Clinton Urged to Call For Recount After Suspected Vote Tampering And/Or Hacking

[Nadiru]

Yes, but you see, the "collusion" you're imputing that Clinton participated in? That's garbage propaganda. It's just not true.

News journalists of all media stripes work with public figures to get interviews and statements all the time, and there's often a requirement of editorial approval or the like in exchange, to be sure the journalist doesn't misrepresent the public figure's positions. This is not "collusion", it's journalism, done ethically.

The DNC, on the other hand, is a private organization and perfectly free to prefer a long-time Democrat over an Independent who joined the Party for a better shot at the Presidency. And what few issues were identified within the DNC (mostly Shulz's unprofessionalism and Brazile leaking questions) had nothing to do with Clinton herself, so it's pretty ridiculous to blame her for all that.

Why is this Podesta e-mail talking about moving DNC primary dates to help one candidate over another? Yes, the DNC is a private organization, but them choosing Clinton over Sanders is different from them reorganizing their system on any level to institutionally make it difficult for another candidate to win. The fact that it even appears as such is grounds to argue that the then-chair of the DNC violated Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC charter, which presumably is why Wasserman-Schultz stepped down.

[Tijuana]

First, no. It isn't about the media. It's about you and people like you.

I have judged you on your kind's behavior and found you immoral, un-American and unacceptable. So many opportunities to get off the crazy train, and you never did, the deeper into the muck, into darkness it went. I truly believe you and what you stand for is the shame of this country and in time you will come to know that shame as Donald Trump betrays you little by little. My conscience is clear. I made a moral stand. My side did not prevail, but if I could do it over again, I would. Everything I said, everything I believe about him... I would change nothing. Not one minute. Every fiber of my being believes that I was and remain in the right, regardless of victory. You who supported Trump more than anything else, betrayed yourselves. And it is you who will have to live with the consequences. I believe I did the right thing and nothing will ever change that.

Secondly, this isn't about making Hillary Clinton president. you should read up. I've only said that like 8 times in the last 10 posts? I don't particularly care (and of course, think it incredibly unlikely) if the verdict is reversed. Trump will be named President by the electoral college because that is how our process functions.

My judgement on Donald Trump, as i have stated from the beginning is about the fitness of his character to be President according to my moral standards and my desires. These are unique to every individual. And he was and remains the most unacceptable of choices. This isn't about "changing" anything to Make Hillary President. It is just that on the basis of the fitness of his character, he does not deserve to be President of the United States. He is not just unqualified; he is unworthy.

I was only an Air Force cadet for a relatively short time, but their motto still rings true to me all these years later: We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.. I've always tried to live by that. It's one of the few things I took away from that experience worth mentioning. It turns out, Donald Trump has done all of that in a magnitude that dwarfs many other public figures, including his serial liar opponent, and he is now Commander-in-Chief-elect. Such is the shame of America. That is the least of the ways in which you people have betrayed yourselves.

Wow, direct to the ad hominem attack on the first post? Really?

Who am I and "my kind" by your definition? People who voted for Steve Rogers?

I'm just amazed that you think the world will end because we elected a douche bag. Obama is super smart, funny, and quite charming. But he was a fucking terrible president, and eventually even you will admit that. Some very effective people are not nice, and some of the least effective people are just a complete pleasure to be around.

If you fell for all those media lies, I can see why it's upsetting that literal zombie Hitler was just elected. But, if you look in to some of the accusations, that were remarkably absent for 30 years of celebrity living, and find some way to be personally objective, I think you will be less fearful.

Also, this moral high horse is ASTOUNDING coming from a Hillary supporter. All evidence that the public has been given, points to her selling US interests for money, an act of blatant treason. Feined moral superiority over pussy-gate while ignoring a pay to play scheme gives you ZERO credibility to ride your moral high horse around on. I mean, the very idea that someone could determine THIS ELECTION to be a clear moral choice is so intellectually devoid of thought, you might need a brain reboot.

Also, sorry you got kicked out of the Air Force. To a military buff like you, that must have hurt.

[drakensoul]

You'd think this was the first time you've been through an election. This happens every time, to every candidate regardless. Shit, half the stuff Clinton and her posse of ultra-sensitive SJW supporters was either made up or blown completely out of the proportions of the context of what he said.

