(10-19-2016 10:55 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:50 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:31 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:04 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  ...
And to cap it off, he will keep America "in suspense" until the election is over to say whether he would accept the vote of the people. To paraphrase Butch Cassidy's question to Sundance, "Who [is this] guy?"

The Democrats who decry this behavior seem to conveniently forget the stink raised by Al Gore in 2000. If the results do manage to be surprisingly close, why not make every effort to ensure everything is on the up-and-up?

The anarchist in me is going to come out a bit, but the more the ruling class tells me to blindly embrace something, it only makes me more skeptical.

What I recall is Al Gore's graceful concession speech. A quick google confirms that. So I have no idea what you are referring to. Both sides worked pretty hard on the recount but when the Supreme Court ruled Gore accepted it. Will Trump accept a loss or continue his mantra of a "rigged" election? We are in suspense....

Gore did accept it, eventually. I just don't think Trump was doing anything here other than reserving the right to get the same diligence.

Tend to agree. There's plenty of stuff objectionable about Trump, but I think we're getting to the point where one side feels that they need to blast every single word he says. (and on the other side, I don't think people are willing to give Obama or Hillary the benefit of the doubt on very much either).

Some of this stuff borders on grasping at straws. I took it in the same vein you did. Listening to other commentators, it's almost as if they're implying Trump is going to ride around on horseback leading an armed revolt.

Trump is unfit and unqualified to be President. But he's not Hugo Chavez (who spent time in Venezuelan prison (before he was the Presidente for leading a military coup attempt that included bombing the Caracas airport), Fidel Castro or Che Guevera. Trump doesn't think that far ahead and has nothing strategically to 'fight for'.

The more hyperbole and rhetoric the Democrats and political commentators use to attack him, they just reinforce the feeling that the intellectual elite are trying to tell the voting public what to think. It isn't necessary to prove the point about Trump. There is a segment of the voting public that will be voting based on that feeling, regardless of how unfit Trump may be.

Just saw Joe Biden on Jimmy Kimmel (think it may've been a re-run from earlier this fall). His demeanor, matter of fact commentary and avoidance of hyperbole is the approach that the Democrats need.

Snarky ridicule and extreme claims aren't reaching across the aisle, or appealing to people's better nature. JMO.

(10-19-2016 11:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:55 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:50 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:31 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:04 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  ...
And to cap it off, he will keep America "in suspense" until the election is over to say whether he would accept the vote of the people. To paraphrase Butch Cassidy's question to Sundance, "Who [is this] guy?"

The Democrats who decry this behavior seem to conveniently forget the stink raised by Al Gore in 2000. If the results do manage to be surprisingly close, why not make every effort to ensure everything is on the up-and-up?

The anarchist in me is going to come out a bit, but the more the ruling class tells me to blindly embrace something, it only makes me more skeptical.

What I recall is Al Gore's graceful concession speech. A quick google confirms that. So I have no idea what you are referring to. Both sides worked pretty hard on the recount but when the Supreme Court ruled Gore accepted it. Will Trump accept a loss or continue his mantra of a "rigged" election? We are in suspense....

Gore did accept it, eventually. I just don't think Trump was doing anything here other than reserving the right to get the same diligence.

If you believe that, then I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you.

I think if that was truly what Trump was talking about, about doing due diligence like Gore and going through a thorough count of votes in a state where results are very close, in a general election where he wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, then he could have easily said, I will accept the final outcome of the election. That right there wouldn't keep him from holding a recount.

However, he stuck with the line of thinking that suggests there is a massive conspiracy in place to keep him from taking the White House, and his followers eat it up, hook, line, and sinker. People already don't think government officials care about them, and he is just egging on a delusional theory that massive voter fraud is going to keep the will of the American people from being carried out UNLESS he wins.

Do you actually think he is that nuanced in his political addresses that he was leaving the door open for legitimate due diligence?

That's honestly what I thought. But I try not to assume the worst motives every time someone who I disagree with opens their mouth. I don't do it at work, I honestly haven't done it with President Obama, who I didn't vote for, and I don't do it for Hillary or Trump, neither of whom I will vote for. (except when they're openly attacking each other, then there's little reason to doubt bad motives).

