Forums / Discussion / General

Just tired of hearing about how "We beat the corrupted left!" from Right-wingers when their party is just as corrupt. Its like a man with no legs mocking people that don't have arms, because they are missing their arms. The second the people all agree the government is corrupted and works to purge it, the faster we can fix the problem with the country. Neither side has the interest of the whole country in mind. They only have the interests of their party in mind.

Plus legal action should be taken against the people who put these illegal electorates into their positions. It is illegal and makes Trumps presidency illegitimate right now. Seems an awful lot like both sides were rigging the game.

You know, you could stop and just accept your defeat gracefully. Besides, why would you trust Salon?

[It is illegal and makes Trumps presidency illegitimate right now.]

Here's a quote from the article by the spokesman for the group pushing this.

“It’s not just Russians hacking our democracy. It’s not just voter suppression at unprecedented levels. It is also [that] there are Republicans illegally casting ballots in the Electoral College, and in a sufficient number that the results of the Electoral College proceedings are illegitimate as well.”

-Russians didn't hack the election.

The only election hack came from the Department of Homeland Security and it targeted the State of Georgia. John Podesta's email, whose password was PASSWORD, got hacked at some point before the election but there is no evidence who did this.

-There was no voter suppression. The issue hasn't been raised at all.

So why should anyone believe his third claim that Republican electors were illegally seated? This is nothing more than a group of law students and their professors grasping at legal straws in order to try and overturn an election outcome they don't like.

The only things making Trump's election illegitimate are spurious charges such as these which are little more than smear campaigns at this point.

Anyway, in a surprising turn of events, the mainstream media is covering how 4 angry black people kidnapped and tortured a white disabled person while screaming at him "fuck trump" and "fuck white people".

Even more surprisingly, the 4 black people were, in a correct and logical move, charged with committing a hate crime for their obviously bigoted motives and language.

Yet even more surprises as well, as it seems only the online media is trying to justify the people's actions as somehow donald trumps fault. Usually, the media immediately takes the side of the minority in the situation and would be telling the tale of 4 black activist who had the right intentions at heart. The television media at least appears to be rightfully disgusted with these four peoples actions, and even msnbc doesn't seem to have it in them to spin this one as a martyr story for the left to fall on their swords over.

2017 shaping up to be quite the bizarre year for reason and logic. I'm personally so used to reason and logic not mattering in a case that when people actually use it, its almost enough to take me aback.

>it's a "liberals try to overturn the election" episode
I'm getting really tired of this story arc…
Win the election
Win the recount
Get the electoral college to become unfaithful
Have Obama cancel the results and have a do over because of Russia
Get Congress to refuse certification

…especially since we already know how it'll end.

Seriously, though, Democrats need to move past this and start thinking about how they're going to do things as the minority party and how they're going to tackle the 2018 midterms. You can't keep desperately throwing hail maries with no time left when you have the next game to plan for.

I was curious about how they determined that one of Michigan's electors violated the law so I looked up the report:

MICHIGAN ELECTOR WITH COLORADO ADDRESS -- Mailing address: 1219
Gold Park Rd. Three other registered voters in the CD2 address. Elector is chairman of Colorado church.

That's the evidence? That he's got a mailing address in Colorado. No tax information, or, you know, voter registration for Colorado that proves he's not a resident of Michigan? My neighbors' current mailing address is in Florida because they're there for the winter. You're going to need a hell of a lot more than a mailing address and the fact the guy goes to a church there to strip us of an electoral vote.

Jack Holmes, the elector in question, is a retired politcal science teacher for Hope College (located in Holland, MI). I mention this only because it reminded me that my old political science teacher vacations in Colorado between semesters. Guess she's not eligible to be an elector either.

C'mon now guys, 4 on 1 isn't fair.

“They started it” is the argument of 5 year olds when it’s used as an excuse for your actions as to attempt to escape culpability, not when it states a cause and effect.

That's the implication, though. "They're being stupid, but those guys started it." That's basically it. Even if it was a fight started by someone pushing an ideology they disagree with, Farm Zombie admits the bills can be ridiculous. Remember, I'm criticizing the people pushing these bills. That's my point. To add on "but the Left started it with stupid stuff" is a tacit way of shifting responsibility.

This seems… off. Of all the religions well known to the general American consciousness, there isn’t one that I can think of that legitimately discriminates based on race

As mentioned later, LDS. I presume the KKK. Regardless, I don't think it actually need to be a religion with a name. If the point is "religious freedom", then it applies to anyone with any religious belief. Of course someone in the US has a religious belief that has them want to discriminate for race reasons – my very own (old) pastor, in the past, wanted to not do interracial marriages! If they truly want religious freedom, then it's for all people. Religious is all religion, not a small group of beliefs.

It’s a waste of ink and just makes the bill look worse for no reason.

Then it's not religious freedom. Either religious people are actually free, or only some religious people have the freedom. It's not religious freedom, it's freedom for people I'm cool with.

The fact that there are male and female bathrooms demonstrates that there was already a prohibition against someone that wasn’t of the sex that the bathroom was intended for entering the bathroom, or else there wouldn’t be a point of the signs and possibly the different functional interior designs. Of course they’ve done it for a long time, but that doesn’t mean that everyone was universally or even mostly alright with it, or that each establishment didn’t handle it differently. It’s not a scale back if the initial purpose of male/female bathroom designations was based on sex and never on gender identity-- it’s giving a tacit law legal teeth.

It was a non-issue, in reality. You looked like a girl, you got in. However, now there are concerns – and possibly even showing in real life – that people who don't "look" the way people expect for their gender will get harassed. People making a big deal out of this is causing more issues than it's solving.