Example: The whole "he promoted rape culture and abuse of women" with the "grab her by the pussy" statement. Which is an intentional and blatant lie in order to appeal to women voters since his exact phrase was: "When you are a star, they let you do it, you can do anything, grab them by the pussy"

The key word in that whole phrase is LET.

No. The word "let" doesn't change anything. After someone of power grabs you by the pussy you can either "let" them (i.e.: it happened, I'm not filing charges) or not "let" them (i.e.: it happened, I'm filing charges) but either way it happened and there was nothing you could do to stop it, hence assault.

Like stealing someone's lunch money and they don't do anything so you say it isn't bullying because they "let" you. No, it's still bullying, you're just using power intimidation and banking on the fact that they won't say anything. It's still wrong.

If you rape someone and they, in shame, do nothing and go into hiding, then you rape them again because they aren't doing anything, that doesn't make it okay simply because they are "letting you."

The recent footballer child rape scandal, one of them got raped 100 times by his assertions. So was it not really rape because he "let it happen" 100 times? No. It's still rape and assault.

So bad example.

[Muadiib]

The Democrats committed major voter fraud this election, with millions of illegals and dead people having voted for Clinton, I dare them to open that can of worms.

[Draco-Onis]

The Democrats committed major voter fraud this election, with millions of illegals and dead people having voted for Clinton, I dare them to open that can of worms.

And the republicans summoned the aliens so they could take human bodies and vote for Trump, you are onto something /s.

[Kiri]

If only. But then we'd be caught in an endless loop of "Well, 50% of the country didn't vote, so let's get two new candidates up here and try again..." until the end of time.

After all, it's not uncommon for the majority of the country to not vote.

Yeah, maybe. There is that base which is either 'not interested' or 'has better things to do/obligations'. On that note, I never understood why you guys put election day on a weekday. Okay, I understand why it was put there back then, but not why it is kept there.

[Draco-Onis]

Aside from Trump being a massive asshole to everybody and everyone, where's the corruption? Trump University is a sideshow; multi-million dollar corruption is shitty, sure, but compared to multi-billion dollar corruption? Compared to outright collusion between newspapers, news sites, TV stations and the DNC? It's small potatoes.

Trump charity, not releasing his taxes, the current conflicts of interests that he says if the president does it then it is ok. Donald Trump has breitbart and fox news in his cabinet and left pocket but somehow that corruption does not bother you?

[drakensoul]

Wow, direct to the ad hominem attack on the first post? Really?

Who am I and "my kind" by your definition? People who voted for Steve Rogers?

I'm just amazed that you think the world will end because we elected a douche bag. Obama is super smart, funny, and quite charming. But he was a fucking terrible president, and eventually even you will admit that. Some very effective people are not nice, and some of the least effective people are just a complete pleasure to be around.

If you fell for all those media lies, I can see why it's upsetting that literal zombie Hitler was just elected. But, if you look in to some of the accusations, that were remarkably absent for 30 years of celebrity living, and find some way to be personally objective, I think you will be less fearful.

Also, this moral high horse is ASTOUNDING coming from a Hillary supporter. All evidence that the public has been given, points to her selling US interests for money, an act of blatant treason. Feined moral superiority over pussy-gate while ignoring a pay to play scheme gives you ZERO credibility to ride your moral high horse around on. I mean, the very idea that someone could determine THIS ELECTION to be a clear moral choice is so intellectually devoid of thought, you might need a brain reboot.

Also, sorry you got kicked out of the Air Force. To a military buff like you, that must have hurt.

Someone's full of anger. Even if he did get kicked out, taunting someone with "sorry you got kicked out of the Air Force...that must have hurt" is very low. And ironic after suggesting someone might need a brain reboot. Not a reason to be proud of how you conducted yourself during an attack. Making fun of disabled people low.

He was pretty general making a statement about the basket of deplorables. You took it to a suspend-worthy level.

[Nadiru]

Trump charity, not releasing his taxes, the current conflicts of interests that he says if the president does it then it is ok. Donald Trump has breitbart and fox news in his cabinet and left pocket but somehow that corruption does not bother you?

Not releasing his taxes makes him an asshole, but there's nothing inherently corrupt about it. Even the Times had to back off after they (allegedly illegally) released his records and found nothing but negative carryforward claims, which is not only not an abuse of the system, it is the system.