(10-19-2016 11:45 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:55 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:50 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:31 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  The Democrats who decry this behavior seem to conveniently forget the stink raised by Al Gore in 2000. If the results do manage to be surprisingly close, why not make every effort to ensure everything is on the up-and-up?

The anarchist in me is going to come out a bit, but the more the ruling class tells me to blindly embrace something, it only makes me more skeptical.

What I recall is Al Gore's graceful concession speech. A quick google confirms that. So I have no idea what you are referring to. Both sides worked pretty hard on the recount but when the Supreme Court ruled Gore accepted it. Will Trump accept a loss or continue his mantra of a "rigged" election? We are in suspense....

Gore did accept it, eventually. I just don't think Trump was doing anything here other than reserving the right to get the same diligence.

If you believe that, then I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you.

I think if that was truly what Trump was talking about, about doing due diligence like Gore and going through a thorough count of votes in a state where results are very close, in a general election where he wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, then he could have easily said, I will accept the final outcome of the election. That right there wouldn't keep him from holding a recount.

However, he stuck with the line of thinking that suggests there is a massive conspiracy in place to keep him from taking the White House, and his followers eat it up, hook, line, and sinker. People already don't think government officials care about them, and he is just egging on a delusional theory that massive voter fraud is going to keep the will of the American people from being carried out UNLESS he wins.

Do you actually think he is that nuanced in his political addresses that he was leaving the door open for legitimate due diligence?

That's honestly what I thought. But I try not to assume the worst motives every time someone who I disagree with opens their mouth. I don't do it at work, I honestly haven't done it with President Obama, who I didn't vote for, and I don't do it for Hillary or Trump, neither of whom I will vote for. (except when they're openly attacking each other, then there's little reason to doubt bad motives).

You actually thought he said that and meant it to be nuanced? No way, because nuance isn't his thing. He said it for two reasons. To fire up his base because they eat it up, because he doesn't like losing. I don't think he explicitly is stoking the fires of mistrust in the election process to try create a call to arms to contest the election, but he doesn't like losing (he has to win and be right about everything - if you read up on his family history you can see the influence of his father Fred jnnthat) and he wants to start the excuses of why he is going to lose.

I haven't seen anything from Trump yet that indicates his motivation to say, we'll wait and see, was due to him wanting to avoid a contradiction with his actions in the future.

(10-19-2016 11:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you actually think he is that nuanced in his political addresses that he was leaving the door open for legitimate due diligence?

Of course I don't think he's nuanced at all. He's put himself in this position by not putting any substance on his red meat. But it's a no-win question- even if he puts it like you would, should we get into a Bush/Gore situation, and he has to take the Gore position, he would be absolutely demonized for going back on his word. He has to leave that door open.

Rick Gerlach Wrote:Trump is unfit and unqualified to be President.
...
The more hyperbole and rhetoric the Democrats and political commentators use to attack him, they just reinforce the feeling that the intellectual elite are trying to tell the voting public what to think. It isn't necessary to prove the point about Trump. There is a segment of the voting public that will be voting based on that feeling, regardless of how unfit Trump may be.

Agreed on both points. To add to the latter, those people would likely vote anyone over HRC if they have an R by their name. I think Trump could have (this window has almost certainly passed) broadened beyond that, but he has to put up with being such a poor communicator on top of his unfitness.

George Carlin:

“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens.

Sorry, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Trump's refusal to say he'll accept the results of the election. Along with his completely unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, this is the most irresponsible thing he's done. Many Republicans have condemned it, thankfully.

Democracy isn't just about the constitution, it's about the culture and traditions that uphold it. Plenty of countries look like democracies on paper and aren't in practice. Let's not become one of them.

(10-20-2016 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Trump's refusal to say he'll accept the results of the election. Along with his completely unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, this is the most irresponsible thing he's done. Many Republicans have condemned it, thankfully.

Democracy isn't just about the constitution, it's about the culture and traditions that uphold it. Plenty of countries look like democracies on paper and aren't in practice. Let's not become one of them.

Bingo.

It wasn't like Gore went around before the election, screaming about it being rigged against him and then went and contested it, so it's a false equivalency.

Trump is just adding fuel to the fire for a significant amount of conspiracy minded folks who truly believe that the election is rigged and not that a majority of the country, should the polls be correct, doesn't want Donald Trump to be their president.

