Hillary Said Not Accepting Election Results Was ‘Direct Threat To Democracy’

RetiredNSmilin said:

I guess I am the only one who sees the similarities in this and the 1860 election results.
There are also HUGE differences, but also many similarities.
As the differences get more violent, and the chasm widens, I see the similarities growing closer.

...making book on when the calls for militia forming will begin.

1, 2, or 3 years from now?

Click to expand...

Lincoln won a plurality of the popular vote in 1860 and a majority of the EC so it was not like 2016. trump did not win a plurality.

Besides this election, the other three you're looking for are 2000, 1876, and 1824. DEMs won a plurality in all 4.

1824 was lost in the House, 1876 was lost by bribery of the LA electors, 2000 was lost in the SCOTUS; 2016 is actually the cleanest of the 4 losses .

NIMBY said:

Imagine trump's reaction and those of his supporters if he won the popular vote by more than 2.2 million but lost the electoral college.

With that, I accept the EC tally as it now stands.

DEMs have a systemic problem with voter turnout that reappeared in the 2010 Census Remap election .

Click to expand...

If trump won the Popular Vote by more than 2 million but lost the Electoral College, he would be calling for revolution. Just as he did in 2012.

Trump calls for revolution, blasts Electoral College | TheHill

Donald Trump loses it, calls for ?revolution? - Salon.com

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/07/donald-trump-karl-rove-revolution

Donald Trump Freaks Out on Twitter After Obama Wins Election

Sietske22 said:

If trump won the Popular Vote by more than 2 million but lost the Electoral College, he would be calling for revolution. Just as he did in 2012.

Trump calls for revolution, blasts Electoral College | TheHill

Donald Trump loses it, calls for ?revolution? - Salon.com

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/07/donald-trump-karl-rove-revolution

Donald Trump Freaks Out on Twitter After Obama Wins Election

Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure that if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college he would be crying like a baby just like liberals are today. So congratulations. You are as much a hypocrite as he is.

Fletch said:

Yes, I am sure that if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college he would be crying like a baby just like liberals are today. So congratulations. You are as much a hypocrite as he is.

Click to expand...

What is hypocritical about contesting a system that rewards someone who wins less votes?

Fletch said:

Yes, I am sure that if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college he would be crying like a baby just like liberals are today. So congratulations. You are as much a hypocrite as he is.

Click to expand...

Trust, but verify. It's the system. Especially given Trump's variability.

NIMBY said:

Clinton should throw Stein under the bus on this recount.

Since Stein threw Clinton under the bus during the election.

This makes two of the last five elections that the greens have thrown the EC to the popular vote loser .

Click to expand...

Stein received 49,000 votes in Pennsylvania and Clinton lost by 69,000, round figures. So it wasn't Stein who caused Hillary to lose Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin, Stein received 31,000 votes, Clinton lost by 27,500. To even up Wisconsin without Stein, Clinton would have had to get 95% of her 31,000 to even that state up. I highly doubt that. Then who really knows how many Stein voters would have stayed home if she wasn't on the ballot in those states.

Quite a lot of those who voted for Stein may have been young Sanders supporters who were very angry at Clinton and the DNC and State Democratic party leaders for favoring Clinton during the Democratic primaries. Especially after the Podesta e-mails came out as proof. A lot of them stayed home as they refused to make the switch from Sanders to Clinton, those who did vote, 16% of them voted third party.

Perotista said:

Stein received 49,000 votes in Pennsylvania and Clinton lost by 69,000, round figures. So it wasn't Stein who caused Hillary to lose Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin, Stein received 31,000 votes, Clinton lost by 27,500. To even up Wisconsin without Stein, Clinton would have had to get 95% of her 31,000 to even that state up. I highly doubt that. Then who really knows how many Stein voters would have stayed home if she wasn't on the ballot in those states.

Quite a lot of those who voted for Stein may have been young Sanders supporters who were very angry at Clinton and the DNC and State Democratic party leaders for favoring Clinton during the Democratic primaries. Especially after the Podesta e-mails came out as proof. A lot of them stayed home as they refused to make the switch from Sanders to Clinton, those who did vote, 16% of them voted third party.

Click to expand...

A lot of them stayed home is the story of the DEM collapse since 2010.

The many fragments of the broken Obama coalition mirror in 2012 could not be put back together in 2014 and 2016.

