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

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Hillary was great. As I said before, I have no problem with her not conceding on election night because of the way she was treated by Trump during the campaign.

Trump treated Bush and Republican rivals like 50 times worse than he did Hillary. In fact, I felt he was too soft on Clinton until the Access Hollywood tape.

Clinton was the one doing most of the attacking, while saying "When they go low - we go high!"

[Beet]

Hillary was great. As I said before, I have no problem with her not conceding on election night because of the way she was treated by Trump during the campaign.

Trump treated Bush and Republican rivals like 50 times worse than he did Hillary. In fact, I felt he was too soft on Clinton until the Access Hollywood tape.

Clinton was the one doing most of the attacking, while saying "When they go low - we go high!"

So? If they had any self respect they wouldn't have endorsed him. People will literally eat sh**t for partisanship these days: if Trump had told Romney he would appoint him Secretary of State, and put a piece of literal pieces in front of his face and told him to eat it, he probably would.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

This is getting silly. I don't like the fact she didn't concede (publicly) during the election night, but let's not crucify her over this.

Even if she had some sort of a breakdown (which is based on unreliable sources so far), I think I can totally understand her on human level.

Why is it OK for her to have a breakdown?

You think her supporters didn't have one?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

So? If they had any self respect they wouldn't have endorsed him. People will literally eat sh**t for partisanship these days: if Trump had told Romney he would appoint him Secretary of State, and put a piece of literal pieces in front of his face and told him to eat it, he probably would.

They had to endorse him because they signed the pledge. Many didn't support him even though they signed it.

Trump only went to full attack mode when Clinton started to attack him. In fact, pre-Access Hollywood tape Trump was kind of a milquetoast.

It's like what Democrats did to Romney - they "went nuclear" on Romney and relentlessly attacked him. Romney was a man who declared a war on women, wanted to put blacks back in slavery, and wanted to harvest the souls of poor people.

An Obama Super PAC literally said Romney murdered one of his employees and the Obama campaign not only refused to disavow, but winked.

NOW you want to complain when someone fights back and treats the Democratic candidate a little too mean? PLEASE!

Going nuclear was LITERALLY what the Obama campaign did: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/obama-plan-destroy-romney-060921

According to the report, the Obama campaign planned to go so "unabashedly negative" that it would "make some Democrats shudder." Obama wanted this to be a "personal assault." Even Corey Booker was like "Damn, they are going WAY too negative!"

This is like the kid that pokes the head of a kid in front of him, and when that kid eventually turns around and smacks him the kid poking cries foul.

This is one of the reasons I love Trump - he finally gave them a taste of their own medicine.

[Lord Wreath]

Oh for God's sake; I've never seen so many grown people cry than on the night of Clinton's defeat, it was really pathetic. Clinton herself crying was the final nail in the coffin of a weak and laughable campaign.

Oh PLEASE. There were far more grown ass men crying on election nights 08 and 12 solely because a black man won the presidency. And I'm sure there would've been many crying if Trump lost. Grow up. It's called democracy and people get passionate. You have no right to vilify voters who didn't agree with you.

Yeah right! I may have seen 'angry' voters, voters venting their frustrations on social media and voters pretty despondent about the direction of the country, but you can bet your bottom dollar I didn't see anyone crying. Crying over the loss of a politician is tantamount to crying because you died in a video game; it's just as stupid, just as childish. How many people were crying when Wilkie lost to FDR? Stevenson to Eisenhower? Nixon to Kennedy? That's right, NO ONE!

And if criticising grown men and women for crying over something so transitory and stupid is vilification, then I am vilifying people and proud of it! It's pathetic! Perhaps the Democrats dog-whistling Trump so that he sounded like the literal embodiment of Hitler had something to do with all the silly tears? I mean, give me a break! It's not as if he can't just be voted out in four years anyway.

This post makes absolutely no sense. People DID cry when McCain and Romney lost. And I didn't know you were aware of the reactions of every single American from elections that go back 40, 50, and 60 years.

