How does Hillary Clinton's concession rank among historic GE concessions?

[TheLeftwardTide]

The fact that this imbecile thinks crying over losing a video game and crying over losing election are the same thing says everything. I'm glad he comes from such cushiness that the winner of an election doesn't matter, but not everyone has that luxury. Although it seems clear that pointing out just how much so many people have to lose under President Trump would go right over this moron's head. I suppose these folks wouldn't really count as "real Americans" anyway.

F-cking pinhead.

Ad hominems and personal insults. Nice. Is this the 'tolerant' left in action once more?

Being insulted doesn't make an argument an ad hominem.

I don't consider Clintonites to be leftists, because they just aren't. They're centrists through-and-through, comparable to the Republican party of the 1950s.

That said, the "tolerant left" phrase has turned into a meme. Right-wingers who say S O  M U C H  F O R  T H E  T O L E R A N T  L E F T are idiots, not realizing that that actual leftists make fun of this constantly, because no mainstream left-wing ideology or tendency includes something about this "tolerance", or not using insults. When it comes to defending the working class, anything that is morally and ethically correct is fair game  (with that said, this is just an Internet forum, so obviously things shouldn't be taken too seriously here).

[TheLeftwardTide]

The fact that this imbecile thinks crying over losing a video game and crying over losing election are the same thing says everything. I'm glad he comes from such cushiness that the winner of an election doesn't matter, but not everyone has that luxury. Although it seems clear that pointing out just how much so many people have to lose under President Trump would go right over this moron's head. I suppose these folks wouldn't really count as "real Americans" anyway.

F-cking pinhead.

Ad hominems and personal insults. Nice. Is this the 'tolerant' left in action once more?

Being a dumbass Republican is a choice, and I am more than happy to judge you on it.

I love how Trump has exposed leftists.

I always knew it, but this election has made the proof undeniable.

Hagrid is not really a leftist.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Hagrid is not really a leftist.

Clinton supporter.

I love how they always claim people are sexist against Hillary then go on to attack any woman that does not abide by the code.

This election has really opened my eyes to the nature of people - both Republicans and Democrats (one thing that amazed me was how similarly Democrats and Republicans reacted to Trump curb stomping them).

So, let me get this straight: one person on an internet forum, who could very possibly be a troll, calls you a pinhead, and you think this is sufficient evidence to back up your more radical claims?

First of all, you failed to prove how Clintonites are leftists. I said that if you look at their policies, they are very similar to the Republicans of the 1950s, who were definitely somewhere between center and center-right. Furthermore, they generally accept the fiscally conservative neoliberal economic consensus from the Reagan era, as opposed to the Keynesian economics that center-left Sanders supporters accept, or Marxist economics that the far-left accepts.

Next, you failed to explain how Clintonites "attack any woman that does not abide by the code", never mind explaining what "the code" really is.

Finally, Trump never "curb-stomped" anyone. He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. Last time I checked, his approval ratings were somewhere in the 30s.

>b-b-but that's cuz illegals voted for Hillary in mass

Nope. Fake news.

>b-b-but the polls were wrong and are wrong about 2016

Nope. If you check the polls, while they did show leads for Clinton, those leads were within the margin of error by election day. Nate Silver of 538 put Trump's chances of success at 30%.

>b-b-but post-election violent protests

Nope. A vocal minority of protesters doesn't represent all Democrats, just like a vocal minority of white supremacists doesn't represent all Trump voters.

(I attack people of all genders who were stupid enough to vote for someone other than Hillary. Love you! )

Lol were you one of the people crying when she lost?

She didn't even care enough to concede publicly for you lol. Too sedated.

What? Are you kidding me? The original topic of the thread was about the quality of Clinton's concession speech, are you living in an alternate reality?

I don't like Hagrid's posts at all, because they consist of typical low-quality neoliberal BS, but you make him look like Noam Chomsky.