25 dem Senators were elected in 2012 versus only eight GOPs. This massacre isn't over yet. DEMs don't have a McConnell/Priebus combo to cover 22 of 24 incumbent senators.

It was the incumbent GOP senators in IA, WI, PA, NC, FL, and OH who carried trump to narrow victories in all 6 states.

Take Wisconsin--Sanders voters loved Feingold who had a big lead throughout the election season. Johnson won going away because Sanders voters didn't vote. Remember, Sanders won Wi over Clinton, as with MI.

The GOP held their nose and voted for trump; ****in DEMs were too pure to do that for Clinton; now the Sanders/Stein supporters are the biggest complainers.

Also notice the smear/fear mongering job being done to Ellison. The GOP never sleeps. DEMs haven't got a ****in clue. I'll die in the minority .

NIMBY said:

A lot of them stayed home is the story of the DEM collapse since 2010.

The many fragments of the broken Obama coalition mirror in 2012 could not be put back together in 2014 and 2016.

25 dem Senators were elected in 2012 versus only eight GOPs. This massacre isn't over yet. DEMs don't have a McConnell/Priebus combo to cover 22 of 24 incumbent senators.

It was the incumbent GOP senators in IA, WI, PA, NC, FL, and OH who carried trump to narrow victories in all 6 states.

Take Wisconsin--Sanders voters loved Feingold who had a big lead throughout the election season. Johnson won going away because Sanders voters didn't vote. Remember, Sanders won Wi over Clinton, as with MI.

The GOP held their nose and voted for trump; ****in DEMs were too pure to do that for Clinton; now the Sanders/Stein supporters are the biggest complainers.

Also notice the smear/fear mongering job being done to Ellison. The GOP never sleeps. DEMs haven't got a ****in clue. I'll die in the minority .

Click to expand...

I don't think so. All the Democrats need is some fresh young talent to provide some energy. Like Obama in 2008 or like DCCC Casey recruited class back in 2006 to recapture congress. The problem is the Democrats have trotted out old tired blood since 2008. 2010 can be explained by passing the ACA which the majority of Americans were against, they bit back. 2012 was a good democratic year headed by a younger Obama and more moderate senate candidates ala like Casey recruited in 2006.

Personally, I think the Democrats need new blood leadership that isn't from New York or California in the senate and house. They need someone who can inspire like Sanders did. But that game was rigged in favor of an old tired, baggage laden woman who showed little spark at campaigning. Not that many Democrats were enthused by Hillary, Trump excited his supporters regardless of what one thinks of him. He was constantly on the go, holding rallies while Clinton was in dark blue states like California and New York holding fund raisers.

It was reported Hillary never made it to Wisconsin and to Michigan only once. Too many fund raisers to attend. But who would have thought Trump would win those two states? I sure didn't. In fact I went to be early election eve figuring on Clinton winning. Perhaps Clinton thought money would win it for her, make up for her aloof and elitist persona. As of 19 October Clinton had spent 1.3 billion to Trump's 795 million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

We'll have to wait to see how much was spent from 20 October on and add those figures to the above.

Perotista said:

I don't think so. All the Democrats need is some fresh young talent to provide some energy. Like Obama in 2008 or like DCCC Casey recruited class back in 2006 to recapture congress. The problem is the Democrats have trotted out old tired blood since 2008. 2010 can be explained by passing the ACA which the majority of Americans were against, they bit back. 2012 was a good democratic year headed by a younger Obama and more moderate senate candidates ala like Casey recruited in 2006.

Personally, I think the Democrats need new blood leadership that isn't from New York or California in the senate and house. They need someone who can inspire like Sanders did. But that game was rigged in favor of an old tired, baggage laden woman who showed little spark at campaigning. Not that many Democrats were enthused by Hillary, Trump excited his supporters regardless of what one thinks of him. He was constantly on the go, holding rallies while Clinton was in dark blue states like California and New York holding fund raisers.

It was reported Hillary never made it to Wisconsin and to Michigan only once. Too many fund raisers to attend. But who would have thought Trump would win those two states? I sure didn't. In fact I went to be early election eve figuring on Clinton winning. Perhaps Clinton thought money would win it for her, make up for her aloof and elitist persona. As of 19 October Clinton had spent 1.3 billion to Trump's 795 million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

We'll have to wait to see how much was spent from 20 October on and add those figures to the above.

