Alternative facts

It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday […] it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.

My life as a researcher just got a lot easier. If I can't get the results I was hoping for, I'll just come up with some "alternative" data that makes my life simpler. If some vindictive buzz kill reviewers and editors don't like it, well, f*#k 'em!

Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists.

Mr Braun it would seem is content to spew bull, or at least invective to those who hold him to the same standard he purports to expect others to deliver on.

There is real value in understanding someone else's boundaries (in this context).

Werner's faulty grasp of logic indicates he can be successfully bullshitted.

won the popular vote had there been no illegals voting, it's certainly possible.

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
By Justin Levitt August 6, 2014

Note: This is a guest post by Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and an expert in constitutional law and the law of democracy, with a particular focus on election administration and redistricting.

Voter ID laws are back in the news once again, with two new opinions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court late last week dealing with the state's ID requirement, which would allow people to vote only if they provide certain forms of government-issued ID. The Court made some minor changes to the law but otherwise upheld it. However, the ID requirement is still on hold pending a federal lawsuit.

Part of this litigation — and any rational debate about the issue generally — hinges on two things: costs and benefits. The costs of these sorts of laws vary, because the laws themselves differ from state to state (some are far more burdensome than others). The ostensible benefits, though, are all the same. And in addressing these purported benefits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court blew it. Twice.

First, the court cited the idea that ID laws could enhance public confidence--that is, in theory, the laws might make us feel better about elections in that they might provide some security theater. It turns out, though, that this effect is hard to spot. People in states with more restrictive ID laws don’t generally feel better about their elections than people in more permissive states. People who think elections are being stolen, and people who think they’re not, each hold on to that opinion no matter what the governing ID rules in their area. The factor that really influences whether people think the elections are fair? Whether their preferred candidates win.

Second, the court said that ID laws can help stop fraud. It then cited an example of recent fraud … that ID laws aren’t designed to stop. Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including "registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn't live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials," according to an account by Talking Points Memo. Wisconsin's ID law would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.

This sort of misdirection is pretty common, actually. Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.
Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens.
I’ve been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I’ve been following reports wherever they crop up.

To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballotswere cast in that period.

Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.
In just four states that have held just a few elections under the harshest ID laws, more than 3,000 votes (in general elections alone) have reportedly been affirmatively rejected for lack of ID. (That doesn’t include voters without ID who didn’t show up, or recordkeeping mistakes by officials.) Some of those 3,000 may have been fraudulent ballots. But how many legitimate voters have already been turned away?

Credible allegations of potential fraud since 2000 that might have been prevented by a rule requiring ID at the polls
Note: tracking the allegations — even those that may end up disproven — can help calibrate an upper bound for the actual existing fraud that ID laws would stop. I am a researcher, and so I am interested in a thorough list: if you have credible information about a specific individual whose vote was stolen by an impersonator at the polls, please tell me. Specific and credible means just that. Not — please — examples like this. And if you have information about an incident below that indicates that it was error rather than fraud, please tell me that as well.