Show me then! I definitely didn't see anything on the night or subsequent days, but if you can disprove me then go ahead. Whereas with Hillary, the evidence is far more forthcoming with idiot bloggers and the like literally balling their eyes out on camera. Hell, the tears were flowing big time on election night while HRC's supporters waited for the results.

And yeah, I don't need to know the mind of every single individual citizen going back half a century. Just using a little common sense and by comparing the psyche of the public then and now, it's pretty obvious that there's a disparity in maturity levels.

[Illini Moderate]

Oh for God's sake; I've never seen so many grown people cry than on the night of Clinton's defeat, it was really pathetic. Clinton herself crying was the final nail in the coffin of a weak and laughable campaign.

Oh PLEASE. There were far more grown ass men crying on election nights 08 and 12 solely because a black man won the presidency. And I'm sure there would've been many crying if Trump lost. Grow up. It's called democracy and people get passionate. You have no right to vilify voters who didn't agree with you.
[/quote]
Yeah right! I may have seen 'angry' voters, voters venting their frustrations on social media and voters pretty despondent about the direction of the country, but you can bet your bottom dollar I didn't see anyone crying. Crying over the loss of a politician is tantamount to crying because you died in a video game; it's just as stupid, just as childish. How many people were crying when Wilkie lost to FDR? Stevenson to Eisenhower? Nixon to Kennedy? That's right, NO ONE!

And if criticising grown men and women for crying over something so transitory and stupid is vilification, then I am vilifying people and proud of it! It's pathetic! Perhaps the Democrats dog-whistling Trump so that he sounded like the literal embodiment of Hitler had something to do with all the silly tears? I mean, give me a break! It's not as if he can't just be voted out in four years anyway.
[/quote]
This post makes absolutely no sense. People DID cry when McCain and Romney lost. And I didn't know you were aware of the reactions of every single American from elections that go back 40, 50, and 60 years.
[/quote]
Show me then! I definitely didn't see anything on the night or subsequent days, but if you can disprove me then go ahead. Whereas with Hillary, the evidence is far more forthcoming with idiot bloggers and the like literally balling their eyes out on camera. Hell, the tears were flowing big time on election night while HRC's supporters waited for the results.

And yeah, I don't need to know the mind of every single individual citizen going back half a century. Just using a little common sense and by comparing the psyche of the public then and now, it's pretty obvious that there's a disparity in maturity levels.
[/quote]

Here's 60 photos "showing you" that you are wrong . (not a fan of the website title btw)

http://gossiponthis.com/2012/11/09/60-moving-images-white-people-mourning-mitt-romney/

Don't criticize people for crying when the person they supported, admired, and may have campaigned for loses. People become very invested in candidates and the cause they champion. Get over it. People are always going to cry and always have. Have a good day now

[Lord Wreath]

Oh for God's sake; I've never seen so many grown people cry than on the night of Clinton's defeat, it was really pathetic. Clinton herself crying was the final nail in the coffin of a weak and laughable campaign.

Oh PLEASE. There were far more grown ass men crying on election nights 08 and 12 solely because a black man won the presidency. And I'm sure there would've been many crying if Trump lost. Grow up. It's called democracy and people get passionate. You have no right to vilify voters who didn't agree with you.

Yeah right! I may have seen 'angry' voters, voters venting their frustrations on social media and voters pretty despondent about the direction of the country, but you can bet your bottom dollar I didn't see anyone crying. Crying over the loss of a politician is tantamount to crying because you died in a video game; it's just as stupid, just as childish. How many people were crying when Wilkie lost to FDR? Stevenson to Eisenhower? Nixon to Kennedy? That's right, NO ONE!

And if criticising grown men and women for crying over something so transitory and stupid is vilification, then I am vilifying people and proud of it! It's pathetic! Perhaps the Democrats dog-whistling Trump so that he sounded like the literal embodiment of Hitler had something to do with all the silly tears? I mean, give me a break! It's not as if he can't just be voted out in four years anyway.
[/quote]
This post makes absolutely no sense. People DID cry when McCain and Romney lost. And I didn't know you were aware of the reactions of every single American from elections that go back 40, 50, and 60 years.
[/quote]
Show me then! I definitely didn't see anything on the night or subsequent days, but if you can disprove me then go ahead. Whereas with Hillary, the evidence is far more forthcoming with idiot bloggers and the like literally balling their eyes out on camera. Hell, the tears were flowing big time on election night while HRC's supporters waited for the results.

