Optimistic, I can't tell if you're continuance to chew on the notion of literal pitchforks and torches is with tongue solidly in cheek or not. OldOwlNewHeel2 is not talking about actual, literal pitchforks and torches. His most recent post made that clear. He's speaking of violent, armed resistance or protest. Whether that's with guns, knives, fists, or whatever, the point he seems to be making is about the physical violence.

And the "let's just wait and see if there is any armed protest to Hillary winning" card is a bit of dodge, in my opinion. The question on the table is: was Trump being irresponsible and advocating for something dangerous (not to mention profoundly inconsistent with our American political tradition) when he was leaving open whether he would (and thus whether his supporters should) accept defeat on November 8? If one chooses to believe that this is nothing out of the norm, then I guess people will have to agree to disagree.

(10-21-2016 12:12 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Optimistic, I can't tell if you're continuance to chew on the notion of literal pitchforks and torches is with tongue solidly in cheek or not. OldOwlNewHeel2 is not talking about actual, literal pitchforks and torches. His most recent post made that clear. He's speaking of violent, armed resistance or protest. Whether that's with guns, knives, fists, or whatever, the point he seems to be making is about the physical violence.

I believe that Clarke is NOT speaking of armed, violent protest, yet the pitchforks and torches thing is being taken as such. If the parliament were to march on the AD's office, I would term that a pitchforks and torches event, whether or not there actual pitchforks or torches or violece. He referred me to a statement by Clarke implying that Clarke was advocating exactly those things.

Quote:And the "let's just wait and see if there is any armed protest to Hillary winning" card is a bit of dodge, in my opinion. The question on the table is: was Trump being irresponsible and advocating for something dangerous (not to mention profoundly inconsistent with our American political tradition) when he was leaving open whether he would (and thus whether his supporters should) accept defeat on November 8? If one chooses to believe that this is nothing out of the norm, then I guess people will have to agree to disagree.

A bit of a dodge? I expect Clinton to win, and grumbling from the losers, but no armed insurrection. Not accepting defeat is not the same as advocating armed resistance, and frankly I think that is more of a reach than pitchforks. Lots of ways to not accept defeat - recounts and legal action for starters. The same actions we saw from Gore when he would not accept defeat at first. i think this being seen as a call to armed insurrection is just fearmongering. i could be wrong. If we get a stream of people armed with guns, knives, scythes, pitchforks, frying pans, whatever marching on DC in mid November, then I will have been wrong. We will know for sure in three weeks or so. I think there is a stereotype of Trump supporters and this narrative is based off that stereotype.

Trump could have been clearer, but it is his opposition that has supplied their preferred context to his words.

I am not a Trump supporter. He is one of the worst candidates we have ever had. I will not support a bad Hillary just because Trump is not good. So likely I will not vote in that race, or will vote third party. My mind is not made up yet. So please do not expect me to come out of my house boiling with rage and carrying my shotgun. There may be a few like that, but they will be few and far between.

I remember the "Bill Clinton is not my President" bumper stickers.

There were conservative pundits claiming Sylvester Turner's 51% was a technical majority, but....

(10-21-2016 02:02 PM)JSA Wrote:  I remember the "Bill Clinton is not my President" bumper stickers.

There were conservative pundits claiming Sylvester Turner's 51% was a technical majority, but....

and I remember the the narraitve of GWB as a "selected" president, not an "elected" one.

Lots of times followers will not accept the results, but they rarely if ever try to overturn them through violence.

(10-21-2016 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 02:02 PM)JSA Wrote:  I remember the "Bill Clinton is not my President" bumper stickers.

There were conservative pundits claiming Sylvester Turner's 51% was a technical majority, but....

and I remember the the narraitve of GWB as a "selected" president, not an "elected" one.

Lots of times followers will not accept the results, but they rarely if ever try to overturn them through violence.

But I think the key is that you didn't have the person who lost, even after the results came out, claiming it was rigged. Gore asked for a recount, not because Florida was rigged, but because with results so close, and with a process to ripe for error, it wasn't unreasonable to expect mistakes happened.

The key is that Trump is pushing the narrative, which gives it more legitimacy and potentially adds more fuel to the fire of those on the fringier side of things who would, I presume, be more likely to do something a bit crazy.

Everything may come to pass peacefully as it always have, but why not condemn actions that could logically lead to lowering the likelihood of that?

I appreciate Optimistic's explanation of his thinking. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I see the reason and logic of it.

The one area where I still take strong issue is treating Bush v. Gore as somehow analogous to what Trump is saying. To me, they are miles apart. Yes, both instances would involve a departure from a normal election concession, but that's where the similarity ends. I doubt, before election night, Gore ever had it in his mind that he would somehow be involved in something so out-of-the-ordinary as Bush v. Gore.

