Updated. Dems: Trump won’t accept losing the election
Hillary is still whining about losing the election and she is still blaming everyone, but herself.
Updated with Rising video on this.
Oh good grief. The Comey movie is coming out soon and Rising has a preview of it. It is Russian propaganda and disinfo off the charts. I am at a loss for words on it.
Hillary Clinton has some advice for Joe Biden: Don’t concede in a close race.
The 2016 nominee sits down with @jmpalmieri and @sho_thecircus to urge Dems to pay close attention to GOP strategy. pic.twitter.com/REwfLf1QjS
— The Recount (@therecount) August 24, 2020
Blah, blah "I got 3 million more votes than Trump, but somehow it was Comey, Russia, Bernie, Bernie Bros and of course Russia Russia Russia and Russia."
Hillary Clinton Says Biden Should Not Accept Results Of The 2020 Election
Former first lady and 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton said Joe Biden shouldn’t concede the election because the final results of the election will likely drag out due to mail-in ballots.
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton said in an interview on Tuesday.
“I think that [Republicans] have a couple of scenarios that they are looking toward. One is messing up absentee balloting. They believe that helps them so that they then get maybe a narrow advantage in the Electoral College on Election Day,” she claimed.
“So we’ve got to have a massive legal operation, and I know the Biden campaign is working on that.”
She whined on:
“We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places,” Clinton said, urging people to become poll workers in November.
Hey y’all remember when Bill Clinton went to 4 polling places during the election and even went inside one? But those damn republicans.
Some political observers have said that a winner of the presidential contest might not be declared on Election Day due to mail-in voting delays. The mail-in voting push is designed to curb the spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
Lots of pots and kettles flying around lately:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) earlier this week asserted in an interview that Trump is trying “to scare people from voting, to intimidate them by saying he’s going to have law enforcement people at the polls.”
“But ignore him,” she said, “because his purpose is to diminish the vote, to suppress the vote.”
Yeah about that election interference, Nancy. Let’s get you, Obama, Biden and anyone else who rigged the primary against Bernie shall we?
Comments
her is trying to get me to rage vote for trump
and its working. i rage voted for bernie in the california primary. baaah. hopefully this episode inside my head will have passed by the time my soco ballot arrives. so i can burn it. i think ballot burning is the right choice for me but maybe not. i did vote for one republican in 16, first time evah. and one green and one libertarian and one peace and freedom candidate. anything but d. i think i voted no on everything else. just no.
tin foil hat chess question. what if bannons case is a setup for the coming clinton foundation prosecutions. kinda like the setup that happened after moores farenheit 911 docu. the clinton cash docu is what brought us citizens united passage. thanks not. bannons shell companies and all that obvious fraud smells the same as the clinton grift to me. pu. except bannon hasn't yet ordered anyone to be murder silenced as far as i know. never mind. its all wishful thinking for me. no justice coming. nope.
I don't really believe this will happen
but it sure looks like the Demofascists are preparing for a coup attempt. Hillary sounds like she's buying red, white and blue skirts for her sedan chair. She'll sure look funny when no one comes to carry her.
On to Biden since 1973
I read the HRC comment above
I read the HRC comment above as a suggestion not to allow the media to prematurely impose outcome on the election. The rush to impose a quick, clean ending to the reality show of the media's making helped make the 2000 fiasco worse. The election process determines the winner not some reporter looking for a sound bite.
Trying to twist that into "refusing to accept the election results" reads like disinformation.
What part of
"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances"
did you not understand?
That IS quite literally a refusal to accept election results, and she goes on to hint that enough behind-the-scenes "fixing" will change the results.
I wouldn't trust that slimy beeyotch, or give her one iota of the doubt, under any circumstances. Her track record is too hideous.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
So the criminals are complaining --
that the other criminals won't accept losing the election?
Well let's see it in real life then!
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
This is the woman who started Russiagate
No Presidential election team has ever been subjected to the use of illegally obtained warrants to spy on them. It's clear that Clinton and her people in the FBI were out to prove collusion before inauguration day. The next step was to get the courts to declare her the winner. She would get the Presidency no matter what. Having failed that, the tactic was to make sure that the Trump presidency was unable to govern and could be run out of town either sooner, by impeachment, or later.