(10-20-2016 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Trump's refusal to say he'll accept the results of the election. Along with his completely unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, this is the most irresponsible thing he's done. Many Republicans have condemned it, thankfully.

Democracy isn't just about the constitution, it's about the culture and traditions that uphold it. Plenty of countries look like democracies on paper and aren't in practice. Let's not become one of them.

Bingo.

It wasn't like Gore went around before the election, screaming about it being rigged against him and then went and contested it, so it's a false equivalency.

Trump is just adding fuel to the fire for a significant amount of conspiracy minded folks who truly believe that the election is rigged and not that a majority of the country, should the polls be correct, doesn't want Donald Trump to be their president.

As we've briefly mentioned before in this thread, regardless of what Trump actually meant, his position as the Republican nominee obligates him to avoid the doublespeak of which he is so fond. Even if he intended a nuanced meaning, he should know that a not-insignificant subset of his followers actually think an armed rebellion is a good idea (See the "torches and pitchforks" sheriff, for instance)). At worst, he's trying to start a riot. At best, he's recklessly abusing his position.

(10-20-2016 09:36 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Trump's refusal to say he'll accept the results of the election. Along with his completely unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, this is the most irresponsible thing he's done. Many Republicans have condemned it, thankfully.

Democracy isn't just about the constitution, it's about the culture and traditions that uphold it. Plenty of countries look like democracies on paper and aren't in practice. Let's not become one of them.

Bingo.

It wasn't like Gore went around before the election, screaming about it being rigged against him and then went and contested it, so it's a false equivalency.

Trump is just adding fuel to the fire for a significant amount of conspiracy minded folks who truly believe that the election is rigged and not that a majority of the country, should the polls be correct, doesn't want Donald Trump to be their president.

As we've briefly mentioned before in this thread, regardless of what Trump actually meant, his position as the Republican nominee obligates him to avoid the doublespeak of which he is so fond. Even if he intended a nuanced meaning, he should know that a not-insignificant subset of his followers actually think an armed rebellion is a good idea (See the "torches and pitchforks" sheriff, for instance)). At worst, he's trying to start a riot. At best, he's recklessly abusing his position.

You really think Clark meant that literally? Really? I have used that "pitchforks and torches" phrase many times to describe the Parliament, but I never meant it literally. It just means to protest. It is an image from the first Frankenstein movie. I wonder what the stats are on pitchfork sales?

I think that when Trump loses, there will be literally a few dozen people nationally who want to do something about it, and I doubt any of them will be using a pitchfork.

This reminds me of my former father-in-law, who once told me the Russians were stockpiling horses and wood, as the Bible said Armageddon would be fought with wooden weapons and the blood would rise to the horses' eyes. yeah, sure, like the Russians used the Bible for their military planning.

I know several women who have already ordered one of these "Nasty Woman" shirts and intend to wear it when they go to vote.

https://googleghost.com/collections/appa...-t-shirt-5

(10-20-2016 10:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I know several women who have already ordered one of these "Nasty Woman" shirts and intend to wear it when they go to vote.

https://googleghost.com/collections/appa...-t-shirt-5

Binders full of nasty women?

(10-20-2016 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:36 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Trump's refusal to say he'll accept the results of the election. Along with his completely unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, this is the most irresponsible thing he's done. Many Republicans have condemned it, thankfully.

Democracy isn't just about the constitution, it's about the culture and traditions that uphold it. Plenty of countries look like democracies on paper and aren't in practice. Let's not become one of them.

Bingo.

It wasn't like Gore went around before the election, screaming about it being rigged against him and then went and contested it, so it's a false equivalency.

Trump is just adding fuel to the fire for a significant amount of conspiracy minded folks who truly believe that the election is rigged and not that a majority of the country, should the polls be correct, doesn't want Donald Trump to be their president.

As we've briefly mentioned before in this thread, regardless of what Trump actually meant, his position as the Republican nominee obligates him to avoid the doublespeak of which he is so fond. Even if he intended a nuanced meaning, he should know that a not-insignificant subset of his followers actually think an armed rebellion is a good idea (See the "torches and pitchforks" sheriff, for instance)). At worst, he's trying to start a riot. At best, he's recklessly abusing his position.