Also, as I understand it, the Florida recount occurred by operation of law, i.e., Florida law mandated a recount under the circumstances, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the recount. The Republicans brought suit before the US Supreme Court to overrule the Florida Supreme Court, essentially having the federal government tell a state how to run its ballot counting process. I don't believe I ever heard Al Gore ever saying the system was rigged, even if many Democrats might have believed it was (by the SCOTUS).

Lots of gray area and worse things go on in politics, and I don't think one side has a monopoly on dirty tricks. But for the first time we have somebody from outside the system running. maybe that is why he calls it as he sees it.

Yes, I think it would have been better if he had said something like "We will examine the results, and if we feel there has been no fraud, we will concede". Exactly what an experienced politician would say. The whole reason Trump appeals to a lot of people is that he is NOT an experienced politician.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/pol....html?_r=0

(10-21-2016 03:20 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I appreciate Optimistic's explanation of his thinking. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I see the reason and logic of it.
The one area where I still take strong issue is treating Bush v. Gore as somehow analogous to what Trump is saying. To me, they are miles apart. Yes, both instances would involve a departure from a normal election concession, but that's where the similarity ends. I doubt, before election night, Gore ever had it in his mind that he would somehow be involved in something so out-of-the-ordinary as Bush v. Gore.
Also, as I understand it, the Florida recount occurred by operation of law, i.e., Florida law mandated a recount under the circumstances, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the recount. The Republicans brought suit before the US Supreme Court to overrule the Florida Supreme Court, essentially having the federal government tell a state how to run its ballot counting process. I don't believe I ever heard Al Gore ever saying the system was rigged, even if many Democrats might have believed it was (by the SCOTUS).

It appears to me that on the question of whether Trump's situation is equivalent to Bush v. Gore, opinions vary strictly along partisan lines. Therefore I conclude that it is a partisan issue. Whichever way you lean, that's how you are going to feel about this issue, and little is likely to change that.

As for what happened in Florida, one thing that does not get enough attention is that James Baker went to Florida and convinced Jeb Bush to call the Florida Legislature into special session for the purpose of nominating a slate of electors. Richard Alderman, who taught me Con Law at UH Law Center and gained fame as the "people's lawyer" on Houston TV, explained what he thought were the implications of that move, and I tend to agree with his analysis. To make a long story short, applicable statutes enacted after the Hayes-Tilden debacle would provide that even if he won a recount (which he never did, although there were several) the best result Al Gore could possibly have gotten, once the Florida Legislature convened, was a deadlock, to be broken per the statute by ... the Florida Governor, Jeb Bush. Alderman's belief is that once this became inevitable, the Supreme Court shut things down to avoid having to resolve a possible constitutional crisis.

I can walk you through the procedure which would have gotten there if you wish, but I've posted it before on here and I'll spare repeating it unless people want to see it again.

(10-21-2016 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 02:02 PM)JSA Wrote:  I remember the "Bill Clinton is not my President" bumper stickers.

There were conservative pundits claiming Sylvester Turner's 51% was a technical majority, but....

and I remember the the narraitve of GWB as a "selected" president, not an "elected" one.

Lots of times followers will not accept the results, but they rarely if ever try to overturn them through violence.

But I think the key is that you didn't have the person who lost, even after the results came out, claiming it was rigged. Gore asked for a recount, not because Florida was rigged, but because with results so close, and with a process to ripe for error, it wasn't unreasonable to expect mistakes happened.

The key is that Trump is pushing the narrative, which gives it more legitimacy and potentially adds more fuel to the fire of those on the fringier side of things who would, I presume, be more likely to do something a bit crazy.

Everything may come to pass peacefully as it always have, but why not condemn actions that could logically lead to lowering the likelihood of that?

I see what you're saying, but there's still free speech here.

In Venezuela, protests and government backed reprisals end with people dying and in jail, (rarely are supporters of Maduro the victims).

This doesn't happen here. I understand the 'fear' that it might, but the person in power at the end of the day is not going to be Trump.

The closest we've come recently to free speech inspired rhetoric resulting in deaths is the murder of police officers in Dallas.

I do not hold the BLM protestors (certainly not in Dallas, where things were very peaceful) responsible for the actions of a deranged gunman, even though there were comments made and shown on national TV by some protestors that could be construed as advocating the kind of violence that occurred in Dallas.

Absent someone giving explicit, direct orders, I believe that the person responsible for crimes is generally the person who commits them. If someone outside a rally holds up a sign that states "Trump, I hope you die!", would he be responsible if someone shot Trump?