What is telling about Hillary is that she has no interest in seeing an objectively legitimate race. She is all about illegal countermeasures as she has proven over and over again. She is convinced that if Biden refuses to concede that his team of layers will get him elected. The end goal is Biden getting elected, not a fair outcome.
What is bothering me more than this is that this is a repeat of the Democrats forcing a really bad, unqualified, unpopular candidate into the oval office, and I'm referring to Kamala Harris. This is a repeat of the Democrat convention in 1944 when the party rejected the best candidate for the vice presidency, Wallace, and selected a nasty empty suit, but totally controllable inferior candidate, Harry Truman. The result was a dangerous world always on the brink of nuclear destruction, and some 20 million deaths and destroyed countries. She is so much like him. She could just as easily order the use of a nuclear weapon as putting thousands of minority males in prison for MJ possession, while she brags about smoking. I don't think that she has a soul. We had a President selected by the court in 2000 and now we might have another president selected by Nancy, Chucky, Joe, Barack and Hillary, certainly not the people - they rejected her when they got to see her.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Truman turned out not to be *totally* controllable
He did actually desegregate the Armed Forces, which was not what his bosses had wanted. And he split off the Air Force from the Army, not sure if that was a desired outcome or not. He also had some pithy wisdom that is still quoted today.
But in general, yeah - he started the Dem party push to the right.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Truman also vetoed Taft-Hartley
and the short-term GOP Congress (with much Democratic support) over-rode his veto. When Democrats retook Congress in 1948, they and Truman subsequently failed to repeal Taft-Hartley.
Don't forget 1968 ...
as another instance of where the will of the people, as expressed by a majority of the votes in the primary, was thwarted at a DNC national convention. Humphrey, the last presidential nominee of a major party who did not win a single primary, was annointed as the nominee and the anti-Vietnam War faction of the party was silenced.
Same as it ever was.
Will there be chaos? Count on it.
Are both parties going to cheat? As usual.
Will Russia interfere? They’ll have to get in line.
Is fraud baked into the system? Undoubtedly.
Will the loser carp about the results no matter who it is? Of course.
This is just red meat for the base who still don’t want to accept the US elected the orange man. I think the Dems are gearing up to lose another one, so they need to get the deflection game started now.
Mostly though I don’t need to hear HER lecture anyone on a fair election or really anything else.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
lol...check out this headline
Trump morphs White House into a fortress as he threatens to ignore election results
From the comments:
So Comey had to go through 347,000 emails before the election? Well why did he and Strzok ignore them for more than a month after the NYC FBI office informed them that they had found Hillary's emails going back to 2006 on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he apparently shared with his wife Huma Abedin who is Hillary's BFF? This was why Comey had to inform congress about her emails 11 days before the election. People on Hill's side call that election interference. Well let us remember that if Peter Strzok hadn't changed the wording in Comey's report on her emails she could have been charged under the espionage act. Comey originally wrote gross negligence which was changed to something else to detract from the seriousness of what she did.
Ray McGovern asks if Durham and Barr will hold the instigators of Crossfire Hurricane responsible for what they put the country through. I read that Durham has interviewed Brennan and that Brennan's lawyer said that he is not the focus of the investigation. From what I've read Brennan was the ringleader of Russia Gate disinformation after Hillary's team decided to blame her loss on Russian interference. We saw Strzok's notes from his meeting in the Oval Office with Biden, Obama and Comey (?) that shows that they knew Flynn hadn't done anything wrong in contacting his counterpart in Russia after Trump won the election and they quoted Biden asking if they could use the Logan act to go after him.
And once again for those who haven't heard this yet. CrowdStrike's CEO told Adam Schiff in early 2017 that he had seen no evidence that the DNC computer files were extracted by Russia. Or anyone else. That means that both Schiff and Mueller's team knew that it was a farce investigation into Trump's campaign. Lots of info has come out that has thoroughly debunked every aspect of Russia Gate and yet people still think that Putin controls Trump and the GOP. So much for reality based thinking huh? If Biden wins then I bet all of this goes under the rug. I am curios as to why it is taking Durham so long to finish his investigation. He and Barr started it in April IIRC.
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
Your government will allow it to happen though.
Brennan not out of the woods
Good article here - supposedly by a former prosecutor - as to why Brennan's lawyer's statement is essentially meaningless, and why Brennan may be very much in the prosecutors' sights...