You really think Clark meant that literally? Really? I have used that "pitchforks and torches" phrase many times to describe the Parliament, but I never meant it literally. It just means to protest. It is an image from the first Frankenstein movie. I wonder what the stats are on pitchfork sales?

I think that when Trump loses, there will be literally a few dozen people nationally who want to do something about it, and I doubt any of them will be using a pitchfork.

This reminds me of my former father-in-law, who once told me the Russians were stockpiling horses and wood, as the Bible said Armageddon would be fought with wooden weapons and the blood would rise to the horses' eyes. yeah, sure, like the Russians used the Bible for their military planning.

Oh, I don't know - why don't we let Clarke tell us what he meant?

Quote:“When I tweeted the above image, I meant it. I wasn’t speaking in code,” continued Clarke.

You can take it up with him, I guess.

(10-20-2016 12:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:36 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Trump's refusal to say he'll accept the results of the election. Along with his completely unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, this is the most irresponsible thing he's done. Many Republicans have condemned it, thankfully.

Democracy isn't just about the constitution, it's about the culture and traditions that uphold it. Plenty of countries look like democracies on paper and aren't in practice. Let's not become one of them.

Bingo.

It wasn't like Gore went around before the election, screaming about it being rigged against him and then went and contested it, so it's a false equivalency.

Trump is just adding fuel to the fire for a significant amount of conspiracy minded folks who truly believe that the election is rigged and not that a majority of the country, should the polls be correct, doesn't want Donald Trump to be their president.

As we've briefly mentioned before in this thread, regardless of what Trump actually meant, his position as the Republican nominee obligates him to avoid the doublespeak of which he is so fond. Even if he intended a nuanced meaning, he should know that a not-insignificant subset of his followers actually think an armed rebellion is a good idea (See the "torches and pitchforks" sheriff, for instance)). At worst, he's trying to start a riot. At best, he's recklessly abusing his position.

You really think Clark meant that literally? Really? I have used that "pitchforks and torches" phrase many times to describe the Parliament, but I never meant it literally. It just means to protest. It is an image from the first Frankenstein movie. I wonder what the stats are on pitchfork sales?

I think that when Trump loses, there will be literally a few dozen people nationally who want to do something about it, and I doubt any of them will be using a pitchfork.

This reminds me of my former father-in-law, who once told me the Russians were stockpiling horses and wood, as the Bible said Armageddon would be fought with wooden weapons and the blood would rise to the horses' eyes. yeah, sure, like the Russians used the Bible for their military planning.

Oh, I don't know - why don't we let Clarke tell us what he meant?

Quote:“When I tweeted the above image, I meant it. I wasn’t speaking in code,” continued Clarke.

You can take it up with him, I guess.

The exact opposite of the Trump strategy. Interesting.

(10-19-2016 11:40 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Tend to agree. There's plenty of stuff objectionable about Trump, but I think we're getting to the point where one side feels that they need to blast every single word he says. (and on the other side, I don't think people are willing to give Obama or Hillary the benefit of the doubt on very much either).

Some of this stuff borders on grasping at straws. I took it in the same vein you did. Listening to other commentators, it's almost as if they're implying Trump is going to ride around on horseback leading an armed revolt.

Trump is unfit and unqualified to be President. But he's not Hugo Chavez (who spent time in Venezuelan prison (before he was the Presidente for leading a military coup attempt that included bombing the Caracas airport), Fidel Castro or Che Guevera. Trump doesn't think that far ahead and has nothing strategically to 'fight for'.

That seems like you're almost intentionally being obtuse on this point. I mean there's giving the benefit of the doubt, and then there's completely ignoring both the question asked and the context in which it was asked.

Over the past week, the Trump campaign has had this discussion:

First Trump says at a rally: ""The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing completely false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect [Clinton] president."

Pence addresses it on Meet the Press saying "We will absolutely accept the results of the election. Look, the American people will speak in an election that will culminate on November the 8th. But the American people are tired of the obvious bias in the national media. That's where the sense of a rigged election goes here, Chuck." (emphasis mine)

After the Pence interview airs, Trump clarifies his own position via tweet: "The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places – SAD," (emphasis mine)

Then at the debate, Wallace specifically referenced that exchange between Trump and Pence when asking his question:
WALLACE: "Mr. Trump, I want to ask you about one last question in this topic. You have been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you. Your running mate, Governor Pence, pledged on Sunday that he and you — his words — “will absolutely accept the result of this election.” Today your daughter, Ivanka, said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight: Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely — sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?"

