Democrats Never Lose, Everything is Stolen From Them
Not accepting reality…
There are plenty of Democrats who believe to this day that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. Just as many if not more believe that Republicans stole a seat on the Supreme Court from Merrick Garland.
This week at a convention in Chicago, Jesse Jackson said that the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary.
Cameron Cawthorne reports at the Washington Free Beacon:
Jesse Jackson: The White House Was ‘Stolen’ From Hillary Clinton
Civil Rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. attended the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition convention in Chicago on Thursday, where he claimed President Donald Trump stole the election.
Jackson was introducing the Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez when he made the accusation against Trump.
“To have a head of our party who is sensitive to the plight of working people is the order of this day,” Jackson told the crowd. “Don’t forget when you lose, you tend to amplify ‘would’ve, could’ve, should’ve.’ When you win you cover up your sins.”
“We worked last year. We won the election. It was stolen,” Jackson concluded.
Here’s the video:
This type pf thinking isn’t confined to the fringe. Just two weeks ago, FiveThirtyEight, a highly respected source of political analysis, chose to speculate on the topic.
Julia Azari writes:
What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
For all the headlines about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, no hard evidence has come to light, at least publicly, showing that President Trump or his team were involved. But suppose that such evidence did come to light — what would happen if it became clear that Trump or his advisers colluded with the Russians?1 This isn’t the only type of wrongdoing the investigations could uncover, but it’s among the most serious because it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 result. So, is there a process for dealing with a finding that in essence invalidates an election?
When it comes to presidential elections, the answer is: not really. The laws and processes around national elections have grown up in a piecemeal fashion over time, with state and local laws governing the administration of presidential elections. And the Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections. As a result, there aren’t clear procedures for how to handle questions of legitimacy after the fact — especially when those questions involve the presidency.
The continual challenge to the legitimacy of the election serves two purposes for Democrats. First, it’s easier to say the election was stolen from them than to admit they lost. Second, it justifies their obstruction of Trump’s agenda.
Unfortunately, it’s terrible for the country. Remember that the next time you see a liberal activist accusing a Republican of putting party before country.
Follow Mike on Twitter @MikeLaChance33
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This pathetic scheme – It was stolen from us – is widely shared among totalitarians of all stripes.
Have you ever, ever, heard a Muslim take responsibility for the failures of Islam? For 1400 years it’s always someone else’s fault. It’s never the failures or shortcomings inherent in the force regime, be they Islamic or Democrat.
If Islam didn’t have its Rule on Apostasy (the rule: Once you’re in, you’re in it forever), backed up by the death penalty, Islam would be a minor irritant on the world stage.
I’m not so sure. Islam justifies theft, rape, and murder and totally amps up the “everybody owes me” feeling in its followers. I think Islam would still be very popular even if it didn’t have the death penalty for leaving because there would be lots of people who would like to rape and kill without shame or remorse.
It’s actually pretty appropriate to have the front man be someone who’s stolen everything he’s ever had.
Please. Extortion is not theft. It’s a completely different section of the criminal code.
Al Franken couldn’t be reached for comment about stealing elections. Nor for that matter could the late Mayor Richard (vote early and often) Daley of Chicago, who delivered Illinois and the 1960 election to JFK.
Add in the slogans they are currently testing, and the Dems bizarrely are trying to flip their Congressional and WH fortunes by only pointing away from themselves. Look how bad THEY are. Theives. Immoral people taking benefits from the poor and giving the rich more. Yada yada. I guess that’s their GOTV plan too.
Simple question.
If the the Democrats and others on the Left have the power to declare an electoral or legal loss as theft and to declare that the President, Congress, etc. to be stolen and not legitimate; why should we accept any electoral or legal win by them as anything but theft. They are changing the rules. They may, in fact, have the de facto power to change the rules. But they had better be willing to deal with those new rules or the existence of NO rules in the future.
A social contract, and its political counterpart, can be irretrievably repudiated by only one side. It looks like the Left is repudiating the contract, and the process of creating a new one is extremely untidy.
and the process of creating a new one is extremely untidy.
But it’s one the Dems would win, and I suspect they know it. Party discipline alone would make it easy for them to steamroll the Republicans.
Historically, the creation of a new social and political contract is not done legislatively or peacefully. Which is why what they are doing is so dangerous to all. Politics is basically how a society determines what is the legitimate means for allocating power and resources and what if any restrictions are placed on the ability of the State to use deadly force on citizens/subjects.
