The Donald Trump Incredulity Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

I know that this doesn't relate to rugby, but feel free to say what you want about the 45th (and presumably final) president of the United States.

A man John Oliver once described as "a large clown made of dessicated foreskin and cotton candy".

[SecretFly]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

[Sin é]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

[SecretFly]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

She's blaming the FBI. She's saying her loss was a set-up/fix. Whether she's right or wrong, she said no candidate should ever question the result, as acceptance safeguards the process and safeguards democratic values. Trump was gracious' to her in his victory speech - do any of her supporters believe his words then? Why should we accept her 'graciousness' then and her turn around now?

[Guest]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

[Sin é]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

[carpet baboon]

Donald got slightly less votes than Romney did when he lost to Obama. Which is roughly the same as any republican got in the last 3 elections. The big difference was roughly 12 million people who voted democrat at the last two elections just didn't vote this time.
It's worth asking the question why they didnt. Dead? Didn't like Clinton? Disfranchised? Didn't dislike trump enough to want to stop him? Just plain didn't care either way?

[SecretFly]

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

Just goes to prove that a token candidate will activate the interest of the Millennials. But as President, as CEO of the United States.... disappointing. Leadership is more than fine triptych speeches, I suppose.

[SecretFly]

Donald got slightly less votes than Romney did when he lost to Obama. Which is roughly the same as any republican got in the last 3 elections. The big difference was roughly 12 million people who voted democrat at the last two elections just didn't vote this time.
It's worth asking  the question why they didnt. Dead? Didn't like Clinton? Disfranchised? Didn't dislike trump enough to want to stop him? Just plain didn't care either way?

They were Bernie's Apostles - who didn't listen to his final appeal.

[Guest]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

So what? It was still the same electoral system.

[Sin é]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

So what? It was still the same electoral system.

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

[Guest]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

So what? It was still the same electoral system.

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

I agree that it probably does need change, but those complaining about it should have voiced their opinion long before now. The only reason they are complaining now is because they lost.

What they really should be complaining about is the fact that Hilary targeted the wrong states.

[aucklandlaurie]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

So what? It was still the same electoral system.

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

I agree that it probably does need change, but those complaining about it should have voiced their opinion long before now. The only reason they are complaining now is because they lost.

Its a bit like the missed forward pass having a bearing on the final result of the game.

[SecretFly]

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

It's a United States, sin.... 'States' being the operative word.
Were it purely down to overall population (like the EUs structures are readying themselves for) then of course the New York eastern bit and the Californian western bit would always provide a 'liberal' connected/lobby friendly President to eternity and well................. f**k the trailer trash cowboy and farmer serving f**kers in the middle.

What an ideal world for the new globalist urban elite. Maybe Clinton even helped the FBI carry out the act that undid her Presidency? Maybe that was the whole game?
Show up the 'weakness' of the system. Show the Millennial whiners how bad things are the way things are. Incite them to look for modern electoral change and less power for Individual States so that the Good of the Nation as a whole is protected. And all sigh a lovely BFF hug at the cosy thought.

[Notch]

It's not like its a broken system but nobody knew about it- not the electoral college system, the two party stitch up. How many elections of the last 50 years have been decided by people saying "Well I don't like x, but if I don't vote for x... then I might end up with y..."

And then how much is the frustration and stagnation of that broken system responsible for them having the worst, least qualified Presidential candidate ever beat someone who might be the second worst candidate in an election where neither candidate was liked, respected or trusted by the majority of the country they wanted to govern.

[Sin é]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

So what? It was still the same electoral system.

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

I agree that it probably does need change, but those complaining about it should have voiced their opinion long before now. The only reason they are complaining now is because they lost.

What they really should be complaining about is the fact that Hilary targeted the wrong states.

Who are those complaining about it? Is Hilary or the Democrats complaining about the electoral system? Lets not forget, Al Gore won the popular vote v. George Bush in 2000.

[Guest]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

So what? It was still the same electoral system.

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

I agree that it probably does need change, but those complaining about it should have voiced their opinion long before now. The only reason they are complaining now is because they lost.

What they really should be complaining about is the fact that Hilary targeted the wrong states.

Who are those complaining about it? Is Hilary or the Democrats complaining about the electoral system? Lets not forget, Al Gore won the popular vote v. George Bush in 2000.

The bit in bold.