I would call it cynical because it lies on the assumption that politicians are mostly, if not wholly self-serving and only act on the preferences of their supporting constitutents. I think it discredits the very real possibility that politicians may be altruistically motivated, but it’s not like transgender rights aren’t a valuable banner to hold to make yourself look better.

It was a broad statement which sweeps the entire American Left. Burden of proof is on him if he wants to argue that literally every American Left politician (or most) are doing this because of constituent beliefs. Transgender rights are not always a plus, I might add. I doubt Republicans would get much support over it.

I would call these imprecise methods.

(And everything after that)

I will elaborate more on this below, but for the moment…

Check this story out, if you didn't already. (Rehashing the same point I made.) A lot more like this will probably happen if suddenly the law says you'll get in trouble if you're transgender in a bathroom. Masculine females and feminine males (especially masculine females) would, logically, be singled out for questioning. About their genitalia.

…actually, it’d be unwise to not ask, such that you can go on a diatribe you’re sure is correctly directed.

I was hoping it'd end the discussion, but it seems I need to longpost more for that to happen.

Easy, pandering to their base.

Guess that works. I don't think the base that likes this pandering is right, though, so I still have an issue.

Republicans are concerned with protecting businesses which do not wish to take part in gay marriages.

…So, "freedom for people I agree with". They're okay with refusing service to gay people, but not okay with refusing service to black people. That's my point. It's not religious freedom if it's limited to a section. "Religious" doesn't only apply to some beliefs.

However, when 300 million+ people see things one way and 1.4 million see things another, the smaller group is inevitably going to be inconvenienced.

The rift is actually more akin to 150 million to 150 million. \ It's not transgender people versus the world. You seem to do this a lot – there's only a small number, people don't TRULY support them, and basically everyone else in the US disagrees. Except, none of that is true.

but when it comes to something like “the majority do not want biological males showering with biological females in a high school,” the minority is not going to get exactly what it wants.

Point rendered moot by above.

However, sympathy is not the same thing as telling someone they are right about everything.

Never argued it was.

Removing restricted access based upon nothing more than feelings is another.

You are aware feelings matter, right? Like, we aren't emotionless robots stomping around the world looking to optimize our dominion as a species. We have feelings and they actually mean something – as reflected in the 40% attempted suicide rate!

"They're just feelings" is a horrible argument.

Alright, the dozens of genders thing is more of a Facebook/Tumblr kind of thing, but it is “gaining ground”: http://live.att.net/news/read/article/the_associated_press-kansas_schools_libraries_offer_students_pronoun_pi-ap on college campuses as well.

But not the American left that's actually in power. That's what we're talking about here. Facebook and Tumblr and college campuses aren't the people passing non-discrimination bills.

Already, we are hearing about the occasional school controversy where a male wants to shower in the girls’ locker room and the faculty caves in. Many parents and students are not cool with this, even if the boy in question feels he is a girl.

The male is a female.

And if they can prove that they've consistently attempted to pass as that – why the fuck not? You still haven't answered that question. If they're actually, legitimately shown to be transgender, as schools can actually do, why not?

However, that does not mean the rest of society must agree with you and change its rules accordingly.

Once again, the rules regarding bathrooms were basically a non-issue. If you passed, you entered. It should've never become a point of debate, on either side.

It should be reasonable to assume that these people would still exist if gender non-discrimination laws were passed in their states, in which case they would have a legal defense.

Except peeping laws still exist.

Furthermore, if these laws included locker rooms, in which undressing in plain view is typical, I imagine it would allow said men to circumvent any alternate charges like “peeping”.

99% of the time, if you're trans, you aren't going to go into the women's locker room looking like this:

Trans people get harassed already in the bathroom when they're passing to some degree. None of us want to be fucked with even more.

So what is the mechanism for preventing incidents like this from occurring?

"Employees report that the man made no verbal or physical attempt to identify as a woman, yet he still cited a new rule that allows bathroom choice based on gender identification."

No evidence. No identification. And lastly, the point above applies.

You aren't gonna enter the women's changing room looking like a straight up dude. Nobody wants to get in trouble if they're innocent, and based on that report, there was an argument. What did he expect would happen? "The law gives me the right!" That's not how any trans person would do it.

The remedy for this seems to be your assertion that transgenderism is easily proven in a court of law. What evidence do you have for this? How does one conclusively prove gender dysphoria?

Family, friends, acquaintances, coworkers, doctors, and anyone else who might know.

Once again, you aren't gonna enter like that because y'know what trans people wanna do? We just want to change without being harassed! If we look like a dude, we're going to go into the dudes changing room!

So for example providing documentation that you’ve changed your legal name and have lived under that name for a few years, or proof from a medical consultant that you attended Gender Identity Clinics on a regular basis.

IDK much about the law, but is there a chance this would this be a suitable requirement for court defences as well? So in the hypothetical trial where a transwoman stands accused of voyeurism or some such, the judge asks the accused “how long have you been living as a woman” and the accused would be able to prove it with records of attendance at a GIC dating back at least say, 1 – 3 years (or not, and so being unable to provide legal proof that they are transgendered or gender dysphoric). My only concern though is that this shifts burden of proof onto the accused.

I would like this to be put into place, except with a lesser time scale since we aren't talking surgery. In fact, this is a far greater solution than anything else I've seen yet (other than just, y'know, not bothering if someone actually passes decently like people should be.)