The conflicts of interest of Trump the businessman and Trump the President are a problem, and it's something I'm worried about. That said, that sort of problem is self-regulating: If there's a conflict of interest, Trump can be sued and impeached. Granted, a consequence of that is a Pence administration, but people are absolutely free to sue Trump the businessman and Trump the President over conflict of interest problems.

Obama's press secretary is also an ex-journalist who worked at WaPo for years; press secretaries are supposed to be journalists, or at least affiliated with them. Steve Bannon is a crappy pick for Senior Counselor, but in my opinion no worse than the current one, John Podesta of Podesta Group

[Tijuana]

Someone's full of anger. Even if he did get kicked out, taunting someone with "sorry you got kicked out of the Air Force...that must have hurt" is very low. And ironic after suggesting someone might need a brain reboot. Not a reason to be proud of how you conducted yourself during an attack. Making fun of disabled people low.

He was pretty general making a statement about the basket of deplorables. You took it to a suspend-worthy level.

Who is disabled again? Skroe? I don't think he is as bright as he thinks he is, but I wouldn't say he is mentally challenged. Is that what you are saying?

[Draco-Onis]

Not releasing his taxes makes him an asshole, but there's nothing inherently corrupt about it. Even the Times had to back off after they (allegedly illegally) released his records and found nothing but negative carryforward claims, which is not only not an abuse of the system, it is the system.

Those were not complete and if he had nothing to hide he would have released them like he pressed Mitt Romney. Donald Trump has not been transparent about his business dealing if there are billion dollar corruption scandals you can't say for sure.

The conflicts of interest of Trump the businessman and Trump the President are a problem, and it's something I'm worried about. That said, that sort of problem is self-regulating: If there's a conflict of interest, Trump can be sued and impeached. Granted, a consequence of that is a Pence administration, but people are absolutely free to sue Trump the businessman and Trump the President over conflict of interest problems.

Obama's press secretary is also an ex-journalist who worked at WaPo for years; press secretaries are supposed to be journalists, or at least affiliated with them. Steve Bannon is a crappy pick for Senior Counselor, but in my opinion no worse than the current one, John Podesta of Podesta Group

There's a world of difference between a journalist and the top brass of breitbart and fox news being in his cabinet / campaign. I was no fan of John Podesta but Trump's cabinet is a who's who of lobbyist and Goldman Sachs graduates. He's not draining the swamp he is simply making it YUGGGGGGE.

[drakensoul]

Who is disabled again? Skroe? I don't think he is as bright as he thinks he is, but I wouldn't say he is mentally challenged. Is that what you are saying?

He's not that bright, you say, but you need my help to interpret a simple simile? You sure?

[Tijuana]

He's not that bright, you say, but you need my help to interpret a simple simile? You sure?

Obvious shot was fired obviously.

[Xandrigity]

I really am disappointed Giuliani wasn't tapped for attorney general. He was gunning to go after Hillary. That would have been entertaining as hell.

[drakensoul]

Damn, I got pulled into a troll-fest for one post. I'll just report instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Not releasing his taxes makes him an asshole, but there's nothing inherently corrupt about it. Even the Times had to back off after they (allegedly illegally) released his records and found nothing but negative carryforward claims, which is not only not an abuse of the system, it is the system.

I'm just curious if you (as a stand in for all people who think this way) find it surprising that Trump then fills his cabinet with lobbyists and plans to raise tax on some of the middle class while reducing tax on middle class otherwise by 1.3%, but while actually reducing taxes on the top 1% by over 12%. Would you find it surprising if he, instead of 'draining the swamp,' actually makes the swamp much bigger?

Like, he abused the system his entire career to his advantage whether legal or not...do you (generic you) actually think he's going to change and move to fix and prevent said abuse now?

You can probably predict how someone is going to make policy by looking at his or her record. He's probably going to keep looking for advantages for himself and his ilk at the expense of others since that's what he's done his entire life. I'm just wondering how people look at this and say "Yes, he's going to improve wealth inequality and fix the system so people stop abusing it for their own monetary advantages and stealing money from me."

[The Emperor]

I'm just posting here to reiterate my joy over how clintoners still /can't/ get over their loss.
You bring a smile to the man's face.