After back and forth, where Trump claims that millions of people are registered to vote that shouldn't be, that the NYT is poisoning minds against him, and that Hillary should not be legally allowed to run for the presidency, Wallace reiterates the question and Trump finally responds:
WALLACE: "...the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?"
TRUMP: "What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?"

Taken in context, it's clear that Trump's answer was _not_ him splitting hairs about waiting for every vote to be counted. It was about whether he will accept the final tally as an accurate representation of the will of the American people.

Separately, it's interesting that you bring up Venezuela. I happened to watch the debate over at my neighbor's house; he's from Venezuela (moved here after college) and his father, who lives in Venezuela, was visiting. His father had some difficulty following the debate in English, but once Fox flashed the headline "Trump Won't Commit To Accepting Election Results" in the postgame, he was absolutely flabbergasted. He couldn't believe a candidate here would say that, noting that these are the tactics used in Venezuela and that their government is a disaster and a farce.

(10-19-2016 10:31 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:04 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  ...
And to cap it off, he will keep America "in suspense" until the election is over to say whether he would accept the vote of the people. To paraphrase Butch Cassidy's question to Sundance, "Who [is this] guy?"

The Democrats who decry this behavior seem to conveniently forget the stink raised by Al Gore in 2000. If the results do manage to be surprisingly close, why not make every effort to ensure everything is on the up-and-up?

The anarchist in me is going to come out a bit, but the more the ruling class tells me to blindly embrace something, it only makes me more skeptical.

"Raising a stink"? Read up on your history. Gore watched the returns come in. Several networks called FL for Bush. Gore telephone him to concede, then headed out to the Gore HQ to give his concession speech. While he was on the way, several networks pulled their call of FL going to Bush and returned it to UNDECIDED status for hours and hours. So Gore retracted his concession. Who wouldn't?

In the meantime, reports started coming in of irregularities in the voting, poor punch cards, strange butterfly ballots, long lines, people being turned away. Believe me, had it been Bush who only lost FL by 500 votes, and won the overall vote by 500,000, you think he would not have raised the issue? Or would that just have been more appropriately characterized as "wafting a fragrance"?

None of it would have happened if we didn't have a piss-poor patchwork of different state rules for recounts, multiple formats of voting from electronic to punchcard to handwritten, and way too many partisans involved in the 'counting.' Maybe it's time this country grew up and had a uniform voting process for national elections.

I guess I'm reacting to the vagueness of his response and my understanding of what he means. Frankly, I don't follow (i.e., logically comprehend) much of what he says as he's rambling, so yes I don't ascribe any more planning or thought into his remarks than much of anything he says.

In the outrage expressed by some over his comments, I've seen the phrase thrown about "peaceful transition of power", so I guess there's a great fear out there that I just don't have.

So maybe someone can clarify the expectation that people seem to be concerned with:

1. Is it that Trump won't be a good loser/good sport and concede the race, or will instead claim that the system and deck were stacked against him? He may very well be a poor loser and say that it was unfair. Who cares? I don't know of any rules that say he is required to admit someone else won fair and square in order for the rest of the country to move on and accept the result.

2. Is it that Trump is going to somehow lead an army or militia in an armed revolt to 'rightfully claim his election win"? I consider that laughable.

3. That he has specific people he can command or give orders to who will foment civil unrest? I doubt it.

If there is some fear that Trump has a plan to forcibly keep Clinton out of power should she win the election - - - I think that's as much of a "conspiracy theory" as Trump's claim the election is rigged.

There is going to be a peaceful transition of power regardless of Trump's feelings and pronouncements.

I believe that when he says the election is rigged, it is in response to the sh*t-storm he finds himself in when every word he has spoken is under attack. He has earned that himself of course, but the sheer weight of the condemnation he's now facing is enormous, and it's so enormous, it's overwhelming any of the negative press Hillary would be getting right now if there were any other Republican running against her. As a result, he suspects the media is arrayed against him right now. He has a right to suspect that, they are. And the media has a right to be arrayed against him as he is a singularly unqualified candidate. In that light, at least some of his observations of the situation in which he finds himself are perfectly understandable. By the same token, the media have every right and reason to go after him. None of this is pleasant to watch.

