Hillary Clinton wants to deprogram MAGA?

[JustOneWay]

I don't know how many times it needs to be sourced. Obviously "refuted EVERY WORD" is hyperbole. She didn't refute and, but, or, for. or anything like that.

She did and still does refute her election loss, which is precisely the same thing; she refutes her concession speech. Just one of several examples, already previously sourced:

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you," she said to cheers on the Los Angeles stop of her "Evening with the Clintons" tour with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

'You can have the election stolen from you,' Hillary Clinton warns 2020 Democrats

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you," Hillary Clinton said Saturday.

www.usatoday.com

Following her loss, Clinton notoriously alleged that the election was stolen from her, comparing it in a 2019 interview with CBS News to “applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado.”


“He knows he’s an illegitimate president,” she said of Trump. “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.”

Hillary Clinton: GOP has ‘plan to literally steal’ 2024 election

Hillary Clinton claimed right-wing Republicans “already have a plan” to steal the 2024 presidential election.

nypost.com

The idea that she 'revoked' he concession is absurd.

Hillary Clinton opens up about the moment she realized she lost​

Hillary Clinton opens up about the moment she realized she lost

Clinton's new book, "What Happened," was released this week.

abcnews.go.com

"Clinton added that she believes in continuing to give Donald Trump “a chance to lead,” as she said in her concession speech, but that didn’t stop her from criticizing his performance thus far."

Oh...and the GOP is going to "steal" the 2024 election too, according to Hillary: “Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election, and they’re not making a secret of it,” Clinton says in the Oct. 21 video from the progressive organization Indivisible.

​

Why not? They tried in 2020 and I have no doubt they will try again.

 

[DaisyDay]

It's deep seated?

That smells of a bad-faith, tricksy question. Yes, "it's" deep seated if by "it's" you meant "the phrase is". No, it's not deep seated if by "it's" you mean "tolerance for Antifa".

Well judging by those arrested....yes.

Seriously? You really know the political affiliation of those arrested? How?

There's lots of registered Democrats, children of Democrats, and I recall in one case of Antifa who assualted some marine veterans randomly on the street having direct ties to Democratic campaigns.

"Lots" of Democrats (I take it that you lump all Democrats into "the Left") - how many? Or, to gauge more accurately, what percentage of those arrested are Democrats or children of Democrats (which seems a stretch)?

Oh wow, one particular case, that should cinch it!

Here you go...

Antifa activist facing assault charges was tied to Democratic policymakers

What a difference a year made for Joseph Alcoff.

www.google.com

Well, the guy has ties! If that doesn't make the entire non-organization leftist, what ever could? It appears that after Alcoff was arrested for Antifa activities, they backed away from him and he lost his job. Is this your example of deep seated tolerance? From your FoxNews link just above:

Democrats are hardly eager to be associated with Alcoff now. Most spokespersons for Democratic members of Congress did not respond to inquiries from Fox News, or distanced themselves from Alcoff.​

Well let's start off with what fascists do....

Sturmabteilung - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer-hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD), and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties.

That sounds far more like the Proud Boys and other right-wing paramilitary organizations than it does Antifa.

Prosecutor: Proud Boys viewed themselves as 'Trump's army'

A prosecutor says Proud Boys leaders charged with plotting to use violence to keep Donald Trump in power saw the far-right extremist group as the former president's “army.”

apnews.com

So fascists use people to beat up political opponents and silence them.
I don't need to point out that Antifa does the same thing right?

Fascists are violent; Antifa is violent, therefore Antifa==fascists? Naw. As far as I can tell, Antifa does not "use people" to beat up political opponents and silence them, they themselves are the people on the ground who use violence to oppose other violent factions.

This is part of the problem with the extremist left. They read the label but don't look in the box.

Wait, are you saying that Antifa doesn't look in the box? Antifa is supposedly the "extremist left" that the mainstream left has a blind spot and tolerance for.

Antifa= left wing fascists.

No, Antifa is violent, no doubt, but they are not nationalistic, militaristic, authoritarian or leader-driven. Cute try at a reversal, but it doesn't work if you look in the box.

Inclusive = we want to racially exclude people. And so on...

Polemics.

Do MAGA extremists, as Bobert likes to label herself, Ultra MAGA, exist? I've seen people on this board deny it.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630980971645239297

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The idea that she 'revoked' he concession is absurd.

Hillary Clinton opens up about the moment she realized she lost​

Hillary Clinton opens up about the moment she realized she lost

Clinton's new book, "What Happened," was released this week.

abcnews.go.com

"Clinton added that she believes in continuing to give Donald Trump “a chance to lead,” as she said in her concession speech, but that didn’t stop her from criticizing his performance thus far."