[Sin é]

I think Clintons latest comments about why she lost the election have some nervy considerations. Sour grapes perhaps but the timing of the FBI reopening of the investigation feels like an undercurrent going on there.
As with the Kennedy Hoover days the FBI is more likely to have a better working relationship with Trump than Clinton and perhaps will be enabled to 'get things done' so to speak.

Of course she was quick to say that Trump would have no moral right to declare the election a fix had she won.  That would have been devilish of him and anti-democratic had he failed to say she won legitimately.
Now, after the fact - she and her supporters have forgotten their own moral values.  The blame game suits them too?

As far as I can recall she was very gracious in her speech conceeding defeat. Other people and her supporters have queried how someone's vote in Wisconsin is worth 4 times more than their vote in New York! And she did win the popular vote, but she has not mentioned that.

She is right about the FBI though.

I'm sure these same voters didn't question the electoral system when Obama won both his elections. Smacks of sour grapes and hypocrisy.

Obama won both popular and college vote majority in both his elections (well).

So what? It was still the same electoral system.

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

I agree that it probably does need change, but those complaining about it should have voiced their opinion long before now. The only reason they are complaining now is because they lost.

What they really should be complaining about is the fact that Hilary targeted the wrong states.

Who are those complaining about it? Is Hilary or the Democrats complaining about the electoral system? Lets not forget, Al Gore won the popular vote v. George Bush in 2000.

The bit in bold.

So some members of the public are questioning the electoral system. Is that not healthy.

From listening to an interview just now on the radio about the election process - it seems that you need a Driving Licence to vote in some states which excludes the poor.

There is something wrong with that aspect of the voting process in the US.

[Guest]

Sure, it's healthy, but it's also sour grapes and hypocritical for Clinton supporters to suddenly take an interest in the failings of the US electoral system.

[SecretFly]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

[Sin é]

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

It's a United States, sin.... 'States' being the operative word.  
Were it purely down to overall population (like the EUs structures are readying themselves for) then of course the New York eastern bit and the Californian western bit would always provide a 'liberal' connected/lobby friendly President to eternity and well................. f**k the trailer trash cowboy and farmer serving f**kers in the middle.  

What do you mean by this? The EU is very democratic in its setup. Did you not notice recently how a region of Belgium could prevent the Canadian trade deal?

[Sin é]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

The bottom line is that unlike Trump, Hilary and the Democrats have graciously accepted the results and asked people to get behind Trump. If anyone is to blame about people complaining about the system, they should blame Trump who said he would question it if he wasn't elected.

[SecretFly]

Well, maybe the system needs to be reviewed. Its not determined by population. Seemingly, each state gets 2 votes (each state has 2 senators), and then the number of congressional seats they have which is determined by population every 10 years or so.

It's a United States, sin.... 'States' being the operative word.  
Were it purely down to overall population (like the EUs structures are readying themselves for) then of course the New York eastern bit and the Californian western bit would always provide a 'liberal' connected/lobby friendly President to eternity and well................. f**k the trailer trash cowboy and farmer serving f**kers in the middle.  

What do you mean by this? The EU is very democratic in its setup. Did you not notice recently how a region of Belgium could prevent the Canadian trade deal?

Yeah...for how long?

Yeah, it's very democratic sin. Much like the old British Empire was. You didn't seem to like that too much but like the new more Germanic version better. Meanwhile, you do of course realise the EU have been trying through treaties to end the need for any more treaties or disruptive citizen referendums? Qualified on-the-hoof executive 'majority' decisions are the preferred future to tidy up the nuisance level National disagreements between each other.

[SecretFly]

The bottom line is that unlike Trump, Hilary and the Democrats have graciously accepted the results and asked people to get behind Trump. If anyone is to blame about people complaining about the system, they should blame Trump who said he would question it if he wasn't elected.

You haven't been tuning into the riots and you've forgotten Clinton's FBI excuse already?

[Hood83]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

[Guest]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

[SecretFly]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

The metropolitan elite name themselves firstly, Hood.  They're smug enough to declare themselves.  Don't present it as a sneer from the poor Republican uneducated 'older' folks - who were blamed by that very modern, educated liberal and pompous metropolitan elite for Brexit too.  "It wasn't us young and mobile fashion conscious gender fluid people who voted for the return to the Stone age through Brexit! "  They name themselves.

And on the hypocrisy.  Yeah - it's with the protesting Liberal young and fashionable college union elite  They told Trump to accept his beating.  Now they can't accept theirs.

[Sin é]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

[SecretFly]

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

And my blessings on them. It's a great right to assert for yourself in any society, the right to say you're not happy in public by way of marching and waving banners.