And yeah, I don't need to know the mind of every single individual citizen going back half a century. Just using a little common sense and by comparing the psyche of the public then and now, it's pretty obvious that there's a disparity in maturity levels.
[/quote]

Here's 60 photos "showing you" that you are wrong . (not a fan of the website title btw)

http://gossiponthis.com/2012/11/09/60-moving-images-white-people-mourning-mitt-romney/

Don't criticize people for crying when the person they supported, admired, and may have campaigned for loses. People become very invested in candidates and the cause they champion. Get over it. People are always going to cry and always have. Have a good day now
[/quote]
Oh my god, the infection is in both sides. I stand by my statement, but it's much worse than I thought - both sides are pathetic! I have no problem with people being disappointed, gutted, upset when their candidate loses, I've been on the losing side many times myself and it can be very 'traumatic'. This is particularly true if it's a squeaker (this was us in Australia in 2010). However, crying? Beyond extreme physical or emotional pain, that's something children do and I can tell you it almost *never* happens in Australia either; it's an uniquely American political phenomena.

Don't get all triggered just because I think people should act like grown-ups, be upset by all means, but take it in their stride and move on.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Oh for God's sake; I've never seen so many grown people cry than on the night of Clinton's defeat, it was really pathetic. Clinton herself crying was the final nail in the coffin of a weak and laughable campaign.

Oh PLEASE. There were far more grown ass men crying on election nights 08 and 12 solely because a black man won the presidency. And I'm sure there would've been many crying if Trump lost. Grow up. It's called democracy and people get passionate. You have no right to vilify voters who didn't agree with you.

Yeah...no

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[Lord Wreath]

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?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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.

[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).

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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]

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.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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).

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

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

(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.

[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.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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?

Hagrid is behaving like every other (hardcore) Clinton supporter I have come across.

First of all, you failed to prove how Clintonites are leftists.

Seen Clinton's policies? Amnesty, climate change, wars, anti-police/pro-BLM, pretending to raise taxes on the rich (tbf Democrats sell this crap every 4 years but do the opposite), free college, etc. etc.

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.

"The code" is vote Democrat.

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

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

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.

1. He was expected to lose. What was it, 98% chance to lose? Lol.
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.

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.

When Trump was beating the Republicans the Republicans had every excuse in the book:

- Trump is colluding with Hillary Clinton
- Trump is doing this for a reality TV show
- Trump is just wanting attention
- Trump is running just to help his business

etc. etc.

When Trump defeated the Democrats rather easily, the excuses were the same except switch out colluding with Hillary Clinton to colluding with Russia, and switch out realty TV show for "Trump TV."

>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.

>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!

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.

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hagrid is not really a leftist.

Clinton supporter.

So I guess this guy is a leftist too?



Or you're trying to pull Wulfric with "leftist by association"?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

So I guess this guy is a leftist too?

Or you're trying to pull Wulfric with "leftist by association"?

As mentioned by me earlier, this election exposed a lot of people.

Hell, working under George W. Bush almost guarantees one is a leftist. Remember, Trump didn't just beat one party - he beat two.

And rather easily I might add :-).

[Illini Moderate]

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?

Hagrid is behaving like every other (hardcore) Clinton supporter I have come across.

First of all, you failed to prove how Clintonites are leftists.

Seen Clinton's policies? Amnesty, climate change, wars, anti-police/pro-BLM, pretending to raise taxes on the rich (tbf Democrats sell this crap every 4 years but do the opposite), free college, etc. etc.

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.

"The code" is vote Democrat.

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

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

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.

1. He was expected to lose. What was it, 98% chance to lose? Lol.
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.

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.