1. May 2014: Ben Hodzic allegedly voted at the polls in the name of his brother in the Catskill School District Board of Education election in Catskill, NY.[1]
2. Nov. 2013: Mark Atlas allegedly voted at the polls in the name of someone else in the municipal election in Worcester, MA.[2]
3. Sep. 2013: At least four, and possibly 20-24, Hasidic voters in the South Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY, allegedly attempted to vote at the polls under others’ names in the municipal primary elections for New York City.[3]
4. Mar. 2013: Kristina Bentrim went to vote at the polls in the Cedar Rapids, IA, special election on a gambling referendum, and was allegedly told that someone had voted in her name.[4] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
5. Nov. 2012: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Angela Cooney in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is an Angela Cooney listed as dying 4 years earlier.[5] It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
6. Nov. 2012: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Evan Dixon in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is an Evan Dixon listed as dying 11 years earlier.[6] It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
7. Nov. 2012: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Alejandro Guerrero in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is an Alejandro Guerrero listed as dying 5 years earlier.[7] It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
8. 2012: According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, one allegation of impersonation fraud in 2012 was sufficiently credible to refer to the local district attorney.[8] It is not clear whether the alleged fraud was in-person, or if follow-up established whether fraud did or did not likely occur.
9. June 2011: Hazel Brionne Woodard apparently arranged for her son Mark James Jr. to vote at the polls in the name of his father, Mark James Sr., in the municipal runoff elections in Tarrant County, TX.[9]
10. Nov. 2010: Four ballots may have been cast in the general election in South Carolina in the name of voters who had previously died (Ed Louis Johnson, Elbert R. Thompson, Ruth Middleton, and James L. Warnock); election and law enforcement officials had insufficient information to come to a final conclusion, including two pollbook pages that were unavailable. (Law enforcement agents believe that the ballot of Elbert R. Thompson may have been confused with that of his son, Elbert Thompson.) Another 203 allegations of deceased voters in the same election were revealed to be either clerical error or coincidence.[10]
11. May 2009: Lorenzo Antonio Almanza, Jr., after voting himself, apparently cast a ballot at the polls in the name of his incarcerated brother, Orlando Almanza, in the 2009 election for the Progreso Independent School District Board, TX. (His mother, Reyna Almanza, vouched for him, and was separately convicted.)[11]
12. Nov. 2008: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Forrest Downie in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is a Forrest Downie listed as dying 3 years earlier.[12] It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
13. Nov. 2008: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the name of Scott Hagloch in the general election in San Diego, CA; there is a Scott Hagloch listed as dying 2 years earlier.[13] It is not clear whether the two are the same person, or whether the death reports are accurate, and poll book records do not appear to have been investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
14. Mar. 2008: Jack Carol Crowder III allegedly impersonated his father (Jack Carol Crowder), using his father’s voter registration card at the polls in the March 2008 presidential primary election in Baytown, TX.[14]
15. Aug. 2007: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the statewide primary in Hattiesburg, MS, in the name of James E. Barnes, who died in 2006. This may (or may not) have been the result of clerical error confusing the man with his son, James W. Barnes; it is not clear whether the pollbooks were reviewed to determine whether fraud or clerical error was the cause.[15]
16. Aug. 2007: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the statewide primary in Hattiesburg, MS, in the name of Stanley Dwayne Echols, who was at the hospital and did not vote.[16] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
17. June 2007: The two contending city council candidates in a municipal runoff election in Hoboken, NJ, both reported instances in the election in which someone went to the polls and found out that someone else had voted in their place.[17] It is not clear how many instances there were, or how the candidates learned of them. It is also not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the records of voting represented impersonated signatures or clerical errors.
18. 2007: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in a municipal budget referendum in Stonington, CT, in the name of Jane M. Drury, who died in 2000.[18] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
19. Nov. 2004: Rosalie B. Simpson died in August 2004, but a vote was apparently recorded at the polls in her name in the general election in Seattle, WA.[19] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
20. Nov. 2004: Frank Sanchez, in Albuquerque, NM, was told that someone had signed on the line for his name in the pollbook during the general election.[20] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
21. Nov. 2004: Someone apparently signed on the pollbook line for Rose-Mary G. McGee, in Albuquerque, NM, during the general election.[21]
22. Nov. 2004: Dwight Adkins, in Albuquerque, NM, was told that someone had signed on the line for his name in the pollbook during the general election.[22] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.
23. Nov. 2004: Three people at the polls in Westchester County, NY, were given provisional ballots (in New York, “affidavit ballots”) in the general election because someone had allegedly signed the poll books in their place.[23] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the records of voting represented impersonated signatures or clerical errors.
24. Nov. 2004: A vote was apparently cast at the polls in the general election in Milwaukee, WI, in the name of an individual who had died several years earlier.[24] It is not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the records of voting represented impersonated signatures or clerical errors.
25. 2004: According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, one allegation of impersonation fraud in 2004 was sufficiently credible to refer to the local district attorney. [25] It is not clear whether the alleged fraud was in-person, or if follow-up established whether fraud did or did not likely occur.
26. Jan. 2004: Mark Lacasse apparently voted at the polls in the presidential primary in Londonderry, NH, in the name of his father, who was away on business at the time. [26]
27. Nov. 2002: Shasta Nicole Crayton apparently voted in her sister’s name at the polls in the general election in Dadeville, AL.[27]
28. In several municipal, primary, and general elections in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011, votes were cast in-person in Philadephia, PA, by an individual named Joseph Cheeseboro and by an individual named Joseph J. Cheeseborough. There is apparently some doubt about where one or both names represent real identities.[28]
29. In elections from October 2008 through June 2011, 44 individuals with names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers matching the information of individuals listed as incarcerated were recorded as having cast ballots in person in Michigan.[29] It is not clear whether records were further investigated to determine whether the matches represent fraudulent votes or clerical errors in either the incarceration records or the voting records.
30. In elections from October 2008 through June 2011, 145 individuals with names, dates of birth, and addresses matching the information of individuals listed as deceased were recorded as having cast ballots in person in Michigan.[30] It is not clear whether records were further investigated to determine whether the matches represent fraudulent votes or clerical errors in either the death records or the voting records.
31. According to Texas Director of Elections Keith Ingram, the names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers of four “recent” voters allegedly matched the corresponding information on earlier death certificates, indicating that the votes were cast after the individuals’ deaths. It is not clear at which elections these votes were cast, or how many, if any, of these votes were cast at the polls (rather than absentee). It is also not clear whether poll book records were investigated to determine whether the record of voting represented an impersonated signature or a clerical error.[31]

