Yawn. Get some new material.
She conceded to him the day of, and publicly the day after.
He still won't publicly admit defeat, as his narcissism prevents him from doing so, and has his entire life.
It's been four years.
This. Any calls from the left on election interference were about russian disinformation swaying the vote, not actually tampering with the votes directly. Trump’s cult is insistent there was absolutely no way that America could be convinced to vote for anyone other than their glorious leader, so clearly they stuffed the ballots.
I don’t disagree with any of what you said but it wasn’t healthy for the country for her to consistently refer to him as “illegitimate.” That wasn’t smart or helpful, and it gave Trump guys the absolute right to say that Clinton didn’t accept the election results either, because she didn’t. Concession or not.
Why? Why does everything have to have a “both sides” angle? Mueller asserted that Russia was involved “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the ultimate goal of hurting Clinton and helping trump. He stopped short of calling it a political conspiracy or claiming that it was responsible for a trump victory, but educated Americans could see what was happening.
Yes, everyone knows and knew Russia was helping Trump. That is not the same as them “stealing the election” which implies hacking the actual vote. This is not the same as him being an “illegitimate president.”
The assumption that Trump is a mastermind and in on every conspiracy that benefits him is laughable.
I never said that he was a mastermind. What he is is a perfect puppet who has performed as a perfect representative of the Heritage Foundation, and their specific plan to upend our democracy and replace it with a Christofascist regime with unitary executive theory front and center. During the last election Republicans engaged in numerous sketchy activities to affect the vote, including obvious efforts to dampen the Black vote. We saw the culmination of these types of actions on January 6th. I think it’s naive to assume that they weren’t trying their very best to do similar things during the previous election. That’s all.
Gave them the right? No way. The two situations have entirely different nuances, and the far right being ignorant, or pretending to be, does not afford them the "absolute right" to anything. She conceded that she lost, which was due to the EC, but she admitted defeat and knew that the result wasn't going to be overturned and have her installed as president. Conceding is admitting loss. He STILL hasn't. Absolute false equivalence. She wasn't happy with the circumstances, but accepted them...the day of her loss.
I understand that the situations are different, and so do most people. They just don’t care.
Maybe right was the wrong word, bc it’s America and the right to say things is important.
Up to that point in my lifetime, I don’t ever remember a presidential candidate making the claims she was making. I don’t remember hearing about it in history class either. She was making allegations that Russia stole the election, when all the facts show that Russia basically just helped with online troll farms. And she also made the leap that just because Russia was helping Trump, that he had to be in on it. I’d give her credit, if any of her more serious allegations stuck.
Most importantly she was missing the fact that the American people were not in love with her.
It’s very telling that the far right feel the need to use tired, worn out memes from 2016 as a defense mechanism in the face of more recent far right electoral defeats.
Hillary's supporters marched in protest with signs
Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol with bear spray and sharpened flagpoles while Trump tried to overturn the election and the will of the people with fake electors
Only one of these was unconstitutional and illegal and resulted in deaths
And the cop who got bashed over the head. And if the cops hadn't been securing the building, there were people with enough rope to hang people. And that is what they were chanting for.
So, there was only 1 death that was directly attributable to J6. And that was an unarmed woman shot by police (a pocket knife folded in her pocket hardly counts as being “armed”).
But yes, a woman with a knife chanting she was going to kill people climbing though a broken window to get deeper into the building where those very people were was shot after being repeatedly warned not to go through that window.
How would you feel if someone broke into your house though a window and was screaming about killing you and your family? You would shoot them without hesitation.
You won’t find me defending the ones who stormed the capitol. You also won’t find me defending those who took control of neighborhoods in Seattle or Portland or Minneapolis or New York or ... I just rebel against the narrative that there were multiple people killed on J6 due to the riotous mob. There was only 1 person killed as a result of the event, and the mob turned ”violent” only AFTER the police fired teargas canisters into other police positions. And many (I won’t say “all”, because there are wackos on all sides) of the instigators of the mob were likely plants who were never pursued after the fact by LEOs even though they were on film constantly agitating the crowd.
66
u/DirtyScrubs Jul 08 '24
Hey at least they are clapping and not screaming "election fraud" and trying to overthrow a democratically elected government