Hillary Supporters Rage Across America!

Originally posted by kevdude
Some people are so stupid smh.. I come in and read 'trump didn't read the election the dnc lost it.' Hillary lost because she was the worst person for the job, bringing up race in the election, bringing up sex in the election, putting down the women who was raped by her husband, being supported by the Saudi monarchy who kills gays.

I'm not sure how most of that would actually be a slight on the ability to perform as commander and chief: not to denounce rape or overseas endorsement from a Saudi monarch that murders their own people.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
I'm not sure how most of that would actually be a slight on the ability to perform as commander and chief: not to denounce rape or overseas endorsement from a Saudi monarch that murders their own people.

Yes this did have me wondering..for as much as people are urging Trump to denounce certain groups(and I do agree)..I can't recall Obama ever denouncing Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11, off the top of my head. I admit I haven't seen every single thing Obama has said about these people, so it's possible he did.

Though I don't recall his calling out their treatment of women. So for all the men saying because Trump is elected they can't look their daughters in the eye, why were they able to look them in the eye knowing some of our allies are kind of utterly horrible? On the other hand Obama was perfectly willing to cite the very very skewed "study" that says 1 and 5 women are sexually assaulted.

Some might say there is a difference because the neo nazi's and stuff aren't an actual country or official government. On the other hand, the fact that an actual government/country played a role in 9/11 to me is worse than just some fringe groups being racist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I saw no contradiction. I saw the first being a criticism of the liberal media bias causing problems and the second being happy about people in the US having something like the First Amendment.

But don't let that get in the way of your Anti-Trump Parade.

"Pick a box. Its contents will help you on your way!"

I made this:

Originally posted by Impediment
I made this:

Now if only we had a bear suit that lets you turn to stone.

i never expressed support or agreement with the protests, as 50+% of the country has been labeled. what expected tacky nonsense. this is why it will remain on ignore. 👆

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i never expressed support or agreement with the protests, as 50+% of the country has been labeled. what expected tacky nonsense. this is why it will remain on ignore. 👆

I agree it is wrong for anyone to try to label half the country. People who do that are very wrong and probably should have no place in politics at all. 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
But I also have spoken in the past about her warmongering. I have made comments about how she seemed to be implying she wanted to start something with Russia.

That's one reason, and like I said: I just didn't like how deep her corruption went. I just thought the overall ramifications of her getting that presidency would resonate, because Trump will be out of the White House in 4 years, but if Hilary had gotten her claws into it..I feel she could have very easily done two terms, and also in the mean time used her influence to make sure people like her continue to occupy the white house after she is gone. There are already rumors they want Chelsea to run for congress. She'd have had much better chances if the Clintons had taken the White House.

I'm sick and tired of it and I want it gone and if we have to endure 4 years of Trump for that then you know what? So be it. This should have never happened in the first place, it should have never HAD to happen.

If you want to be pissed be pissed that your own god damn candidate was so thoroughly corrupt she *could not even defeat Donald Trump*.

And how is this corruption going to hurt us more than Trump's climate proposals?

Seriously, even if you support Trump on literally everything else, his energy policy could literally pose an existential threat to the human species.

Well then let us hope the energy policy is one of the things Trump will be willing to budge on. At this point given his statements about potentially not fully getting rid of Obama Care, etc. we can't be sure anymore what else will or won't change.

I also do think one thing Bill Maher said yesterday was correct. The democrats made white voters feel like their problems were not real.

So when you supported Trump over Hillary, it was all based on the gamble that Trump was just bluffing about the Paris accords?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So when you supported Trump over Hillary, it was all based on the gamble that Trump was just bluffing about the Paris accords?

America's not even ****ing close to their emission cuts anyways.

Unless you feel like making some sweeeeeeeeping changes across the nation I suggest giving up and going all in for global warming being a hoax 😄

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So when you supported Trump over Hillary, it was all based on the gamble that Trump was just bluffing about the Paris accords?

Nope, it was based on Clintons corruption, lies, and the overall ignorance of the democratic party about what the people want.

I wasn't sure if he would or would not stick to 100% of what he said. What I am saying is that since he has already at least claimed he is willing to compromise on some issues that we can't truly be sure what he is going to do.

The backlash he'd receive over the Paris thing would be absolutely tremendous. At this point nobody can predict exactly what he will or will not do. So some people need to stop pretending like they can, as we've seen with this election..sometimes people can be very wrong about how a situation will turn out.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope, it was based on Clintons corruption, lies, and the overall ignorance of the democratic party about what the people want.

