Harambe wrote:
I will admit that Trump is voice his concerns at an earlier time than Gore did. However I believe they are still similar.
You are wrong.
Harambe wrote:
I will admit that Trump is voice his concerns at an earlier time than Gore did. However I believe they are still similar.
You are wrong.
Absolutely ridiculous what you are saying. Gore was actually being jobbed out of the election by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris who had removed something like 150,000 voters from the rolls and Gore's "contesting" was asking them to count the votes, which is his legal prerogative. The Supreme Court decision, Bush v. Gore, was the worst in the previous nearly sixty years, going back to the days of Korematsu. It stated that they should not count all the votes; they should stop because Bush might suffer irreparable harm. The country did suffer irreparable harm, from that decision. Questioning an election decided by fewer than 500 votes is entirely different than questioning the election as such.
That politician would be your hero Trump.
Wejo,
I appreciate your thoughtful response - though I don't think quoting a WSJ editorial is useful. Its news reporting is well-respected but the editorials invariably put the best Republican slant on everything.
In any case, as many others have pointed out, the outrage at Trump's remarks is justified because those remarks were consistent with his threats of violence throughout his campaign. Several (many?) times he encouraged his supporters to attack anti-Trump demonstrators. I think he has toned that down but every Trump rally I have seen on cable news shows him repeatedly stirring up anger at reporters. Thus many of them have been threatened and and needed police protection, and long-time pro-Republican newspapers in Dallas and Arizona have been bombarded with death threats simply for endorsing Hillary. His encouragement of "2nd amendment" tactics was beyond outrageous. Plus he has repeatedly encouraged vigilantes to be self-appointed poll-watchers. In this age of "open carry" and "stand your ground" such incitement is, literally, unforgiveable.
Harambe wrote:
1) This comparison between Gore and Trump is a fair one
Sure. If you're an idiot.
Harambe wrote:
However I believe they are still similar.
Right. They both occurred during Presidential Elections. End of similarity.
bin there wrote:
Harambe wrote:However I believe they are still similar.
Right. They both occurred during Presidential Elections. End of similarity.
As HRC said in debate #1: "Where's the substance to ur argument, man"
They are not similar is all that needs to be said.
Conundrum wrote:
Let's start with the first core question. Was Trump threatening or just refusing to get cornered into making foolish promises? Trump was ambiguous on us and it probably depends on the perspective of the person listening to some extent.
Agreed.
If Trump didn't have the history of being very clear about stating that the whole process was rigged (without evidence of anything meaningful) it might be easier to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Somewhat agreed. He does come off sounding like a 6 year old spoiled loser. Still, he probably sensed what is coming to light through recent revelations, and in Trump fashion spoke what was on his mind -- a trait that is not excellent in a politician. But then, media deception by the HRC camp is unbecoming as well.
Also if trump didn't want to get cornered if something clearly was questionable came up he could have been more articulate about his intentions.
Agreed. Sometimes you smell a rat but you can't prove to others that there is one, and in such cases others will capitalise.
Trump brought the question about whether he would accept the results on himself with all the elections are rigged Bluster.
Trump's response in the context of his previous comments put him in a further negative light.
Reasonable, if it is just bluster. The mechanics of voting have some checks and balances to keep rigging unlikely. What is more likely, however, is that the reference is to 'soft' manipulation via misinformation and propaganda. Whether there is enough substance to it and traction to do anything about it remains to be seen.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
not American wrote:
Conundrum wrote:Let's start with the first core question. Was Trump threatening or just refusing to get cornered into making foolish promises? Trump was ambiguous on us and it probably depends on the perspective of the person listening to some extent.
Agreed.
If Trump didn't have the history of being very clear about stating that the whole process was rigged (without evidence of anything meaningful) it might be easier to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Somewhat agreed. He does come off sounding like a 6 year old spoiled loser. Still, he probably sensed what is coming to light through recent revelations, and in Trump fashion spoke what was on his mind -- a trait that is not excellent in a politician. But then, media deception by the HRC camp is unbecoming as well.
Also if trump didn't want to get cornered if something clearly was questionable came up he could have been more articulate about his intentions.
Agreed. Sometimes you smell a rat but you can't prove to others that there is one, and in such cases others will capitalise.
Trump brought the question about whether he would accept the results on himself with all the elections are rigged Bluster.
Trump's response in the context of his previous comments put him in a further negative light.