Listen up closely: I've been questioned on this before, so I'll make it very clear what I think. If you don't pass decently, don't enter. (unless you have a really good reason, like being chased by a murderer. But that's implied.) It seems fairly self-evident – you risk being harassed and making others uncomfortable. At least try to hit that androgynous look.

Okay… I think I got everything.

You mean like how the Republicans accepted Obama's win gracefully by playing obstructionist government for 8 years and repeatedly tell their supporters it is a good idea to shut down the entire government because they didn't like who won? Or the people who accused Hillary of getting 2 million Illegal immigrants to vote for her in this last election?

Like all the people who accused Obama of being the anti-Christ who wanted to start a nuclear war, take away their guns, throw Christians into FEMA death camps? Or the crazy people on the radio claiming he was pouring chemicals into the water to turn people gay?

Or or even better, How about a presidential candidate accusing his opponent of rigging the election. Saying "I will win and the only way I would lose is if the game was rigged". Then when all kinds of shady shit shows up in his favor he refuses to even acknowledge the idea that some outside forces were playing in his favor?

Personally I'm sick of all the "Us-or-Them" going on. I hate that if I have a criticism of Trump I'm automatically a idiotic cry baby libtard who wants to kill all the white men. I hate that if I criticize Hillary I'm a sexist homophobic bigot who wants to see all the minorities killed. I think everyone should feel fucking ashamed that Trump and Hillary were the two choices we had. No one should feel proud of this election. It was a abomination of a shit show. I would have told you an election like this wouldn't even be used in a bad comedy, yet here we are.

Apparently I can only be in one camp or the other. No such thing as a middle ground in politics anymore. Which is why I didn't take part in this election and likely never will unless this mentality changes. World isn't black and white. So politics shouldn't be either. It isn't a fucking team game. This isn't the Bears vs the Steelers. This is supposed to be a fucking government. It rules over everyone and people only take into account themselves. If people would vote for who would help everyone and not just the people in their immediate area none of this shit would have happened.

But instead, Billy the out of work Coal farmer decided the talking orange was a good idea. While Sally the crippled, trans-nigger, trans-organic, trans-sexual, non-binary, otherkin decided to go with the talking menopause cuck case.

Politics shouldn't be about "I won" it should be about "We won" with We being the American people.

But irregardless of my feelings on politics. The point is, if that article is accurate and there were illegal electorates. Then someone needs to be punished to ensure it doesn't happen again. I can imagine what all the little Trumplets would be saying if this came out but instead of them being Trump electoral votes they were Hillary votes.

I'd be saying the same thing, that it means absolutely nothing because that's not how the electoral college works. I'm curious how this makes the vote invalid since that is what the article implies.

Is it shady? Yes, if its true. But it's from salon, which is an incredibly sketchy site. It's not even like citing Info Wars about a storyike this. It's like citing Mundanematt or Kingofpol, yes those losers, as a credible source on ethics and the electoral college.

Basil: Fuck, remind me not to touch your nerve again, lest I get another smallish wall to hurdle
>they did it first
Is not a proper argument in favor, and you know it.
>bad comedy of bad candidates
Yes, I know. I voted third party just so I could have a clear conscience. However, dragging your feet at this stage still doesn't help. The Orange-Meme American will be our President in a few days, and the logical thing to do is accept this. One should hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and not get into a lather about what a bunch of hold-outs-in-denial say.
>But instead, Billy the out of work Coal farmer decided the talking orange was a good idea. While Sally the crippled, trans-nigger, trans-organic, trans-sexual, non-binary, otherkin decided to go with the talking menopause cuck case.
As much as I see your frustration, that made me laugh.

That’s not how any trans person would do it.

If we look like a dude, we’re going to go into the dudes changing room!

You are welcome to speak for yourself, but I'm not convinced that one individual out of a group of one million should be able to so confidently generalize without the backing of some statistics.

Say you met a single clearly pre-op transgender individual who was adamant that their mental state of gender alone entitled them to use the locker room opposite their biological sex. (Certainly you would agree that at minimum some such people must exist out of 1.4 million.) What would you say to them? Would you stick to your standards of invading their privacy and subjecting them to a need to provide "evidence" under examination by other patrons, the staff, and the legal system?

A'ight, I over-generalized.

However, I believe my point stands. The vast majority of people just want to live a peaceful life. They don't want to be harassed for not being super-feminine when going to the bathroom. And that's what I advocate, as I laid out in my post. It's general decency, because it'd clearly make people uncomfortable.

My point is we don't need laws for this. Seriously, it doesn't have to be a big deal. People passing laws left and right for this is unnecessary and divisive.

Anyways, you wish for me to answer for a small sect of people – however, the idea of creating laws requiring peoples sex to match the bathroom causes issues for a lot more people than just what I've advocated.

@Basilius
You do understand that Salon is similar to Info Wars in how they're both incredibly biased one way or the other right? I wouldn't take what they say too incredibly seriously until they have actual serious evidence to back them up. And from what xTSGx said it doesn't look like they really have much of a case in that regard.

Also, if by chance their story was true and they revoted, it wouldn't change a thing because those electors were supposed to vote for Trump anyway. Them being changed wouldn't effect the outcome of the election at all.

Honestly, I think we should all stop with "we need to find a way to delegitimize Trump's election somehow" bullshit. First we had the recounts which were a waste of both time and money and actually gave him more votes. Then we had people raise money to try to bribe electors to defect and vote for Hillary, which also not only was probably illegal but also useless and a waste of time and money, and we're still currently looking into whether the Russians hacked into the elections, which isn't shaping up to well either. All that's happening is these pitiful attempts aren't changing the outcome of anything, they're are just wasting time and money.

