Trump has won

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

He will become the president in January AFAIK, not February. And he might not even become the president now, given that Jill Stein wants recounts to be conducted in the swing states that Trump won and she would even go as far as to sue to see this happen. And the Clinton campaign wants to get involved too to ensure it is "fair to all sides" and there is TOTALLY no conflict of interest here...... And this is definitely not threatening the US democracy, that would only happens if Trump did it and he would be a sore loser and a conspiracy theorist for saying the election could be rigged, but not Hillary. Wow, you can tell that you are right when everybody uses double standards against you.

Why is a recount threatening?

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

I thought he and the Republican establishment were not the best of buddies, given that they practically disowned him during the election and disagree with him on many issues. He won't consciously be doing them any favors, but he might end up selecting some cronies too

He's president of the USA.  I will be impressed if he makes it four years.  I don't think Trump is a hard worker.  I don't think he can focus. 

 

I see him trying to delegate away a lot of his duties.  We will see.  I don't think he wants a full team of white supremacist garbage.  Just a few to make arguments.  He needs the real "swamp" knowledge in the room.

[stconquest]

17 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

A recount is a legal option available to a candidate when they are not satisfied with the election result. But when Donald Trump said he would keep accept the result if it was clear cut, but if he had any doubts, he would keep all legal options open, The MSM decried him for this, saying this was a threat to democracy, but when Hillary is involved, they are mum.

To be fair, Trump was riling up his supporters to act out if he lost.  That was the issue the MSM tried to point out.

 

Look, have you heard that 3 million illegal votes were introduced into this election?  There is a big hubub about it.  Trump actually tweeted it out yesterday, I think.

 

It seems to be possibly total bullshit.  I guy named Gregg Phillips apparently broke the story on twitter on behalf of his voter-fraud company.  He did not reveal any methods he used to come to that number:  3 million.  So it is just his word.  He is saying:

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/28/trumps-unsupported-claim-voter-fraud-has-texas-roo/

Quote

 

"

We are still collecting data and will be for several months, but our intent is to publish a comprehensive study on the significant impact of illegal voting in all of its many forms and begin a national discussion on how voters, states, and the Trump Administration can best address this growing problem,"

 

Watch nothing come of it over the next few months.  3 million illegal voters would be a huge deal... if it were true... which it probably is not.

 

Now we have a president elect possibly looking very stupid.  Does it matter?  Naw, it is Trump.  He can say anything he wants, right?

 

Clinton is smarter than Trump, and more calculating... so is Jill Stein.  I doubt anything will come of the recount, but it should not do any harm.

 

 

[NTDaws]

24 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Why was this shitty thread revived? I think 27 pages is enough...

people seem to like it I guess

[SansVarnic]

31 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

He will become the president in January AFAIK, not February. And he might not even become the president now, given that Jill Stein wants recounts to be conducted in the swing states that Trump won and she would even go as far as to sue to see this happen. And the Clinton campaign wants to get involved too to ensure it is "fair to all sides" and there is TOTALLY no conflict of interest here...... And this is definitely not threatening the US democracy, that would only happens if Trump did it and he would be a sore loser and a conspiracy theorist for saying the election could be rigged, but not Hillary. Wow, you can tell that you are right when everybody uses double standards against you.

OK, Jan 21 I was thinking it was a week later...

The recounts have already reaffirmed him in Wisconsin. He will be POTUS no doubt. Beside Hillary already conceded so she is out.

[Blade of Grass]

10 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

treasonous bastards

By utilizing their constitutionally given rights? 

[stconquest]

5 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

So either the statement he made is true and Trump is vindicated or he was lying and Trump looks like an idiot for supporting a liar. And Trump asked his supporters not to accept the result if he lost and the result was close, but Hillary supporters are acting like hypocritical treasonous bastards without any prompting whatsoever and rioting like crazy. The MSM keeps stereotyping Trump supporters as violent which is completely false, while many Hillary supporters are the true violent people but aren't being called out for it. And the main issue was that he would contest the election result instead of accepting it. Hillary first conceded the result, but is starting to contest the election result now, meaning she hasn't really accepted the result.

