Political Discussions for "Adults"

SGR · 08-29-2020, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

You must understand what a weak argument this is?

If you tell me a Hitler type leader committed a genocide I can reply "of course" because I expect it from them. That tells me nothing.

Whether you cop to it or not, when you said of course you were implying that his behavior was normal. Not only for him but in general.

I will admit, after 4 years, much of Trump's behavior has become somewhat normalized for me, for better or for worse, if that counts as copping to it. If Obama (or Bush) had tweeted something like "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" amidst one of the protests during his Presidency, I'd have been pretty shocked. When Trump does it, I just think: "Yeah, that's just Trump being Trump". So allow me to clarify any bad implications I might have made - I don't think that Trump's response to the question of: "Will you accept the results of the election" is a normal one, based on precedent. But he said the same things in 2016 as he's saying now.

To be fair, my argument, in context, was that, 'of course' he and his administration say "We'll see" if they accept the results of the election because there could be a reason to suspect fraud and if there is, they will litigate. Generally, the norm is for presidents to say something along the lines of: "Of course I will accept the results of the election - there is no institution more important than our democracy". It doesn't much matter, because those folks would also litigate if they found evidence of fraud or wanted recounts, like Bush v. Gore. In some sense, you could say the Trump administration is being more honest than other political candidates were in the past about their willingness to simply accept the results of the election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I don't think anyone would be able be casual about just saying "Well it's legal to send in the cavalry to drag him out so therefore that's what we're doing."

I think Pelosi would. In fact, I think she might relish the opportunity.

The Batlord · 08-29-2020, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

I will admit, after 4 years, much of Trump's behavior has become somewhat normalized for me, for better or for worse, if that counts as copping to it. If Obama (or Bush) had tweeted something like "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" amidst one of the protests during his Presidency, I'd have been pretty shocked. When Trump does it, I just think: "Yeah, that's just Trump being Trump". So allow me to clarify any bad implications I might have made - I don't think that Trump's response to the question of: "Will you accept the results of the election" is a normal one, based on precedent. But he said the same things in 2016 as he's saying now.

And ever since 2016 he's been conducting himself like an imbalanced sociopath. I mean Obama would never quote a segregationist law enforcement officer and say "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" but he'd probably also not send in gestapo thugs to Portland like Trump did. So implying that what Trump says is divorced from reality ignores actual reality once Trump's reality has normalized his bull**** and violence.

Quote:

To be fair, my argument, in context, was that, 'of course' he and his administration say "We'll see" if they accept the results of the election because there could be a reason to suspect fraud and if there is, they will litigate. Generally, the norm is for presidents to say something along the lines of: "Of course I will accept the results of the election - there is no institution more important than our democracy". It doesn't much matter, because those folks would also litigate if they found evidence of fraud or wanted recounts, like Bush v. Gore. In some sense, you could say the Trump administration is being more honest than other political candidates were in the past about their willingness to simply accept the results of the election.

It absolutely does you matter, you ****ing moron, cause there's no reason to suspect that the election will require litigation. He's inventing out of thin air the idea that the results will be illegitimate just so that he can object to them and because he's kept saying it so much apparently it's normalizing the idea to people like you, which was the entire point probably.

Quote:

I think Pelosi would. In fact, I think she might relish the opportunity.

I think you're a ****ing dupe.

~~jwb~~ · 08-29-2020, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

To be fair, my argument, in context, was that, 'of course' he and his administration say "We'll see" if they accept the results of the election because there could be a reason to suspect fraud and if there is, they will litigate. Generally, the norm is for presidents to say something along the lines of: "Of course I will accept the results of the election - there is no institution more important than our democracy". It doesn't much matter, because those folks would also litigate if they found evidence of fraud or wanted recounts, like Bush v. Gore. In some sense, you could say the Trump administration is being more honest than other political candidates were in the past about their willingness to simply accept the results of the election.

it matters because Bush vs Gore was close enough to warrant litigation. Trump is saying ahead of time that if he loses its probably due to some sort of fraud. That's completely different from contesting the election because the results were particularly close and there were questionable elements on the ground. He's just flat out setting up the narrative that it's fraudulent in advance.

Anteater · 08-29-2020, 05:38 PM

Just to reiterate: Trump has been saying stuff like this since literally 2015. To say this is somehow abnormal is silly when it was already happening almost half a decade ago.