Trumps' remarks have been rambling and vague, and I haven't heard him advocate protests, violent or otherwise, in the event he loses.

He is going to lose. Badgering him to make additional statements on the matter is frankly just provocative in my opinion. The press aren't asking questions right now because they expect or hope to get erudite clarifications from him, on this or any other matter.

They're pressing him in the hopes that he will make an(other) outrageous statement that they can take credit for prying from him. If it can be another statement that puts another nail in the coffin of his candidacy, they'll get plenty of airtime.

As I've said before, the press's behavior is understandable to an extent. He is an unqualified candidate, and once he secured the nomination the press was eager to prove that. That's part of their job. Per leaked emails, the DNC was more than happy to hold off on going after him until after he was the nominee. The Republicans set this fall (referring to both the season and Trump's destruction) up on a tee for them.

I know those who despise Trump, particularly those who are adamantly Democratic want to see him bloodied and decomposing as a candidate. Got it.

At some point, though, it starts to take on the tone of a college football team destroying a middle school football team.

What the east coast media, MSNBC types and late night faux political commentator-comedians never seem to grasp is that what is potentially enraging to the base 10% of the population who will support Trump as an anti-insider, non-career politician (not regardless of his lack of qualifications, but because of them) no matter what, is NOT that Trump mumbles vaguely about not getting a fair shake . . . . it's the daily drumbeat of the condemnation, attacks and belittling of the candidate they've gotten behind. They watch as he's not just called a bad candidate, but he's 'racist, sexist, a bad American, wipes his nose with the Constitution, etc.' They understand that those criticisms are also being leveled at them. Hillary called them deplorables.

Making a martyr out of someone is about the worst thing you can do in the long run. But totally annihilating someone is too satisfying to resist.

Timothy McVeigh blew up a building, not because he followed David Koresh. He blew up the building because of his perception of the role of the federal government in the Waco siege. Yes, ultimately David Koresh was responsible for the tragedy. But the whole affair was mismanaged.

The press has done their job. Frankly, at this point, they'd be better off minimizing coverage of Trump, not trying to achieve a 65%-35% route at the ballot box.

The majority of the American public is thoroughly sick of the whole thing. And in the long haul, it's not helping the Democrats beyond their base. A large portion of the country is going to feel they've had no say at all in the process this year, including some Democrats who feel the super delegates and pro-Clinton DNC and the PACs stacked the deck.

I wonder how many people wish Joe Biden had run right now?

I believe that the peaceful transition of power is (ironically) THE thing that truly made America great in the first place.

(10-21-2016 09:25 PM)erice Wrote:  I believe that the peaceful transition of power is (ironically) THE thing that truly made America great in the first place.

Understand.

Do your really think we are not going to have a peaceful transition of power this time?

Also, there have been non-peaceful transitions of power before, the Civil War coming immediately to mind. I have a strong suspicion there have been protests following elections in the past, primarily in the 19th century, as there were some unusual elections.

I'm not trying to argue your point, but while the concept is a valid one, and worth discussing, to my knowledge, it's not a constitutional concept, or something codified in law.

It's a general assumption of course, but I don't think it's ever gotten this much discussion as a 'principle' in any prior election. Honestly, I don't recall a discussion on this ever coming up before. Wasn't taught in any history class that I've taken (and I took Constitutional and Legal History at Rice, but that was over 35 years ago, so there may have been an amendment I missed)

I recently read an article describing booby traps and 'practical jokes' left behind by Clinton staffers when George W. Bush took over the White House. The article contrasted that, in part, to the recently publicized note of good will that George H. W. Bush left for Clinton, or the how far out of his way George W. Bush went to welcome President Obama to the White House (as a consequence of how they were received). The reception George W. and staffers received was significantly 'noteworthy', that President Obama has issued orders on how his staffers are to behave regardless of who wins the election (foregone conclusion now), as he was grateful for how his predecessor welcomed him.

So does outgoing staffers unwelcoming behavior toward a new president constitute non-peaceful transition of power?

Are unpublicized protests (placards, signs) protesting a new president a problem, even if they never get publicity.

Would it surprise you, if this dearly held tenet of our system had in fact been violated several times in the 19th century, even beyond the Civil War?

http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opini...-1.1681019

I think the article above touches on some of the points I was making in my previous post. Author is a Yale professor. The 1876 election is a prime example.