The point is he actively promotes what could very well be garbage.  He is the fucking soon to be leader of the USA.  We get reamed here when we can not provide good sources for our statements... think about that.

 

Stop man.  It is not either or.  A percentage of Trump supporters were violent throughout the campaign, and still are.  Trump did incite violence at rallies.  Did you watch Trump supporters attack people?  Did you look away or something?  Do you not see any occurring hate crimes where the assailant screams Trump won?  It happens man.  Want video or something?

 

...and yes, the rioters after the election were terrible too.  You did not hear Clinton tell anyone to go take back the country, they acted on their own.

 

Clinton is supporting the recount in solidarity with the system, not any other way.  Jill Stein is funding and promoting the recount.  Stop mixing it up.

[stconquest]

Just now, Kumaresh said:

There are a very small percentage of violent Trump protestors, however the MSM claims most of them are violent, which is quite unfortunate. And the interference in Trump rallies and incitement by disruptive leftist protestors is one of the main reasons for most of the violence attributed to Trump supporters.if Have you seen the way they act in the videos before violence breaks out ? And some of the violence which occurs is because of true racists and xenophobes. The MSM told everybody he is a white nationalist and wants to purge all the ethnic minorities, so some dumb racists just blindly believe the media and end up supporting him. And he has publicly denounced all those people.

Enough... what is this crap?  According to you Clinton is the devil, and Trump a saint.  Trump is an idiot, and his supporters are mostly in the dark.  You know why? ...because he himself is in the dark.

 

Just wait to see what stupidity ensues from having this leader.  That is all we can do.

[Blade of Grass]

15 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

They refuse to accept the result of a democratic election and claim Trump is not their president. If that isn't treason, I don't know what is.

It definitely is not treason. The 1st amendment protects their speech, which allows them to say that Trump is not their president, much in the same way that it allows them to burn flags. There is absolutely no sound legal argument otherwise. 

Quote

And I didn't know that rioting, disrupting the general public, blocking highways and damaging public and private property and assaulting people they don't like  were constitutionally given rights.

That's a red herring, a lot Clinton supports are not doing that. A lot are peacefully protesting the results of the election, which is definitely constitutionally guaranteed. We don't even know the numbers, and to make sweeping generalization of what they're doing is a disservice to democracy. 

 

Also, I would be weary of the claims of the political beliefs of anyone rioting. To accept it as prima facie ignores that people lie, and especially so to push an agenda.  

[stconquest]

9 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Attempting to overthrow the government a democratically elected government by threatening electors with dire consequences and threatening to get rid of the electoral college on this basis that Trump didn't get the popular vote and hence he shouldn't be the president does count as treason by definition. I do agree that many Clinton supporters aren't involved in any riots, but I have seen dozens of videos of rioting in the name of peaceful protests and the fact that none of the "peaceful protestors" standing beside them do anything to stop them from damaging property shows they are complicit in their actions and are potential rioters themselves. And the fact that many Clinton supporters who aren't on the streets refuse to denounce the riots shows they are complicit as well. Abetting a crime knowingly and being in agreement with the criminal is as bad as committing it yourself IMO. I am distrustful of the mainstream media and the "alternative media" as well, so I read reports from both of them and come to a reasonable conclusion based on what I've seen and the evidence provided.

You do know Trump called the electoral college a disaster after the 2012 election, and called for a march on Washington to change it right?

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/trump-warms-electoral-college-4-years-calling-disaster-democracy/

 

 

He thought Romney had the pop. vote or something... the idiocy runs deep.

[stconquest]

18 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Trump has said that the electoral college is garbage and that he is going to reform it when he comes to power, but I wonder what exactly he is going to change ? He had no choice but to come to power through this system, otherwise he would be no better than the protestors on the street. The only proper way to change the electoral college is through government sanctioned methods. Wait, didn't we pledge to stop arguing ?!?!?!