"John Brennan Was Put in a Perjury Trap Yesterday — A Completely Legitimate One"
Anybody have any thoughts on
where the 2016 Johnson/Weld votes will go in 2020? Stay home, blue, red, or L? Not a relevant factor in most states, even in many where Johnson got >4%.
Has NY completed counting its 2020 primary ballots?
Right now
Joe Biden is running behind where Hillary was in 2016.
The Democrats put up a very weak candidate in Joe Biden with an unlikable running mate and no platform other than nothing will fundamentally change under a Biden Presidency. When the nation is in deep throes of a pandemic which is compounding a depression for at least forty to fifty percent of the people and which will probably leave millions permanently jobless and without healthcare, the Democrats have offered them nothing to vote FOR. This is both unconscionable and political malpractice.
Biden got no convention bump at all and now Trump is closing the gaps in the swing states.
Meanwhile, that insufferable bitch continues to re-litigate the 2016 election. Regardless of the merits of what she may have said, it is always about her. Will she ever go away?
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Purposely they did
Of course they knew that if they actually wanted to beat Trump then Biden would be their last choice, but we know that they don’t care who actually wins unless it’s on foreign policy.
Imagine Gore, Kerry or Romney bitching about how the election was stolen from them. Hillary is showing that the 1st woman presidential candidate is a sore loser by going on and on and on about losing the election. When will she go away? Probably not till she’s 6 feet under.
I’m channeling yoda...
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
Your government will allow it to happen though.
hillary clinton the insufferable bitch
thanks that made me lol. i cant believe you said it thats beyond the
palepail. ha ha. projectile vomit gimme a bucket. she cant stop spewing lies its a disease. every secretary of state gets it but she was born for it i think. thanks now every time i hear or read the words hillary clinton... the insufferable bitch does follow. omg it resonates so bigly im going caps lock with it.HILLARY CLINTON THE INSUFFERABLE BITCH
lmao. thank you so much i can say her name again. forever followed by those three words. i cant wait for someone to say her name out loud to my face now so i can append that truth bomb to it.
hillary clinton. the insufferable bitch. sorry i dont have access to the parenthesis keys yet. that would look better. soon i hope. cheers
ps bernie won california in 16 they didnt count his votes its called stolen democracy. i mean the video docu thats the youtube title. drove the sane progressive quite mad id say. right off the ledge i hope she is happier now. padilla has gone full stalin for 2020. outsourced the ballot counting to canada. a firm called dominion voting systems if i recall correctly because kalifornians kant kount. dominion so in your face name if you know what i mean. they are screwing us right to our faces no back stabbers needed because trump i guess. the insufferable bastard. lol. good luck.
The kernel of truth in this
The kernel of truth in this advice, which has nothing to do with Hillary's reason for giving it, is that Al Gore never should have conceded the vote in Florida. Repubs played him hard with the Brooks Brothers Riot to stop the count and he just caved under the guise of "being responsible."
Right you are about Gore not accepting the results
I watched live when one person from the black caucus begged him not to accept the results because of all the shenanigans with the vote in Florida. Gore just sat there looking bored while they talked to him. And Kerry promised us that he wouldn’t just roll over if he lost. He rolled over very quickly.
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
Your government will allow it to happen though.
Watching Bernie roll over
Watching Bernie roll over this year broke both my heart and my faith in electoralism.
Considering the persistence of the myth
that Gore conceded or didn't fight for the votes in FL*, wouldn't be so quick to dismiss HRC's reason for making the statement. As Perez, Clinton, Obama, etal. aren't stupid, they are perfectly capable of manipulating Democrats to be ready to fight back this time. Even as the conditions in 2000 and 2020 aren't similar.
HRC and her supporters attempted to fight back in 2016, but like Nixon in 1960, they were short in not one but three states.
*This is a Clinton/DNC/etc myth. It served them then and apparently continues to serve them. What's wrong with Democrats that they buy this in defiance of the facts?
Are you saying that Gore did
Are you saying that Gore did fight to count all the ballots in Florida? I'd like to see some evidence for that. I remember him folding like a cheap suit in the face of GOP lobbying.
No
I once again didn't finish my thought. Sorry for the repeats of that, but it's been a bad week and my brain is having difficulties.
I watched as one person after another from the black caucus tell Gore about all the problems people in their districts had with voting and Gore just sat there looking bored. So yes Gore just did role over instead of fighting and then Kerry did the same thing after he said that he wouldn't.