Reasonable, if it is just bluster. The mechanics of voting have some checks and balances to keep rigging unlikely. What is more likely, however, is that the reference is to 'soft' manipulation via misinformation and propaganda. Whether there is enough substance to it and traction to do anything about it remains to be seen.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I very much enjoyed your analysis of each point. Well done.
rojo wrote:
People are apparently (at least on twitter) outraged that Trump said he won't automatically accept the election results. Why?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but didn't Al Gore contest the 2000 results?
Why-- because Trump has claimed that the election is "rigged."
There is a world of difference between challenging the results of an election as illegitimate on the basis of outright fraud (i.e., "rigging the election") and challenging the results of an election as illegitimate on the basis of improprieties in the way votes are counted, hanging chads, and the like.
In other words-- Gore's challenge affirmed the legitimacy of the democratic process. It was imperative that the votes be counted and counted properly.
Trump's "rigging" contention contests the legitimacy of the entire democratic process.
4runner wrote:
Trump's "rigging" contention contests the legitimacy of the entire democratic process.
As he should because the whole thing is completely corrupt.
If voting really made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it.
Assuming elections are rigged, what evidence would there be to suggest its Democrats doing the rigging?
Despite being a minority of registered voters, Republicans control most state legislatures, most governorships, the house (which they won't lose) and the Senate (which they will). They'll hang onto the house almost exclusively because over the years congressional districts have been gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Even the electoral college slightly favors Republicans, in that smaller states have a larger presence.
The media has been just incredibly generous to Trump. They've let you idiots pretend that the Clinton foundation 'scandal' and her email issues (which are troubling things to be sure) are somehow comparable to the Trump foundation and the sexual assault charges.
Just like Trump, however, his supporters seem to think that him losing ground in the polls is due to something other than the undecided voters out there realizing his incredible lack of fitness for public office.
Jeffy Tull wrote:
4runner wrote:Trump's "rigging" contention contests the legitimacy of the entire democratic process.
As he should because the whole thing is completely corrupt.
If voting really made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it.
paranoid much?
[quote]The letter why wrote:
Assuming elections are rigged, what evidence would there be to suggest its Democrats doing the rigging?
First of all it's not the election or elections that are being rigged, but the entire electoral process that is.
In 2004 Ralph Nader threatened with arrest if he even showed up to the Dem debate at Umass Boston. In 2012 the GOP refusing to seat Ron Paul's delegates.
The debates no longer run by the League of Women's Voters buy now in the hands of the Oligarch owned networks who set arbitrary standards to exclude anyone by the Dem and GOP nominees (and they'd love to exclude Trump if they thought they could get away with it). Don't want those silly voters hearing anything outside the officially approved narrative do we? Must not hear from Greens or Libertarians. But how did that Trump guy get in? He's saying stuff people should not be hearing.
Mainstream media acting as a de facto PAC for Hillary (or against Trump might be a more accurate way of putting it.)
The whole system is corrupt so why would you think the electoral process is not? How long are you guys going to cling to the fairy tale we were immersed in as kids as to how moral America is?
Second, what evidence is there that the Dems are doing the rigging? Really? I dunno, thousands of email dumped in the past few months regarding the rigging of the Dem nomination process for Hillary? How about those?
We're watching you Jeffy wrote:
Jeffy Tull wrote:As he should because the whole thing is completely corrupt.
If voting really made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it.
paranoid much?
Sleep walking thru life letting the Owners tell you how to think are we?
I mean, obviously the parties are corrupt. No one is disputing that. Though the assertion that they are "rigged" is a little ridiculous. What Republican insider wanted Trump??? And Clinton beat Sanders by, what, around 10 million votes? No rigging necessary. Was the deck stacked in her favor? Sure it was, and it bothers me, but it's worth noting that OBVIOUSLY the DNC favored a Democrat (Clinton) over an independent (Sanders). But those are problems with the parties, not the electoral process.
What media are you watching that are de facto PACs for Clinton? At a certain point, you should realize that members of the media hate Trump because all sane people hate Trump. He's absolutely nuts, and completely unfit for the presidency. It would be justice if the media pointed that out, but instead they actually pretend that there are two candidates running.
And in all of that, you failed to note a single way in which the general election is rigged. Because it isn't. Your candidate is just a moron and is losing because he sucks.
Jeffy Tull wrote:
4runner wrote:Trump's "rigging" contention contests the legitimacy of the entire democratic process.
As he should because the whole thing is completely corrupt.
If voting really made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it.
Who exactly is "they?"
It looks like "they" allowed the Republicans who voted in the primaries to nominate Trump as their candidate.
What sinister plan do "they" have to let Trump get as far as this but no further???