Posted on 09/19/2017 6:37:37 AM PDT by davikkm
In a wide ranging interview, Hillary Clinton said that she would consider contesting the results of the 2016 presidential election, but is not sure (Constitutionally) how that would work. She claims that the election and Russian interference was a bigger scandal than Watergate. She has blamed just about everything and everyone for her loss, but why does no one ask the real question?
Why is it that despite the entire establishment and media operation against Trump, did he still manage to win the election? Here are a few points worth considering:
In the run-up to the election, all major news agencies were stating that Clinton had a more than 95% chance of winning. This was clearly designed to make potential Trump voters stay home. It is a common practice in electioneering (they did the same thing in the Brexit referendum), and it does work. So knowing that it works, and knowing that a large amount of Trump voters would have thought it was not worth going out, how then did he still manage to win?
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
She's making such an a** of herself with her take on the election.
She is really going down as a nutcase.
She's making such an a** of herself with her take on the election.
She is really going down as a nutcase.
And yet...
Her followers would still vote for her.
I would offer the explanation that a fair sum of the general public don’t watch much of evening news anymore....nor do they read Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, or Washington Post. For political theatrics players....you need to worry now if some trend has occurred and social media has linked up a bunch of disenchanted ‘fools’ to go counter the system. And if such a trend has occurred...how will you ever be able to counter-balance the system?
Take the case of Kid Rock in Michigan. The GOP in the state probably don’t want to create this opportunity for Kid Rock. The Democrats are shaking their head because Kid Rock can use social media and speak his mind. He doesn’t need ads, or newspaper support. I would offer the opinion that dozens of individuals can step out at this point and overcome the system.
This kind of reminds me of how Frank Burns began doing nutty things like building air raid shelters and capturing local Korean kids he thought were spies when Margaret got engaged (and soon thereafter married).
“Turn back Marx,” not Matt. I like Matt. Marx, not so much.
People no longer believe the MSM on anything. They don't believe the 'polls' and the don't like Hilliary...........
I thought you meant Matt Lauer..............
LOL...in which case, my first line was correct.
I like Grocho Marx.
Isn’t that a big part of why H can’t believe she lost? The Three Pillars of Hillary’s angst:
1) She knew that all the power of media and corruption were on her side.
2) She believed the echo of her own lies, legions of terrified sycophants, and rigged polls.
3) She believes that all competition is unfair to females because men established how competition works based on their natural advantages, and win by bullying, even though she is smarter and more wonderful.
She uses this nonsense to trick “polite” men into hobbling themselves. Trump is not into self-limitation. Therefore, if Hillary didn’t win, it was because she was cheated.
Hillary is selling books and she’ll do anything to get coverage while on the tour.
The more ink and face time on the screen helps promote the tour attendance for her.
The question nobody is asking is how does she propose to contest the election of Donald Trump?
There are only two ways to remove a president from office.
The first is impeachment, which has never happened in the history of the country. But even then, that step wouldn't seat her in the presidency. Mike Pence is next. Then Paul (heaven help us) Ryan. There is absolutely no mechanism for installing the LOSER of the election into the office they ran for. The LOSER is the LOSER. Period.
The only other way to remove the president from office is through assassination. Murder the president. That wouldn't get her into the Oval Office either.
But given the long list of alleged suspicious accidents and skeptical suicides in the Clinton's political legacy, what exactly is Hillary proposing here?
She's starting to tread on very thin ice and revealing her true thoughts and ideas about how her and her husband managed to avoid scandals year after year. Witnesses just disappeared or were involved in "accidents" or committed "suicide" (Arkancide) by putting a bullet into the back of their head.
Is she suggesting something she wished she would have kept her pie hole shut about? Best not to open that can of worms, Hillary.
Do us all a favor and shut the heck up, Hillary, and wander back into the woods from whence you appeared.
The funny thing is that her bag of excuses now include “he is a man” and “he loomed over me.” She thus DQ’d herself from ever playing in the bigs against other men.
I think she has the fantasy that Trump is impeached/resigns, then Pence is forced to name her as the new Veep, then he resigns (after all if Trump is illegitimate than so is Pence).
The 2016 election can be contested in 2020. Next question?
POLL: Should Hillary Clinton challenge the legitimacy of the 2016 election?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3586896/posts
Hillary, have you considered that many of the issues you blamed on others stemmed from your paranoid decision to use your private email server almost exclusively?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.