Click to expand...

Do you really think DEMs can cover 23 of 25 Senate seats and maybe grab Nevada from the GOP to keep it at 53-47 GOP in 2018?

The GOP will get at least a +8 gain in 2018, filibuster proof.

I'm sure you've looked at the 33 seats up for grabs.

Why do you think trump is keeping Priebus around ?

NIMBY said:

Do you really think DEMs can cover 23 of 25 Senate seats and maybe grab Nevada from the GOP to keep it at 53-47 GOP in 2018?

The GOP will get at least a +8 gain in 2018, filibuster proof.

I'm sure you've looked at the 33 seats up for grabs.

Why do you think trump is keeping Priebus around ?

Click to expand...

I haven't yet looked. But am so doing at this time. Okay, at this time I see Democrats in danger in Indiana and Missouri. Perhaps in Montana and North Dakota. The rest of the Democratic seats looks fairly safe to me. Now that is two years off, who knows what Trump will do. All it takes is another ACA to swing six or more seats from Republican to Democratic. Something against the majority of Americans wishes.

McCaskill should have been gone in 2012, only the Republicans nominated Aiken. The Republicans were dumb in Indiana with Mourdock. They can be dumb again. Nevada is trending Democratic, although it is hard to beat an incumbent without some screw up along the way.


Then too the party in power, the one who holds the white house tends to lose seats.

I do not have governors or state legislators, but here is the congressional numbers at the beginning of each president term/s and the last year he left office.
Eisenhower 1952 48 senators, 221 House 1960 34 senators, 153 house
JFK/LBJ 1961 64 senators, 283 House, 1968 64 senators, 248 house
Nixon/Ford 1969 36 senators, 187 House, 1976 37 senators, 144 house
Carter 1977 61 senators, 291 house, 1980 58 senators, 277 house
Reagan 1981 53 senators, 192 house, 1988 45 senators, 177 house
Bush I 1989 45 senators, 175 house, 1992 44 senators, 167 house
Clinton 1993 57 senators, 258 house, 2000 45 senators, 211 house
Bush II 2001 50 senators, 221 house, 2008 49 senators, 198 house
Obama 2009 59 senators, 256 house, present 46 senators, 188 house

Eisenhower lost 14 senators and 68 house seats over his two terms
JFK/LBJ, I included both as JFK was assssinated and this spans two terms, No change in senators, but a net loss of 35 house seats.

Nixon/Ford again I included both as Nixon resigned and Ford replaced him, abet unelected. They actually gained one senate seat, but loss 43 house seats.

Carter lost 3 senate seats and 14 house seats over his one term.

Reagan lost 8 senate seats and 15 house seats.

Bush the First, lost one senate seat and 8 house seats over his one term.

Clinton was one of the bigger losers like IKE, he lost 12 senators and 47 house seats.

Bush the second lost one senate seat and 23 house seat

Obama lost 13 senators and 68 house seats.

Sietske22 said:

What is hypocritical about contesting a system that rewards someone who wins less votes?

Click to expand...

You contested this system prior to the election did you? You spoke out against the 'electoral advantage' of a democrat candidate before the election did you? You spoke out against the undemocratic nature of the 'blue wall' prior to the election did you? No. Of course you didn't. Like every other hypocritical liberal you waited until after the system worked against you to speak out. Forgive me if I don't give a crap about your 'concerns' now.

Fletch said:

You contested this system prior to the election did you? You spoke out against the 'electoral advantage' of a democrat candidate before the election did you? You spoke out against the undemocratic nature of the 'blue wall' prior to the election did you? No. Of course you didn't. Like every other hypocritical liberal you waited until after the system worked against you to speak out. Forgive me if I don't give a crap about your 'concerns' now.

Click to expand...

ouch-that's a brutal but very honest and accurate criticism of the sore loser arguments against the electoral college

volsrock said:

Hillary Clinton should probably tell her supporters and butt-hurt liberals what she said on the presidential campaign trail when she was railing against President-Elect Donald Trump.

Remember a couple months ago, Hillary attacked Trump for failing to say whether or not he would accept the election results, by claiming it was a “direct threat” to America and to democracy.

Except, now it’s Hillary’s supporters who won’t accept the election results.