I sometimes wonder if the power elite actually decides who they want for pres so that they can get their agendas passed. Think Hillary would have been able to get away with even half of the things Trump is doing for his friends? Especially the tax cuts.
See? Brain's not functioning. I forgot to hit 'save' to post this. Fortunately it was still here when I hit back. Guess I'll go for a walk.
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
Your government will allow it to happen though.
Wow --
your interpretation of Gore's demeanor as "bored" during an hour without admitting any then publicly known evidence from the prior two months and the six months before that tells you that Gore wimped out.
You and I have no idea why those people were even permitted to speak at that time. Perhaps it was DP theater to further embarrass Gore who had no power to do anything other than sit there or make a fool of himself and cement the "sore loserman" charge which would not have changed the political outcome. The DNC/DP had told him to 'just go away' weeks before those moments. ({Plus, at home Al was dealing with a deeply depressed wife who felt responsible for Gore's loss and he couldn't convince her otherwise.)
Gore was supposed to LOSE! He didn't get that at the time, and perhaps has never admitted that to himself. Recognizing that makes much of what happened during that election not so seemingly odd. With one hand tied behind his back, intraparty sabotage, and saddled with a terrible VP pick (Gore's major flub) and up against one of the cleverest and well heeled campaign teams it's remarkable that Gore managed to win.
(Kerry was also supposed to lose, and he did. Losing two states, IA and NM, that Gore carried and only picked up one that Gore lost, NH.)
Info, please
and
No doubt like others here, I'd appreciate a little more background on both of these statements. Possibly a few links to something we can read or an explanation? Mind you, not saying these statements are false, rather just wanting to know why you believe these.
Follow the bouncing ball -
- go back to 1992 - was it "eight years for Bill and then eight years for Al?"
We're all accustomed to think of a VP as a natural designated party choice successor, and among Democratic voters that seemed true enough in Gore's case. However, DP PTB (it was the Clinton-Clinton party and not the Clinton-Gore party) support (and that means money) was as soft as Gore's poll numbers against McCain and GWB. (After 2000 Gore revealed that Hillary was horning in on his fundraising. Recall that this was in the period before small donations came into play.) That never really changed.
(Or one could follow the money of a single donor over twenty-four years, Jackson Stephens who was on board with Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GWB.)
The media had a love-hate relationship with Clinton, but for no objective reason, chose to hate Gore and love GWB while giving the carpetbagging Hillary good press in her Senate race. Does anyone here think that the media isn't controlled by big money and party poobahs?
Check out Clinton 2000 DNC convention -- 'all hail the conquering hero.' (That was not a man ready to pass the torch.) Early comment - 'thank you for supporting the new democratic agenda' (aka destroy the New Deal). That's what Gore had been running on for over a year and it wasn't working. He didn't get a bounce in his poll numbers until after his DNC acceptance speech when he brought out his populist voice. Maybe it wasn't real or maybe it has been latent for a couple of decades. Anyway, Bill Clinton was furious that Gore had gone populist on him. Or maybe he was furious that Gore took the lead in polling or both.
In real time the clues were too subtle for me to read. Particularly as Gore made many foot faults even though he was one of the more experienced politicians/lawmakers to run for president. But it would be difficult to characterize the DP/DNC being all in for Gore the way the GOP/RNC was all in for GWB. Authentic enthusiasm for Gore developed very late in the race. The last minute NAACP James Byrd ad increased AA enthusiasm, if not voter turnout, enough that in several states voters were willing to stand in line for hours. (And how the media howled about the ad!) The NAACP also funded earlier voter registration.
Where the financial difference came back into play after the primaries (when GWB had oodles and Gore was counting his pennies) was the FL recount. Again, GWB had oodles in his compliance fund and more was available from the same sources, and Gore didn't have much and the party and big donors didn't step up. The media acted as if it was outrageous to count all the votes.
The larger tells came later. Rendell as DNC chair publicly telling Gore to concede. Rendell succeeded by Clinton BFF McAuliffe. When Gore resurfaced in Sept 2002 to oppose the Iraq War, he was again told to go away. Everything had 'magically' fallen in place for Hillary to run in 2008 for the third Clinton term.
Makes sense
I remember a lot of this, most in fact. I never quite put it together as you're doing.
Me, too.
Enthusiasm did indeed seem lacking for Gore. I recall that. Also remember how it did seem to pick up a bit toward the end. I guess others noted that, also.