Firstly, no one is trying to retroactively change the EC in order to make Clinton win.  If states decide to vote Clinton on Dec. 19th to coincide with that state's pop vote, they can legally do so.  It won't happen, but is not against the law as I know it.

 

I was informing you that Trump himself called for a march on Washington in order to change the electoral college.  You seem to be functioning with very little knowledge and are throwing terms like "treason" in relation to a lawful recount.

 

You need more information and I thought you should have some.

 

Trump is a child.  He kicks and screams when it suits him.  He advocates for many illegal things because he is not aware there are any consequences for these actions he describes.

 

You act like a false propaganda machine man.  Stop it.  How about you cite sources for you claims.  I would like to see some of them.  I don't know where you get the stuff you say.

 

I am curious, what is your argument? 

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, SansVarnic said:

OK, Jan 21 I was thinking it was a week later...

The recounts have already reaffirmed him in Wisconsin. He will be POTUS no doubt. Beside Hillary already conceded so she is out.

Is Wisconsin done already?

[SansVarnic]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Is Wisconsin done already?

Yeah I believe they finished sometime earlier today. I will have to double check.

 

*edit

The speedy count affirmed that Trump won but a judge is refusing to force a hand recount as what is being requested in a lawsuit from the green party (Jill Stein). 

[stconquest]

Just now, SansVarnic said:

Yeah I believe they finished sometime earlier today. I will have to double check.

np, I will see it eventually. 

[stconquest]

8 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth and take things I say out of context I have a question for you first. What is YOUR argument ? That Trump is an idiotic child throwing tantrums so you are just going to keep calling him names..... And how exactly am I a Trump propaganda machine ? I disagree quite strongly with some decisions he has made and some policies he has, but I am supportive of him as a whole. My argument is that the media is biased and people shouldn't take everything the media says as gospel. It seems we both are never going to agree on anything... You think my sources and observations are bulshit and I think your sources and observations are bullshit. Let's just leave it at that.... 

Sorry if I upset you.  I am inconsiderate that way sometimes.  I don't want Trump to do a bad job as president.  I also don't ignore facts about this man.  I would be as objective as my ignorance allows about Clinton if she won.  I would be arguing against her ties to industry as being unacceptable all day long.  My arguments:

 

1.  A recount is lawful.

 

2.  People have a right to protest, not to riot.

 

3.  Clinton is not the devil.

 

4.  Trump is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.

 

5.  Trump has some shitty people around him.

 

6.  Trump is a shitty person.

 

7.  These four years will surely be an adventure.

[Shahnewaz]

On 2016-11-08 at 10:09 PM, Dawson Wehage said:

shit guys trump won

 

those votes are wrong

What do you mean now what?

People voted who they wanted to be president.

Trump won fair and square. Deal with it.

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I agree with everything but point 6, I think he is just a populist acting up to get everybody's attention and is not as bad as he is posturing himself to be. And I am not denouncing Clinton entirely, just the way that the mainstream media covers both of them appears to be partisan, and that is quite deplorable. One of the biggest gripes I have is that nobody understands the dictionary definition of words like racist or sexist anymore and throw around those labels so freely that they have lost all credence. Either that or they extrapolate that a person could be discriminatiory based on their words even though the actual statements themselves aren't discriminatory.

No, he is a shitty person.... and rightfully can be considered a bigot.

 

Let's take the Central Park Five for instance.  For I don't know what reason, Trump decided that five young men (actually children) that were accused of raping a woman in Central Park were guilty.  This was before any trial.

 

He took out full page ads in the papers to vilify these five youths.  Why was it his business?  No one knows.  After a long time in prison, DNA evidence and an admission of the person that actually committed the crime, proved the five men innocent and they were released.

 

After release he mocked the city for providing restitution to the children (now men) that were falsely imprisoned.  They did not deserve the money according to him.

 

He is a piece of garbage, and the more you know about him the easier it is too see.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/donald-trump-and-the-central-park-five

 

[NTDaws]

8 hours ago, Shahnewaz said:

What do you mean now what?

People voted who they wanted to be president.