Look, I understand why people are mad. Trump wasn't my first choice either, I honestly wanted Ben Carson to be the candidate. In this case however, I had to choose the lesser of two evils, which was Trump in my opinion because he at least said he would institute litigation that would help my family's situation, unlike Hillary. I think we just need to accept this because I don't think anything short of an assassination is going to change the outcome.

@Rivers

Just want to note that the Church of LDS officially ended its discrimination policies in 1978, which, to be fair, is fairly recent. (An interesting thing to note is that most of the discriminatory practices of the Church of LDS came after Joseph Smith's death, go figure)

@ Rivers

I think this problem also boils down to the fact many state houses are in session far longer than they should be. I too live here in Virginia and we have a short window of time that the state house and senate are in session. They don't have free time to screw around (90 days over 2 years). Other states are often open for a much longer sessions. That leaves the representatives with enough time on their hands to put in bills that cause trouble. But don't worry about Virginia passing our own bathroom law anytime soon. The Governor, Lt. Governor, and AG are all Dems, while the house and senate are controlled by the Repubs. The gridlock alone will keep bad bills from being an issue.

As a note about this transgender debate:

Y'all can continue if you want (although, I suggest if it goes much longer we make a new thread) but I'm gonna take a few days. This all has given me an idea. I'll be back to respond then to this discussion, if there is more.

^duly noted

C’mon now guys, 4 on 1 isn’t fair.

tempting me to make jokes about that isn't fair either

As mentioned later, LDS. I presume the KKK

I responded to the actual reach of those former mandates in the LDS (and LesserAngel elaborates, even), and the KKK isn't an actual religion, or even a religious denomination.

Regardless, I don’t think it actually need to be a religion with a name. If the point is “religious freedom”, then it applies to anyone with any religious belief

Said religious belief needs to be evaluated in the court of law to confirm that it was something that was held sincerely by the practitioner(s), at any rate. My recalling religions in the general American consciousness doesn't run counter to that. Though, courts have been tripping over themselves while trying to come up with a standard definition for religion, for the government's purposes (seems like coming up with standard definitions is going to be a recurring theme?).

Of course someone in the US has a religious belief that has them want to discriminate for race reasons – my very own (old) pastor, in the past, wanted to not do interracial marriages!

It’s not religious freedom, it’s freedom for people I’m cool with.

If your old pastor was mainline Protestant, there's literally no Christian basis for something like that (in fact, Galatians 3:28 would actually suggest the opposite). But people can use nigh anything for their own purposes.

More relevantly, that is perhaps true-- though I question how someone would devise/co-opt a religious belief that enables them to racially discriminate, and I find it more likely that someone would use a religion that's already established as a shield for when they engage in this, even if said religion doesn't support their particular actions.

It’s not religious freedom, it’s freedom for people I’m cool with.

Perhaps the laws in question have baked-in assumptions that they never thought that they had to really think about, like someone having an unnamed religion that conveniently allows them to refuse normally irrelevant service to a black person because they're black. That's a fair point.

You looked like a girl, you got in.

…presumably unless the bathrooms belonged to an establishment that cared. Are we talking about a particular context, here?

In order to give transgendered people the indisputable right of using the bathroom that matches their gender identity, there needs to be legislation that provides for that. Whether or not such was always necessary is no longer the point-- in places where they didn't outright legislate the protections, it was done and allowed out of convience and not anything legally established by a person of a given establishment or the establishment itself. Now, it's inextricably in a legal context because the law made itself aware of the matter (so to speak)-- thus, the allowances need to be legislated, now.

But as we've seen with me struggling to come up with a standard definition of "religious belief" because our government hasn't come up with it, either, there needs to be a standardized definition or standardized criteria to what constitutes a transgendered person, if we're not going to use psych evaluations or other legal documents. Moreover, for the sake of efficiency, whatever form this method comes in needs to be easily implementable (meaning, preferably, nobody has to go to court to prove this), meaning we can't use psych evaluations or other legal documents, unless we require transgendered people to carry "trans papers", and that has some very uncomfortable implications, I tell 'ya 'hwat-- apart from the issue of unwanted outing. The alternative is have every transgendered person slog through the court system just because they wanted to use the bathroom and someone happened to feel uncomfortable.

But you suggest the idea of "they can go in if they pass", and as I understand this, that resolves nothing because there's still a lack of standardized definition. I had a friend in middle school that I didn't even know was a boy until our second or third meeting. He "passed" that well, but does that mean that in a non-school environment, he'd be barred from using the boy's bathroom in spite of legally being and identifying as a male?. What happens if you can't "pass" well enough-- there aren't transgendered people who don't? What constitutes as "passing well enough"? Who determines it, or is allowed to do so with any legal clout?

This method has possibly as many holes as the tacit assumption I made about what constitutes religious belief and for the same reason, it seems; practically all of this could be solved with a standardized definition or legally accepted procedure for determination. As is, it falls on what amounts to gender stereotyping and "good faith" assumptions (the latter probably being a reason as to why religious freedom laws don't really include race). And none of that is codified in the law-- the only thing along the lines of all this that is, is your biological sex.

I certainly don't mean this as a point to affirm the rhetoric of "think of the children/women"-- that's not my aim at all-- but these are the issues that we now have-- in the interest of not putting every single transgendered person in the courtroom because of their bathroom choice, because the law of numerous places are now aware of this matter, it needs to be legislated in one direction or the other and it needs to be done with the approximate modularity of a mathematical theorem, which will almost certainly involve judgment on the legal legitimacy of gender identity, regardless of whether or not you've actually went through therapy and SRS. (which in part will require a standardized definition.) It's why numerous cities have legislated it (in favor of gender identity).