In conclusion, it seems like you're a huge cat with a tiny head.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Amnesty

"Fiscally centrist, socially liberal" =/= left-wing. Hillary was left-wing on social issues, but not on economics, so she is not a leftist.

climate change

So accepting the scientific consensus makes you a leftist? I'm not even going to waste my time trying to disprove anti-climate-change arguments. Hell, I wish believing in climate change was a left-wing policy internationally; it would really strengthen my ideology in the long-term.

wars

Being hawkish or a neo-conservative is considered to be a right-wing position, you know. Being dovish or isolationist is considered to be a left-wing position; anti-war movements and socialists movements largely go hand-in-hand.

anti-police/pro-BLM

You're implying that being pro-police and pro-BLM is mutually exclusive, but they aren't (then again, I can guess you're one of those numbskulls who thinks BLM is a terrorist organization). For the record, I'm pro-police, neutral on BLM, and in strongly favor of criminal justice reform. Also, how the hell was Clinton anti-police?

pretending to raise taxes on the rich (tbf Democrats sell this crap every 4 years but do the opposite)

Thanks for explaining just how Clinton is not a leftist.

free college

That was Sanders. Even though "free college" (what a generalized term, by the way, I mean, what does that even mean?) may have been on her platform, she didn't run on her platform. Free college was noticably absent from the message in her rallies.

I mean, if you really think the Bush administration (Dubya) was left-wing, if you think Ayn Rand is in the center of the political spectrum or something, then it really does prove how your political spectrum is out-of-whack.

"The code" is vote Democrat.

You should have clarified that, then.

Democrats were 100 times worse on Sarah Palin than Republicans ever were on Hillary.

Don't recall Democrats chanting "LOCK HER UP" at Sarah Palin, but OK.

Today I am reading about how Melania is evil because of the shoes she's wearing to Texas.

When Melania wore white to her RNC speech, it was a symbol of white supremacy. When Hillary wore white to her DNC speech, it was a symbol for suffrage.

Again, using fringe anecdotes to prove your point isn't an argument. I'll get to this later.

It's like how the African American museum ignores Clarence Thomas, but is going to have an exhibit for Colin Kaepernick.

I don't think you're making this up, but can you provide a source? I don't think Clarence Thomas is a notable supreme court justice in any way, shape, or form. Meanwhile, Colin Kaepernick essentially sacrificed his entire football career to speak out for what he believed in. I don't know if that warrants an exhibit but it sure is a good enough argument to have one; definitely a good enough argument to dispute any conspiracy theories based around it.

2. Hillary had EVERYONE on her side - she had the media, Wall Street, billionaires, etc. etc. Hell, she had Republicans on her side.
3. She spent like $1.2 billion on her campaign to get the same results Jeb Bush got. Trump spent pennies (annoyingly so IMO). For being the party that it supposed to be against Citizens United/Super PACs, you guys sure don't mind having a million of them lol!
4. Democrats were telling Trump to "stop whining" and to "accept the results." A famous saying was "Trump it's not rigged - you're just losing."

The sitting President was literally stating that Trump would not win the Presidency.

First of all, quoting a HuffPost prediction, one largely mocked by both Democrats (like me) and Republicans before the election results, is terrible evidence. Secondly, it's not like Trump is a poor, abandoned, lone wolf; he did have the vast majority of the Republican establishment on his side despite your narrative, working closely with Reince Priebus, even getting Ted Cruz to phonebank for him; not to mention that he's a billionaire. Yes, he won in an upset, but it doesn't mean that he curb-stomped Hillary by any means.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I was amazed how Democrats reacted to Trump the SAME way the Republican Establishment did. It was REALLY eye opening and IMO proved the "horseshoe theory" of politics true.

Then you clearly don't understand what the horseshoe theory is. The horseshoe theory states that the far left and the far right are more similar to each other than they are to the center. The Democratic establishment is largely considered to be centrist and the Republican establishment center-right; what the hell are you talking about? I mean, since you think that the Bush administration (which was very establishment) was left-wing, this argument very directly contradicts your other point.

>b-b-but that's cuz illegals voted for Hillary in mass

Nope. Fake news.