Trump won fair and square. Deal with it.

this post is ancient and im not answering it 

[Praesi]

@stconquest How you still hold this surreal line, guided by nonsense, propaganda and brainwashed media bs is almost impressive. I mean, you lack any kind of serious knowledge and defent an insane and dangerous woman,  but you keep your uneducated line, i give you that. Still feel a bit sorry for you.

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, Praesi said:

@stconquest How you still hold this surreal line, guided by nonsense, propaganda and brainwashed media bs is almost impressive. I mean, you lack any kind of serious knowledge and defent an insane and dangerous woman,  but you keep your uneducated line, i give you that. Still feel a bit sorry for you.

If defending you mean that Clinton is literally the devil, then what can I say?  I don't mind that you believe in fairy tales... I like to think people should have the freedom to do so.

 

What is "serious knowledge"?

 

Make an argument and back it up or just refrain from insulting me.  Anything less is against the rules here... don't worry, I don't report people often;  certainly not for insulting me.

 

Hey fun fact:  Did you know that propaganda is not inherently a bad thing? 

[NTDaws]

12 minutes ago, stconquest said:

If defending you mean that Clinton IS literally the devil, then what can I say?  I don't mind that you believe in fairy tales... I like to think people should have the freedom to do so.

 

What is "serious knowledge"?

 

How are you giving me something you don't have? 

 

Make an argument and back it up or just refrain from insulting me.  Anything less is against the rules here... don't worry, I don't report people often;  certainly not for insulting me.

Here in my garage just bought this new lamborghini with my loaf of panini, chillin out here in my bikini.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Dawson Wehage said:

Here in my garage just bought this new lamborghini with my loaf of panini, chillin out here in my bikini.

I wish I could wear a bikini. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dawson Wehage said:

Here in my garage just bought this new lamborghini with my loaf of panini, chillin out here in my bikini.

Dawson is not a girl's name unless ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

16 hours ago, Albatross said:

Why do you guys think there is going to be a war with Mexico?

Well, there was even people believing in a war with Russia... At least Mexico doesn't have nuclear weapons, you have to give them that 

[Blade of Grass]

12 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

Attempting to overthrow the government a democratically elected government by threatening electors with dire consequences and threatening to get rid of the electoral college on this basis that Trump didn't get the popular vote and hence he shouldn't be the president does count as treason by definition.

I would suggest you look up the relevant case law on this manner, the issue is far more nuanced than you make it out to be, and upon looking at the stare decisis you will see the law would not be applicable. Good starting place: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/treason

Quote

I do agree that many Clinton supporters aren't involved in any riots, but I have seen dozens of videos of rioting in the name of peaceful protests and the fact that none of the "peaceful protestors" standing beside them do anything to stop them from damaging property shows they are complicit in their actions and are potential rioters themselves.

I don't follow this logic. Guilt be association, specifically, guilt by presence as you present it, is not a sound argument. Do you believe the peaceful protestors should put themselves in potentially harms way to save property? I believe that is not the job nor duty of the peaceful protestors to 'fight back' against any potential rioters. 

Quote

And the fact that many Clinton supporters who aren't on the streets refuse to denounce the riots shows they are complicit as well.

Do we even have credible sources showing the scope and scale of these riots? As far as I can see from some quick research, the 'riots' seems to be small isolated issues spread across the country. If anything, it seems like people are trying to use these 'riots' to discredit the real, constitutionally guaranteed, protests which are going on. Now, I'm not saying that these isolated incidents are good and/or justified, but instead I'm trying to illustrate that the misinformation surrounding them I very much worth looking into. Personally, I am completely for peaceful protesting for one's beliefs and completely against rioting. 

Quote

Abetting a crime knowingly and being in agreement with the criminal is as bad as committing it yourself IMO. I am distrustful of the mainstream media and the "alternative media" as well, so I read reports from both of them and come to a reasonable conclusion based on what I've seen and the evidence provided.

Unless I've missed something, I see no where that the peaceful protestors are abetting the crime. And refer above.