EDIT: Alternatively, legislate the abolishment of gender segregated facilities. Alternatively alternatively, have everybody be assuredly and provably alright with people using the bathroom they're most comfortable with to the point that we wouldn't even need to have this discussion.

However, now there are concerns – and possibly even showing in real life – that people who don’t “look” the way people expect for their gender will get harassed

That could have happened regardless of the laws, though, and if anything punishable was done to the "offender" (for want of a better word), then that itself could be punished. None of this opened the floodgates-- so to speak-- nor will it, because this could happen to anyone, transgendered or not.

I was hoping it’d end the discussion, but it seems I need to longpost more for that to happen.

So you wanted to crush his spirits by dropping another wall of text on his spine? /s

In other news:

Trump concedes that there were hacking efforts from Russia and other countries, namely China, following intelligence briefing.

An article with the declassified report.

">they did it first
Is not a proper argument in favor, and you know it."

I know that. I'm just saying that neither side is innocent of "accepting defeat." I wouldn't expect Trump supporters to accept defeat if Hillary had won instead.

Personally I'd rather let them complain because they have a right to express their concerns. That doesn't give them any right to belittle or become violent towards people who they disagree with.

This is a perfect chance for Trump to prove he has the temperament and concerns of all Americans in mind. Yet after his admittedly humble victory speech he seems to have gone back to his usual self. He hasn't done any real speeches, all he ever talks to people with is Twitter and that is one of the worst ways.

He is vague, because of the lack of characters, and people choose to interpret his words as they see fit. Then when he tries to clarify it comes off as excuses to people who disagree with him. He needs to get off Twitter and actually hold a press conference to address concerns in a real legitimate way.

The way I see it, this isn't about accepting defeat anymore. The Republicans stepped in Obama's way perhaps every time he tried to do something, and even Trump challenged whether or not he was eligible to run/be president, but people that have actively opposed Trump's win have gone as far as: rioting, trying to persuade and/or bribe people into becoming faithless electors for not-Trump's sake, trying to misinterpret Russia's involvement in the leaks as an actual hacking of voting machines, recounts based on vague notions that netted Trump MORE votes, attacking the legitimacy of the EC and trying to legitimize the popular vote even if the results pointed to no majority when you consider third parties, and now trying to get the House to waste more time "rectifying" something that A) probably has happened every election and B) won't change the bottom line results, nor the fact that Trump won those votes legitimately even if they were cast illegitimately.

(To elaborate on B) , the report in the article you posted (which neglected to mention the Clinton electors in violation, by the way) said that 50 Trump electors weren't eligible to be electors, but after checking which states had faithless elector laws, I found that there were only 17 votes that even had the chance to be lost by Trump.)

The Republicans might have been petty when Obama was in the White House, but the Democrats have taken this to a whole new level-- they are willing to actively undermine the legitimacy of the president elect's future presidency even when they don't have any good way of fighting back when the executive and legislative branches are both primarily red, before he even sits in the Presidential seat.

And they're willing to let the vote be done by the House, which is bound to piss more people off as it involves much fewer people voting for the president.

Basilius said:

You mean like how the Republicans accepted Obama’s win gracefully…

I don't ever recall McCain, Romney, or any right wing third parties trying to do a recount in Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, or North Carolina (states Obama won by under 100,000 votes). I also don't recall anyone attempting to get the electoral college to revoke Obama's win over qualification concerns. Then, in a last desperate effort, have a half dozen Republican Reps contest the results during the certification vote.

I do remember Republicans willingly voting in all of Obama's cabinet appointees (even Clinton was voted in 94-2), Something Dems now vow to fight against. I also seem to remember Sotomayor (68-31), and Kagen (63-37) getting confirmed by the Senate, despite Republicans being able to filibuster both nominations. Again, Dems have vowed not to reciprocate.

…tell their supporters it is a good idea to shut down the entire government because they didn’t like who won?

Sauce on this? Because from what I recall, the 2013 shutdown was over funding Obamacare, not some strange "punish Obama for winning" reasoning.

Really, this "the Republicans were obstructionist so we need to be ten times as intense!" rationale I'm seeing from some liberals is not a good approach. It'll only lead to Republicans hardening their stance the next time they're the minority party. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind completely paralyzes the government and leads to a constitutional crisis.

That's not to say that the Democratic Party should just shrug and accept everything Trump proposes--a healthy, strong opposition is the best check against one party achieving total totalitarian control over a government--but doing the complete opposite and opposing everything, even stuff the Democrats are actually in favor of like infrastructure spending, just because Trump proposed it and they don't want to "normalize" him or whatever is just absurd and a sign that the country is plummeting downhill fast.

If you look back at all the great president's we've had--Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan--one of the big reasons they're so fondly remembered is their ability to look at the other side of the isle and reach out. Bipartisonship may be increasingly reviled by both sides as "weakness" or "buckling" but I think it's the only way to really get things done. Trying to force things through with just your color voting in favor will only cause a backlash later that practically nullifies everything you tried to accomplish, as we're now seeing with Obamacare and, if Trump doesn't pick up some Dem support, likely his policies as well. If you have no stake in the game, you don't care if the game implodes.

Sadly, because of how increasingly dug in and hardlining everyone's getting, I don't think we'll see another truly great President for quite some time.