The seriousness of the consequences means that deadly force will be the determinant.
Who’s interested in a “contract”? A contract is a negotiated agreement between two parties. That is not the situation here. Progressivism is all about telling you what’s good for you, and then making you do it. No agreement or contract is involved.
OK, we are talking about different things with similar names. Long ago when the world was new and we had just chased the woolly mammoths off the campus in Boulder, Colorado; they actually taught real history, economics and political science at the University of Colorado. Those days are long gone.
I am speaking of the social and political contracts in the terms used by Thomas Hobbes [who I am partial to], and John Locke. The works of both of them figured prominently in the education of our Founding Fathers.
The core idea being that until a culture/society comes to an agreement based on what they are and believe as to the nature of political and social legitimacy; as in Hobbes’ phrase they are in a “State of Nature, red of tooth and claw”. Force, brutality, and the infliction of death by the powerful are what rules, not law. Eventually, a power arises that is in consonance with the mores of the general culture/society and a rule of law takes hold that is accepted by the people of that culture and society. That rule of law is based on the implicit social and political contract widely accepted by the people. It is that implicit contract that leads to laws that fit the culture.
If a large enough minority openly rejects that social contract, to the point of violence, then the only choice is a re-assertion of the social contract through law, or if society is unable to do that, others will resort to violence.
When a critical mass of people in the society lose faith in the rule of law and social contract; the “State of Nature, red of tooth and claw” returns until a new social contract is established.
There is no guarantee that it will be a better contract, but the survivors may be willing to trade peace for liberty.
It is interesting that in this and other forums I have been accused of encouraging the breakdown of the contract. My crime is to recognize that it is breaking down, pointing it out, and the consequences to it.
If I had my druthers, the rule of law would apply to all. It does not. And the Elitists of both parties will not have it so, so that they can continue to loot society.
In which case, the organic waste IS going to impact the rotating airfoil. And the only option is to make sure that you and yours are as prepared as possible to deal with the splatter.
Of course everything is stolen from the Democrats. The liberal Democrats have been selling the philosophy that all of their (potential) supporters are victims, who are entitled to EVERYTHING that they WANT. If they fail to receive those things, then someone has “stolen” those things from them. So, it is no surprise that when the Democrats fail to achieve THIER goals, those goals were “stolen” from them.
The fact that there has been no evidence of any fraudulent activity in the election, which allowed Trump t win is irrelevant to these people.
As in the 1850s, the Democratic agenda is its strong point. It is also its weak point.
If the Republicans weren’t so feeble, you’d think they could turn all this Dem propaganda about “stolen elections” to their advantage right now, with a major push for some serious laws against voter fraud.
Federal laws; forget about the states, don’t put any of them in a position to block it.
The Dem claim that attempts to fight electoral fraud are “racist” because blacks are too stupid to handle the problem of free voter IDs is a weak point, and the Republicans should be hammering them on it.
But there’s little danger of any such thing happening.
That’s probably why they as too stupid to not drink all those sugary drinks.
Do the leaders of the democrat party really believe these claims of theft? Or, is the claim simply a tool in their core philosophy that the ends justify the means.
I think the leaders of the democrat party are all sociopaths. Look at their irrational behavior and violence. They are bullies. I have been looking but I have found nothing to get me to reject my hypothesis.
Next, this parasite will sue Coke. Oh – they did that.
Hey, why don’t they sue Chicago??
LOL! For an IOU?
How do smart people write such obvious nonsense? Even supposing Trump himself personally got Putin to order the DNC and Podesta emails released.
Let’s go one further: let’s suppose Trump personally got Putin to order the DNC and Podesta phishing in the first place. Why not, supposing doesn’t cost any money after all, so let’s suppose away. That last would be a crime, and if it were true Trump should be removed from office, then tried for the crime and sent to prison.
But it still would not cast even a slight pall on the result’s legitimacy. Nobody disputes that the emails were true and accurate, right? Nobody disputes that this was useful information and voters who saw it were better informed than those who didn’t. So how could the result be less legitimate? Is 538 really arguing that Clinton was entitled to an ignorant electorate?!
Milhouse: But it still would not cast even a slight pall on the result’s legitimacy.
You seem to be conflating two senses of the word legitimacy. While Trump’s election was certainly legal, and legitimate can be a synonym for legal, legitimate can also mean conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.
Milhouse: Nobody disputes that the emails were true and accurate, right?