1. Politifact is known to be liberally biased.
2. I know many illegals who voted. They use stolen/fake SSNs.

See, this is the ad hominem logical fallacy. Instead of reading the article and going through it, point-by-point, dismantling it, you choose to instead attack the source (Politifact) and dismiss their arguments. Look at how I first dismantled your "Clinton is a leftist" argument, then attacked your comprehension of the left-right political spectrum directly. Also, anecdotal evidence means jack s**t.

>b-b-but the polls were wrong and are wrong about 2016

Nope. If you check the polls, while they did show leads for Clinton, those leads were within the margin of error by election day. Nate Silver of 538 put Trump's chances of success at 30%.

71% chance for Clinton to win does not mean he thought Trump would win lol.

No participation trophies here!

You managed to miss the entire point of my argument. Here, I showed how polling is still accurate to enough of an extent such that Trump's approval ratings have an impact. The current Gallup poll has his approve-disprove ratio at 35-60. Let's be extremely generous and give Trump a 10-point swing, which is much more than the actual margin of error of polling. He's still 5 points underwater, at 45-50. At this stage of the presidency, when the voters just recently elected him, even that's just atrocious.
If I wanted to use an example of someone who predicted Trump would win, I would have mentioned Michael Moore, a die-hard liberal.

Nope. A vocal minority of protesters doesn't represent all Democrats, just like a vocal minority of white supremacists doesn't represent all Trump voters.

Vocal minority? Lol.

It's everywhere.

It's MILLIONS of them.

We have celebrities holding a fake Trump head with blood on it; a famous singer wishing she could blow up the White House; a drunk has-been actor wondering when's the last time a celebrity assassinated a President; etc. etc.

Even if 5 million Clinton voters were a part of this fringe vocal minority, it still would be a fringe vocal minority, because that equates to 1/12, or ~8.33%, of total Clinton voters. Thanks for conveniently forgetting to back up your statements with any concrete evidence, and instead opting to use anecdotal evidence. The examples of three wealthy, out-of-touch celebrities is absolutely not enough (if you want to play the anecdotal game, I distinctly remember Kyle Kulinski panning Kathy Griffin for her incident). Seriously, show me a legitimate poll that shows >40% of Clinton voters wishing for Trump to be assassinated. I found a poll that says two-thirds of Trump voters think Obama is a Muslim. But even then, I still hold the firm belief that the majority of Trump voters are good people, and the prejudiced ones are just bad apples. If I were to judge you from your posts, you are clearly not part of that majority.

What? Are you kidding me? The original topic of the thread was about the quality of Clinton's concession speech, are you living in an alternate reality?

In conclusion, it seems like you're a huge cat with a tiny head.

I am talking about the quality of her concession - and I feel it was down a lot because she refused to publicly concede til the morning. She had all sorts of time to work on her concession speech.

The fact she didn't concede on election night is interesting, because of all the crap they gave Trump about "accepting the results of the election."

In the end, it ended up being Democrats who still can't accept it.

Again, show me a poll that shows that the majority of Democratic voters think that the election results are illegitimate and Trump physically stole the election by manipulating the vote count. This is what Trump was worried about when he said that the election results might be rigged. Recall my previous point about anecdotal evidence proving insufficient - "NOT MY PRESIDENT" rallies or Democratic elites pushing Russiagate do not count.

About Russiagate - something that I've learned from life is that you shouldn't resist an investigation if you truly have nothing to hide. Everyone who truly believes that Trump is clean should be in favor of an investigation. I'm not implying that Trump is guilty, by the way.

By the way, David Leip, the character limit on posts is too low. SAD!

[TheLeftwardTide]

Let's play a round of Russian Roulette. 84% chance of survival = you will survive. There's no danger involved!

Except Trump didn't have a 28% chance to win - more like 72%.

Nate Silver had a mathematical model to give Trump a 30% chance of winning in 2016. I would like to see your model on how you got to 72%. Oh, I forgot, hindsight is 20/20 and you don't believe in science.