Secondly, there is no comparison between Trump's "I'll keep you in suspense", to the military actions Chavez and now Maduro had or have at their disposal to invalidate any result they didn't like. Trump is a toothless lion, roaring his objection to a never-ending cascade of critical reviews, written attacks and personal judgment, all brought about by his own words and action.

This story is NOT going to end in a Trump-led coup attempt (no army!), or Trump's political enemies and dissidents thrown in jail. It's just not.

(10-20-2016 02:14 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:40 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Tend to agree. There's plenty of stuff objectionable about Trump, but I think we're getting to the point where one side feels that they need to blast every single word he says. (and on the other side, I don't think people are willing to give Obama or Hillary the benefit of the doubt on very much either).

Some of this stuff borders on grasping at straws. I took it in the same vein you did. Listening to other commentators, it's almost as if they're implying Trump is going to ride around on horseback leading an armed revolt.

Trump is unfit and unqualified to be President. But he's not Hugo Chavez (who spent time in Venezuelan prison (before he was the Presidente for leading a military coup attempt that included bombing the Caracas airport), Fidel Castro or Che Guevera. Trump doesn't think that far ahead and has nothing strategically to 'fight for'.

That seems like you're almost intentionally being obtuse on this point. I mean there's giving the benefit of the doubt, and then there's completely ignoring both the question asked and the context in which it was asked.

Over the past week, the Trump campaign has had this discussion:

First Trump says at a rally: ""The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing completely false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect [Clinton] president."

Pence addresses it on Meet the Press saying "We will absolutely accept the results of the election. Look, the American people will speak in an election that will culminate on November the 8th. But the American people are tired of the obvious bias in the national media. That's where the sense of a rigged election goes here, Chuck." (emphasis mine)

After the Pence interview airs, Trump clarifies his own position via tweet: "The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places – SAD," (emphasis mine)

Then at the debate, Wallace specifically referenced that exchange between Trump and Pence when asking his question:
WALLACE: "Mr. Trump, I want to ask you about one last question in this topic. You have been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you. Your running mate, Governor Pence, pledged on Sunday that he and you — his words — “will absolutely accept the result of this election.” Today your daughter, Ivanka, said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight: Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely — sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?"

After back and forth, where Trump claims that millions of people are registered to vote that shouldn't be, that the NYT is poisoning minds against him, and that Hillary should not be legally allowed to run for the presidency, Wallace reiterates the question and Trump finally responds:
WALLACE: "...the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?"
TRUMP: "What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?"

Taken in context, it's clear that Trump's answer was _not_ him splitting hairs about waiting for every vote to be counted. It was about whether he will accept the final tally as an accurate representation of the will of the American people.

Separately, it's interesting that you bring up Venezuela. I happened to watch the debate over at my neighbor's house; he's from Venezuela (moved here after college) and his father, who lives in Venezuela, was visiting. His father had some difficulty following the debate in English, but once Fox flashed the headline "Trump Won't Commit To Accepting Election Results" in the postgame, he was absolutely flabbergasted. He couldn't believe a candidate here would say that, noting that these are the tactics used in Venezuela and that their government is a disaster and a farce.

(10-20-2016 12:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:36 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 08:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't believe people are trying to defend Trump's refusal to say he'll accept the results of the election. Along with his completely unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, this is the most irresponsible thing he's done. Many Republicans have condemned it, thankfully.

Democracy isn't just about the constitution, it's about the culture and traditions that uphold it. Plenty of countries look like democracies on paper and aren't in practice. Let's not become one of them.

Bingo.

It wasn't like Gore went around before the election, screaming about it being rigged against him and then went and contested it, so it's a false equivalency.

Trump is just adding fuel to the fire for a significant amount of conspiracy minded folks who truly believe that the election is rigged and not that a majority of the country, should the polls be correct, doesn't want Donald Trump to be their president.

As we've briefly mentioned before in this thread, regardless of what Trump actually meant, his position as the Republican nominee obligates him to avoid the doublespeak of which he is so fond. Even if he intended a nuanced meaning, he should know that a not-insignificant subset of his followers actually think an armed rebellion is a good idea (See the "torches and pitchforks" sheriff, for instance)). At worst, he's trying to start a riot. At best, he's recklessly abusing his position.

