 12th, 2016 at 14:29
I was wrong. You’re full of it AND you’re a damn moran.
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 02:43
“Libertarian” is best described as “I got mine, screw you.”
Remember, the modern Libertarian movement is largely a creation of the Koch Brothers.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 15:03
please post a link to a post of yours chastising birthers telling them they should be ashamed. absent such a link we can only conclude that you are in fact the partisan hypocrite that most regulars think you are.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 16:58
Please post a link to a post of yours where you state that you no longer beat your wife. Absent such a link we can only conclude that you are, in fact, actively engaged in beating your wife.
arc99 December 11th, 2016 at 17:06
thanks for confirming your hypocrisy on this matter.
I guess I should not be surprised that you equate opposition to hypocrisy with domestic violence.
eliminating hypocrisy would in fact be a kind of domestic violence. the only victim though would be right wing idiocy.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 17:18
My hypocrisy on this matter??
I am not a “birther”, but I can understand why you would attempt to paint me as one.
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 02:37
Ahh… can’t do it, so then reverse the call for facts and make the favorite troll Logical Fallacy Argument.
You prove his point. Plus show your unoriginal-troll bonafides. What’s next? I know you are but what am I?
YOU are the only person around who does NOT think you’re a dishonest troll with no ACTUAL contributions and who would have no standards if they weren’t double.
dewired4u December 11th, 2016 at 22:20
no. the senate knew in oct it was being messed with but McConnell wouldn’t do anything because the russians were messing with the democrats not the republicans.
RandyBastard December 12th, 2016 at 12:25
I’ll put it like this: Clinton would almost
certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27
(day before Comey letter).
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 11, 2016
Here’s two links from two very conservative sources:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/nate-silver-hillary-clinton-comey-fbi/2016/12/11/id/763384/
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309871-nate-silver-clinton-almost-certainly-wouldve-won-if-election-were-before
trees December 12th, 2016 at 12:58
The pollsters all got it wrong. The polling data was severely skewed. Thinking that, “If only they held the election in September, instead of October…”
Is wrongheaded.
And besides, the election was held on the day it’s been held for a very long time.
But you go ahead with you reasoning..
Here, let’s apply it in another way…
“Well, if the NFL installed a fifth quarter in last night’s game the Cowboys would have beat the Giants…”
RandyBastard December 13th, 2016 at 10:18
It is more than a little hinky that our polls were accurate right up until the point that Republicans decided they were skewed four years ago. Usually this accusation is made in third-world countries by people who are actively suppressing and/or altering vote results. After all, if you’re going to change the way the vote goes it’s a good idea to foment distrust in the system beforehand.
I also think it’s funny that as long as the polls were going in Trump’s favor in the primary you folks thought they were the greatest thing since buttered bread.
There is far more going on here than you are willing to admit.
trees December 13th, 2016 at 12:02
Not at all, the independents and undecideds went heavily to Trump.
It’s what happened.
The reason the left is so apoplectic over it is because they thought the general election was going to be like the Dem primary…
Quite a shock when they found out the polls were wrong because the people they needed most to hear from had stopped responding to them…
Obewon December 11th, 2016 at 14:58
Neoclown trees is so worried about losing his trump erection, he tried three moneyshots on this thread alone within one hour! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a89309c6ca084d62e12774422d581a0c36945dfbb528f766ad0b92feeb52f0d4.jpg
Larry Schmitt December 11th, 2016 at 17:03
He has repeatedly chosen the worst possible candidate for each position. It has to be deliberate, an effort to destroy the country.
dewired4u December 11th, 2016 at 22:18
they’re the right people to do what the radical right wants to do which is destroy the government.
trees December 11th, 2016 at 19:22
Clinton supporters cry, Russia rigged the election!!!
But, what is it that Russia did to influence the election, if anything?
Russia is being accused, by some, of revealing DNC, and Clinton campaign officials, email content.
So, providing information to the voters is somehow improper?
“It’s unfair”
That may be.
However, the content of the emails was accurate.
The American voters did not trust Clinton, did not like Clinton, and the information that was revealed reinforced already held beliefs.
Saying that, “The Russians orchestrated the election outcome”, is false.
Did they influence it?
Only slightly. The opinion of the American public was already overwhelmingly negative towards Clinton.
Only those who believed she couldn’t lose actually believe the Russian involvement to be a primary factor in the election outcome.
The rest of us understand why she wasn’t elected.
Wikileaks wasn’t the big decider of the outcome.
Clinton herself was.
dewired4u December 11th, 2016 at 22:16
you are missing the big picture there should never be foreign interference in our elections no mater who won. do it over. this election was tampered with that makes it bogus. do it over.
trees December 12th, 2016 at 12:42
And if they, “did it over”, and Hillary lost, again, the cry from the left would go out….
“She won the popular vote!!!”, or, “The Russians hacked the election!!!”, or, “We need a recount!!!”
dewired4u December 12th, 2016 at 14:07
It isn’t about trump or clinton it is about the trust of the people in their government because if they lose faith in the government it will fail.
whatthe46 December 13th, 2016 at 02:54
he’s not hearing you at all.
