4 ms·

Clinton conceded, DNC recognized they lost, Obama invited him to White House to smooth transition. Contrast this with Republicans who continue to deny the 2020

Clinton conceded, DNC recognized they lost, Obama invited him to White House to smooth transition. Contrast this with Republicans who continue to deny the 2020 election following the lead of the former president. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/24/jody-hice/did-democrats-refuse-acknowledge-trumps-2016-victo/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/24/jody-hice/...

yucky 4y ago
Trump conceded too, and the video is just demonstrating the hypocrisy of many who bitched and moaned in 2016 or 2020 that the "election was illegitimate" and then demanding the other side recognize it as perfectly legitimate when their guy won. You could find/replace the words Trump or Clinton in this video and not be able to tell the difference.
- vannevar 4y ago
  >Trump conceded too No, he didn't. After the January 6th assault on the Capitol (two full months after the election), he finally acknowledged that a new administration would be taking office. He did not concede that he had lost the election. He didn't do that until April of 2022, and even then he insisted that the election he lost was rigged.
joenot443 4y ago
For months after the election, both Clinton and Trump spoke publicly and claimed that they were the true winner and that the election had been stolen. Clinton was more pragmatic and reasonable with her claims, despite them still being a lie, but from the perspective of someone who _doesn't vote for either_, they both seemed to be playing the same tune. We're apparently supposed to accept that the Democrats adopted a new meaning of 'hack' immediately after 2016, but given the title of the site we're on now, I'm hoping we can be intellectually honest enough to say that it's a load to pretend that by 'hack' they actually meant 'used our own social media companies to promote the other team.' Maybe watching MSNBC and reading Politifact is what I needed, but from my POV up in Canada, all I saw were two sore political losers who couldn't accept that they'd lost the vote, and a party who rallied around them to reassure their leader it was the other team (or Russia?) who cheated, and that the fault was anyone but their own. I'm aware there's some nuance to it, but try to really think about the case you're trying to make here, and the very obviously biased position you're making it from. I don't doubt you're a proud card carrying Democrat, and I'm sure on /r/politics most everyone would agree with you, but for the rest of the world who were forced to watch it out in real time, '16/'20 was truly like watching the same poorly-written American movie twice.
- kurikuri 4y ago
  It is interesting that you say that the perspective of the 16/20 elections being a retelling of the same story is the case for the rest of the world. My perspective was that, sure there were complaints from the democrats in 2016, but they mainly fell around “we won the popular vote” and “Russia interfered via targeted propaganda.” Contrast that with the structured attempt by Trump’s team to change results via finding votes, push forward false electors for the electoral college process, vilify elections workers, intimidate congress, etc. This makes equating the two appear to be at best an incorrect account of the events. To say it was the same would be to equate a sore loser to one who refuses to be a loser.
  - joenot443 4y ago
    Two things can draw similarities without being the same thing. If your prior is that we can’t make comparison between two things without them being equal, I’m not sure if that’s something I can help with. Obviously Trump was more outrageous with his claims because he’s an outrageous person, I’m surprised that even needs to be said. In Canada though, when two people both claim to have won something that they fairly lost, instead blaming the rules, the electorate, or the competition, we just call them both sore losers. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that. I’ve noticed when dealing with Americans they have a hard time accepting criticism of their party without first hearing some criticism of the opposing team, so I’d like to make it crystal clear I’m defending Trump or his team here. I’d just like, for once, for the Democrat party to admit some of their hypocrisy. The 2016 election _wasnt_ hacked, neither was the 2020, and no amount of “well actually they meant something else” will change that.
    - vannevar 4y ago
      >The 2016 election _wasnt_ hacked... The FBI, US intelligence agencies, and the United States Senate all beg to differ with your armchair assessment. They all concluded after extensive investigation that the election _was_ hacked. Whether any of the Russian social engineering and hacking had a significant effect is unknown.

yucky 4y ago

Trump conceded too, and the video is just demonstrating the hypocrisy of many who bitched and moaned in 2016 or 2020 that the "election was illegitimate" and then demanding the other side recognize it as perfectly legitimate when their guy won. You could find/replace the words Trump or Clinton in this video and not be able to tell the difference.

vannevar 4y ago
>Trump conceded too No, he didn't. After the January 6th assault on the Capitol (two full months after the election), he finally acknowledged that a new administration would be taking office. He did not concede that he had lost the election. He didn't do that until April of 2022, and even then he insisted that the election he lost was rigged.

joenot443 4y ago

For months after the election, both Clinton and Trump spoke publicly and claimed that they were the true winner and that the election had been stolen. Clinton was more pragmatic and reasonable with her claims, despite them still being a lie, but from the perspective of someone who _doesn't vote for either_, they both seemed to be playing the same tune. We're apparently supposed to accept that the Democrats adopted a new meaning of 'hack' immediately after 2016, but given the title of the site we're on now, I'm hoping we can be intellectually honest enough to say that it's a load to pretend that by 'hack' they actually meant 'used our own social media companies to promote the other team.' Maybe watching MSNBC and reading Politifact is what I needed, but from my POV up in Canada, all I saw were two sore political losers who couldn't accept that they'd lost the vote, and a party who rallied around them to reassure their leader it was the other team (or Russia?) who cheated, and that the fault was anyone but their own. I'm aware there's some nuance to it, but try to really think about the case you're trying to make here, and the very obviously biased position you're making it from. I don't doubt you're a proud card carrying Democrat, and I'm sure on /r/politics most everyone would agree with you, but for the rest of the world who were forced to watch it out in real time, '16/'20 was truly like watching the same poorly-written American movie twice.

kurikuri 4y ago
It is interesting that you say that the perspective of the 16/20 elections being a retelling of the same story is the case for the rest of the world. My perspective was that, sure there were complaints from the democrats in 2016, but they mainly fell around “we won the popular vote” and “Russia interfered via targeted propaganda.” Contrast that with the structured attempt by Trump’s team to change results via finding votes, push forward false electors for the electoral college process, vilify elections workers, intimidate congress, etc. This makes equating the two appear to be at best an incorrect account of the events. To say it was the same would be to equate a sore loser to one who refuses to be a loser.
- joenot443 4y ago
  Two things can draw similarities without being the same thing. If your prior is that we can’t make comparison between two things without them being equal, I’m not sure if that’s something I can help with. Obviously Trump was more outrageous with his claims because he’s an outrageous person, I’m surprised that even needs to be said. In Canada though, when two people both claim to have won something that they fairly lost, instead blaming the rules, the electorate, or the competition, we just call them both sore losers. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that. I’ve noticed when dealing with Americans they have a hard time accepting criticism of their party without first hearing some criticism of the opposing team, so I’d like to make it crystal clear I’m defending Trump or his team here. I’d just like, for once, for the Democrat party to admit some of their hypocrisy. The 2016 election _wasnt_ hacked, neither was the 2020, and no amount of “well actually they meant something else” will change that.
  - vannevar 4y ago
    >The 2016 election _wasnt_ hacked... The FBI, US intelligence agencies, and the United States Senate all beg to differ with your armchair assessment. They all concluded after extensive investigation that the election _was_ hacked. Whether any of the Russian social engineering and hacking had a significant effect is unknown.