(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?