Vox - October 17th, 2016 - Donald Trump is going on a furious Twitter tirade about the “rigged” election

SGR · 08-29-2020, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It absolutely does you matter, you ****ing moron, cause there's no reason to suspect that the election will require litigation. He's inventing out of thin air the idea that the results will be illegitimate just so that he can object to them and because he's kept saying it so much apparently it's normalizing the idea to people like you, which was the entire point probably.

The Democrats are pushing for universal mail-in voting - in reality, some states may adopt something like that and others will not. But we've never done something like universal mail-in voting. It's much different than absentee voting. There is definite potential for fraud there, on either side. The amount of mail-in votes will be greater than any election before in US history. Again, courts will decide whether there's a legitimate case there. Trump can huff and puff all he wants, but he doesn't ultimately have the final say.

Why do you think Hillary is saying this to Joe Biden?

Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'

Unwind your panties.

~~jwb~~ · 08-29-2020, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Just to reiterate: Trump has been saying stuff like this since literally 2015. To say this is somehow abnormal is silly when it was already happening almost half a decade ago.

Vox - October 17th, 2016 - Donald Trump is going on a furious Twitter tirade about the “rigged” election

We all realize he said it 4 years ago. He happened to have won that election. So it wasn't every put to the test. Maybe this will help you come to terms with why its still an issue

The Batlord · 08-29-2020, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

The Democrats are pushing for universal mail-in voting - in reality, some states may adopt something like that and others will not. But we've never done something like universal mail-in voting. It's much different than absentee voting. There is definite potential for fraud there, on either side. The amount of mail-in votes will be greater than any election before in US history. Again, courts will decide whether there's a legitimate case there. Trump can huff and puff all he wants, but he doesn't ultimately have the final say.

Why do you think Hillary is saying this to Joe Biden?

Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'

Unwind your panties.

There's no ****ing reason to think it will be an election to contest and listening to this **** that you're pointing out has no basis other than just assuming that what the president says must have legitimacy cause it's the president saying it cause the status quo is fine. It's moron logic.

SGR · 08-29-2020, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

it matters because Bush vs Gore was close enough to warrant litigation. Trump is saying ahead of time that if he loses its probably due to some sort of fraud. That's completely different from contesting the election because the results were particularly close and there were questionable elements on the ground. He's just flat out setting up the narrative that it's fraudulent in advance.

My argument in the quote above was strictly about the "We'll see" comment.

Earlier in this thread, I dismissed this "If I lose, it means the election is rigged" comment as bravado. Do I think it's a healthy narrative for him to feed his base? Definitely not. And it very well could result in protests, unrest or violence. But I still believe the courts will have the final say on whether there was fraud or "rigging", despite what Trump says or believes. And if there's not, Trump will be walking his sorry ass home in shame without, as you put it, some kind of Scarface-esque standoff in the Oval Office.

The Batlord · 08-29-2020, 05:56 PM

And yet you're still taking the bait that mail in voting might result in a fraudulent election. That's dumb **** considering the only one pointing out that possibility is a sociopath looking at losing the election.

SGR · 08-29-2020, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

There's no ****ing reason to think it will be an election to contest and listening to this **** that you're pointing out has no basis other than just assuming that what the president says must have legitimacy cause it's the president saying it cause the status quo is fine. It's moron logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

And yet you're still taking the bait that mail in voting might result in a fraudulent election. That's dumb **** considering the only one pointing out that possibility is a sociopath looking at losing the election.

Why are you assuming that I only think that there is potential for fraud considering the increased level of mail-in votes because "thats what the president says"? Instead of strawmanning my position, why not ask me what led me to my thoughts on something?

City councilman among 4 facing voter fraud charges in New Jersey

Postal Service blamed for misdirecting absentee ballots; clerk pushes for polling in November

Republican sheriff running for Congress claims video shows Texas postal worker throwing out his campaign mailers

Vote-by-mail experiment reveals potential problems within postal voting system ahead of November election

100,000 mail-in votes went uncounted in California's primary

These are just a few stories of many that give me skepticism. We are going to be pushing a volume of mail through the postal service system that it's never seen before (in regards to ballots). This system is made up of people that may or may not make mistakes and may or may not try something nefarious. This could go for either side. I fully expect and encourage Biden to litigate too if the results are really close. This level of mail-in voting is uncharted ground and neither side should take options off the table.