Um, no. Clinton is one the most thoroughly investigated candidates in the modern era, and there is no evidence of impropriety on her part. Moreover, she has the highest honesty rating of any candidate running this cycle in any party. Furthermore, more people voted for her, so clearly she is what the people want. You can try to spin the election results all you want, but none of the things in your statement are true.

No evidence of impropriety? Right.

She is what the people want? She won the popular vote, but she couldn't get enough of the population on her side lol.

Not even states that people felt she'd have a cakewalk winning.

The people want change. Deal with it..or don't? Your choice. Ignore it and the shit happens again.

I mean even Elminist seems to think there is corruption with the Clintons. He might not think it warranted her not being president, but he hasn't acted like she's never done anything wrong either.

Do you believe there is anything corrupt about the Clinton campaign? You will notice I did not ask you if they were ever arrested or anything like that. Do you legitimately feel they are free of corruption?

Originally posted by Surtur
No evidence of impropriety? Right.

Absolutely right.

Originally posted by Surtur
She is what the people want? She won the popular vote, but she couldn't get enough of the population on her side lol.

Not even states that people felt she'd have a cakewalk winning.

The people want change. Deal with it..or don't? Your choice.

Do you even math? Here, let me help you. If she won the popular vote, that means more people voted for her than for her opponent. That means she did get the people on her side, and that she is what they wanted. He won because of a technicality. That is not a mandate.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Absolutely right.

Do you even math? Here, let me help you. If she won the popular vote, that means more people voted for her than for her opponent. That means she did get the people on her side, and that she is what they wanted. He won because of a technicality. That is not a mandate.

I never said she didn't win the popular vote. I said she didn't get enough people on her side. That is why the popular vote did NOT cinch it. Do I even math? Do you even read? She didn't get ENOUGH people lol. If the popular vote was all she needed she would have, it is not, so she didn't get enough. They ignored certain groups of people and that is why she lost. She didn't beat Trump in the popular vote by an absurdly massive degree either. You act like she got 30 million more votes.

She didn't get enough of the people on her side to assure her a complete victory. The fact that she was running against Donald Trump of all people and still failed sure as hell tells us a lot of people want change.

If you seem to feel the Clinton campaign is totally free of corruption then what else can I say? Even some of her staunchest defenders here have admitted that.

I can't even truly believe you would think they haven't done anything shady. You have to be pulling my leg, yes?

Just clarify this for me, because "shady" doesn't even necessarily have to mean illegal. So having said that, you truly believe there is nothing shady there?

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said she didn't win the popular vote. I said she didn't get enough people on her side. That is why the popular vote did NOT cinch it. Do I even math? Do you even read? She didn't get ENOUGH people lol. If the popular vote was all she needed she would have, it is not, so she didn't get enough. They ignored certain groups of people and that is why she lost. She didn't beat Trump in the popular vote by an absurdly massive degree either. You act like she got 30 million more votes.

She didn't get enough of the people on her side to assure her a complete victory. The fact that she was running against Donald Trump of all people and still failed sure as hell tells us a lot of people want change.

If you seem to feel the Clinton campaign is totally free of corruption then what else can I say? Even some of her staunchest defenders here have admitted that.

He did not win because he had "enough people." Do you even know how elections work? He won because of the way electors are distributed. She had more votes, ergo, she had the support of more people. If, according to you, she did not have the support of enough people to win, and he had the support of fewer people than she did, then how does he have "enough people" to win? Your argument is completely nonsensical.

She didn't have enough people where it actually mattered.

Originally posted by Surtur
I can't even truly believe you would think they haven't done anything shady. You have to be pulling my leg, yes?

Just clarify this for me, because "shady" doesn't even necessarily have to mean illegal. So having said that, you truly believe there is nothing shady there?

I think you would have to be uninformed, lacking in critical thinking skills, or both to believe half of the ridiculous tripe you believe about the Clintons.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He did not win because he had "enough people." Do you even know how elections work? He won because of the way electors are distributed. She had more votes, ergo, she had the support of more people. If, according to you, she did not have the support of enough people to win, and he had the support of fewer people than she did, then how does he have "enough people" to win? Your argument is completely nonsensical.

He had enough people in the states that mattered. How is this difficult to grasp?

She didn't get enough people. There actually isn't up for debate dude. If she had gotten enough she'd be president.

Again, not up for any actual debate, so we can move past this.