Take a look:

https://americanlookout.com/jpb-fla...results-was-direct-threat-to-democracy-video/



Obviously only Donald Trump was suppose to accept results of his losing.

Click to expand...

Trump supporters sure do like to whine a lot. No wonder white males have lost so much ground--they act like little girls.

Was watching youtube videos yesterday and some conspiracy theory nut said this recount thing is part of a plot to keep Obama in office lmao

Saying they will reverse the outcome of the election sparking civil unrest, leading to martial law....leading to Obama staying in power......

I nearly cried laughing....even the Democrats aren't that stupid...are they?

And to the Republicans for which it stands.

This Nation is a Republic, not a Democracy, when it comes to electing a POTUS.

We just had our 49th popular vote/electoral college election for POTUS and the 4th where DEMs won the PV but lost the POTUS--4 different ways btw--has never happened to the GOP.

DEMs are the high density urban population party with systemic voting problems .

Fletch said:

You contested this system prior to the election did you? You spoke out against the 'electoral advantage' of a democrat candidate before the election did you? You spoke out against the undemocratic nature of the 'blue wall' prior to the election did you? No. Of course you didn't. Like every other hypocritical liberal you waited until after the system worked against you to speak out. Forgive me if I don't give a crap about your 'concerns' now.

Click to expand...

Sietske22 said:

The votes were within 1% of each other.

What are Republicans afraid of?

Click to expand...

Then we need to recount New Hampshire. It was a .4 % margin

volsrock said:

Hillary Clinton should probably tell her supporters and butt-hurt liberals what she said on the presidential campaign trail when she was railing against President-Elect Donald Trump.

Remember a couple months ago, Hillary attacked Trump for failing to say whether or not he would accept the election results, by claiming it was a “direct threat” to America and to democracy.

Except, now it’s Hillary’s supporters who won’t accept the election results.

Click to expand...

Why should the far radical kooker left care? The see an opportunity to create chaos, so they will. It's all very typical of the left.

Fenton said:

Then we need to recount New Hampshire. It was a .4 % margin

Click to expand...

Exactly--raise the money as the libbo loon stein has.

Sen. Ayotte lost an extremely close race there also.

Gov. McCrory is contesting his loss in NC .

Praxas said:

A recount, especially if funded outside of taxpayer money, is Part of democracy. Why are You afraid? Did the GOP cheat or something ? If not, then sit back and laugh at the money being wasted from liberal supporters for the recount.

Click to expand...

Voter fraud doesn't exist, isn't that what liberals say? Every time Republicans have tried to ensure voter validity the Democrats have always wailed and gnashed their teeth.

Fenton said:

Then we need to recount New Hampshire. It was a .4 % margin

Click to expand...

You better file before the deadline.

calamity said:

You better file before the deadline.

Click to expand...

Just saying, if Steins so concerned with the integrity of our voting system, why doesn't she include New Hampshire ?

She has plenty of money.

Fenton said:

Just saying, if Steins so concerned with the integrity of our voting system, why doesn't she include New Hampshire ?

She has plenty of money.

Click to expand...

:lol:

Praxas said:

A recount, especially if funded outside of taxpayer money, is Part of democracy. Why are You afraid? Did the GOP cheat or something ? If not, then sit back and laugh at the money being wasted from liberal supporters for the recount.

Click to expand...

Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

If Donald Trump did this he would have gotten crucified by the media.

Bucky said:

Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

If Donald Trump did this he would have gotten crucified by the media.

Click to expand...

If donald got within 1% of the popular vote, he would be entitled to demand a recount.

Fletch said:

You contested this system prior to the election did you? You spoke out against the 'electoral advantage' of a democrat candidate before the election did you? You spoke out against the undemocratic nature of the 'blue wall' prior to the election did you? No. Of course you didn't. Like every other hypocritical liberal you waited until after the system worked against you to speak out. Forgive me if I don't give a crap about your
'concerns' now.

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth, applicable to many who are now decrying the results of the election and the system.

TurtleDude said:

ouch-that's a brutal but very honest and accurate criticism of the sore loser arguments against the electoral college

Click to expand...

Well, you gotta figure that they've had 2 weeks now to come to terms with it, yet the wailing and gnashing of teeth still continues. I'm starting to run out of patience with it.