[Nadiru]

I'm just curious if you (as a stand in for all people who think this way) find it surprising that Trump then fills his cabinet with lobbyists and plans to raise tax on some of the middle class while reducing tax on middle class otherwise by 1.3%, but while actually reducing taxes on the top 1% by over 12%. Would you find it surprising if he, instead of 'draining the swamp,' actually makes the swamp much bigger?

Like, he abused the system his entire career to his advantage whether legal or not...do you (generic you) actually think he's going to change and move to fix and prevent said abuse now?

You can probably predict how someone is going to make policy by looking at his or her record. He's probably going to keep looking for advantages for himself and his ilk at the expense of others since that's what he's done his entire life. I'm just wondering how people look at this and say "Yes, he's going to improve wealth inequality and fix the system so people stop abusing it for their own monetary advantages and stealing money from me."

I don't find it surprising at all. But I'm a bad person to ask this because my opinion is that the middle and lower classes need to be taxed, because it forces their political engagement.

[Endus]

Why is this Podesta e-mail talking about moving DNC primary dates to help one candidate over another? Yes, the DNC is a private organization, but them choosing Clinton over Sanders is different from them reorganizing their system on any level to institutionally make it difficult for another candidate to win. The fact that it even appears as such is grounds to argue that the then-chair of the DNC violated Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC charter, which presumably is why Wasserman-Schultz stepped down.

And, again, this is garbage that has nothing to do with Clinton herself. And yes, the DNC is entirely entitled to do this.

That she apparently violated that section of the Charter means that Schulz should have been asked to step down (and she did), but that's all that this merits. This is a non-issue, because you've achieved the end result that such a breach should have resulted in. And it doesn't have a damned thing to do with Clinton, because Democrats aren't a literal hive mind.

[Theinquisition]

I've heard this a lot from people IRL, and I certainly can't object to it whatosever, so we're good. Clinton was certainly throughly objectionalbe in her own right.

Hell, as I said ages ago, the thought of Bill Clinton back in the White House was revolting in itself. And the thought of an ex-first lady as President, was disturbingly dynastic. In a normal election year, I would have been one of the most obnoxious and unyielding people against her.

But this was not a normal election year, and Hillary Clinton is firmly within the center-right/center-left spectrum that has successfully lead America for generations. And she was the lone one in that spectrum, against the race baiting, illiberal extermism of Donald Trump. To me, this wasn't an election of right versus left, liberal versus conservative. Donald Trump was, nor will ever be, a conservative and his supporters, even those who call themselves "alt-right" are about as conservative as Jill Stein is. To me, this was an election between one candidate that was American (despite being incredibly flawed) and one that was un-American.

The manner in which Hillary Clinton, felled by "jobs jobs jobs" in a sense, lost, is deeply poetic. But at the same time, I truly feel America has made a dreadful mistake that we'll be recovering from for many years.

I feel the same way about Trump that noted conservative Ben Shapiro feels about him.

He is a perversion to my conservative beliefs, he has cut its face off ala Hannibal lector and is wearing it around like a psychopath. He isn't conservative, nor has he been for the majority of his life. His views on trade, social issues (outside of the religious right) even the military is so far out of whack, I can't call him a conservative.

Will he be better than Clinton? that remains to be seen.

I believe the monster that is trump was created from two separate issues.

1. People who are tired of the status quo, and the constant gridlock. I think a majority of Americans feel that the political elite don't work for the people, but rather themselves.

2. Backlash against the far left that labels anyone that disagrees with them as evil, and anyone that is white as a oppressor.

[Nadiru]

And, again, this is garbage that has nothing to do with Clinton herself. And yes, the DNC is entirely entitled to do this.

That she apparently violated that section of the Charter means that Schulz should have been asked to step down (and she did), but that's all that this merits. This is a non-issue, because you've achieved the end result that such a breach should have resulted in. And it doesn't have a damned thing to do with Clinton, because Democrats aren't a literal hive mind.

The Democrats (and the Republicans (and the Greens, etc)) are a hierarchy, though. The DNC chair, the highest authority the party has, saw fit to attempt to personally elevate one candidate over another, and there's no way that decision occurred in a bubble. What you are correct in saying is that there's no proof, so I will not accuse Clinton of anything on this front.