​

Why not? They tried in 2020 and I have no doubt they will try again.

Again, I said her subsequent wording REFUTES her concession speech that she didn't believe, but felt compelled to make by tradition. You changed that word I used "refutes" to "revokes". I will speak for myself and you will not change my words to something I did not say, thanks.

Hillary Clinton's subsequent speech on multiple occasions about how the election was stolen from her and how Trump is an illegitimate President indeed speaks volumes.

 

[Pommer]

Again, I said her subsequent wording REFUTES her concession speech that she didn't believe, but felt compelled to make by tradition. You changed that word I used "refutes" to "revokes". I will speak for myself and you will not change my words to something I did not say, thanks.

Hillary Clinton's subsequent speech on multiple occasions about how the election was stolen from her and how Trump is an illegitimate President indeed speaks volumes.

In what court did Hillary Clinton try to overturn the 2016 Presidential Election?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Your comment was that she did not concede. She did regardless of saying whatever she said later. She did not take back the concession.

She read a speech saying she conceded. Then she said she actually won and Trump was illegitimate. Put the pieces together.

 

[JustOneWay]

She read a speech saying she conceded. Then she said she actually won and Trump was illegitimate. Put the pieces together.

Still at it? You are still wrong. Time to put you on ignore.

 

[JustOneWay]

In what court did Hillary Clinton try to overturn the 2016 Presidential Election?

The court in their minds.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

She read a speech saying she conceded. Then she said she actually won and Trump was illegitimate. Put the pieces together.

That is far more to concede to her opponent than Trump has done since his electoral defeat.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This is simply nonfactual. It is clear that you have not listened to or read Clinton's speech.
Your specious claim that she had no hand in writing the speech is without merit, without evidence.

Sure, let it stand if that's what you really want. Here is an excerpt from her speech:

Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don’t just respect that, we cherish it. It also enshrines other things; the rule of law, the principle that we are all equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values too and we must defend them.​

Your claim is that she has "REFUTED EVERY WORD FOR YEARS"; please show when and where she refuted the words above.

Posted links three times, as I recall, to exact statements she made refuting her loss of the Presidency. You can scroll back up and find them. Not doing the work again.

 

[DaisyDay]

Posted links three times, as I recall, to exact statements she made refuting her loss of the Presidency. You can scroll back up and find them. Not doing the work again.

Sure, you posted links but they don't say what you claim, that she refuted everything in her concession speech. Perhaps if you would show something from her speech, then the refutation?

 

[Pommer]

Posted links three times, as I recall, to exact statements she made refuting her loss of the Presidency. You can scroll back up and find them. Not doing the work again.

A six year-old “story” that no-one really cares about?
I wouldn’t either.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

A six year-old “story” that no-one really cares about?
I wouldn’t either.

Someone cared enough in this post to refute the facts multiple times. I simply corrected the misunderstanding. Feel free to scroll back and look or move along to another post. Freedom.

 

[Pommer]

Someone cared enough in this post to refute the facts multiple times. I simply corrected the misunderstanding. Feel free to scroll back and look or move along to another post. Freedom.

Well, it seems important to you to defend your opinion, and that’s what forums is for, I guess, but Ms Clinton didn’t challenge Trump’s victory in any legal sense so you’re fighting for nothing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

DeSantis has declared Florida "where woke goes to die" and rather than re-educating people, he is changing school curricula to avoid topics of race and gender so students are protected from ideas. Part of his program is a law literally called the Stop WOKE Act, which has been ruled unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, due to viewpoint discrimination.

The judge opened his 139-page order with a quote from George Orwell’s novel “1984” and called the law “positively dystopian.”

This is not 'anyone'. This is the governor of a large state trying to indoctrinate students to adhere to a government mandated viewpoint.

There's a difference between "educated" and "re-education".

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The idea that she 'revoked' he concession is absurd.

Hillary Clinton opens up about the moment she realized she lost​

Hillary Clinton opens up about the moment she realized she lost

Clinton's new book, "What Happened," was released this week.

abcnews.go.com

"Clinton added that she believes in continuing to give Donald Trump “a chance to lead,” as she said in her concession speech, but that didn’t stop her from criticizing his performance thus far."

​

Why not? They tried in 2020 and I have no doubt they will try again.

I never said the word "revoked". That's your erroneous addition. I used the word "refuted".

 

[JustOneWay]

I never said the word "revoked". That's your erroneous addition. I used the word "refuted".

That was 2 weeks ago, but you got me. LOL