Regarding the FL recount:
Didn't know that, but it certainly helps explain why Gore seemed to cave so easily. Further, I distinctly remember the media seemingly against pushing the recount situation. At the time, it struck me as quite odd. These days, I would expect it.
You've made a pretty good case and I appreciate your work explaining it. The corrosive influence of the Clintons is everywhere in your explanation and probably rightly so. Evil folks for sure and they remain evil today.
It’d be interesting to know who insisted that
Lieberman was on the ticket. Lieberman, Kaine and now Harris for VP? It’s almost like democrats were trying to lose.
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
Your government will allow it to happen though.
Odds
Kind of a pattern, eh? Just chance? Stupidity? Makes one wonder...
I think that everything is going swimmingly
according to the dem party's plan right now. It is the same as it has been for at least a decade: to lose the general election narrowly, so that their paid-staff/consultant/grifter class can go back to the donors (again) and say "Missed it by that much! Just give us even more money, and we'll win it next time for sure!”.
The problem is that the dem party has invested so heavily for so long in losing, that it is now not even second nature- it is all they know to do. Losing guarantees that they don't even have to try and govern, and they can't be held be responsible for anything: all they can do is bitch and moan. Which will certainly bring in even more donations from the many wealthy people who are also heavy into bitching and moaning, but doesn't do jack shit to actually, you know, help manage any situation beyond fleecing their donors.
Losing is profitable as hell, once you have the scam in place. Why would they actually try to avoid losing when it pays them elephant-choking bales of donated cash? They can feed at that trough forever and be perfectly content. Just don't look to them for anything resembling leadership or support of the population at large. That's not what they are there for in this modern era, after all. There are pockets to be lined...
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Publicly Gore has said that he,
and he alone, chose Lieberman. He also seemed to recognize that it had been a mistake but it was his mistake.
Kaine was predictable. Number one criteria was a person that would play neoliberal third or fourth banana and HRC would be comfortable with. Not too difficult to come up with several possible VPs for Gore that would have been no worse and probably better than Lieberman, but I'm stumped as to who else Clinton could have chosen.
Thanks -- a couple more notes
Gore didn't cave. It's not easy to recover from being blindsided by devious and clever ploys of opponents.
Issues with regard to the compliance funds.
1) Limited funds limited the number of observers/attorneys that Gore had on the ground in FL before and on election day. Thus, there was nobody on his team that spotted the 'butterfly ballot' in the first hour and could alert voters. Nor anyone that could detect Jeb! shenanigans before or on election day. We'll never know how many voters were prevented from voting. Gore was essentially flying blind in FL.
2) Affordable talent. GWB got James Baker, Roger Stone, and Theodore Olson. Gore got Warren Christopher and David Boise. I know which of those two teams I would want.
3) Automatic machine recount. Again Gore didn't have sufficient assets to monitor this recount and therefore, didn't know that some counties didn't bother to perform the machine recount. Nor did Gore's team know that the motherlode of rejected, uncounted ballots, was in Duval County.
4) 11 Nov - manual recount in accordance with FL law. The proposition should have been 'count all the votes' vs. 'don't count all the votes.' With deeply flawed information and no more than 48 hours to decide how to proceed if the machine recount didn't flip the results, and considering his financial and talent resources, including how much more could be quickly marshaled, the most pragmatic decision at that point would have been to concede. Instead he put himself in 'no man's land' against a determined opponent that wasn't going to stop putting up roadblocks and also had three aces in the hole: FL SoS, FL legislature, and US SC. Any one of which could have been decisive, but far less publicly contentious as long as recounts didn't result in flipping the outcome. The SoS almost prevailed, but it took a month for Gore to catch a break. That meant a manual recount in all counties. The FL legislature couldn't stop the recount but was fully prepared to ignore the results. Scalia etal understood that they could either take it on before or after a recount (that case would have been Gore v. FL). The legal logic for Bush in a Gore v. FL case would have been strong, but would the public have been as accepting knowing that Gore won FL?
Legally, Gore had no more options. Politically, if he had retained DP/DNC support, he would have closed with "we'll be back." Without that support, he did cave like the good party Boy Scout he'd always been.
Thank-you
Thanks, Marie. What you've written clears quite a bit of air for me.
Going to have to change my thinking re "Gore caving." Obviously, there was much more to it that something that simple.