The hypocrisy is again believing beforehand that only Donald's mad boot boys would protest against the legitimate election of Hillary Clinton. But it's nice to know that the Democrats have learned swiftly that emotions rise when you feel your voice isn't being listened to. I'd suspect the Trump supporting bunch could give them a few master classes in the feeling.

[Guest]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

Protesting is fine (rioting isn't). That's their democratic right. Protesting about the US election system just because they lost is hypocritical.

What we are witnessing is "Democrats" rioting on the streets because of a 'Democratic' result. Now, that is hypocritical. It isn't only democratic if your side wins.

[Sin é]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

Protesting is fine (rioting isn't). That's their democratic right. Protesting about the US election system just because they lost is hypocritical.

What we are witnessing is "Democrats" rioting on the streets at a 'Democratic' result. Now, that is hypocritical. It isn't only democratic if your side wins.

I wonder are the US Soccer team all voting democrats then. Can you not see that its not just democrats who have a problem with Trump? They way he incited people to hate, is it any surprise that protests end up in confrontations with his supporters?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/donald-trump-usmnt-usa-mexico-report-twitter-latest-policies-president-elect-a7413306.html

[SecretFly]

So Trump gave the anti Trumpites the balls to go out and protest against him?

Is that the narrative, Sin?

[Guest]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

Protesting is fine (rioting isn't). That's their democratic right. Protesting about the US election system just because they lost is hypocritical.

What we are witnessing is "Democrats" rioting on the streets at a 'Democratic' result. Now, that is hypocritical. It isn't only democratic if your side wins.

I wonder are the US Soccer team all voting democrats then. Can you not see that its not just democrats who have a problem with Trump? They way he incited people to hate, is it any surprise that protests end up in confrontations with his supporters?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/donald-trump-usmnt-usa-mexico-report-twitter-latest-policies-president-elect-a7413306.html

I have a problem with Trump, but that doesn't make me blind to the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters.

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

[SecretFly]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

[Sin é]

So Trump gave the anti Trumpites the balls to go out and protest against him?

Is that the narrative, Sin?

Sometimes, the only way to deal with fire is with fire. FFF the KKK are organising a victory parade. I bet that will go well.

[SecretFly]

So Trump gave the anti Trumpites the balls to go out and protest against him?

Is that the narrative, Sin?

Sometimes, the only way to deal with fire is with fire. FFF the KKK are organising a victory parade. I bet that will go well.




But then that's Democracy, sin.  Those who feel they've won something celebrate.  The other side don't often get angry enough to riot, but there you go, that's what the other side have done.  One side taunting the other.  Pity about the mess - but if it was China, both sides would be water-cannoned off the streets and heavy, possibly fatal, punishment handed out for breaking systems of control in the State.

Halleluiah the USA!  That's what I say.  Vive la USA.  Perhaps the whackiest Democracy on the planet - but boy, a healthy version of it too.

[Guest]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

[Sin é]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

Protesting is fine (rioting isn't). That's their democratic right. Protesting about the US election system just because they lost is hypocritical.

What we are witnessing is "Democrats" rioting on the streets at a 'Democratic' result. Now, that is hypocritical. It isn't only democratic if your side wins.

I wonder are the US Soccer team all voting democrats then. Can you not see that its not just democrats who have a problem with Trump? They way he incited people to hate, is it any surprise that protests end up in confrontations with his supporters?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/donald-trump-usmnt-usa-mexico-report-twitter-latest-policies-president-elect-a7413306.html

I have a problem with Trump, but that doesn't make me blind to the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters.

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

There is nothing wrong with democracy, but the US is a very violent and divided country so hardly surprising that rioting is normal. I'd prefer if it didn't - but hey ho, you reap as you sow.

[Guest]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

Protesting is fine (rioting isn't). That's their democratic right. Protesting about the US election system just because they lost is hypocritical.

What we are witnessing is "Democrats" rioting on the streets at a 'Democratic' result. Now, that is hypocritical. It isn't only democratic if your side wins.

I wonder are the US Soccer team all voting democrats then. Can you not see that its not just democrats who have a problem with Trump? They way he incited people to hate, is it any surprise that protests end up in confrontations with his supporters?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/donald-trump-usmnt-usa-mexico-report-twitter-latest-policies-president-elect-a7413306.html

I have a problem with Trump, but that doesn't make me blind to the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters.