You really think Clark meant that literally? Really? I have used that "pitchforks and torches" phrase many times to describe the Parliament, but I never meant it literally. It just means to protest. It is an image from the first Frankenstein movie. I wonder what the stats are on pitchfork sales?

I think that when Trump loses, there will be literally a few dozen people nationally who want to do something about it, and I doubt any of them will be using a pitchfork.

This reminds me of my former father-in-law, who once told me the Russians were stockpiling horses and wood, as the Bible said Armageddon would be fought with wooden weapons and the blood would rise to the horses' eyes. yeah, sure, like the Russians used the Bible for their military planning.

Oh, I don't know - why don't we let Clarke tell us what he meant?

Quote:“When I tweeted the above image, I meant it. I wasn’t speaking in code,” continued Clarke.

You can take it up with him, I guess.

You're the one I asked a question of.

I guess the answer to my question is Yes, you really do think he meant it seriously. I think he just means that they should protest. But at least you won't have to worry about all those Idaho militias pouring out of the woods with their AK-47s. No, they will definitely be carrying pitchforks and torches.

I also differ with on your belief that the subset of Trump followers who would protest in a violent way is "not-insignificant". I think it IS an insignificant number, tallied in dozens, not thousands. But we will know in less than weeks. I am looking forward to all the pictures of mobs carrying pitchforks, rioting by torchlight.

FTR, if I mention "pitchforks and torches" again to refer to people angry over actions or inactions of our AD, it is not to be taken literally, OK?

(10-21-2016 02:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 12:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:36 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bingo.

It wasn't like Gore went around before the election, screaming about it being rigged against him and then went and contested it, so it's a false equivalency.

Trump is just adding fuel to the fire for a significant amount of conspiracy minded folks who truly believe that the election is rigged and not that a majority of the country, should the polls be correct, doesn't want Donald Trump to be their president.

As we've briefly mentioned before in this thread, regardless of what Trump actually meant, his position as the Republican nominee obligates him to avoid the doublespeak of which he is so fond. Even if he intended a nuanced meaning, he should know that a not-insignificant subset of his followers actually think an armed rebellion is a good idea (See the "torches and pitchforks" sheriff, for instance)). At worst, he's trying to start a riot. At best, he's recklessly abusing his position.

You really think Clark meant that literally? Really? I have used that "pitchforks and torches" phrase many times to describe the Parliament, but I never meant it literally. It just means to protest. It is an image from the first Frankenstein movie. I wonder what the stats are on pitchfork sales?

I think that when Trump loses, there will be literally a few dozen people nationally who want to do something about it, and I doubt any of them will be using a pitchfork.

This reminds me of my former father-in-law, who once told me the Russians were stockpiling horses and wood, as the Bible said Armageddon would be fought with wooden weapons and the blood would rise to the horses' eyes. yeah, sure, like the Russians used the Bible for their military planning.

Oh, I don't know - why don't we let Clarke tell us what he meant?

Quote:“When I tweeted the above image, I meant it. I wasn’t speaking in code,” continued Clarke.

You can take it up with him, I guess.

You're the one I asked a question of.

I guess the answer to my question is Yes, you really do think he meant it seriously. I think he just means that they should protest. But at least you won't have to worry about all those Idaho militias pouring out of the woods with their AK-47s. No, they will definitely be carrying pitchforks and torches.

I also differ with on your belief that the subset of Trump followers who would protest in a violent way is "not-insignificant". I think it IS an insignificant number, tallied in dozens, not thousands. But we will know in less than weeks. I am looking forward to all the pictures of mobs carrying pitchforks, rioting by torchlight.

FTR, if I mention "pitchforks and torches" again to refer to people angry over actions or inactions of our AD, it is not to be taken literally, OK?

Only a few points:

• My apologies for misunderstanding your question. Do I think that he meant folks should literally carry torches and pitchforks? No, but nothing in my original post indicates that was my position.
• Do I think he literally meant we should have an armed rebellion? Yes, as confirmed by the man himself.
• Is our specific dispute about this one guy particularly relevant to my larger point? Not really. The straw man is alive and well, it seems.
  

