Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

1235789

Comments

  • #202
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Also a very convenient ignorance of the counter argument.

    I await with bated breath the argument that Donald "stop and frisk" Trump and Mike "electrocute the gays" Pence are champions of those minorities.


  • #203
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I await with bated breath the argument that Donald "stop and frisk" Trump and Mike "electrocute the gays" Pence are champions of those minorities.

    Whereas Saint Hillary has never made any off colour comments about black people or homosexuals. Her attitude towards them was pathetic and insulting, pandering to them for votes.

    You're wasting your time with that angle anyway, Donald was vocal in his views. The idea that he is anti-black or anti-gay is just stupid.


  • #204
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Given how he was still loudly proclaiming the guilt of five young black men years after they had been unequivocally cleared, and given also his VP pick, I don't think too many black people and gays consider the Donald a champion of their rights.
    What a pity for your "theory" that plenty of ethnic minority members and women voted for Trump isn't it? But hey, you know better than those coloureds and wimminfolk what's good for them I guess.
    Clinton's a big fan of Wahhabism, right? What's their record on this sort of stuff anyway?


  • #205
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    What a pity for your "theory"...
    What part of Trump supporting stop and frisk is a theory? What part of him insisting that the Central Park Five were guilty is a theory? What part of him selecting a blatantly homophobic VP is a theory?


  • #206
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What part of Trump supporting stop and frisk is a theory? What part of him insisting that the Central Park Five were guilty is a theory? What part of him selecting a blatantly homophobic VP is a theory?
    Your theory about why gays and minorities and women should hate Trump pretty much because you said so when plenty of them voted for him?
    If only the world would listen eh?


  • #207
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What part of Trump supporting stop and frisk is a theory? What part of him insisting that the Central Park Five were guilty is a theory? What part of him selecting a blatantly homophobic VP is a theory?

    None of that proves anything.


  • #208
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    Your theory about why gays and minorities and women should hate Trump...
    There's really nothing as futile as arguing with someone who just makes stuff up as they go along.


  • #209
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's really nothing as futile as arguing with someone who just makes stuff up as they go along.
    Oh really?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't think too many black people and gays consider the Donald a champion of their rights.
    You're denying you said that? We can all just scroll up and see it! You had noticed people can read your posts and see you for an obvious liar?
    No point in arguing with people who think they are clever enough to get away with that garbage.


  • #210
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,071 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    I thought Jill Stein got millions of dollars yet she cant afford a bond for a recount...where has all the cash gone Jill ???

    Meanwhile in Wisconsin Trump gains by 39 votes on day 5. Well done Jill.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    FatherTed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭FatherTed


    ebbsy wrote: »
    I thought Jill Stein got millions of dollars yet she cant afford a bond for a recount...where has all the cash gone Jill ???

    Meanwhile in Wisconsin Trump gains by 39 votes on day 5. Well done Jill.

    Have you tried.... looking at her website?
    https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
    Friends, I have an important message for you. We need your help to stand up to the powerful forces trying to block our recount campaign for citizen democracy. We received word yesterday that the final estimate for the filing fee for the recount in Wisconsin is $3.5 million – an outrageous cost increase from the initial estimate of $1.1 million that was given to us by WI state elections officials based on the last statewide recount. But thanks to over 130,000 small donors like you, we have enough money in hand to pay this fee and move forward with the recount!

    But because of this exorbitant fee increase – bringing the total money required for recounts in all three states to $9.5 million – we need your help. We’re not there yet, and we need every last penny to reach the $9.5 million benchmark. ....
    Here are the estimated filing fees and deadlines for each state:

    Wisconsin: $3.5 million by Nov 25 (ADJUSTED Nov 28 to $3.5 million)
    Pennsylvania: $500,000 by Nov 28
    Michigan: $975,000 by Nov 30
    Those are estimated filing fees alone. The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law, which can often be difficult to untangle. Attorney's fees are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $9-10 million.


  • #212
    Rainman16
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 566 ✭✭✭Rainman16


    So it seems the Jill Stein recount movement was a massive failure.



  • #213
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,071 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    Rainman16 wrote: »
    So it seems the Jill Stein recount movement was a massive failure.


    Just like her election campaign in fact.