Ugh, I'm still depressed about Trump, worrying about him removing net neutrality when he takes office, since he said he was against it and has FCC advisors that are against it. I'm going back to college, and I don't want to stay stressed and let it interfere with my classes, but it still bothers me. I don't want to see Trump screw over the internet when he takes office.

Did you forget there was an entire legislative branch with senators and representatives to whom you can appeal, starting with your state? The President can't just make laws for a reason-- I don't know why people talk about him as if he can.

to something like this, Lisa would say something like "people think the president can make laws because Obama's been abusing executive orders during his time in office-- I don't know how factual this is, though

>abuse of exec orders
He has issued hundreds of them, to my knowledge. Funnily enough, Trump's first orders are likely to reverse nearly all of them.

any chance of you playing substitute Lisa? You might need a wig.

More than a couple hundred, yeah. It's actually not too bad, compared to Clinton and even Bush. The way she was talking, I thought it was a couple million executive orders.

As far as abuse goes, there was the controversy involving him wanting to sign an executive order for gun control. They didn't like how he was "circumventing Congress" to pass an order to create (further) restrictions on gun purchasing.

There's also the one involving gender segregated facilities in federal establishments. That was blocked in several states because they didn't appreciate that he redefined what sex was as defined in Titles VII and IX on the fly for his own purposes while twisting their arms by threatening the cutting of federal funds if they didn't comply.

Those are the only two that come to mind.

Also, goodness, no. Sounds like a large burden to bear for a centrist that's a twitch to the right. I was kind of thinking Colonel Sanders would fill that void.

I can't believe I missed this one considering how we were talking about it not too far off in the thread, but here's Biden not having any of what the Democrats are cooking:

(EDIT: The heck with it, I'll just post both.)

I'll sum up the endings of the "Liberals (Dems?) Try to Overthrow the Election Results" the best I can:

Win the election (low EC energy, Trump wins)
Win the recount (Trump wins more and they literally can't do a recount in a major blue county in Michigan)
Get the electoral college to become unfaithful to Trump's detriment (there were more unfaithful Clinton electors)
Have Obama cancel the results and have a do over because of Russia (that's not how this works-- that's not how any of this works)
Get Congress to refuse certification
(this one's the best part-- there was some report circulating around about illegal electors for Trump, 50 "confirmed", and "possibly as many as 100"; disregarding the dubious accusations for many of those electors, the fact that the electors for a lot of those states were bound means that of the 50 "confirmed", Trump would only have the chance of losing 17 votes out of his 304-- didn't matter anyways, because none of the representatives that objected could produce an objection backed by either one of their senators, and one of the objecting reps cited "long lines")

There's also a miniarc where they try to convince people that Clinton won the popular vote (not in any meaningful way unless you throw away the 5% of votes that went to neither of them)

Did I get that all right?

inaugural bible theft when

It's sad. The attempts at de-legitimizing Trump's election has far greater ramifications on domestic and geo-political nature.

Imagine, if they did find a way to de-legitimize the election, does that mean we have to do an entirely new election? With the same exact candidates?

Would the turnout be the same? Do we push the inaguration day further?

Does Trump's VP become President?

And while we are all debating the constitutionality, and the procedural necessity – who is then looked at as the President? President Obama?

Half the world is pivoting it's politics around t he election in the US, and are they going to just now sit there and wait?

Would leaders like Putin, seeing the domestic chaos, and democratic crisis in the US take advantage to expand?

Like, I get it, Democrats, from you're point of view we elected the worst of the worst – and the more far left you go the more evil he becomes. But this is just utterly childish, selfish, and it's honestly goddam dangerous time to throw a shit-fit because you didn't get your way.

I think the only way they could really de-legitimize the election is by winning the debates that ensue after sustained objections to take away EC votes from Trump (remember that you need a rep and a senator). They would effectively have to make a standing and agreed upon case that the voting machines were literally hacked in favor of Trump (if said states even have electronic voting). Once they figure out there was nobody who got 270, the House would then have to vote, meaning each state would be given one vote.

Considering that Trump actually won the majority of states, last I checked, this would… probably be a complete and utter waste of everyone's time. Also flies in the face of people who oppose the EC, since even fewer people would be deciding our president.

…y'know, I just realized that Trump still won a majority of the states and would almost certainly win the House vote if it ever came to that.

What was the end game, here?

I don't really think there even was an end game here. I think after Trump was elected the democrats and liberals were pretty much grasping at straws in order to do something, anything in order to possibly get Trump to not be president. Like I stated before, however, I don't think anything short of an assassination is going to stop it.

That doesn't mean they're not going to try though. I mean they're planning a massive, country-wide riot protest against Trump's inauguration on Inauguration Day. Then, the democrats were going to form a committee pretty much dedicated to undermining anything Trump tries to do during his administration.

Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast said:

What was the end game, here?

Getting through the denial (#notmypresident), anger (fuck Donald Trump!), and bargaining (w-we'll elect a moderate Republican like Kasich in the electoral college) stages of grief.

Tyranid Warrior #1024649049375 said:

anything short of an assassination is going to stop it.

Even that wouldn't. You have Pence, then Ryan, then Hatch (a Utah Senator who's the current President Pro Tempore of the Senate), then Tillermon. I would laugh hysterically if liberals' efforts to depose Trump end with the CEO of Exxon Mobile becoming president.

Not to mention the whole of Congress and 25 states is completely controlled by the GOP. That's not changing no matter who's president for the next two years.

It really is striking how badly the Dems have done at a state level since Obama took office. Whoever becomes DNC Chair should seriously consider plagiarizing Howard Dean's playbook--especially since federal policy's going to be more or less locked in for the next four years. State-level action's going to be the only way to get their platform implemented.

