We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

right. and which of these factors are most easily controlled/changed for next time?

Comey owns Trump’s win IMO. That was the game changer that appears to have caused Trump voters to think he could actually win and caused people on the fence to think she was actually as dirty as Trump argued. No Comey, no Trump.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Do you even know how full of shit you are?

Conservatives don’t want brown people to get benefits. That’s it.

Really? Is that SEC’s position?

She didn’t vote for him, but a lot principled conservatives made the decision that Trump was the lesser of two evils. Are these people all exclusively acting on racist intent? Because that’s what you just said.

I assume your post was flippant, because even one with your frivolous views on these sorts of issues doesn’t believe there are no principled conservatives out there. Particularly when one posts here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

John Stuart Mill on Trump voters:

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Less and I had a summit meeting at the san Fran moth and discussed the election- Less is of the opinion that Johnson votes cost Trump more than Hillary-

Smartest man on the board.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

John Stuart Mill on Trump voters:

Arguing with the Trump movement folks is arguing with an SO.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

smartest man on the board.

qed

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Or maybe, um, she just lost. I understand the pathological need to believe the win was illegitimate. But here’s the thing: It’s a W. He won. Nothing is sillier than litigating an issue on which you can never be awarded the relief you seek.

He won. There were lots of reasons why. We should be able to talk about them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

He won. There were lots of reasons why. We should be able to talk about them.

I agree. But crying “he cheated” or asserting the win is illegitimate because Putin interfered is both factually inaccurate and mindless.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I assume your post was flippant, because even one with your frivolous views on these sorts of issues doesn’t believe there are no principled conservatives out there.

They exist, they just don't matter in elections.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree. But crying “he cheated” or asserting the win is illegitimate because Putin interfered is both factually inaccurate and mindless.

I mean, people have been indicted for it, and more are likely going to be, so doesn't sounds so mindless to me.

At this point, we also know it's entirely accurate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I mean, people have been indicted for it, and more are likely going to be, so doesn't sounds so mindless to me.

At this point, we also know it's entirely accurate.

If the win were illegitimate, he would not be President. It’s a W. Even if he collided with Putin, no votes were fixed.

Tricking a rube into voting for you has a name: Politics.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If the win were illegitimate, he would not be President.

This does not mean anything.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really? Is that SEC’s position?

She didn’t vote for him, but a lot principled conservatives made the decision that Trump was the lesser of two evils. Are these people all exclusively acting on racist intent? Because that’s what you just said.

I assume your post was flippant, because even one with your frivolous views on these sorts of issues doesn’t believe there are no principled conservatives out there. Particularly when one posts here.

I'm not sure who I disagree with more, Adder saying that conservatism is defined by prejudice or you arguing that it's anything but.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure who I disagree with more, Adder saying that conservatism is defined by prejudice ...

I was too flip. These people:

I know what you'll say now... "But Hillary was basically an old line Republican." Maybe. I tend to think she was close to that. But a lot of conservatives I know didn't see it that way. They didn't trust her. They remembered her as Bill's progressive wife... the one who'd bring us single payer health care, federally mandated maternity leave, etc.

Are also motivated by misogyny too. (Yes, that's a different kind of prejudice).

So we're clear, there are lots of principled conservatives who work in Washington and other "elite" places (by which I mean in jobs requiring an education) who just don't care about the racially disparate outcomes of their policy choices. They just don't represent conservative voters, who do care.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This does not mean anything.

In the last seven decades, two presidencies have been arguably invalid: JFK and Bush 43’s first term. In those cases, credible claims of tampering existed. In both, the claims have been refuted with evidence. But still, these two are the only arguable claims.

There is no claim even asserted that Trump or the Russians changed votes. If you know anything about election machines, you know they’re not online. They can only be hacked by direct tinkering with the machines.

Trump’s alleged “fraud” is colluding with Russian disinformation operatives to skew public perception via social media. That’s politics. It may also be a violation of a law, but even that does not undo the win. The only thing that renders a win illegitimate is proof of tampering — throwing out ballots, having the dead vote, or changing votes from one candidate to another. That didn’t happen, as Trump’s own idiotic panel on mythical “voter fraud” demonstrated.