[chopsuey5540]

Aha of course, the democrats would have applauded brutally laying off 75% of the workforce had he been “toeing the party line”.

[acheron]

Yes? Imagine some rich guy bought out Fox News or something and laid everybody off. Democrats would be cheering in the streets.

[refurb]

Applauded? Maybe not. But covered for him? Absolutely.

It’s how politics works in the US. If you’re on “our team” your faults are overlooked. On the “other team”? Clearly unfit for your position.

And the fun part is they’ll often make such comments the same day.

[0dayz]

I really fail to see the logic here, if Donald trump remained a Democrat in 2016 he would 100% not get nominated. Just look at what happened with Bloomberg.

Show some examples of this, AFAIK if you go against the voters you're out.

[refurb]

Examples are numerous.

Republicans questions election results without proof and they are "undermining democracy". Hilary Clinton calls Trump an "illegitimate president" in 2019 and it's crickets.

Of course they'll wave their hands saying "it's different", but it's not. Either denying election results without evidence is wrong or it's not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

And the Republicans do the same thing on different issues - talking about wasteful spending and then turn around support wasteful spending themselves.

It’s hypocritical and unsurprising most voters don’t believe anything politicians say.

[0dayz]

The first example is just not comparable, republicans are to this day proclaiming election stolen without ANY evidence of fraud.

While the 2016 event has always been about Russian election interference NOT election conspiracy by democrats.

The article you provided is Hillary saying sour grapes (not sure why poor ol Jimmy is asked about it), not rambling about crazy conspiracies to the point of embracing it.

Second example is more make sense, because Republicans strategy since Gingrich (of never compromise always obstruct), so if democrats are in favor of A then republican strategy is to literally advocate for B even though they are also for A (look at gun control passed in red states or voter encouragement laws).

[refurb]

This is what I'm talking about.

Hilary said, without any proof, "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did."

But you make excuses about "sour grapes". It's not, she making claims of "voter suppression", "hacking" that resulted in a unfair election. That's a very serious accusation and undermines the election process. Just as serious as Republicans claiming election fraud.

Either making claims about illegitimate elections is wrong or not.

[0dayz]

The difference is she's not wrong about those things (3/4 of them):

there was interference in the election (hacking) Republicans have pushed for voter suppression "fake" stories did plague her election (emails, benghazi) voter purge I'm not sure what that is suppose to be about in this context.

And this is coming from a person that "hates" Hillary.

I don't make any excuse for her statements, I'm saying she not Donald trump who controls and influences their party.