No good rock climbing in Ohio, Gnome. Sorry.
Psst: don't tell that to Ohioans. There is great rock climbing in Kentucky in the Red River and the New River gorges.

It turns out that just about every official responsible for voting in all of the states has made the same statement. Of course it is reasonable to expect that Democrats would lie, but why would a Republican.

I wholeheartedly agree. In the extremely polarized political context over the last 15-20 years, people appear to be uninterested in general (at least at a national level - political parties and media) in trying to understand those with whom they disagree.

On a personal day-to-day level, any effort to better understand where other people around you are coming from (to "put yourself in their shoes") just makes life easier, or at the least much less frustrating.

(CNN)South Dakota Republicans on Thursday repealed a historic anti-corruption law approved by voters in a statewide referendum on Election Day.

The measure, which passed with more than 51% backing in November, would have created an independent ethics commission, limited lobbyist gifts to lawmakers, banned officials from joining lobbying firms for two years after leaving office and created so-called "Democracy vouchers" for registered voters to steer toward their preferred candidates.
But state GOP lawmakers said they didn't think voters knew what they were doing.
Gov. Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, signed the repeal bill on Thursday night. In a budget address delivered after the November referendum, he claimed the public had been "hoodwinked by scam artists who grossly misrepresented these proposed measures."
Republican legislators pushed the bill using an "emergency" clause that allows for the reversal to take effect immediately and now prevents voters from initiating a new referendum campaign in response.

LET'S BE EXCRUCIATINGLY CLEAR - ANY TIME THE GOP UTTERS THE WORDS "VOTER FRAUD" WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN IS WE NEED COVER AND AN EXCUSE TO CURTAIL MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE. PERIOD.

KAC should get some sleep-her brain is addled.

She needs more than sleep. Maybe joining AA would help.

This was a hack job by the DNC never recognizing the potential of that vote. But to be fair nobody recognized that vote.

So don't go blaming those of us who still to this day believe Bernie was a better choice.

If you didn't vote for Trump then you voted for Hillary by another means and you're a traitor.

If you can't tell that we have been taken over by a white-supremacy / fascist group
1) Your in denial
2) One of them,
3) an idiot
Or all three

If you didn't vote for hillary then you voted for trump by another means and today's shitstorm is on your heads.

Bernie couldn't have beaten trump

he didn't have the support in the south

Holding grudges about 2016 is counter productive.

Again, if you couldn't hold your nose and vote for hillary you voted for trump.

Casting the blame on 3rd party voters as the reason why Hillary lost only works if you ignore the number of registered Dems that didn't vote at all.

Holding grudges about 2016 is counter productive.

Second, while there are lessons to be learned from the 2016 disaster, sniping about what Bernie or hillry supporters or their campaigns should've done is a waste of time and energy. We need to focus on the fights here and now and in the next several years. We need to band together, along with right leaning folks who care about democratic norms and constitutional principles and are alarmed about this menace.

This was a hack job by the DNC never recognizing the potential of that vote. But to be fair nobody recognized that vote. Nate Silver didn't and that speaks volumes.

climber
state of being

Feb 3, 2017 - 12:34pm PT
Only after he dumped anti-Hillary memes on the forum and said he would vote for Gary Johnson.

That's because he doesn't have a valid point, nothing hillary, the dnc, the russians or trump did would have mattered if progressives, young people, blacks and latinos simply voted for hillary - even just a small number of them would have done the job.

c wilmot, climber, Feb 3, 2017 - 01:22pm PT
Hillary is regressive. Her time as Secretary of State and the things she said during her wall st speaches showed that. The Supreme Court sold its soul years ago when they declared corporations people. Neither trump nor Clinton were a good option as neither care about the American people. The time to be upset was decades ago.
Instead people got played into being outraged over gender wars, and who gets to pee where.

It's all theatre. Just a very tragic one in terms of the costs to humanity

...declared corporations people

The Supreme Court sold its soul years ago when they declared corporations people.

I preferred to not vote rather than give my support to someone with a track record like that.

...extraordinary enormity and gravity of the mistake...

I agree, it's water under the bridge. We need to fight the current battles, also we need to get the dem party to have a infusion of new blood, and I'd say rather quickly.

We need to focus on the fights here and now and in the next several years. We need to band together, along with right leaning folks who care about democratic norms and constitutional principles and are alarmed about this menace.

Hillary had/has deep ties to Wall Street and a willingness to profit off of death and chaos in their he Middle East.

Yes and no. Clinton and Bernie were both poor candidates and as it was, Clinton still almost won. If the FBI director hadn't released additional innuendo right before the election, she still might have. The key states were that close.

The Donald earned a staggering $1.5 million PER speech at The Learning Annex’s “real estate wealth expos” in 2006 and 2007. Trump appeared at 17 seminars and collected this fee for each one

Fujisankei Communications, 1989

The late former president was reportedly paid $2 million by the Japanese media company for a 1989 tour of Japan, which included two speeches. We rank Reagan a notch behind Trump because he also gave press interviews with Fujisankei-owned media outlets during his visit.

The former British prime minister was pilloried in November by government-run newspapers in China when they revealed he had been paid half a million dollars by a property development company in Guangdong province to deliver a speech at a luxury housing development.

The Man From Hope generates more on the public speaking circuit than any former president ever has. His most expensive speech to date? An address he delivered in September 2006 at the Fortune Forum in London, for which he earned $450,000.

It's really f*#king telling that you're the only one that doesn't see my point. You're worthless to the Resistance. Noted.

The Obama administration approved the regulation last year. The rule established a “fiduciary duty” for money managers, requiring them to operate retirement accounts in the best interests of their clients. The Trump team’s repeal will allow financial professionals to steer retirees into expensive or poor-performing products that carry economic benefits and perks for the advisers and their firms, without disclosing such conflicts of interest.

oh my, you can get off your high horse with the condemning people who got paid for speaking

Folks, enough with Hillary. We have a dumbass in the White House rolling back banking and environmental regulations, embarrassing our loyal allies, nominating a far-right judge for the Supreme Court, threatening war with Iran and China...and that just the last few days.

Focus on the threat right before your eyes!!!!!!

Folks, enough with Hillary. We have a dumbass in the White House rolling back banking and environmental regulations, embarrassing our loyal allies, nominating a far-right judge for the Supreme Court, threatening war with Iran and China...and that just the last few days.

Focus on the threat right before your eyes!!!!!!

Folks, enough with Hillary. We have a dumbass in the White House rolling back banking and environmental regulations, embarrassing our loyal allies, nominating a far-right judge for the Supreme Court, threatening war with Iran and China...and that just the last few days.

Focus on the threat right before your eyes!!!!!!

Folks, enough with Hillary. We have a dumbass in the White House rolling back banking and environmental regulations, embarrassing our loyal allies, nominating a far-right judge for the Supreme Court, threatening war with Iran and China...and that just the last few days.

Focus on the threat right before your eyes!!!!!!

Folks, enough with Hillary. We have a dumbass in the White House rolling back banking and environmental regulations, embarrassing our loyal allies, nominating a far-right judge for the Supreme Court, threatening war with Iran and China...and that just the last few days.

Focus on the threat right before your eyes!!!!!!

Then stop whining about Sanders.

but his supporters who in the end didn't listen to him.

Is enemy of my enemy is my friend, is an ancient proverb which suggests that two opposing parties can or should work together against a common enemy or that they are also enemy's. The earliest known expression of this concept is found in a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, the Arthashastra, which dates to around the 4th century BC, while the first recorded use of the current English version came in 1884.[1][2]

An exclusive report by Reuters suggests the White House is planning to "revamp and rename a US government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism." According to Reuters, the program, "Countering Violent Extremism" will be renamed "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," and will reportedly "no longer target groups such as white supremacists" who have been responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks on American soil in the last 15 years. In Trump's world, it seems, the only extremism that matters is Islamic extremism.
But let's pretend, for a moment, that facts actually matter, especially when it comes to the safety of American citizens. Here are the facts about terrorism in the United States:
Americans are almost seven times as likely to be killed by a white extremist than by an Islamic one, according to one study.
Citing a 2013 study, the New York Times notes: "Right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities."
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there were 42 militia groups in 2008; today, there are 276. Meanwhile, anti-government groups grew to 998 in 2015, while the number of right-wing hate groups grew from 784 in 2014 to 892 in 2015.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "domestic extremist killers" killed more people in 2015 than any other year since Oklahoma City in 1995 (In fact, here is a list of radical right wing terrorist plots, conspiracies and attacks since 1995).

Others who knew Bissonnette described him a timid introvert who was a staunch supporter of US president Donald Trump. “He loved Trump a lot and seemed to be permanently set against the left, Éric Debroise told the Journal de Québec. He said he had reached out to police in the wake of the shooting to inform them that Bissonnette is “far right and an ultra nationalist white supremacist”.

Another classmate, Jean-Michel Allard Prus, described Bissonnette as someone with “right-wing political ideas, pro-Israel, anti-immigration. I had many debates with him about Trump,” he said. “He was obviously pro-Trump.” But Bissonnette had never broached the idea of violence as a political tool, he added.

The people that voted for drumpf from the rust belt where never his supporters.

The people in coal country were never his supporters.

Most of his supporters did listen to him. And even if they didn't 3/4ers of them were in states that went blue in the electorate.

This election in no way turned on who voted for trump - it turned entirely on who didn't vote for hillary. Had the people who turned up their nose at hillary simply held their noses and voted she would have won.

A Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump’s last three construction projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United States corporations based in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin

Pyro: Just added to the "Trump List of Hypocrisy"- Thanks!

Malemute

If I said I knew a finance guy who promised me that he was brilliant and successful but had filed for multiple bankruptcies; thought it was a great idea to start a mortgage company in 2006; had a long list of failed businesses; accepted a settlement with the Department of Justice after his company was caught racially discriminating against minorities; settled a fraud lawsuit for $25 million after he was sued by former students of a fake university he created to scam people out of thousands; was found guilty of creating a fake anti-gambling organization that used blatant racism against Native Americans in an effort to prevent a tribe from building a competing business; continually lied about why he won’t show his tax returns to prove he’s being honest about his supposed “success”‘; and has been taken to court at least 3,500 times — would you take a risk and put your family’s financial future in that person’s hands?

nah000

short version: you leftish dudes who keep repeating that trump's election is on the shoulders of those who wouldn't hold their noses and vote for a candidate they didn't like... still don't want to accept a very important thing. and what's mind boggling is that you think continuing to repeat the same thought over and over is somehow going to make your mistaken belief true.

Henry Ford declared bankruptcy four times before he got his mojo werkin'. jess sayin'...

The guy is coming across as an unhinged megalomaniac narcissist.

"So called judge." Trumplethinskin is trying to de-legitimize the federal judiciary. Guess what Don, the first appeals court upheld the so called judge.

longer version: the dems lost for two reasons. they put up a terrible candidate AND given the current climate they put up a terrible platform [the second half is what is not being faced by the general talking head dems].

the platform was the same centre right [by any global analysis] foreign policy and economic platform the dems have now ran for decades combined with a continued centre left social agenda. and if anything more emphasis was placed on the latter [social agenda] than the former [economic/foreign policy].

and the same time, nothing new was offered with regards to where most people [on both the right and left] are actually losing/suffering. it was the same ole centre right economic/foreign policy that the dems have played for years now

Which means formulating an economic and foreign policy platform that actually resonates with folks...

if not, then continue your contribution to eight more years of rethuglican devolution.

White Nationalist unite!
pyro