• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Trump's victory forever sullied?

CriticalThought said:
You are reacting and it is not pretty. You can concede the obvious reality, that most voters did not support Trump, and not have to feel any less joyous about your victory. You are being ugly and actually proving how sensitive you are to the stain that has been left on his win.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I am quite unhappy to have Trump for President. That doesn't make it any less correct that most Americans were alright with Trump if not for him. Acting as though it weren't so, is so sad.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Incorrect, the fbi and cIA are not on the same page, we have not seen any ACTUAL evidence.
Click to expand...

Really?

FBI accepts CIA conclusion that Russians hacked to help Trump | KING5.com

NATIONAL
FBI accepts CIA conclusion that Russians hacked to help Trump

WASHINGTON —The FBI is now backing the CIA’s assessment that Russian hackers sought in part to tilt the election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump when they breached American political institutions resulting in the theft of a trove of sensitive communications, a U.S. official said Friday.
Click to expand...

That seems pretty much on the same page to me.

The RNC states there was attempted hacks, but no penetration. which sullies your whole "russia for trump" talking point you were handed here.
Click to expand...

Not really. It probably started out as an information gathering mission until they were successful with the DNC.

Almost all of them were in california, california alone should not decide the presidency, we are a republic of several states, not a direct democracy.


206 to 232 is a pretty bigh margin.
Click to expand...


If you didn't count any of the votes from California then Trump would have won the popular vote by 1.4 million votes. But California is a state, like Texas or Mississippi. The people there are Americans. Nobody contests he won the electoral college and the presidency, but the fact remains most voters did not vote for him.

As far as electoral college margin, it is ranked 46th in the history of presidential elections.


I think he will build bridges, it will be your ilk who shut him out.
Click to expand...

We shall see. The pipeline in South Dakota will be his first test. I imagine he will send in the National Guard to secure it from protesters.
 
joG said:
You misunderstand. I am quite unhappy to have Trump for President. That doesn't make it any less correct that most Americans were alright with Trump if not for him. Acting as though it weren't so, is so sad.
Click to expand...

You are making quite a few unsubstantiated assumptions about the electorate that didn't vote.
 
jimbo said:
I believe you are correct. What does it say about the DNC staff? I get a few of those every day. I remove without opening.

But doesn't that shoot a hole in the argument that Russia was targeting the DNC to help Trump?
Click to expand...

It says Podesta knows more about Rosetta than how to manage his email.

Not really. We don't know how hard they tried or even to what degree we are aware of their success. What makes a good hack is leaving behind no signs you were there. We can only go by what they did during the election.
 
jimbo said:
And the EC prevails.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And that is a good thing. But a new president should be mindful when they are elected by a 225 year old institution and not a majority of voters that they may not have a mandate.
 
Fledermaus said:
306 isn't enough?
Click to expand...

Well, there have been 58 Presidential elections in the history of the U.S. and that number "306" means Trump did better than 13 previous presidential elections and worse than 45. So you tell me.
 
CriticalThought said:
It says Podesta knows more about Rosetta than how to manage his email.

Not really. We don't know how hard they tried or even to what degree we are aware of their success. What makes a good hack is leaving behind no signs you were there. We can only go by what they did during the election.
Click to expand...

From what I see, there was never any success other than expose what was already there. I've never heard any claim that the leaks were false. Just the poor us excuses.
 
CriticalThought said:
Well, there have been 58 Presidential elections in the history of the U.S. and that number "306" means Trump did better than 13 previous presidents and worse than 45. So you tell me.
Click to expand...

271 is enough. Everything else is just icing.
 
jimbo said:
271 is enough. Everything else is just icing.
Click to expand...

True. It is all you need to win. But winning when it looks like you were helped by Russian hackers, an incompetent FBI director, fake news on social media and losing by millions in the popular vote...well that icing probably starts to taste like dog crap.
 
jimbo said:
From what I see, there was never any success other than expose what was already there. I've never heard any claim that the leaks were false. Just the poor us excuses.
Click to expand...