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

There is nothing wrong with democracy, but the US is a very violent and divided country so hardly surprising that rioting is normal. I'd prefer if it didn't - but hey ho, you reap as you sow.

I agree with that but I would question who is the sower?

[Sin é]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

[SecretFly]

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

Are the anti Trump people protesting about State sponsored Murder then? You have me confused. They're protesting against the Death Penalty?

Oh, I didn't know that! I'd be with them on that protest.

[Guest]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

[SecretFly]

And you're right. If Democracy allows Human rights abuses.... overcome it and impose a Dictatorship. On the button there, sin.

[Sin é]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

Protesting is fine (rioting isn't). That's their democratic right. Protesting about the US election system just because they lost is hypocritical.

What we are witnessing is "Democrats" rioting on the streets at a 'Democratic' result. Now, that is hypocritical. It isn't only democratic if your side wins.

I wonder are the US Soccer team all voting democrats then. Can you not see that its not just democrats who have a problem with Trump? They way he incited people to hate, is it any surprise that protests end up in confrontations with his supporters?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/donald-trump-usmnt-usa-mexico-report-twitter-latest-policies-president-elect-a7413306.html

I have a problem with Trump, but that doesn't make me blind to the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters.

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

There is nothing wrong with democracy, but the US is a very violent and divided country so hardly surprising that rioting is normal. I'd prefer if it didn't - but hey ho, you reap as you sow.

I agree with that but I would question who is the sower?

Its comes from the very tough frontier origins of the country and then the origins of blacks from the slave trade. Throw in the right to bear arms and some really nutjob fundamentalist christians to extreme liberals and you have some melting pot.

[Guest]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

But it is hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone has said hypocrisy is one-sided. If Trump had lost then I'm sure his supporters would have cried "rigged election".

Protesting at the election of Trump is not being hypocratic for anyone who is Black, Mexican, Muslim, Disabled or Female.

Protesting is fine (rioting isn't). That's their democratic right. Protesting about the US election system just because they lost is hypocritical.

What we are witnessing is "Democrats" rioting on the streets at a 'Democratic' result. Now, that is hypocritical. It isn't only democratic if your side wins.

I wonder are the US Soccer team all voting democrats then. Can you not see that its not just democrats who have a problem with Trump? They way he incited people to hate, is it any surprise that protests end up in confrontations with his supporters?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/donald-trump-usmnt-usa-mexico-report-twitter-latest-policies-president-elect-a7413306.html

I have a problem with Trump, but that doesn't make me blind to the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters.

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

There is nothing wrong with democracy, but the US is a very violent and divided country so hardly surprising that rioting is normal. I'd prefer if it didn't - but hey ho, you reap as you sow.

I agree with that but I would question who is the sower?

Its comes from the very tough frontier origins of the country and then the origins of blacks from the slave trade. Throw in the right to bear arms and some really nutjob fundamentalist christians to extreme liberals and you have some melting pot.

No doubt all you cite plays its part, but greed sits top of the tree, Sin é.

[SecretFly]

Its comes from the very tough frontier origins of the country and then the origins of blacks from the slave trade. Throw in the right to bear arms and some really nutjob fundamentalist christians to extreme liberals and you have some melting pot.

Aww - don't be hard on them folks, Sin. I'm quite fond of that Fundamentalist Christian family that hates gays, military veterans and Irish people. We're joined to a nice bunch of people there.

[Sin é]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

[SecretFly]

Putin was elected.  Most dictators get elected first.  But then they burn the ballot boxes (or fix them), don't they.

If Trump burns the ballot boxes in four years time, I promise I'll be out on the streets protesting against the Donald.

[Sin é]

Putin was elected.  Most dictators get elected first.  But then they burn the ballot boxes (or fix them), don't they.

If Trump burns the ballot boxes in four years time, I promise I'll be out on the streets protesting against the Donald.

I expect Trump to be impeached long before then and Pence installed as President who is much more acceptable to conservative Republicans.

[SecretFly]

To hell with conservative Republicans (and there are your Christian Fundamentalists BTW).  What are they going to impeach him with? - being elected President when nobody in the intelligencia class thought that he would be?

He's guilty of winning?

[Guest]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

Ah, so you don't know your history. Thought as much. You should read up on it sometime. It's enlightening.

You've no sense of humour when you're losing.

Why bring Stormont into it? Maybe you want to get heavily into Irish history, Sin é ? I'm your man if you do.

[Sponsored content]