And, finally, how many rebellious morons would constitute a "significant number" for you? It only took two for the Oklahoma City bombing. There were only two D.C. snipers. Hell, there were only 19 hijackers on 9/11. Do I think an armed rebellion or significant political violence is likely to occur after Trump loses? Not particularly. But just because there's a low chance of someone dying because I'm shooting my gun up in the air doesn't mean it's a good idea. In an average person, it's irresponsible. From a presidential candidate who KNOWS certain fringe groups will interpret his messages to fit their own ends, it's inexcusable. Lord help us if we "only" end up with "dozens" of Ted Kaczynskis.

After last night's debacle in front of Timothy Cardinal Dolan, this Election cant happen fast enough.

(10-21-2016 09:32 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 02:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 12:32 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 09:36 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  As we've briefly mentioned before in this thread, regardless of what Trump actually meant, his position as the Republican nominee obligates him to avoid the doublespeak of which he is so fond. Even if he intended a nuanced meaning, he should know that a not-insignificant subset of his followers actually think an armed rebellion is a good idea (See the "torches and pitchforks" sheriff, for instance)). At worst, he's trying to start a riot. At best, he's recklessly abusing his position.

You really think Clark meant that literally? Really? I have used that "pitchforks and torches" phrase many times to describe the Parliament, but I never meant it literally. It just means to protest. It is an image from the first Frankenstein movie. I wonder what the stats are on pitchfork sales?

I think that when Trump loses, there will be literally a few dozen people nationally who want to do something about it, and I doubt any of them will be using a pitchfork.

This reminds me of my former father-in-law, who once told me the Russians were stockpiling horses and wood, as the Bible said Armageddon would be fought with wooden weapons and the blood would rise to the horses' eyes. yeah, sure, like the Russians used the Bible for their military planning.

Oh, I don't know - why don't we let Clarke tell us what he meant?

Quote:“When I tweeted the above image, I meant it. I wasn’t speaking in code,” continued Clarke.

You can take it up with him, I guess.

You're the one I asked a question of.

I guess the answer to my question is Yes, you really do think he meant it seriously. I think he just means that they should protest. But at least you won't have to worry about all those Idaho militias pouring out of the woods with their AK-47s. No, they will definitely be carrying pitchforks and torches.

I also differ with on your belief that the subset of Trump followers who would protest in a violent way is "not-insignificant". I think it IS an insignificant number, tallied in dozens, not thousands. But we will know in less than weeks. I am looking forward to all the pictures of mobs carrying pitchforks, rioting by torchlight.

FTR, if I mention "pitchforks and torches" again to refer to people angry over actions or inactions of our AD, it is not to be taken literally, OK?

Only a few points:

• My apologies for misunderstanding your question. Do I think that he meant folks should literally carry torches and pitchforks? No, but nothing in my original post indicates that was my position.
• Do I think he literally meant we should have an armed rebellion? Yes, as confirmed by the man himself.
• Is our specific dispute about this one guy particularly relevant to my larger point? Not really. The straw man is alive and well, it seems.
  

And, finally, how many rebellious morons would constitute a "significant number" for you? It only took two for the Oklahoma City bombing. There were only two D.C. snipers. Hell, there were only 19 hijackers on 9/11. Do I think an armed rebellion or significant political violence is likely to occur after Trump loses? Not particularly. But just because there's a low chance of someone dying because I'm shooting my gun up in the air doesn't mean it's a good idea. In an average person, it's irresponsible. From a presidential candidate who KNOWS certain fringe groups will interpret his messages to fit their own ends, it's inexcusable. Lord help us if we "only" end up with "dozens" of Ted Kaczynskis.

An armed rebellion armed with pitchforks and torches? If that is what Clarke is really advocating, then he is truly crazy. But I doubt that is his stance.

I cannot argue with the "one is too many" stance, since I agree one is too many. But that is not the way I interpret your statement about a "not-insignificant subset". If one is what you meant, say so. Put a number on it. But out of tens of millions, I think most people would call 0.00000001% (or whatever dozens is) a pretty insignificant subset.

In the meantime, I won't invest in pitchfork stock or harvest my forest to make torches. I don't think either of these candidates is a good choice. Both parties had the opportunity to nominate somebody better (Webb v. Kasich, e.g.), but the DNC was rigged and the RNC foolish.