Just when I settled down and thought 'faithless electors' would never overturn this election...

a reply to: Annee

Let her have what?

I don't care what she looks like.

But she intentionally looked bad.

I'm not sure you understood what led to that particular comment.

ETA: IOW, i don't think she's been through hell. I think all is going according to plan.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

She INTENTIONALLY looked bad, last night. Pasty foundation, no mascara, no lipstick, no eyeshadow, eyebrows washed out and uncolored, no blush, etc...her hair is a greasy, flat mess.

Why not let her have it.

She's been put through hell, but she still came.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

Let her have what?

I don't care what she looks like.

But she intentionally looked bad.

I'm not sure you understood what led to that particular comment.

I do understand you think its intentional for sympathy.

I'm just not leaning as strongly in that direction as you.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

She INTENTIONALLY looked bad, last night. Pasty foundation, no mascara, no lipstick, no eyeshadow, eyebrows washed out and uncolored, no blush, etc...her hair is a greasy, flat mess.

Why not let her have it.

She's been put through hell, but she still came.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

I'll keep that in mind.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

Let her have what?

I don't care what she looks like.

But she intentionally looked bad.

I'm not sure you understood what led to that particular comment.

I do understand you think its intentional for sympathy.

I'm just not leaning as strongly in that direction as you.

She didn't just start looking that bad overnight, and she hasn't been doing her own hair and makeup in forever.

She decided to let it all hang out. After all the styling, it's a stark contrast and it's designed to gin up sympathy, but she's always looked that bad. She did prior to the election too.

originally posted by: Annee

I do understand you think its intentional for sympathy.

No. That's not what I think. I think it's intentional and meant to convince us what we are seeing was unexpected and devastating to her.

But it wasn't unexpected or devastating. All is going exactly according to plan.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Has anybody even looked at who these Electors are? I know they are either nominated or selected after campaigning for the position, but since the fate of our world rest in 538 of their hands, maybe we should have some clue to who they are exactly, and do a quick check to see if there hands are blatantly dirty.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Has anybody even looked at who these Electors are? I know they are either nominated or selected after campaigning for the position, but since the fate of our world rest in 538 of their hands, maybe we should have some clue to who they are exactly, and do a quick check to see if there hands are blatantly dirty.

I doubt they'll do anything except their job.

Would be interesting if they did change it up though.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Annee

I do understand you think its intentional for sympathy.

No. That's not what I think. I think it's intentional and meant to convince us what we are seeing was unexpected and devastating to her.

But it wasn't unexpected or devastating. All is going exactly according to plan.

Isn't that what I said?

I just don't support "the plan" conspiracy the way you present it.

a reply to: Annee

That is what I am afraid of. I find it hard to believe they are the only pristine section of our corrupt government. I doubt that TPTB, overlooked that little niche.

The question in my mind is who paid them and what did they pay them to do.

a reply to: Annee

I guess don't see that as wanting sympathy. I see it as wanting people to believe the election results were unexpected for her.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Just saw this:

Link

ALBANY — In a complete turnaround from his previous position, President-elect Donald Trump is nearing a settlement of the fraud cases brought in New York and California involving his now defunct for-profit Trump University, the Daily News has learned.

Under the emerging deal being negotiated by Trump's lawyers, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the law firm that brought a class action lawsuit regarding Trump University in California, the president-elect will agree to pay between $20 million and $25 million to settle the matter, a source with knowledge of the situation said.

Trump will not admit to any wrongdoing in the final agreement, which could be announced as soon as Friday, the source said.

It's the only source I can find though...

ETA: Nope...one more just popped up: CNBC

If electors flip based ONLY on the popular vote....

...I take back what I said, last night: There will be serious backlash.

Or we could find ourselves in this scenario:

More probable (than faithless electors) would be an objection based on Hillary Clinton’s now unprecedented lead in the popular vote. Nothing about the outcome of this election contradicts the law, but in this case, the law might not have to be the deciding factor. Since it’s Congress that ultimately chooses whether or not to sustain the objection, the reasoning behind the complaint just has to be good enough to convince a majority of the members of Congress. Senators and representatives from states that went for Trump could claim that, because the electors from these states are going against the overall will of the people, their votes should be disregarded. It would be a very tough sell, but it’s the approach that has the most potential for legitimacy.

This situation—what amounts to a congressional revolt against Trump—would be dramatic, especially given that if enough votes were disqualified to bring Trump below 270, Hillary Clinton still wouldn’t have a majority. It would then fall to the House and Senate to decide the president and vice president, respectively. With a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House, it’s impossible to predict what that selection process could look like.

If the Plaintiffs reject the settlement because Trump will not admit wrongdoing...then we really do have shades of the Paula Jones case here. That's why Jones rejected Clinton's first offer to settle.

Then she lost the case and appealed.

And, then Clinton offered to settle again, and she accepted...BUT:

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to be an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party," the document said.

An admission of wrongdoing in a settlement, however, will be as bad as a verdict against him.

Today is going to be very interesting.


ETA: I just read this story on it:

NEW YORK - President-elect Donald Trump may not be headed to court after all over a fraud lawsuit regarding his now-defunct Trump University program.

Sources tell Spectrum News Trump is nearing a settlement in which he will pay between $20 million to $25 million.

He may not admit to any wrongdoing in the final agreement as well.

Note that word..."may."

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I expected Trump to settle out of court.

It's his way.

If it was possible SILLYOLME would have SHOVED it down our throats ...from BC...

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I expected Trump to settle out of court.

It's his way.

It's not just him that has to agree to settle though. The Plaintiffs have to agree, too.

Up until now, Trump has repeatedly said he would not be settling.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
If it was possible SILLYOLME would have SHOVED it down our throats ...from BC...

I never read any profound thoughts from silly -- just a lot of brief expressions of undying love for Hillary and certainty Hillary would win because polls.

I don't think silly ever considered that Trump might actually win.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

TRIED TO tell her...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

In all fairness...I didn't think Trump would be 'allowed' to win until 11 days before the election.

When the FBI briefly reopened the email server investigation, I thought, "Hm...why has an excuse been invented to explain why Hillary might lose?"

And then, sure enough...she went on to blame Comey when she lost.


ETA: Crap, like that, is what causes me to believe that nothing we see can be taken at face value.

I still think they knew 11 days before the election that Hillary was going to lose. And that begs the question: "How did they know?"