Shrillary is a CRIMINAL who shiuld be in JAIL along with all the other DEMONRATS!

It all started when the Illuminati forgot to add semen milk to the spirit-cooking juice before anointing Hillary. Turns out Lucifer is a stickler for details.

Shrillary SHOULD be in jail - but if she goes, half of Washington goes down with her.

No way in hell someone with that many friends in the CIA, CFR, and banking industry is getting an orange jumpsuit, regardless of what her buddy Trump promised America.

On the plus side, we could still get some celebrity/entertainer 1%ers against the wall. It'd be an empty victory in the grand scheme of things, but satisfying none the less.

are you sure it isn't you who deserved trump all along?

What are you so mad about? I'm pretty sure black kids with Skittles are going to be killed with even more impunity now.

dude don't be racist

Sorry you're right, this is more a Disney Channel TV movie closing credits song.

come on, they got a black person to rap at 2:15

So Jill Stein still has a chance THANK GOD.

It would be nearly unprecedented if even a handful switched their vote.

30? Not a chance in hell.

The Electoral College was created for the very reason of keeping an incompetent panderer like Trump out of the White House. If the electors elect Trump, then they've failed the Electoral College and should drop out and go to community electoral college.

No it wasn't. The college was devised to mitigate the influence of large population centers on the process.

Yeah, wouldn't it be a travesty if the person chosen by the largest part of the population became president.

>>Yeah, wouldn't it be a travesty if the person chosen by the largest part of the population became president.

19.2% of the population, versus 19% of the population.

This is, of course, assuming that the voting numbers are correct. There's a bunch of lukewarm "election rigging" memes floating around right now (when is there ever not?); depending on the team you picked, this is usually either "voter suppression" or outright "voter fraud" (really two different perspectives on the exact same issue). On the fraud side of the debate, estimates range up to ten million fraudulent voters or more - between undocumented aliens casting ballots illegally, to Bob Creamer's notorious "bus strategy" - while the voter suppression conspiracy theorists allege at least a few million voters had been disenfranchised in key states.

So, the actual percentage here is debatable; could be 19.2% of the population, but could also be anywhere between 21% or 16%. Even in the best-case scenario, that is still only a "small" part of the population, and is nowhere near "the largest" unless you for some reason decide to voter-suppress the almost 60% of the population who refused to participate in their master's sacred ritual.

"Monkey Napoleon
No it wasn't. The college was devised to mitigate the influence of large population centers on the process."


Well, specifically it was created to bring the slave holding states into the union, because the centers of voting-eligible population were in non-slavery states and they were afraid that in a direct democracy their legal right to keep slaves might be threatened.

@Xeno: Majority is the opposite of minority. So historically speaking, yeah... it actually can be a travesty.

@OZ: Name one thing about our country that isn't deeply rooted in racism and bigotry. I dare you. That argument doesn't fly when people try to use it against the democratic party or planned parenthood, and it shouldn't fly now.

The electoral college has it's problems, and maybe there is a better way to do it, but it's a fact that the reason I stated is why it exists. It's also not crazy to have checks protecting minority voices. The reason for this should be obvious. It doesn't change just because YOU find the minority distasteful.

Justice and reason is inevitable outcome of an open and fair society, and anybody who thinks a few setbacks now and then isn't worth protecting the smallest voices can eat a dick and get the fuck out because that's not progressive.

Exactly this.

Nailed it

Even if that was all correct and not a total load of drivel overheard during a game of telephone, it is all still fantastically superficial reasons to think Trump would be the better president.

There's plenty of things to criticize about the Clinton campaign, and Bhww listed a good number of them. But bitching about "it's her turn" isn't one of them. Yes, Hillary only ran because she wanted the office. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON ANYONE HAS EVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT. People don't go through the hell marathon needed to get this job because they're Doing It For the Children or Want to Guard Our Future or whatever. They do it because they want to be in charge.

So yeah, she felt it was her due, like Gore and Kerry and Dole, and also like Trump, Obama, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt and Lincoln. Ambition isn't a failing in a presidential candidate, it's a fucking requirement. You need to be ridiculously ambitious just to want the job. That's why we've never held ambition against a candidate, at least not until one of them was a girl.

BHWW basically just rehashed that Jonathan Pie video and what a bunch of other people have already been saying.

I think there are a billion small reasons why she lost, some that make sense, a lot that don't, and it was still pretty close. I've seen liberals deride her because she "defended a child rapist" [as a public defender who was assigned that case], or because she campaigned for Goldwater as a 16 year old--people really, really want to hate her and went well beyond what was actually there to hate about her.

you know who else they call losers? people who lose a election to donald fucking trump. she had every resource, every major endorsement and every ounce of the DNC's clout behind her every step of the way - she had everything she needed to win the election except a soul

pretty sure the clinton campaign had an oppo file at least 2 feet thick on trump and it didn't make a lick of difference. this loss is hers and hers alone - bernie's failings don't change the fact she failed us. now we get 4 years of trump because she couldn't be bothered to avoid the appearance of impropriety despite her clear intention to run for office for motherfucking decades

The people who failed us are anyone who didn't vote for Hillary, period. On Election Day this country turns over its hiring duties to the people, and it's the people who hired Trump.