  • #214
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Trump is already acting president.
    Obama is like the invisible man.


  • #215
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Trump is already acting president.
    Obama is like the invisible man.

    Obama has dealt with the pipeline and protected abortion rights in recent weeks.

    Obama gets on and does stuff, Trump is whinging on twitter. Obama is also helping Trump given how badly Trump's team are entirely unprepared for the white house.


  • #216
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,071 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Trump is already acting president.
    Obama is like the invisible man.

    Well he certainly is in Syria. where children's hospitals continue to be bombed and kids dead bodies are washed up on beaches.

    Oh but hold on, Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce will help.....


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Stein’s recount efforts weren’t a massive failure. The most detrimental affects would be some blowback from the three states if their electoral votes weren’t allowed to count because the outcome was tied up in the courts. She accomplished two things to her benefit, even though there was absolutely no way any of it could have helped her chances in the election. First, she remains relevant and in the news for a little while longer. Second, and more importantly, she now has a database of people willing to donate lots of money to her. Shameless, but effective. The real loser was Hillary Clinton for joining in on the recount nonsense. It does little more than make her look completely petty and a two-time loser. Especially since she had continually lectured Trump, ad nauseum, regarding the results of the election vote... that ‘We must accept this result and then look to the future’ (Of course that was back when she was a shoo-in to win the election).


  • #218
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Amerika wrote: »
    Stein’s recount efforts weren’t a massive failure. The most detrimental affects would be some blowback from the three states if their electoral votes weren’t allowed to count because the outcome was tied up in the courts. She accomplished two things to her benefit, even though there was absolutely no way any of it could have helped her chances in the election. First, she remains relevant and in the news for a little while longer. Second, and more importantly, she now has a database of people willing to donate lots of money to her. Shameless, but effective. The real loser was Hillary Clinton for joining in on the recount nonsense. It does little more than make her look completely petty and a two-time loser. Especially since she had continually lectured Trump, ad nauseum, regarding the results of the election vote... that ‘We must accept this result and then look to the future’ (Of course that was back when she was a shoo-in to win the election).

    What did you expect Hillary to do? They participated as they couldn't really fight the recount going on. They even said at the time that they considered Trump the president elect and expected that to continue.


  • #219
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    ebbsy wrote: »
    Well he certainly is in Syria.

    In fairness to Obama, the jihadis aren't going to arm themselves..... someone has to.
    Amerika wrote: »
    Stein’s recount efforts weren’t a massive failure.

    No, the effort seemed to be a huge success.
    This endevour to recount only states that Trump won (while ignoring the ones Hillary did) amassed Stein a huge cash windfall.
    She incredibly raised double what her entire presidential campaign managed to raise, in a matter of days ..... plus, as you said that donor database will be of huge help in the future.


  • #220
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Christy42 wrote: »
    What did you expect Hillary to do? They participated as they couldn't really fight the recount going on. They even said at the time that they considered Trump the president elect and expected that to continue.

    Hillary Clinton seems to be much more proactive in the recount efforts than what is being reported, as evidenced by this...

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/signups/mi-recount-help/

    And note the bottom of the page on her website...

    Paid for by Hillary for America, a grassroots campaign of 3 million donors committed to electing Hillary Clinton (and keeping Donald Trump out of the White House).


  • #221
    Rainman16
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 566 ✭✭✭Rainman16


    The last hope to stop Trump is the electoral college's faithless electors.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Have you reached acceptance yet then?


  • #223
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Amerika wrote: »
    Hillary Clinton seems to be much more proactive in the recount efforts than what is being reported, as evidenced by this...

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/signups/mi-recount-help/

    And note the bottom of the page on her website...

    Paid for by Hillary for America, a grassroots campaign of 3 million donors committed to electing Hillary Clinton (and keeping Donald Trump out of the White House).

    Aka a grass roots campaign.

    As for BoJack. You may want to amend your post as right it is very much suggesting that Stein went after every state Trump won instead of just the ones with some results that looked slightly dodgy next to the rest of the state (though as Silver has pointed out there is a more likely explanation).

    Plus why would Stein organise a recount in the states Trump lost. She can merely support his campaign for a recount in them. I mean he said there was vote rigging on a massive scale going on. What 3 million extra votes? I look forward to him spearheading an investigation into how Democracy was torn to sunder in the states. I mean who knows how many senate and other smaller races this vote rigging affected.


