General Discussion

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)

11. Agree about the author- but last year's election was totally unprecedented

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 03:24 PM

Sep 2017

It seems like collusion with foreign enemies is too important to call irrelevant- no matter how you feel about the person taking about it. We've never seen anything like this- all bets are off.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

145 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election [View all] babylonsister Sep 2017 OP

It's happening!!!!! Not Ruth Sep 2017 #1

Headline is baloney tho. elehhhhna Sep 2017 #84

She should legally contest the election. tecelote Sep 2017 #89

"Do you think, at some point, it would be legitimate to challenge the legitimacy of the election?" Hortensis Sep 2017 #131

Exactly RandomAccess Sep 2017 #100

Whoa. Well the PTB did screw her over, which is ironic because people thought "they" were coronating bettyellen Sep 2017 #2

And who can blame her? I cannot. CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2017 #3

She has nothing to lose, so why not annoy Trump? livetohike Sep 2017 #48

Premature? BadgerMom Sep 2017 #70

YES, please please please please!!!! lunamagica Sep 2017 #4

Do it! ananda Sep 2017 #5

She should treat it like a campaign, make stops all over the country rallying her supporters Not Ruth Sep 2017 #6

And Trump will complain about it as he continues to do the same damn thing Tiggeroshii Sep 2017 #37

Who cares if the freak complains? He complains every damn day. we can do it Sep 2017 #105

The double standard and false equivalencies by the media Tiggeroshii Sep 2017 #107

Huh? greeny2323 Sep 2017 #7

Oh shush cilla4progress Sep 2017 #10

Maybe Gore will also Not Ruth Sep 2017 #52

Yes, cilla4progress Sep 2017 #87

Agree about the author- but last year's election was totally unprecedented bettyellen Sep 2017 #11

True that there are no constitutional remedies but BadgerMom Sep 2017 #74

Yes. We must chart them. we can do it Sep 2017 #109

How can you say that when you don't know what Mueller will discover? Why should she rule it out pnwmom Sep 2017 #14

How? zipplewrath Sep 2017 #18

There is theoretically a possibility, although I cannot imagine this would occur. stevenleser Sep 2017 #29

Why would Congressional repubs agree to a process that resulted in a Democrat becoming president onenote Sep 2017 #61

Exactly as I explained, to avoid having Trump, Pence and a large retinue of underlings prosecuted. stevenleser Sep 2017 #118

They aren't going to sacrifice themselves to save Trump and Pence. onenote Sep 2017 #120

They aren't sacrificing themselves. You need to think this through and research the history stevenleser Sep 2017 #121

I have thought this through. onenote Sep 2017 #122

There was no "constitutional process" for the way Al Gore was denied the Presidency, pnwmom Sep 2017 #30

Not even remotely the same thing. onenote Sep 2017 #63

We don't know what Mueller will discover. If he discovered, for instance, that Russian hackers pnwmom Sep 2017 #71

No. They're. Not. onenote Sep 2017 #73

The Equal Protection Clause, for one. pnwmom Sep 2017 #133

That's ridiculous. onenote Sep 2017 #135

As I've said, it may be bullshit, but the SC has spouted bullshit before, pnwmom Sep 2017 #136

Dream away. onenote Sep 2017 #137

I'm over the bots. we can do it Sep 2017 #111

Not exactly zipplewrath Sep 2017 #125

Of course there was. It was the SCOTUS Cuthbert Allgood Sep 2017 #126

HRC knows a bit more than you regarding legal accountability etc. triron Sep 2017 #47

Except she didn't say what the OP claims.... AncientGeezer Sep 2017 #114

Not on this point zipplewrath Sep 2017 #127

uh... read the amendments HoustonDave Sep 2017 #141

I agree zipplewrath Sep 2017 #144

The system had no idea there would be electronic election manipulation. we can do it Sep 2017 #110

The "system" knew all about ballot box stuffing and other forms of electoral fraud onenote Sep 2017 #113

What Clinton says is irrelevant now? Eliot Rosewater Sep 2017 #78

Clinton never said it LeftInTX Sep 2017 #86

How much political power would trump have rock Sep 2017 #88

I think she cilla4progress Sep 2017 #8

There's no legal provision for this and thus no statute of limitations mythology Sep 2017 #16

Always remember, for everything there is a first time. Mr. Evil Sep 2017 #49

Always remember, there is no "throw out the US Constitution" provision in the US Constitution. longship Sep 2017 #90

Amen. shanny Sep 2017 #99

Don't tell the 2nd amendment folks that zipplewrath Sep 2017 #128

Hopefully a path never taken. longship Sep 2017 #130

We need an amendment zipplewrath Sep 2017 #132

Big deal... brooklynite Sep 2017 #9

I must be dumb. I don't get how questioning legitimacy means contesting or a formal challenge. n/t seaglass Sep 2017 #12

I'm just as dumb. Bleacher Creature Sep 2017 #17

No, you are not dumb. jberryhill Sep 2017 #40

Doesn't one of the amendments cover the do-over rule? Orrex Sep 2017 #92

It's written on the back in invisible ink jberryhill Sep 2017 #98

Those crafty bastards. Orrex Sep 2017 #102

You Can Read It With A Black Light ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #134

Same way they knew people would be using Twitter for Nazi propaganda jberryhill Sep 2017 #142

Duh! ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #145

It doesn't. But that doesn't stop the wishful thinkers from hoping pigs will fly. onenote Sep 2017 #67

The article title/premise is wildly misleading. SaschaHM Sep 2017 #13

K&R... spanone Sep 2017 #15

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll see your golf ball and raise you a nuke. L. Coyote Sep 2017 #19