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 02:26
Mitch McConnell felt that letting the people know about what our intelligence services have found about our election is partisan politics, and the theTerrible Turtle-man therefore thinks “providing information to the voters is somehow improper.”
“The American voters did not trust Clinton, did not like Clinton, and the information that was revealed reinforced already held beliefs.
Well, you are right, the voters who felt as you described believed the lies they had been told because they reinforced the OTHER lies they had been told. But the claim that the WINNER of the popular vote wasn’t trusted by the GREATER number of Clinton voters is laughingly asinine, stunningly dishonest, and inarguably stupid. Do you expect RATIONAL people believe that “American voters” as some sort of monolithic block believe what the MINORITY of voters believed?
This is the type of shite that you claim “American voters” believe:
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bed2f5eb999884b0e62096f75ae6e7e8f0d4d3e87ad6db0c40dc95fce61be30.jpg
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7787b13d3ec18f283fa856efe93675d52ab486e7b84c73d855b916d37b5c5ab.jpg
trees December 12th, 2016 at 12:51
There was nothing in the Wikileaks emails that was fabricated. They were bonafide, and they revealed the true nature of the Clinton machine. The lying, manipulation, distortion of facts, and “spin” are all hallmarks of a Clinton operation. We had “Clinton fatigue” months prior to Nov 8…..
She lost. She lost big. Accept it, and move “forward”…
bpollen December 12th, 2016 at 15:53
She won the popular vote. She lost the EC vote, but “big”??? This election, the EC margin was something like 45th out of 55 elections in terms of EC votes. Or, to put in a way that even YOU can understand: more than 75% of ALL presidential elections had a GREATER margin of victory. Yeah, “she lost big” in the same way that Peter Dinklage is the TALLEST actor in Hollywood. If you remember, Obama won BIGGER! TWICE. Clinton won BIGGER. TWICE Taft won BIGGER. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Harding, GHW Bush, the OTHER Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, etc. Franklin D. Roosevelt won by a larger margin 3 TIMES.
Words – they mean DIFFERENT things to the Sap.
And Russian Hacks are your proof of Hillary wrongdoing? Ha! You’re delusional.
“We had “Clinton fatigue” months prior to Nov 8…..”
We, pale face? Once again, who was it who got more in the popular vote? You talk about “we” and the “will of the people” and other unadulterated BS, and yet MORE people voted FOR her than against her. You may THINK you can speak for the American people, but the American people VERY clearly disagree. You think you’re representative of the American people. This is obviously untrue – MOST of America aren’t known as trolls.
trees December 12th, 2016 at 17:18
She lost big.
How big?
306 to 232
But…but… California and New York voted overwhelming for Hillary…
Lol…
You may want to look at a map of the US sometime. The country is a little bigger than CA and NY.
bpollen December 13th, 2016 at 02:50
Yeah, she lost big, except for 44 out of 56 elections who lost BIGLIER!
Did Donald win the EC? Hard to tell, what with you bringing it up CONSTANTLY, along with the specious claim that she lost BIGLY and Trump won BIGLY at EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
Must hurt being so empty that you can do nothing but troll.
trees December 12th, 2016 at 18:32
http://observer.com/2016/11/the-lefts-miraculous-change-of-heart-on-accepting-election-results/
From the article…
But..but..but…the popular vote… we won the popular vote….
The popular vote is not the yardstick of measure. The EC is.
How did you do in the EC??
bpollen December 13th, 2016 at 02:47
You keep claiming shite about The American People, We won, you EVERY TIME point out the EC vote in ANY response to the mention of the POPULAR VOTE, claiming you won “bigly” contrary to fact, history, numbers, statistics…
Shitgibbon-elect Trump won the EC. WE ALL KNOW THIS. Yet you feel that you need to keep bringing it up, pointing it out, saying that is the ONLY measure of how the election ended. The ONLY reason to do so CONSTANTLY is to be a dickhead, a troll, a troublemaker, Nelson from the Simpson’s, the immature twit who says “neener-neener” and just generally exists to be obnoxious.
But, when pointed out that your claims are BOGUS, and that you pretend to speak for Amurka, you come back with “WE WON THE EC BIGLY.”
One-trick pony, sad pathetic little man. Yay you!
bpollen December 13th, 2016 at 02:54
She lost. She did NOT lose big. 44 of 56 elections had LARGER margins. Only ONE person lost the popular vote by a HIGHER PERCENTAGE and still won the EC.
If that is BIG to you, then THIS >>> <<< must be six inches to you.
As your Mango Messiah says, "Sad."
trees December 14th, 2016 at 22:56
She outspent her opponent 10-1, was the presumptive winner of the election, and was Obama’s hand chosen successor.
She lost to someone who had zero experience in politics.
That’s not just losing big.
That’s getting absolutely clobbered.
bpollen December 15th, 2016 at 02:37
Of course. If you tell yourself something enough times, REALITY changes.
oldfart December 13th, 2016 at 10:51
The right wing nuts are insisting on keeping the narrative about the lefts insistence that Hillary should be president while completely denying all other sources of information to the contrary. This isn’t about Hillary anymore but they CAN’T let it go either. IRONIC.