Have you noticed that, for the past 50 years, Republicans have prospered by appealing to whites' racism or at least their discomfort about race? They can run the worst candidates -- GWB, GWB again, McCain, Romney -- and still take away about half the vote just by dogwhistling. Except this time, Trump gave a majority of white voters exactly what they wanted by being nakedly and unabashedly racist. Trump is an idiot as politicians go, but he went low in ways politicians wouldn't think to, and it turns out marketing to our worst instincts won.

While I can't exactly respect people who voted for Trump, at least I can say they voted for what they believed in. But people who disapprove of Trump yet didn't cast their vote for the one candidate who had a shot at beating him ... they are shit. Not even shit people, they are simply shit.

Over the last eight months, Bort, I've noticed you're nearly always the first to actually mention Bernie in most political threads whenever Clinton comes up. Furthermore, it's the exact same tack every time you do: sarcastically bringing him up as if responding to a question nobody asked, usually followed up with attacking points like Green Mountain, as above (surpised you didn't bring up his wife this time; you've been trending that one lately). I could probably think up a handful of reasons generous, absurd, or just plain ugly, as to why you've been so methodical in railing against him, even this long after his time was over. Honestly though, I don't really care why. I voted Pope Hilarius too, and even if I wanted a D victory, I was completely unenthused or expectant for things to actually improve; it was like choosing to see Revenge of the Sith in the theatre all over again, except this time the booth boy switched reels and we're all now watching Sidekicks instead.

Hillary lost. She really did run a fucking weak, irrelevant campaign and really did lose to a blustering buffoon who can't make up his mind from one day to the next. Moreover, the entire DNC lost too; all their kingmakers and media mouths couldn't give her the necessary appeal (personal or political) to grab the battleground states she needed. Hell, pissclowns like Schumer were all for tossing their own working-class voters under the bus to grab upper-mid GOP suburbanites in PA. We saw how well that worked.

DNC desperately needs to find a new strategy and especially new leadership. Maybe we should let TV personalities run as candidates next time, instead of just getting them to endorse. I bet Oprah could win; she's a woman, she's black, she's built up her own media empire... she's even got that coveted single-name recognition! America eats that shit up. Perfect answer to Trump in 2020.

"Have you noticed that, for the past 50 years, Democrats have prospered by appealing to whites' fear of racism or at least their discomfort about race? They can run the worst candidates -- Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton again -- and still take away about half the vote just by dogwhistling. Hillary is an idiot as politicians go, but she went low in ways politicians wouldn't think to, and it turns out marketing to our worst instincts lost.

While I can't exactly respect people who voted for Hillary, at least I can say they voted for what they believed in. But people who disapprove of Hillary yet didn't cast their vote for the one candidate who had a shot at beating her ... they are shit. Not even shit people, they are simply shit."


See how ridiculous you sound?

Also, Mr Bort, I can't help but notice your anti-Bush jabs there. You ARE aware of which candidate George Bush wanted the plebs to vote for, are you not?

You know why I bring up Sanders all the time? Because it is implied at almost every turn that Bernie would have been a better alternative, indeed a candidate who couldn't POSSIBLY have lost. It's impossible to prove otherwise!

But if you're going to complain that Hillary was a weak candidate, she was still the strongest the Democrats had to run with. Yes, even stronger than Bernie (and if you look at that opposition research you see just how vulnerable he was, especially with his complete lack of experience in dealing with attacks). So complaints that Hillary was the wrong candidate fail in the absence of a candidate who could have done better.

Did you hear about the effort to do single payer in Colorado? It went down to defeat, 79% - 21%. That's right, single payer went on the general election ballot -- in a BLUE state no less -- and it couldn't even crack one-quarter of the vote. But I'm sure Bernie would have steamrolled right over Trump on the promise of single payer, right?

But don't worry, Bort. As I've said before, Trump and Hillary used to be great friends, and I have no doubt that Trump will obligingly stack his government with the exact same sorts of warmongering crony-capitalists that Hilldawg would have rewarded, had the American people not recoiled in horror at her well-documented history of crime and bloodshed. This includes people like Jamie Dimon, of JP Morgan, Stephen Hadley, whom Hillary's staunch allies the Bush Clan can get behind, and Steven Mnuchin, a veteran of not one but TWO causes which honest, informed Hillary supporters invariably love: Goldman Sachs and Soros.