That’s irrelevant. Each party has the right to private internal communications. At the very least, it created an uneven playing field.
Even in this completely unfounded hypothetical, the result would still conform to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards. Each party may have the right to private internal communications, but they do not have the right to an ignorant electorate. At best an ignorant electorate is an unfortunate byproduct of their right to private communications; it is not a legitimate end in itself, and when the electorate finds out their secrets and therefore makes a more informed choice they suffer no injury.
Even in court, where the judiciary recently invented a rule excluding illegally-obtained evidence, a defendant is not entitled to an uninformed jury. Rather, an uninformed jury is an unfortunate side-effect of the rule, an injustice that we endure only because the alternative is worse. Excluding the evidence is not a right of the defendant but an administrative sanction against the prosecution; if a court decides not to exclude it the defendant suffers no injury because he has no right for it to be hidden.
Milhouse: At best an ignorant electorate is an unfortunate byproduct of their right to private communications; it is not a legitimate end in itself, and when the electorate finds out their secrets and therefore makes a more informed choice they suffer no injury.
What an awful world you seem to live in. For most people, privacy is not an unfortunate side-effect, but an inherent human right.
And there you go displaying your usual dishonesty. Yes, privacy is a right; an ignorant electorate, or an ignorant jury, is not. It is sometimes the price we must unfortunately pay for privacy, but it is always to be regretted, it is always a wrong, never a right.
Milhouse: privacy is a right; an ignorant electorate … is not.
Privacy means nothing if it means someone else, including the public, has a right to know.
If you required all political parties to make all internal communications open, then at least you would have a level playing field, albeit a tyrannical one.
Are you being dishonest or just thick? The public has no right to know anything. But nor does a candidate have any right for the public not to know things he’d rather they didn’t. An ignorant public is not anyone’s right; it’s merely the unavoidable result of protecting the right of information owners to keep it to themselves. You keep confusing the result, the collateral damage, with the cause.
Milhouse: You keep confusing the result, the collateral damage, with the cause.
Others being ignorant of your private business is not “collateral damage”. It’s called the right to privacy.
If Democrats honestly believe the election was hacked, how come NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT has called for a return to paper ballots?
That is my point. Look at their behavior. Do not look at their words. Alinsky is about process not substance. The substance distracts their thinking opponents (The thinkers) while feeding the low information “victim” voters. Watch what they do as that will tell you what they are really thinking.
Fen: If Democrats honestly believe the election was hacked, how come NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT has called for a return to paper ballots?
False.
But, let’s “look at their behavior” : Republicans reject funding for paper-based voting
These Dems cannot believe that the smartest woman in the world lost a rigged election!
Milhouse thats a point I’ve been trying to make for some time… Always keeping in mind just what it is we are talking about concerning the hacked DNC emails
The ultimate answer is … “look at Crimea” … where there was an election while Russia occupied the country.
The questions not asked boil down to that old story of what will determine who wins an election … “things”
How do you protect against “things” ?
During the 2008 campaign, the economy was faltering world-wide .. and it led to crippling McCain’s campaign. Who do we blame for that ? How could it have been avoided ?
In the scheme of a campaign .. it couldn’t be avoided.
It is part of “things”.
The reason, IMO, so many people think these things were stolen is that they are ignorant about how the government works. Many still think the popular vote is what elects presidents.
That willful ignorance and a drum beat of lies from the Democrats and the lefty activist media makes for a foolish and uniformed public. Which the media is quite happy to keep that way.
“Each party has the right to private internal communications. At the very least, it created an uneven playing field.”
But the material did not come from the T-rumpian campaign, which had no control over it. So, whatever “unevenness” obtained was a matter of First Amendment exercise by a third party.
This cannot, by any stretch, make an election “illegitimate”. For the losing candidate, it’s just “spit happens”.
Ragspierre: But the material did not come from the T-rumpian campaign, which had no control over it.
If the Trump campaign were the unwitting and unwilling recipient, then that would be true.
Trump père: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”
Trump fils: “I love it.”
This is silly and beneath you.
Did Der Donald control the emails? He may have used them as a rhetorical device, but he had no control over them. He may have yearned for their release, but he didn’t control that release.
Did he?
Ragspierre: He may have yearned for their release, but he didn’t control that release. Did he?
That is an open question. If the Trump campaign were the unwitting and unwilling recipient, it would still be a matter of great national concern. For some reason, Trump seems totally unconcerned about Russian interference in teh election, denying it even occurred. While we now know that Trump Jr. actively attempted to acquire information from a hostile nation that has a history of using cyber-warfare to interfere in democratic elections.
Trump père: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”
Trump fils: “I love it.”
Trump Jr. actively attempted to acquire information
He did no such thing. His role was passive. Someone approached him with the claim to have some useful information. It turns out they did not have such information, and Jr made no attempt to press them for some. He was no more “active” than anyone who receives a Nigerian scam e-mail.
Zachriel: Trump Jr. actively attempted to acquire information
tom swift: He did no such thing. His role was passive.
He was just sitting there when someone came up to him? No. He was offered a meeting, said he’d “love it”, invited other high-level members of his team, then set a date. That’s not passive.
tom swift: It turns out they did not have such information …
According to Trump Jr., who has been, shall we say, less than forthcoming.
Rags, Zachriel wrote that in response to my hypothetical, in which Trump procured the phishing of Podesta the DNC in the first place. That would certainly be both a crime and an impeachable offense, and yet I contend it would not even slightly affect the result’s legitimacy. Zachriel, in disagreement, wrote that each party has the right to privacy. This is true, of course, but each party does not have the right to an ignorant electorate. That is, they have the right to keep their email private, but they do not have the right to the result of that privacy. When their email was compromised they suffered an injury, but when people cast their votes knowing about the emails they did not suffer a further injury; rather they failed to reap an unjust benefit they had counted on getting.
“…legitimate can also mean conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.”
By which you seem to imply a deviation from that use of “legitimate”.
Elaborate or withdraw, please.
Ragspierre: By which you seem to imply a deviation from that use of “legitimate”
When people claim that Trump did not win legitimately, it often means they don’t think he won fairly.
WTF does “fairly” mean?
You are doing the crawfish dance that convinced me you’re a waste of time.
Either elaborate any claim you have that T-rump won “illegitamately”, or just admit you got nutin’. And I don’t give a good fluck what “some people” consider “fair”. That’s just as bogus as hell. What do YOU assert was “illegitimate” in the context you used it?
Ragspierre: WTF does “fairly” mean?
fair, conforming with the established rules; more particularly, a level playing field.
Like that “level playing field” the DNC offered up to Bernie and his supporters?
Or the one that Obama used the IRS to groom the field for?
murkyv: Like that “level playing field” the DNC offered up to Bernie and his supporters?
While many in the DNC leaned towards Clinton, there’s no indication that the process was fundamentally unfair. Sanders simply didn’t get as many votes.
In any case, the DNC is a private organization, and if they want to select their candidates in a backroom over cigars that is their privilege.
Well, I guess we’ll see what the judge/jury has to say about that in the lawsuit brought by Bernie supporters. That’s the defense the DNC is making.
“Level playing field” doesn’t exist in life. That is a snowflake position causes by receiving too many participation trophies.
murkyv: I guess we’ll see what the judge/jury has to say about that in the lawsuit brought by Bernie supporters.
Yes, we’ll have to wait and see, but those sorts of lawsuits have never gained traction in the past. Notably, Sanders is not a party to the suit.
The US interfered in an Iranian election?! That’s news to me. Not that it shouldn’t have, but when did this happen? To the best of my knowledge the US’s involvement in Iran in the ’50s happened after the elected government had unconstitutionally overthrown the Shah, and consisted of helping with a very successful propaganda campaign to turn Iranians’ support back to the Shah, so that within a few months the people begged him to come back. No election that I recall.
In any case, why are you going back 60 or 30 years, when the US regularly interferes in foreign elections in this decade? Was it wrong of 0bama to interfere in the Brexit campaign? Was it wrong for both Clinton and 0bama to interfere in every single Israeli election during their terms? Or for 0bama to interfere in elections in Egypt and Macedonia? How about Clinton’s interference in the Russian election in 1996? Were all of these wrong? Or do you accept that the US has interests in the results of foreign elections, and is entitled to try to further them? In which case why should foreigners not do the same here?
Milhouse: The US interfered in an Iranian election?!
There was widespread interference by the Western powers in the legislative elections of 1952, including bribery and the hiring of goons. Newly revealed documents show that the CIA congratulated itself for its “great success” in the 1952 parliamentary elections. Furthermore, helping to overthrow elected leaders is interfering in the democratic process, and was highly detrimental to long-term U.S. interests in the region.
Milhouse: Was it wrong of 0bama to interfere in the Brexit campaign?
Speaking out is not a serious violation of sovereignty, though it did stretch diplomatic protocol. As is often the case, it was counterproductive.
And I don’t give a good fluck what “some people” consider “fair”. That’s just as bogus as hell. What do YOU assert was “illegitimate” in the context you used it?
I can keep this up all night and into the day until you can balls up and give a direct answer.
And I will…
Ragspierre: And I don’t give a good fluck what “some people” consider “fair”.
Then why did you interject yourself into a conversation, which concerns what people consider? Our claim concerned Milhouse’s statement that “it still would not cast even a slight pall on the result’s legitimacy” which we assert conflates different uses of the word “legitimacy”.
Here’s an example: How long can Republicans risk everything to pretend Russia is no big deal?: “Democracy is only possible if there is confidence in the process, and foreign intervention—potentially solicited by one campaign—is deeply damaging to that confidence. It threatens the legitimacy of the entire enterprise.” The only way to parse the author’s argument is to draw a distinction between legal and legitimate.
Ragspierre: I can keep this up all night and into the day
Just moments ago, you said the discussion was “a waste of time.”
And I don’t give a good fluck what “some people” consider “fair”. That’s just as bogus as hell. What do YOU assert was “illegitimate” in the context you used it?
Stop your deflection, and answer the question. Or withdraw.
You don’t really believe that, and nor does whichever dishonest person wrote it at Slate. Because that would require also believing that US intervention in foreign elections does the same damage.
Ragspierre: What do YOU assert was “illegitimate” in the context you used it?
We never made that assertion.
Milhouse: You don’t really believe that
You don’t really believe that {anything you might have said} doesn’t constitute meaningful dialogue.
Milhouse: Because that would require also believing that US intervention in foreign elections does the same damage.
And that is not an uncommon position; for instance, concerns about U.S. interference in Iran in the 1950s and in Chile in the 1980s.
“…legitimate can also mean conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.”
By which you seem to imply a deviation from that use of “legitimate”.
Elaborate or withdraw, please.
THIS is why you are a waste of time. Nobody “asserted” you’d “asserted”.
You’re just fundamentally dishonest. It’s all a game with you.
Ragspierre: By which you seem to imply a deviation from that use of “legitimate”.
Which was have already explicitly explained above, providing an example from the media where the distinction is clearly drawn.
Zachriel, if you’re still around you really need to read this. Andrew McCarthy, whom you’ll surely concede is an expert on the relevant law, explores your misconceptions in detail and explains why they are wrong.
Milhouse,
And the thief.
The problem with the analogy is that nothing in the stolen DNC emails indicates anything illegal, and the Trump Administration pretends that the theft never even occurred, allowing, even encouraging, a hostile nation to continue to use nefarious means to undermine democracy in the U.S. and among its allies.
Whether they decide to prosecute the thief is irrelevant. If the thief is unknown, or outside their jurisdiction, they don’t prosecute him, but they have not the slightest qualm about prosecuting the victim, because the rule you have invented simply does not exist.
Nor is it relevant that the stolen information is merely embarrassing rather than criminal. Of course prosecutors are only interested in evidence of a crime; they wouldn’t have used the DNC and Podesta emails, not because it would be wrong to do so, but simply because they would have had nothing to use them for. If they had some use for them, they would not hesitate; therefore there is no reason for someone who does have such a use to hesitate either.
This is an outright lie on your part. You know it’s not true.
If you mean that the administration “allows”, let alone encourages Russia to break into computers and steal information, you’re lying again. You know very well that it has never done that. If that’s not what you mean then I don’t know what you do mean, but in any case it’s not relevant to this topic. But revealing embarrassing but true information, regardless of how it was originally obtained, is not nefarious.
Milhouse: Whether they decide to prosecute the thief is irrelevant.
Thievery is illegal; hence, prosecutors will investigate the the theft. For example, the federal government has a special counsel investigating the theft of emails from the DNC.
Milhouse: Nor is it relevant that the stolen information is merely embarrassing rather than criminal.
Of course it’s relevant. It means the crime is the theft, not what was revealed in the emails.
Milhouse: This is an outright lie on your part.
Trump: “We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader.”
Trump: “I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are — she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking.”
Of course, Trump is not known for his consistency.
Milhouse: If you mean that the administration “allows”, let alone encourages Russia to break into computers and steal information, you’re lying again.
Ignoring the theft, while rewarding the perpetrators is allowing and encouraging further thefts.
Trump: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”