Post removed Post removed Sep 2017 #20

Hellogoodbye. johnp3907 Sep 2017 #21

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2017 #23

Why cant we leave them up long enough for everyone to see. I miss so many! 7962 Sep 2017 #39

Damn it, I missed it also. groundloop Sep 2017 #76

This would be awesome! Setting a precedent of accountability. Another avenue R B Garr Sep 2017 #22

"questioning" is not the same as "contesting". she only comments on "questioning" nt msongs Sep 2017 #24

yes i went back and read her statement and its clearly questioning.... samnsara Sep 2017 #36

I'm not sure about setting that precedent at this date. Kind of like rubbing a dog's nose in dung Hoyt Sep 2017 #25

won't happen. The Constitution doesn't provide for that I am sorry to say still_one Sep 2017 #26

There was no possibility of electronic hacking when constitution was written. we can do it Sep 2017 #108

Doesn't matter. You ammend the Constitution then. The only alternative is impeachment, still_one Sep 2017 #112

so what? there was the possibility of other means of election fraud onenote Sep 2017 #117

Lord in my dreams! redstatebluegirl Sep 2017 #27

Nope. ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #28

Do you think he made it up? melman Sep 2017 #35

Yeah I know what she said ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #57

Questioning is vastly different than contesting.... AncientGeezer Sep 2017 #115

"and I have never heard her broach the possibility of a formal challenge of the results." - and... PoliticAverse Sep 2017 #31

I'm ready if Hillary is ready... FarPoint Sep 2017 #32

Contest what? The electors are who votes for the POTUS/VPOTUS. JoeStuckInOH Sep 2017 #33

If Mueller proves collusion & treason, we are in uncharted times. Satch59 Sep 2017 #34

Yes. delisen Sep 2017 #45

It could be very very simple bucolic_frolic Sep 2017 #50

It's not a constitutional crisis at all, even if he finds collusion metalbot Sep 2017 #101

Chris Cilliza is a shit stirring clown. JHan Sep 2017 #38

Reporting an actual quote is shit stirring? melman Sep 2017 #44

if the actual quote said she'd "contest" the election, no. onenote Sep 2017 #69

onenote explained it to you. JHan Sep 2017 #97

The problem is there is no remedy for this. The election won't be thrown out . . . Vinca Sep 2017 #41

If the election proves to have been illegitimate, then delisen Sep 2017 #42

The election becomes legitimate when the electoral votes are counted Yupster Sep 2017 #93

This is painfully stupid jberryhill Sep 2017 #43

In 2000 scotus picked for Florida when scotus shut down the recount Fullduplexxx Sep 2017 #56

Relevant to what here? jberryhill Sep 2017 #62

Relevant to your first statement. Things are the way they are until they aren't. Fullduplexxx Sep 2017 #68

The SCOTUS cited the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in Bush v. Gore onenote Sep 2017 #94

Idk . I'll leave that to the lawyers to pull something out of their butts like scotus did with Fullduplexxx Sep 2017 #129

well, since Hillary doesn't think there's a way to do it onenote Sep 2017 #138

THIS THIS THIS THIS bucolic_frolic Sep 2017 #46

kick triron Sep 2017 #51

questioning the legitimacy of the election and "contesting" it in some formal way are different thin onenote Sep 2017 #53

Good RhodeIslandOne Sep 2017 #54

Ain't gonna happen GetRidOfThem Sep 2017 #55

I heard the interview on NPR and Hillary says it is impossible to contest the election LeftInTX Sep 2017 #58

I just don't see anything like that happening. It seems highly unlikely to me. NurseJackie Sep 2017 #59

Deceptive reporting RandySF Sep 2017 #60

People here are going to bite on every piece of bullshit that floats by jberryhill Sep 2017 #66

DING DING DING!! onenote Sep 2017 #72

I heard the interview a few hours ago and totally agree LeftInTX Sep 2017 #85

Questioning the moral legitimacy is where we need to go. delisen Sep 2017 #139

I so wish it could happen! MoonRiver Sep 2017 #64

chris cillizza poops on the floor me: dude clean it up chris: youre just goading me me: nah dude it Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 #65

Yippee! Greybnk48 Sep 2017 #75

everyone who voted should be cheering loudly. we need to know our elections are legitimate. spanone Sep 2017 #77

Some of us. triron Sep 2017 #81

Hillary got 3 million more votes than the trumpets.....Most of us! spanone Sep 2017 #82

Maybe more. triron Sep 2017 #83

She did not "float the possibility of contesting the election." yellowcanine Sep 2017 #79

I do not see anywhere Mrs. Clinton sarisataka Sep 2017 #80

When will people learn: Chris Cilizza is a fucking brain dead idiot. longship Sep 2017 #91

I love this. I hope every roach in the WH is squirming, including the Trump crime family. Tatiana Sep 2017 #95

Even if she wouldn't, the Bettie Sep 2017 #96

Would be interesting to see the Supreme Court will rule in favor of trump LostinRed Sep 2017 #103

No judge is going to be kicked off the bench. The Senate seats the SCOTUS nominees. AncientGeezer Sep 2017 #116

Baloney! peggysue2 Sep 2017 #104

even if she wants to shanny Sep 2017 #106

I'm worried with SCOTUS stacked in the GOP's favor it would be another Bush V Gore. Initech Sep 2017 #119

Don't worry. If a case is brought (it won't) it would lose 9-0 in SCOTUS onenote Sep 2017 #123

Well that will help book sales! Might be time to jmg257 Sep 2017 #124

The time to challenge the election was PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 2017 #140

good for her.....trump would have been in the courts for 8 months now if he had lost. spanone Sep 2017 #143