  • #224
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    It's deluded nonsense. Stein....and Clinton are jokers.


  • #225
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Aka a grass roots campaign.
    Are you trying to tell us Hillary Clinton has no control over her own official website www.hillaryclinton.com?


  • #226
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Amerika wrote: »
    Are you trying to tell us Hillary Clinton has no control over her own official website www.hillaryclinton.com?

    No. I am trying to say that they have not pushed for it. They have enabled it since a lot of her base want it and recounts are part of a democratic system. The grass roots and Stein pushed for it (stupidly since it was never going to change the result and the Hillary campaign specifically stated this). Hillary isn't screaming for people's money on this and I doubt she is checking the results with much interest.

    I don't get why Republicans are so against recounts when the president elect feels like the voting system does not work though. We need evidence and for that we need these things to happen. Trump might disagree with the states chosen but he is easily rich enough to add a few more in there. When so many people are claiming fraud on very little evidence we need as many states investigated as possible.


  • #227
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Remember the mocking Trump got when he suggested he might not accept the result.

    Not so derisory now is it?


  • #228
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    Are you trying to tell us Hillary Clinton has no control over her own official website www.hillaryclinton.com?
    That website is owned and operated by Hillary for America - I'm sure you can find out if she is an owner or director of that company fairly easily.


  • #229
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    That website is owned and operated by Hillary for America - I'm sure you can find out if she is an owner or director of that company fairly easily.

    That was Hillary Clinton's official website ,the one utilized through the entire campaign. If it's so easy to find out if she is the owner or director, please let me know how.


  • #230
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    That was Hillary Clinton's official website ,the one utilized through the entire campaign. If it's so easy to find out if she is the owner or director, please let me know how.
    I'm just playing devil's advocate, the website states who it is owned and operated by; if you allege that group is run by Clinton herself, I'm sure you have some evidence to support that.


  • #231
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I'm just playing devil's advocate, the website states who it is owned and operated by; if you allege that group is run by Clinton herself, I'm sure you have some evidence to support that.
    When was the candidate themselves not in charge of their own official website?


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    When was the candidate themselves not in charge of their own official website?
    Again, that would appear to be research well within your own remit to conduct. It's required to be stated on the website itself during the campaign and fundraising.

    I suppose you also argue that super-PACs are "controlled" by the candidates?


  • #233
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Again, that would appear to be research well within your own remit to conduct. It's required to be stated on the website itself during the campaign and fundraising.

    I suppose you also argue that super-PACs are "controlled" by the candidates?

    Well, we seem to be going round and round on this. I take it you believe Hillary's own OFFICIAL WEBSITE is controlled by some ominous underground group which actually controls Hillary thoughts and actions, rather than the other way around? Actually, I might agree with you on this.


  • #234
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Amerika wrote: »
    Well, we seem to be going round and round on this. I take it you believe Hillary's own OFFICIAL WEBSITE is controlled by some ominous underground group which actually controls Hillary thoughts and actions, rather than the other way around? Actually, I might agree with you on this.

    To be fair Clinton seemed to not be arsed about most things in her campaign. Lacklustre rallies, and fewer than Donald, her Twitter account is certainly not really her, and most of the content of her speeches and phoney PR stunts seemed focus grouped to death. Having said that I'm sure she green lighted anything which gives her a chance to get that job she craves.


  • #235
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    Well, we seem to be going round and round on this. I take it you believe Hillary's own OFFICIAL WEBSITE is controlled by some ominous underground group which actually controls Hillary thoughts and actions, rather than the other way around? Actually, I might agree with you on this.
    It's not her official website. The website is owned by the Hillary Victory Fund which is owned by the DNC and the website is run by a volunteer organisation.

    There is no going around at all - you're making an allegation that isn't supported by facts (i.e. that it is her, to use your persuasive argument OFFICIAL WEBSITE - because caps makes it true).


  • #236
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    If she doesn't even know or care what her own campaign website is publishing she shouldn't be running as a Democratic candidate.
    I didn't see Trump get too many let off when the "Trump campaign" was responsible.