I am still not sure what the leaks revealed that was so alarming. Aside from an "open borders" comment Hillary made that was repeatedly taken out of context, it was pretty boring stuff. Hillary was a lot more free market in practice than on the campaign trail, which was a relief to me.
 
CriticalThought said:
True. It is all you need to win. But winning when it looks like you were helped by Russian hackers, an incompetent FBI director, fake news on social media and losing by millions in the popular vote...well that icing probably starts to taste like dog crap.
Click to expand...

I put those as excuses number 14, 19, and 26.

The reason Hillary lost is because Hillary. Helped along by the establishment politicians on both sides. If you're looking moment. calling voters you are trying to win deplorables would be reason number 2. Behind Hillary.
 
jimbo said:
I put those as excuses number 14, 19, and 26.

The reason Hillary lost is because Hillary. Helped along by the establishment politicians on both sides. If you're looking moment. calling voters you are trying to win deplorables would be reason number 2. Behind Hillary.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about Hillary. She lost because her message sucked and she was a poor candidate. Reason Number 1 that Trump won and the most sullying thing to his victory was that he was running against Hillary. Any other candidate would have trounced him.

This thread is about Trump and the stain on his victory. If Hillary was half as corrupt he and his supporters claimed, then he should have beaten her astronomically, not with the help of Russians and incompetent government officials.

The fact is, his own corruption and tendency to treat women as sex objects, made it unlikely he could win by more than he did.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
This thread is not about Hillary. She lost because her message sucked and she was a poor candidate. Reason Number 1 that Trump won and the most sullying thing to his victory was that he was running against Hillary. Any other candidate would have trounced him.

This thread is about Trump and the stain on his victory. If Hillary was half as corrupt he and his supporters claimed, then he should have beaten her astronomically, not with the help of Russians and incompetent government officials.

The fact is, his own corruption and tendency to treat women as sex objects, made it unlikely he could win by more than he did.
Click to expand...

It is stained because the panty waste liberals want it to be.

Fact.
 
CriticalThought said:
Well, there have been 58 Presidential elections in the history of the U.S. and that number "306" means Trump did better than 13 previous presidential elections and worse than 45. So you tell me.
Click to expand...

And this means........?

Ah, wait. Its a "so what?" factoid.

Did the other 13 Presidents have asterisks?
 
VanceMack said:
2 things.

1-The assertion that he is somehow not legitimate is the crux behind the rat talking points and narrative since he won the election. This was and has been their intent all along.
Click to expand...
It seems we haven't had a "legitimate" president since GHWBush. They're all "bastards".

2-Does anyone think Donald Trump gives a **** about their opinion on whether or not his election is seen as legitimate in the eyes of a bunch of angry disconsolate rats?
Click to expand...
Yes. If he didn't care he wouldn't be tweeting at every comment or stupid thing the media says about him. He's a bona fide narcissist.
 
joG said:
Insubstantiated? How so?
Click to expand...

Most people who don't vote do so because they believe their vote does not count. It is an unfortunate outcome of the electoral college. For example, if you are a Democrat in a traditionally red state then you will assume your vote does not count. Same if you are a Republican in a blue state. Voter turnout tends to be much higher in swing states.

In addition to that, voters may be busy, apathetic, lazy, not understand the process, too impatient with the process, hate all the candidates, or lack the ability to get to a poll. There are a myriad of reasons why people don't vote.

You have narrowed it down to one, they don't mind Trump. Which is a pretty big unsubstantiated assumption given the wide range of other likely options available.
 
joG said:
You mean to say that you think they'll be as arrogantly anti constitutional as the liberal bigots have been? You're funning me,right?
Click to expand...

They've already done that. You want state of the art re that stuff, look at what the GOP is doing in NC right now.

The constitution seems the be something only the minority party rants about. "Originalist" Scalia erased half of the 2nd amendment to make it say what he wanted, then spent about 75 pages explaining how the government could still limit that "right". BTW, I totally agree with the gist of the Heller decision, but the activism in that case was hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom