5 ms·

Hillary has been claiming the 2016 election was stolen by Russia for Trump for six years now, and nobody seems to fret about how she’s undermining democracy. T

Hillary has been claiming the 2016 election was stolen by Russia for Trump for six years now, and nobody seems to fret about how she’s undermining democracy. There were even many faithless electors that tried to overturn the results. Much like Trump, she just can’t seem to admit she lost. Both parties need to learn that if you lose it’s because you didn’t get enough votes and to reflect on why that is. Although I’m sure it’s a lot more fun to complain about how you were cheated.

andrewjf 5y ago
> Both parties need to learn that if you lose it’s because voters just didn’t like you that much. What you're saying is only true in a dream world where gerrymandering, closing polling places, and preventing access to ballot boxes (in-person or otherwise) isn't happening. Unfortunately this isn't the case. So, no, you are wrong.
- 8note 5y ago
  Voters still ultimately decide. Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win
  - andrewjf 5y ago
    Not buying it. The races are so polarized that it basically doesn’t matter who runs at all, which is why so much focus is on voter suppression and gerrymandering.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win Does that sentence not completely contradict itself? How often in modern times has a Republican president won a majority of the popular vote? Seems like the will of the people is not consistently respected, and even if people like you then you may very well lose. Especially if the people that like you are urban voters.
- nxm 5y ago
  By gerrymandering I hope you’re including Democrats in NY state
  - andrewjf 5y ago
    Sure, for every NY, and Maryland, etc. there’s a Wisconsin, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, etc. the parties are not equal here, this is way more prevalent among republicans in swing states. It’s a serious problem for all citizens, but republicans are incentivized to keep doing it.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Instead of trying to "both sides" gerrymandering, why don't you work out how many votes it takes on average for a Democrat to win an election, and how many it takes a Republican. With that information, you can infer which party has the most motivation to end gerrymandering.
    - koolba 5y ago
      There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Large scale change is supposed to require multiple types of majority, not just a snap mob decision. That’s a feature, not a bug.
      - oneoff786 5y ago
        > You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Millions of votes of a difference and complete capture of many states. My vote, living in Massachusetts, has no value in the presidential election because there’s a 100% chance it’ll be blue.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        > But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. It is a flaw. Republican votes in California count for much less than Democratic votes in Wyoming. It's a national election, the counting should be done nationally. We did away with states voting for Senators, it's time to do the same for President.
fineIllregister 5y ago
Clinton conceded the day after the election, filed zero law suits contesting it, and told her supporters to accept the outcome. She raised specific complaints regarding the process, but never suggested that they invalidated the results.
- iconjack 5y ago
  She has claimed for 5 years (and still going) that Trump is an illegitimate president. Here is a recent example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSTyHYiLtRY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSTyHYiLtRY.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    At least she conceded. Has Trump done that yet?
- potato 5y ago
  > She raised specific complaints regarding the process, but never suggested that they invalidated the results. She proclaims the election was stolen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
  - stimpson_j_cat 5y ago
    No, she doesn't use the word stolen, and she conceded; but the article you linked to provides evidence of interference. > The investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nostromo 5y ago
krapp 5y ago
Hillary Clinton wasn't making those claims via deranged tweets and speeches from the Oval Office in her position as President of the United States. A private citizen on one hand versus the leader of a country with the power of the press and an angry, violent mob on the other. One person's complaints versus a firehose of misinformation, lies and possibly Russian-backed agitprop being spread by the leader of the country, his party and millions of his followers over four years, culminating in a violent, seditious riot against the very apparatus of democracy and the peaceful transition of power itself. These are not even remotely equivalent in terms of their damage to democracy. Also, Hillary Clinton wasn't entirely wrong. That there was Russian interference in both the 2016 and 2020 elections on behalf of Trump's campaign is a fact - only the effect of that interference in the first case and the degree of Trump's foreknowledge are in dispute. Meanwhile, there was no actual conspiracy to steal the election from Trump... that was entirely bullshit. Like Hillary Clinton's weird brain disease. And Hillary Clinton's kill count. And Hillary Clinton's pedophile sex slave ring. And all of the Benghazi hearings. And whatever "treason" was supposed to be in the DNC email leaks. And Joe Biden being a pedophile. And Joe Biden having crippling dementia. And whatever Hunter Biden's briefcase was supposed to be about. And whatever the bullshit sandwich du jour for 2024 turns out to be.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 8note 5y ago
  That applies to Trump's response to the 2020 election too. He's a private citizen now, so his tweet equivalents and lawsuits don't matter
  - krapp 5y ago
    Yes. I actually don't agree with Youtube's policy here at all, or with continuing to deplatform Trump (as long as he follows the rules like everyone else.) I did agree with his initial banning, because of the damage he could do in a position of power in a critical moment of political transition. But his views are basically mainstream in the Republican Party now, Jan. 6 was a failure, Biden was elected and the promised rural uprising and reckoning didn't happen, so the damage is probably done. It's the false equivalence I'm objecting to. It seems clear to me that one side went off the deep end further than the other in this case.
legutierr 5y ago
new math: 2022 - 2016 = 8 years
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

andrewjf 5y ago

> Both parties need to learn that if you lose it’s because voters just didn’t like you that much. What you're saying is only true in a dream world where gerrymandering, closing polling places, and preventing access to ballot boxes (in-person or otherwise) isn't happening. Unfortunately this isn't the case. So, no, you are wrong.

8note 5y ago
Voters still ultimately decide. Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win
- andrewjf 5y ago
  Not buying it. The races are so polarized that it basically doesn’t matter who runs at all, which is why so much focus is on voter suppression and gerrymandering.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win Does that sentence not completely contradict itself? How often in modern times has a Republican president won a majority of the popular vote? Seems like the will of the people is not consistently respected, and even if people like you then you may very well lose. Especially if the people that like you are urban voters.
nxm 5y ago
By gerrymandering I hope you’re including Democrats in NY state
- andrewjf 5y ago
  Sure, for every NY, and Maryland, etc. there’s a Wisconsin, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, etc. the parties are not equal here, this is way more prevalent among republicans in swing states. It’s a serious problem for all citizens, but republicans are incentivized to keep doing it.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Instead of trying to "both sides" gerrymandering, why don't you work out how many votes it takes on average for a Democrat to win an election, and how many it takes a Republican. With that information, you can infer which party has the most motivation to end gerrymandering.
  - koolba 5y ago
    There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Large scale change is supposed to require multiple types of majority, not just a snap mob decision. That’s a feature, not a bug.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      > You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Millions of votes of a difference and complete capture of many states. My vote, living in Massachusetts, has no value in the presidential election because there’s a 100% chance it’ll be blue.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. It is a flaw. Republican votes in California count for much less than Democratic votes in Wyoming. It's a national election, the counting should be done nationally. We did away with states voting for Senators, it's time to do the same for President.

fineIllregister 5y ago

Clinton conceded the day after the election, filed zero law suits contesting it, and told her supporters to accept the outcome. She raised specific complaints regarding the process, but never suggested that they invalidated the results.

iconjack 5y ago
She has claimed for 5 years (and still going) that Trump is an illegitimate president. Here is a recent example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSTyHYiLtRY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSTyHYiLtRY.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  At least she conceded. Has Trump done that yet?
potato 5y ago
> She raised specific complaints regarding the process, but never suggested that they invalidated the results. She proclaims the election was stolen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
- stimpson_j_cat 5y ago
  No, she doesn't use the word stolen, and she conceded; but the article you linked to provides evidence of interference. > The investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nostromo 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

Hillary Clinton wasn't making those claims via deranged tweets and speeches from the Oval Office in her position as President of the United States. A private citizen on one hand versus the leader of a country with the power of the press and an angry, violent mob on the other. One person's complaints versus a firehose of misinformation, lies and possibly Russian-backed agitprop being spread by the leader of the country, his party and millions of his followers over four years, culminating in a violent, seditious riot against the very apparatus of democracy and the peaceful transition of power itself. These are not even remotely equivalent in terms of their damage to democracy. Also, Hillary Clinton wasn't entirely wrong. That there was Russian interference in both the 2016 and 2020 elections on behalf of Trump's campaign is a fact - only the effect of that interference in the first case and the degree of Trump's foreknowledge are in dispute. Meanwhile, there was no actual conspiracy to steal the election from Trump... that was entirely bullshit. Like Hillary Clinton's weird brain disease. And Hillary Clinton's kill count. And Hillary Clinton's pedophile sex slave ring. And all of the Benghazi hearings. And whatever "treason" was supposed to be in the DNC email leaks. And Joe Biden being a pedophile. And Joe Biden having crippling dementia. And whatever Hunter Biden's briefcase was supposed to be about. And whatever the bullshit sandwich du jour for 2024 turns out to be.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
8note 5y ago
That applies to Trump's response to the 2020 election too. He's a private citizen now, so his tweet equivalents and lawsuits don't matter
- krapp 5y ago
  Yes. I actually don't agree with Youtube's policy here at all, or with continuing to deplatform Trump (as long as he follows the rules like everyone else.) I did agree with his initial banning, because of the damage he could do in a position of power in a critical moment of political transition. But his views are basically mainstream in the Republican Party now, Jan. 6 was a failure, Biden was elected and the promised rural uprising and reckoning didn't happen, so the damage is probably done. It's the false equivalence I'm objecting to. It seems clear to me that one side went off the deep end further than the other in this case.

legutierr 5y ago

new math: 2022 - 2016 = 8 years

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]