So what say you on the speech Meryl Streep made at the Golden Globes last night where she basically tore Trump apart?

"We pay you to pretend to be someone clever, not to hear what you really think."

>Donald Trump mocked a disabled reporter

…it would seem he mocked a reporter who happened to be disabled, actually, but even in the same speech, he mocked someone who wasn't disabled with similar gesticulation and tone. He also mocked Ted Cruz once with the same gesticulation and similar tone.

(you'll have to pardon me for the ostentatious editing of this one)

Anyways, it's Streep giving a par speech for 2-3 minutes and virtue signaling afterwards, I feel. The press isn't in any danger from Trump-- they're more in danger from the continually falling trust the public has in them.

Is anyone else ready for the inevitable headline of "Democrats refuse to give aid to terror attack victims because Republicans proposed the bill" to pop up?

Does literally no one remember eight years ago when Obama was elected and Republicans everywhere tried to get the election invalidated based on Obama supposedly being born in Kenya? Even the new God-Emperor Trump was a part of it.

Yes, but eventually they gave up after the attempt. I mean you have the occasional person who brings it up again, but for the most part they gave up after the first try.

The democrats here have attempted to first try recounts, which netted Trump more votes in the end and wasted time and money.. Then, they tried to raise money in order to bribe Trump's electors to defect, which not only seems highly illegal to me but also failed with more people defecting from Hillary than Trump, wasting even more time and money. Now, they are still trying to delegitimize it by saying the Russians directly hacked the election results, even though it's been proven that if they even did anything, they merely hacked the emails of Hillary Clinton and released them, most of which were emails we should've had to begin with because she trashed them during her FBI investigation. Plus now they're trying to say that several of Trump's electors weren't able to vote due to elector requirements, even though if that was the case it wouldn't effect the ground result at all because (1. it was found that only 17 of those electors were legitimately in violation of the requirements, and (2. those electors were supposed to vote for Trump anyway, so even if they did replace them Trump would still get the votes. All in all, these attempts have wasted more time and money than they have actually influenced the outcome of the election in any way.

Also, in case you bring it up. I know some people protested back when Obama was elected. However that was a peaceful protest, unlike these riots here:

You mean when a bunch of lobbyists did the thing that lobbyists do, except this time more than usual, for the reason a lobbyist lobbies?

And no, I don't remember Trump being a part of that. I remember him being tardy to the party in 2011, when everybody else already dropped it.

And as asinine as those lobbyists' falsely-based concerns were, at least it was over a constitutional requirement and not a three-peat protest that carried on into the chamber where they certified the votes. They stopped at the EC. I don't remember any Republican politicians actively protesting the vote certifications in 2008-- you can point me to that, if they did.

@Tyranid Warrior:

I don't quite remember them raising money to bribe EC voters; I remember them raising money to do the recounts.

(You're not wrong on the point of Clinton defectors, but there's a funny story, actually-- there was a particular elector from the state of Washington who didn't cast her vote for Clinton to protest a Trump vote. An absolutely dumb move, as what was necessary was getting less people that were supposed to be voting for Trump to do so. It's her first time in politics, too, she says-- yeah, I'd believe her.)

There were two leaks-- one from the DNC, and one from Podesta-- that people talked about as being obtained either by the Russian state or Russia-affiliated entities. We didn't need to know about those, but the leaked e-mails contained, to many, damning information concerning Clinton and her campaign.

I'm not sure where you got the deets about the electors in violation, but since they including a figure I stated, I want to believe you got that info from my post on the matter-- in which case, I think you misread: I assumed that the 50 violation were the only ones they were ever going to cite. Giving faithless elector laws in a lot of the states of those electors, only 17 of them were in violation and at risk of being replaced by people who could choose to not vote Trump.

And I agree on the "waste of time" thing-- of all things, this garbage shouldn't have spilled past the EC voting. All it's been doing is fueling partisanship and general division, and we really don't need that.

@Black Graphic T:

I hope they don't actually go the route of being partisan petty-- it won't make them look better.

Can I get a timestamp for when Trump get's torn apart? Because the first half is just about how some actors are immigrants and the the second half is about how the msm is good(lol).

These protests and stuff remind me of Occupy Wallstreet. Anyone remember that? The protest that became a giant collection of squatters and vagrants, and managed to accomplish nothing.

Liberals were angry and had all this virlent passion for change and then they didn't do anything with it, except convert into salt and vinegar and then became really, really, viscous douchebags. I'm not sure if I got my facts straight I admit, but I think around the time of occupy wallstreet happening, liberals online went from mildly annoying about issues, to giving rise to the whole term "social justice warrior", and at the same time, folks like the tumblr safe-space and the Enter The 36 Genders crowd really became prevalent as well.

It's kinda sad thinking on it now, and seeing it play out again. Because when republicans/conservatives got burned in the 2008 election, we ended up seeing the rise of a new sub-party, the Tea Party, come into exsistence. It was stupid as fuck, but it was a way of taking that outrage and passion, and trying to use it to enact change, and get things done.

It's embarrassing to say this, but the way the liberals protesting and really demanding change are going about trying to get it, its actually making the Tea Party look dignified in comparison. A retarded effort to try and get things changed at the local and federal level, is way better then just shouting at people and demanding others make the change for them.

Well I wouldn't call it retarded, since it achieved some of its aims, and was arguably a necessary precursor to the Trump phenomena.