The only difference is now, thanks to Hillary's rank incompetence, YOU get to be on the Good Guy's side, and you and I can spend the next eight years complaining about oil wars, drone strikes, and the ever-expanding security state.

Bort, if the Dems want to win they better start connecting with working class... Politically correctness didn't help either:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-id entity-liberalism.html?_r=0

"But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good."


Trump won because Hillary thought she was ENTITLED to the Oval Office. She how that doesn't work out?

By 2020, if you want a woman to win she better not suffer from charisma deficit disorder.

Haha, people that didn't vote for Hillary are not even people, just shit.

Bort, unbridled.

I stand by that. For all the harm Trump is likely to do, and you and yours didn't vote to stop him, you are shit.

I would have voted for Bernie to stop Trump. Hell, I would have voted for a pile of sticks, or Jill Stein, to stop him.

A lot of people would have voted for Bernie just to stop Hillary. They would have voted for a pile of sticks, or Donald Trump, to stop her. And stop her they did.

What "harm" do you think Trump is "likely to do"?

Anyone who didn't vote to defeat Trump, thinking their protest vote will bring about the collapse that FINALLY makes the Democrats crawl to them begging...


...you have all officially revoked your right to ever again mock Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

Think about THEM consequences! Imagine going through life, never being able to shit on Atlas Shrugged. Is that a life worth living?

Maybe we could build some sort of barrier to keep the 40+ million subhumans out of America. A tremendous barrier of some sorts.

You certainly share some traits with Republicans voters. Do you think Trump is beholden to any of the same interests as Clinton?

Also, Trump and Hillary were budros! They probably have more in common than you think. Maybe this crazy election can bring together the zealots of both camps.

every man woman and child in my state could have voted for Hillary, it wouldn't have made any difference

I'm not one to make a claim that Bernie would have definitely won the general. There's a realistic chance he would have done so, but we have no way of knowing. One thing we can say with ABSOLUTE certainty, though, is that if he had won the primaries and lost the general, Hillary supporters like Bort would be shrieking bloody murder about how OBVIOUSLY Hillary would have won, and they'd list off a bunch of long-winded policy and scandal points like Bort did above to support this assertion.

It's astonishing that after the election season we've just witnessed, know-it-alls like Bort still feel obliged to prattle on their alternate history fanfiction, assuming that votes are earned based on coolheaded policy analysis and some kind of tallying of possible scandals.

No, I would have given Bernie my full support because I am not a broken piece of shit. I am also bright enough to recognize that winning a primary is at last some slight evidence of a candidate's ability to win nationwide contests.

For that matter I'm not at all convinced that Obama could have beaten Trump, since Trump's approach was simply to tell white racist America exactly what they wanted to hear -- generally a successful move. In 2012 Obama beat Romney by only four points, and Romney was someone the Republicans had little love for; imagine if Romney weren't all Etch-a-Sketchy and instead appealed unapologetically to white racism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/18/hillary-clinton-the-vote-an d-contemporary-feminisms-class-blindness/

" Indeed, one must wonder if Ditum et al have even considered for a moment how women in Honduras, Haiti, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine have been affected by her policies which lead to the murder and rapes of women throughout these regions after political instability was ensured by Clinton’s actions. Not negligible in this timeline is how Clinton utilised false claims of rape to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi or how Clinton refuses to address the coup in Honduras, instead naming it a “crisis” while assisting in the deposition of former Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya, which resulted in myriad documented rapes throughout the country.

If women must “vote with our vaginas” then, it would seem that the choice between two candidates where one grabs pussies while the other leaves them exposed to poverty, death, and rape, resulted in what would appear to be the least overtly violent figure. That is if you are not a white woman living outside the neoliberal dream of 401k or hedge fund accounts"

'As Lorna Garano notes: “One problem with the Bernie Bro myth: He had massive support from women. That’s because things like healthcare, education, and a liveable wage are women’s issues. You can’t eat symbolism.” '


Bort, if the dems keep passing off neocons as "progressives" then expect to lose big time. They cannot win without the support of the working class.

That's every election since Carter.

Including Carter.

Both parties are the same, maaaaaaaayun.

Also, Hilary is a CRIMINAL who should be in JAIL.

No, but every Democrat elected since Carter has been a neoliberal and every republican a gibbering mouther.The stakes are unusually high this time because of a whole bunch of factors, and the way it played out was the most cartoonish yet, but the dynamic between the parties has been pretty consistent for a few decades.

Aw. I like "You Had a Bad Day."

TeenerTot you are no friend of mine

Man, "Bad Day" brings back memories. I just realized that the Mitch "An Hero" Henderson fiasco was ten years ago. Holy crap.

The UK had this for Blair's victory theme in 97:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5j7jjhm4M

I'll miss you, Lurchi. But Bad Day will always be less loathesome than Fancy. Or Ironic. Or anything by Dave Matthews.