  • #237
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    If she doesn't even know or care what her own campaign website is publishing she shouldn't be running as a Democratic candidate.
    I didn't see Trump get too many let off when the "Trump campaign" was responsible.
    Trump's "official" website was run by his campaign (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.) and not the Trump For Victory RNC group.

    Have people given up doing even basic research? :(


  • #238
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    If you view the source code for www.hillaryclinton.com, you will see the following:

    <meta name="description" content="The official website for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign">

    <meta property="og:title" content="Hillary Clinton 2016" />
    <meta property="og:description" content="The official website for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign">

    Research enough?


  • #239
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    If you view the source code for www.hillaryclinton.com, you will see the following:

    <meta name="description" content="The official website for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign">

    <meta property="og:title" content="Hillary Clinton 2016" />
    <meta property="og:description" content="The official website for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign">

    Research enough?
    So you admit it isn't her official website; it's her campaign's official website? Get your story straight.


  • #240
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    So you admit it isn't her official website; it's her campaign's official website? Get your story straight.

    It's her official website for her campaign.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    It's her official website for her campaign.

    Where's the bucket!? Start bailing water...
    Amerika wrote: »
    Are you trying to tell us Hillary Clinton has no control over her own official website www.hillaryclinton.com?
    Amerika wrote: »
    That was Hillary Clinton's official website ,the one utilized through the entire campaign.
    Amerika wrote: »
    When was the candidate themselves not in charge of their own official website?
    Amerika wrote: »
    I take it you believe Hillary's own OFFICIAL WEBSITE is controlled by some ominous underground group which actually controls Hillary thoughts and actions, rather than the other way around? Actually, I might agree with you on this.

    Which is it, her official website or her campaign's official website?


  • #242
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Where's the bucket!? Start bailing water...









    Which is it, her official website or her campaign's official website?

    I guess only time will tell if www.hillaryclinton.com will remain her website after this campaign.


  • #243
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Amerika wrote: »
    I guess only time will tell if www.hillaryclinton.com will remain her website after this campaign.
    Now we're mixing in futurology!


  • #244
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Risky game that.

    http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-polls-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-leading-battleground-states-win-lose-670x388.jpg


  • #245
    Jan_de_Bakker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭Jan_de_Bakker


    "Do the right thing" ???

    Yeah in their OPINION !!!
    one of my colleagues is organizing (ex Pat American) lots of letter writing to urge them to "do the right thing and save America" .... I mean how arrogant ?

    Imagine if Hillary won and Trump supporters were saying "Save America ..."
    think about the uproar!! .


  • #246
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Now we're mixing in futurology!

    Think about it. The campaign is over... Hillary lost. Why is it not shut down if it was merely a website to be utilized just for Hillary's campaign? Apparently we just might be in the future.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Count Dooku
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,417 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    Amerika wrote: »
    Think about it. The campaign is over... Hillary lost. .
    Not yet, CIA calls for new vote
    http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn


  • #248
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Count Dooku wrote: »
    Not yet, CIA calls for new vote
    http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn

    In fairness that is someone who was in the CIA as opposed to the CIA itself calling for the vote. Will be interesting to see what would be done if it is proven. A new election could be difficult with the obvious backlash coming from Trump supporters but you obviously can't have elections interfered with like that and call yourself a democracy.


  • #249
    Oliver Beetroot
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 49 ✭Oliver Beetroot


    Count Dooku wrote: »
    Not yet, CIA calls for new vote

    Fake post alert!


  • #250
    Oliver Beetroot
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 49 ✭Oliver Beetroot


    Christy42 wrote: »
    In fairness that is someone who was in the CIA as opposed to the CIA itself calling for the vote. Will be interesting to see what would be done if it is proven. A new election could be difficult with the obvious backlash coming from Trump supporters but you obviously can't have elections interfered with like that and call yourself a democracy.

    Allegedly 'interfered with'.


  • #251
    ...And Justice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭...And Justice


    Amerika wrote: »
    I guess only time will tell if www.hillaryclinton.com will remain her website after this campaign.

    Just suck it up, trump is going to be the president, same thing happened in 2000, al Gore was technically president until Jeb used inmates votes in Florida to make sure George got there in the end.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement