|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2016 01:29 PassiveAce wrote:
I'm starting to get worried about whether trump will concede on election night. I think there's better then even odds that he doesnt make the concession call to hillary at all.
I remember in 2000, there were plenty of Democrats that didn't feel that bush was a legitimate president, but Gore wasn't actively encouraging them.
Does it actually matter? Concession call is nothing but being a gracious loser and is meaningless.
And what is the actually effect of him not 'conceding' on election night. If he lost he lost and no amount of crying and denying it is going to stop the winner from becoming president.
|
The concern is civil unrest
If trump is telling his supporters that Clinton is an illegitimate criminal president, what would be the natural response?
|
On August 13 2016 10:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 10:02 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2016 08:09 TheYango wrote:On August 13 2016 07:54 Danglars wrote:
He's gone through quite a transition in quite a short time. He was quite ready to shove his morals down your throat when it made sense in a governor race, and now he's lurched to the political calculus of the national stage. I grant you that Hillary could not hope to attract a principled Democrat, if they exist, to her ticket besides maybe Warren. He's just far from this good guy boring running mate as put forward. Sure, I'll agree that he pivoted at a point where it was simply politically expedient for him, and that's reasonable to hold against him. But the idea that "personally against abortion but support pro-choice" is somehow a logically indefensible position as is stated by the second article you linked is just wrong in my mind. The first article is much more convincing. The role of lawmaking is to create rules to maintain a functioning society. It is not to impose certain morals on that society. In some cases, the two are aligned with one another (i.e. a society where people are allowed to kill or steal from each other wouldn't function very well, so laws punishing murder and theft both protect commonly accepted morals as well as maintain society's function), but in places where moral issues do not directly impact society's proper function, or even impede proper function, lawmakers bringing their personal morals into the business of lawmaking is a conflict of interest. Intelligent lawmakers should recognize where these conflicts arise, and as such, Christian morals should never even enter into the discussion of the legality of abortion. As far as lawmaking is concerned, it should be totally irrelevant. Thus, being "personally against abortion but against making laws against it" is completely reasonable. That people think it's not and are holding it against Kaine detracts from more legitimate arguments against him. Thank you for allowing that he radically changed his opinions on morals when it made sense in political expediency. I can't go with you as far as "it should be totally irrelevant," for grounds you might expect. Preserving a lawfully functioning society does mean defending its unborn, just as it used to be "commonly accepted morals" in the past, and ought to be in the future. However, this is the fiercely debated line that neither candidate makes their rallying cry, and so it will remain in the backlines for the 2016 election. Just as what, exactly, used to be "commonly accepted morals"? Preserving a lawfully functioning society? How far back are we going? Some might prefer the old Oedipal method of preserving a lawfully functioning society: staking unfit infants' ankles together and exposing them to the elements.
I quoted him when he wove in that phrase to make a nonsensical distinction. It's the same point as you to that level. The quotation marks are there.
|
Norway28892 Posts
gorsameth; no, but having something like 70% of 35% of the voting base genuinely believe that the election was rigged against them and that they lost because of a conspiracy rather than because the country didn't want trump to be president does not paint a pretty picture for the future. It doesn't matter regarding who becomes president, but the US is really struggling with its population living in parallel realities as it is..
|
At this point I'm dead certain that there will be violence on election day, the only question is the scale of it. Even if Trump stripped naked on fifth avenue and begged his supporters to ignore everything he had said about rigging, it would still occur. You can't undo his statements.
|
On August 14 2016 01:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
gorsameth; no, but having something like 70% of 35% of the voting base genuinely believe that the election was rigged against them and that they lost because of a conspiracy rather than because the country didn't want trump to be president does not paint a pretty picture for the future. It doesn't matter regarding who becomes president, but the US is really struggling its population living in parallel realities as it is..
I would wager there is a huge overlap between the people who believe Trump would have lost a rigged election and those believing the current US president is a Muslim terrorist from Kenya.
It is a dangerous thing for sure, it could cause problems and Trump is a terrible person for having took the narrative this way but I highly doubt it will be worse then it is now.
|
On August 14 2016 01:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
gorsameth; no, but having something like 70% of 35% of the voting base genuinely believe that the election was rigged against them and that they lost because of a conspiracy rather than because the country didn't want trump to be president does not paint a pretty picture for the future. It doesn't matter regarding who becomes president, but the US is really struggling its population living in parallel realities as it is..
Over half that subset believes that the president is secretly a Muslim and slightly less than half believe the conspiracy theory that he was born in Kenya but his parents paid a hospital to forge birth records and a newpaper to publish it for the sole purpose of him becoming president (he is a citizen either way) but also named him Barack Hussein Obama for unknown reasons.
There is also a large subset of the other 35% that believes Bush was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks and yet somehow no real evidence of this has surfaced over 15 years beyond it being in peoples guts but they still believe it because despite proof to the contrary a conspiracy theorists mind is willing to find facts to suit his theory and assume everything else is wrong. Honestly though they are not that different from the way the average persons mind works.
|
On August 14 2016 00:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
They fucked up by not firing her at the same time they fired Lewandowski
On August 13 2016 22:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Isn't this illegal?
Dunno, that was pretty normal two centuries ago.
|
Yes he is asking for his supporters to bully and harass people at the polls that is completely fair and not spinning lies at all thank you to the neckbeard twitter account for revealing the shocking truth
|
Best case scenario is he's sending random, untrained, partisan supporters to polling places to... make sure their isn't fraud in entirely unspecified ways.
Doesn't look good no matter how you slice it.
|
Aren't there normally some level of observors from the campaigns watching when the votes are counted or somesuch?
It wouldn't be surprising to have such people watching to try to increase legitimacy of a system by letting people watch to make sure no funny business happens. not that i'm clear on what exactly trump's doing in that regard.
|
On August 14 2016 02:01 PassiveAce wrote:
Best case scenario is he's sending random, untrained, partisan supporters to polling places to... make sure their isn't fraud in entirely unspecified ways.
Doesn't look good no matter how you slice it.
What about he's encouraging people to become polling observers
Na that's just a recipe for disaster think of all the bullying they could do
|
On August 14 2016 01:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Yes he is asking for his supporters to bully and harass people at the polls that is completely fair and not spinning lies at all thank you to the neckbeard twitter account for revealing the shocking truth
People donate to Bernie's campaign: Grassroots.
People donate to Trump's campaign: Scam.
|
I really hate when politicians encourage people to harass voters in the booths!
My god what an idiot for trying to get them to check peoples ballots we have secret ballots for a reason!
I bet Trump wants them to erase votes for Clinton and just rig the election himself
Thank god I'm so smart and didn't fall for this shit
|
On August 14 2016 02:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2016 02:01 PassiveAce wrote:
Best case scenario is he's sending random, untrained, partisan supporters to polling places to... make sure their isn't fraud in entirely unspecified ways.
Doesn't look good no matter how you slice it. What about he's encouraging people to become polling observers Na that's just a recipe for disaster think of all the bullying they could do
"Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election! Please fill out this form to receive more information about becoming a volunteer Trump Election Observer."
Does that sound like a neutral observer to you?
|
On August 14 2016 02:07 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2016 02:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 14 2016 02:01 PassiveAce wrote:
Best case scenario is he's sending random, untrained, partisan supporters to polling places to... make sure their isn't fraud in entirely unspecified ways.
Doesn't look good no matter how you slice it. What about he's encouraging people to become polling observers Na that's just a recipe for disaster think of all the bullying they could do "Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election! Please fill out this form to receive more information about becoming a volunteer Trump Election Observer." Does that sound like a neutral observer to you?
There are no neutral election observers
The people who would actually be neutral don't give a shit about observing the election. It's just the people who are politically active
That's why you have representatives from both sides
Unless you're twitter neckbeard user. Then you only want Clinton supporters doing it because the Trump supporters will bully people at the polls even though more Clinton voters are bound to be criminals of violent crimes/destruction of property
|
Polling observers are a pretty common thing.
That said, I'll be surprised if the Trump campaign is able to actually register anyone as one giving their utter incompetence when it came to organizing delegates at the state level.
Also, I doubt they'll effectively communicate to observers that they're barred from wearing any Trump merchandise or talking to anyone anywhere at the polls, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
On August 14 2016 02:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The people who would actually be neutral don't give a shit about observing the election. It's just the people who are politically active
That's why you have representatives from both sides
We could get the Stein/Johnson supporters. They're not impartial but their candidates have no shot of winning anyway. 
|
Norway28892 Posts
On August 14 2016 02:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2016 02:01 PassiveAce wrote:
Best case scenario is he's sending random, untrained, partisan supporters to polling places to... make sure their isn't fraud in entirely unspecified ways.
Doesn't look good no matter how you slice it. What about he's encouraging people to become polling observers Na that's just a recipe for disaster think of all the bullying they could do
He's asking them to be a 'Trump election observer', not an 'election observer'. Having a lot of election observers is very good, having election observers be officially affiliated with either candidate is not. (I agree with you that finding neutral observers is difficult because truly neutral people won't care about being election observers, but there's still a difference between encouraging Trump supporters to sign up as election observers and encouraging Trump supporters to sign up as Trump election observers to keep crooked Hillary from rigging the election). I don't personally think this particular thing is that big of a deal, but it's not perfectly ideal either. Basically in isolation I wouldn't care about it at all, but when he couples the whole, 'be a Trump election observer' with the 'the election is going to be rigged, it's already rigged', and 'mainstream media is just lying' (and 'Obama invaded afghanistan'), it's just kinda frightening in terms of how far he's pushing the narrative of there being an anti-trump conspiracy and that this is the reason why he's going to lose the election.
|
Politically active =\= partisan
Can seem like their the same in this country but theyr actually not
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
