I award Repubs & Kevin McCarthy the false equivalency award

yep, but Trump still got fewer votes than Hillary, and that will go in the history books

 

it sucks for Hillary getting millions more votes than Trump and still losing, but at least she conceded and did what was best for America

 

Ah! Now it makes sense. (But I think you might want to save yourself some embarrassment by responding in the right thread next time).

You didn't answer the question - which was her conduct when she conceded the day following the election. I'll save you the google search and tell you that she didn't deny it. She conceded. She may still believe that something wasn't right with the election, but she conceded and we saw a peaceful transition of power. By contrast, Trump KNEW he lost but went on a campaign to have his followers fight for him. He willfully misinformed (and continues to do so) the population. When you find anything remotely close with Hillary's behavior, I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).

 

You asked if there was denial after she conceded and I showed you yes and you are still talking smack. Your credibility just went BYE BYE. Man up and accept it when you get proven wrong. SHEESH! How annoying and childish.

 

Nope. This is my quote: So was she denying the election when she conceded the day after the election?

I didn't ask if there was denial after she conceded. You said that. And really, I think we are all mature enough that we don't have to throw out personal slags of being annoying and childish.

 

No but she spent the next couple of years complaining about it and blaming everyone but herself on every talk show that would invite her.

 

Which is her right. Did I listen or follow? Hell no. I don't like sore losers. My initial point was that she conceded the day after the election. Which is what Trump should have done, seeing as he knew he lost. His ego fueled his attempts to wrestle power back into his hands

 

Her contention is backed up by evidence.

 

and?

 

Fake "conclusion" based on twisted logic, distorted viewpoint and general uberpartisanship. You serious contend that Pelosi would have accepted ANY republic other than the two Dems in GOP clothing she accepted. Nice try.

 

No, buT apparently you do. You seem particularly gullible to the usual LW babble.

 

Saying "I concede" and then fighting tooth and nail to deny she actually lost doesn't really prove your point.

 

Good post - in fact I DO see that argument in various places.

So, yes, great sarcasm!

 

You have that EXACTLY backwards.

Democrats ACCEPTED the results, remember?

Republicans chose insurrection. Not just protests, but an armed attempt at overthrowing our democracy, including the contributions of elected officials, and have made their butt hurt crap a central point of Republican ideology.

 

It certainly does to Republicans.

It was Trump who suggested revolution as a response to the EC in that tweet above.

And, that Republican direction nearly won! One right turn down a hallway would have put Republican insurrectionists in the room with Pence (who they intended to kill) and the final step in the EC process. That would have ended the EC process without there being ANY guidelines or law on what should happen next.

Trump could have been justified in calling a state of emergency, with broad freedom and no guidelines on how much democracy would remain in the USA.

 

It makes no difference regardless of who says it. The only thing that counts is the electoral college.

 

Not according to Republicans - as noted above.

Republicans love it when they think it is a failure of democracy in favor of their party. They LOVE the fact that citizens of Washington, DC get far less representation while citizens in Wyoming get more representation that almost any other state - even thought there are more citizens in Washington, DC.

BUT, when it's election season, the EC is no more than a target for their corruption - Trumpian claims of unfairness, armed insurrection even by elected officials, fake electors, law suits by huge numbers, etc.

 

It makes no difference who it is according to. Only the Constitution matters. In the end the only thing that matters is the total electoral college votes.

 

Her allegation that Kemp's win wasn't legit has merit, based on that evidence, in my view.

 

She accepted the remaining two. That PROVES she would accept more.

Nice try.

 

He believed he had won and that the election was stolen. Right or wrong, it is his right to question election results just like it is for Hillary. The bottom line is that Trump left office without issue on Jan. 21. If he hadn't, I would be screaming bloody murder. He created a commotion on the way but the transfer of power occurred. I despise Trump's personality just like you do. But prosecution is not an acceptable tactic for political campaigns. Sorry. If they had done this two years ago I wouldn't raise a fuss. Starting it when he announced his candidacy and indicting him during the campaign season makes it political. A dead fish has enough common sense to see that.

 

What? That doesn't prove anything. She refused the republican members of the panel and installed two anti Trump ones instead. That invalidated the hearings. Common sense. Please.

 

It also matters how the constitution is being used.

Please remember that it is REPUBLICANS who held an armed insurrection over the EC - with the termination of that presidential election process being the primary target. (Besides assassination of the VP, of course.)

Also, please remember that the opposition to Trump's assault on America is now being litigated, as Trump has been indicted.

You should know that there are 86 witnesses on the list of witnesses that Smith must supply.

EVER ONE of those witnesses is a Republican.

 

The two who Republicans installed were ones that were proffered by Republicans for that task.

The remainder were rejected on solid grounds due to the nature and strength of their well publicized conclusions.

Obviously, the committee needed to be conducted in a manner that didn't assume a conclusion before even beginning the investigation.

 

This is not a valid interpretation of events.

Trump attempted to use his power as president to change the outcome of election through coercion of state officials.

This is only one of the charges against him.

Prosecution is a legitimate test of Trump's actions, given the massive evidence of assault on our democracy in ways that are seriously illegal.

The fact that he wasn't successful is NOT the issue. Lots of criminals get prosecuted after having failed.