I have a 3-volume biography of Andrew Jackson, which I read ages ago. This article reminded me that the Jackson elections were the nastiest, and ugliest campaigns this country has seen. (yes worse than this year's). Jackson, who led in electors and won a plurality, lost a 4-way race to John Quincy Adams, decided by the Speaker of the House. Anyone thinking there wasn't backwoods violence committed somewhere as a result is kidding themselves, albeit not directly by Jackson. Jackson, as many here are aware, was guilty of killing a man in a duel, prior to his runs for the Presidency.

note - guilty in a rhetorical sense as there were no charges. Frankly, the other guy shot at, and hit, Jackson first. But the shot merely broke a rib. The guy he shot was a famous marksman and the outcome was expected to be much different than it was.

(10-21-2016 09:25 PM)erice Wrote:  I believe that the peaceful transition of power is (ironically) THE thing that truly made America great in the first place.

(10-21-2016 09:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 09:25 PM)erice Wrote:  I believe that the peaceful transition of power is (ironically) THE thing that truly made America great in the first place.

Understand.

Do your really think we are not going to have a peaceful transition of power this time?

Also, there have been non-peaceful transitions of power before, the Civil War coming immediately to mind. I have a strong suspicion there have been protests following elections in the past, primarily in the 19th century, as there were some unusual elections.

I'm not trying to argue your point, but while the concept is a valid one, and worth discussing, to my knowledge, it's not a constitutional concept, or something codified in law.

It's a general assumption of course, but I don't think it's ever gotten this much discussion as a 'principle' in any prior election. Honestly, I don't recall a discussion on this ever coming up before. Wasn't taught in any history class that I've taken (and I took Constitutional and Legal History at Rice, but that was over 35 years ago, so there may have been an amendment I missed)

I recently read an article describing booby traps and 'practical jokes' left behind by Clinton staffers when George W. Bush took over the White House. The article contrasted that, in part, to the recently publicized note of good will that George H. W. Bush left for Clinton, or the how far out of his way George W. Bush went to welcome President Obama to the White House (as a consequence of how they were received). The reception George W. and staffers received was significantly 'noteworthy', that President Obama has issued orders on how his staffers are to behave regardless of who wins the election (foregone conclusion now), as he was grateful for how his predecessor welcomed him.

So does outgoing staffers unwelcoming behavior toward a new president constitute non-peaceful transition of power?

Are unpublicized protests (placards, signs) protesting a new president a problem, even if they never get publicity.

Would it surprise you, if this dearly held tenet of our system had in fact been violated several times in the 19th century, even beyond the Civil War?

Clinton staffers left malicious things for W to find, or were they practical jokes? I remember reading somewhere that when W left, they removed all the W's on keyboards for the Obama administration.

Depends - are used rubbers malicious or practical jokes?

Drawers were glued shut. I wonder if Clnton will act the same way when she leaves the second time?

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/opinion/b...l?mode=jqm

(10-22-2016 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Drawers were glued shut. I wonder if Clnton will act the same way when she leaves the second time?

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/opinion/b...l?mode=jqm

Oh - does it say that Hillary participated in some of the pranks? I didn't see that part. You must have access to a premium version nobody else does.

(10-22-2016 12:31 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Drawers were glued shut. I wonder if Clnton will act the same way when she leaves the second time?

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/opinion/b...l?mode=jqm

Oh - does it say that Hillary participated in some of the pranks? I didn't see that part. You must have access to a premium version nobody else does.

Clearly you are right, she was clueless as to what was going on around her.

(10-22-2016 12:31 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Drawers were glued shut. I wonder if Clnton will act the same way when she leaves the second time?

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/opinion/b...l?mode=jqm

Oh - does it say that Hillary participated in some of the pranks? I didn't see that part. You must have access to a premium version nobody else does.

Does that matter? If so, why?

Clearly, I don't know who did or did not participate in the "jokes". Only they know for a certainty.

As for her second leaving, I was thinking of the accusation that they took over $200K of stuff that wasn't theirs to take. I was wrong, and I apologize. It was only $50K, and since they were dead broke, it is excusable.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...-stealing/

(10-22-2016 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 12:31 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Drawers were glued shut. I wonder if Clnton will act the same way when she leaves the second time?

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/opinion/b...l?mode=jqm

Oh - does it say that Hillary participated in some of the pranks? I didn't see that part. You must have access to a premium version nobody else does.

Does that matter? If so, why?

Do I really have to explain why an accusation that Hillary will act inappropriately a "second" time requires at least some evidence that she acted inappropriately a first time?

Let's see if we can generalize what just happened here:

• Random story about Bill Clinton's staffers pulling pranks/acting stupidly;
• Unsupported conclusion that Hillary was personally involved;
• Implication that Hillary will repeat the behavior in the future;
• Implied negative judgment of Hillary.
  

Can you spot the error?