When Trump was beating the Republicans the Republicans had every excuse in the book:

- Trump is colluding with Hillary Clinton
- Trump is doing this for a reality TV show
- Trump is just wanting attention
- Trump is running just to help his business

etc. etc.

When Trump defeated the Democrats rather easily, the excuses were the same except switch out colluding with Hillary Clinton to colluding with Russia, and switch out realty TV show for "Trump TV."

>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.

>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!

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.

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.

I really hope you don't ever attempt to become a lawyer. There are so many flaws in your arguments... It's comical really.

Justifying your conclusion that millions of illegals voted by reasoning:

1. The Pulitzer Prize winning site that was one of MANY sources to refute this claim has a "liberal bias". (attacking the source instead of the facts/argument presented by the source... common rookie mistake)

2. You know a couple illegals personally who voted. (this is sampling error)


You also clearly do not understand statistics. Odds of winning aren't a matter of wrong or right. They are the likelihood something happens based on available data. Trump had 30% chance of winning. Nate never said he WOULD NOT win.  In fact there were several times where Nate emphasized that Trump still could very well win the election.


Also I cannot believe that you are actually trying to make the argument that A MAJORITY of Democrats are calling for violence against Trump. Once again I would like to see some data to back this up.....

Also don't act like the media was harder on Trump than Hillary. Her emails were the most covered story of the election. Trumps policies also got more coverage than Hillary's by far. Trump had more individual scandals and major gaffes throughout the campaign than Hillary did as well. Hell towards the end he straight up LIED and claimed Obama yelled at a protester during a Hillary rally when he did not whatsoever. (Just an example)  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/25/studies-agree-media-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/?utm_term=.091ed9e9c3d8

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

1. The Pulitzer Prize winning site that was one of MANY sources to refute this claim has a "liberal bias". (attacking the source instead of the facts/argument presented by the source... common rookie mistake)

I can give you MANY examples of Politifact/Snopes having bias towards Democrats.

For example, let's talk about that Pulitzer: they won it because they stated Obama's "You can keep your doctor" line was True in 2008.

Ended up not being true at all - something Politifact would wait til 2013 to admit (when they gave it "Lie of the Year" award. Funnily enough, in that article they never mentioned their 2008 rating. Interesting right? Like Stalin said - if you delete it it never happened!).

2. You know a couple illegals personally who voted. (this is sampling error)

How do illegals get jobs or rent homes if they're not supposed to be here in the first place?

No one can answer that.

The fact we have 20+ million illegals here and they aren't being deported pretty much proves they're voting.

You also clearly do not understand statistics. Odds of winning aren't a matter of wrong or right. They are the likelihood something happens based on available data. Trump had 30% chance of winning. Nate never said he WOULD NOT win.  In fact there were several times where Nate emphasized that Trump still could very well win the election.

Sorry, but 71% is saying "Clinton will win."

You don't get to be that wrong and then claim you are "right." There are no participation trophies here.

Was Sam Wang "right" then for saying Trump had a 1% chance to win?

Only in the Democrats worldview of saying Clinton had a 71% chance win and then her losing is "correct."

Also I cannot believe that you are actually trying to make the argument that A MAJORITY of Democrats are calling for violence against Trump. Once again I would like to see some data to back this up.....

Not the majority of Democrats, but a huge amount.

Also don't act like the media was harder on Trump than Hillary.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

The Washington Post basically declared war on Trump (and won a Pulitzer Prize for that as well - liberals love handing each other prizes don't they?).

The New York Times admitted their bias.

CNN went on a war path.

Even Fox News wasn't pro-Trump.

You will lose this argument - trust me.

Oh and what happened to all those Trump accusers after the election? No longer useful now that Clinton lost? Disgusting to use sexual assault as a political weapon against an opponent.

Are you telling me that the media literally crying on election night when Clinton was losing meant they were biased for Trump? Did you not watch any election coverage? The media had a near mental breakdown like Rove did in 2012.

They'd refuse to call the election for hours due to their disbelief.

[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.