WSJ has a neat article on Tillerson's negotiating skills and how he made deals with Russia. (Don't worry, it's not behind their paywall.)

LightDragonman1 said:

So what say you on the speech Meryl Streep made at the Golden Globes last night where she basically tore Trump apart?

All it really does is feed into the populist persona he's got going. "Look at this multimillionaire liberal Hollywood elite circlejerking at her swanky awards show none of you will ever be able to attend." It really didn't help that she badmouthed the NFL and MMA fighting as well for "not being the arts" which is about as pretentious and arrogant as you can get.

I also find it really weird liberals are still harping the "Trump says and does mean things" strings. That was the entirety of Clinton's campaign and she lost by 70 electoral votes. It's pretty clear most of the states' citizens don't really care about what he says--they care about what he plans to do. Wait until next year, then criticize him for failing to live up to the promises he made.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/09/5-reasons-meryl-streeps-golden-globes-speech-dud/ More on why Streep's show is a load of hot air. I think I like this author.

It Started With Her

Trump certainly embraced the birther movement at a later date, but it started during the 2008 Democratic primary and it originated from the Clinton Campaign. Mainstream Republicans never got on the Birther Train. It was picked up by the grassroots/Alex Jones wing after the 2008 election and peaked during the 2012 campaign. Claims that Republicans used it to de-legitimize Obama are incorrect.

In fact, many Republicans did not obstruct the incoming administration. Most of Obama's cabinet picks were confirmed by members of both parties: Hillary Clinton, State, 94-2; Eric Holder, Attorney General, 75-21; Tom Vilsack, Agriculture, Unanimous Voice Vote. At the time, the Democrats controlled the Senate with 55 seats as well as 2 independent Senators who caucused with them, so these numbers reflect large cross-party voting.

Only the Commerce nominee failed to win confirmation due to Republican opposition, and Republicans opposed confirmation because doing so would have removed Republican Senator Judd Gregg (New Hampshire) from the Senate, allowing a Democratic governor to appoint a replacement which would have given Democrats a super-majority of 60 votes.

That's a sample. Several other cabinet members received confirmation by voice vote, and Republicans did oppose some of Obama's picks which were nonetheless confirmed. But overall Republicans were hardly being obstructionist at this point, and their opposition will not be comparable to what we will see when Trump's nominees come up for confirmation.

It's almost if they live in a magical bubble that the outside world just cannot penetrate in any meaningful way.

Seriously, listening to Streep and the other celebrities constantly harp on Trump throughout the Golden Globes (and great, just realized that the Oscars will be worse in this regard >_<) only makes me think of this:

Meryl Streep draws ire of MMA world after Golden Globes mention

As Streep accepted the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award, she railed against the exclusionary rhetoric of Trump and others on the right. That led to an unexpected shot at sports fans.

“Who are we, and what is Hollywood anyway? It’s just a bunch of people from other places,” Streep said. “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. And if we kick them all out, we’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.”

The reaction was swift on social media. Fans and fighters alike lashed out at the perceived slight, almost immediately pointing out the diverse roster of the UFC and other MMA promotions and defending the artistic side of the sport.

Within a couple of hours, Streep even had an invite to the upcoming Bellator MMA card in Los Angeles via a letter published online by the organization’s president, Scott Coker.

“I’m a lifelong fan of your work but also a lifelong martial artist who happens to promote mixed martial arts around the world,” Coker wrote. “The global sport of mixed martial arts celebrates male and female athletes from all around the world who work years tirelessly honing their craft and -- yes -- art. They come from every country and every walk of life. We at Bellator support them and honor their skill.”

UFC president Dana White weighed in on the issue during an interview with TMZ Sports on Monday when he pointed out it shouldn’t be a surprise Streep isn’t a fan of the sport.

“It’s not going to be everybody’s thing and the last thing in the world I expect is an uppity, 80-year-old lady to be in our demographic and love mixed martial arts,” he said.
https://archive.is/M2DTB

Hahahahahah, aaaahahahahhahaha!

Sen. Booker to testify against Sen. Sessions

Is Booker going to testify about the civil rights legislation he co-authored with Session last year?

"I feel blessed and honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions in being the Senate sponsors of this important award. This award is one of the highest civilian honors our nation can bestow, and it is clearly fitting to give this tribute to the courageous foot soldiers."

I wonder if Lisa will throw a party when Obama finally steps down.

Congress Quietly Passes New Rule Allowing House Members To Hide Records From Ethics Probes

Which goes along perfect with Florida's Officials banning the term "Climate change" and "Global Warming". And Kansas Republican governor stopped publishing budget reports because their state is so far in the shitter, though at least if you do proper paperwork you are allowed to see the numbers.

FBI says the Republicans were also hit by Russian hacks.

Strange that their info wasn't leaked like the Democrat's.

"Trump Denies Allegations Of Secret Ties, Collusion Between Campaign And Russia"

A political witch-hunt. Sad. MSM is big losers.

To be honest, I like AP and NPR. I feel like they do good journalistic work and don't jump to conclusions, but I'll admit that I feel as if what they report is left-leaning (but I don't mind that either as long as it's good journalism.)

The story must have just broken, since no one else has brought it up yet. And NPR acknowledged that they saw the document but won't talk about it much, because it hasn't been independently verified.

So maybe two questions:

If not "MSM," what news sources do conservatives use? I want to know what you use. I suspect it's not Fox News.

And what do you think of this document? A political witch hunt like President-elect Trump says?

…oh, crap. Going by the comments, NPR pulled some punches on what they could have said. So kudos for them not going for the jugular without being sure.