TrackerNeil Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 10 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Anyone who expects the majority of the population to react on a consistent matter has not been paying attention. If it was not so tragic that we are now stuck with Trump, it would be amusing to see democrats dusting off a lot of the things they've scoffed at and ridiculed the right for for so long. Fear of nuclear annihilation, revival of cold war fear of the russians, voter fraud. I mean, you have people openly advocating for the EC to throw out the legitimate result of the election process. Sadly, it's difficult under the circumstances to really even get any schadenfreude out of this mess. Yes, I can't imagine why anyone would be concerned with a petty, bully, misogynistic president who has proven that he cannot resist responding to any slight, real or imagined. With the nuclear codes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Except what's happening is not people not accepting the result. Calling for recounts in states whether the outcome is within 0.5% is not unreasonable, it is in fact a very reasonable part of the whole democratic process and all part of the elections. Once the recount is done, and confirms (no doubt) that Trump is president then any ongoing action to oppose Trump would fit with the left not accepting Trump. Calling on electors to vote the NPV rather than the winner for their state, is a legitimate request. Highly unlikely to succeed, but again this is all part of the electoral process. Once the electors have cast their votes and Trump is, no doubt, elected president, then any continuing action on the part of the left can be regarded as not accepting the election. People protesting "not my president" doesn't mean they won't accept the result. it just means they want the world to know that they don't want the USA to be viewed as largely endorsing the odious views of Trump, his surrogates and the racists organisations who openly supported Trump. And protest is a vain and forlorn attempt to perhaps get Trump to eliminate his associations with the deplorable segments of society. All efforts to keep Trump out of the White House will fail, of course, and once Trump is confirmed then we'll see whether the left by and large accepts the result of the election. Oh geez..... I'm curious about what 'not accepting the result' would look like to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Yes, I can't imagine why anyone would be concerned with a petty, bully, misogynistic president who has proven that he cannot resist responding to any slight, real or imagined. With the nuclear codes. Oh, I know WHY it comes up. Because that's the narrative that was fed to you by the campaign, and it hit you squarely in your bias. It's just too irresistible to ignore. It's the exact kind of fearmongering to the base that the right s constantly called out for, just on a more apocalyptic scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Jill Stein is scamming people by taking their money and promising them something she cant deliver.....says the person responsible for Trump University. But it's not just him. Here's an article from Slate (which is strongly liberal and hates Trump) which explains why giving money to this is a bad idea. What she's doing is sort of like the opposite of Kickstarter: she gets to keep all money she collects and she keeps increasing the goal. It started off at $2.5M, but after that was collected it went to $4.5M and then, after that was done too, $7M. It's currently sitting at $6.17M which means that even after deducting the original $2.5M for the recounts, she has collected more money through this effort than through the entirety of her presidential campaign. Just because Trump said it doesn't mean it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Oh, I know WHY it comes up. Because that's the narrative that was fed to you by the campaign, and it hit you squarely in your bias. It's just too irresistible to ignore. Actually, that is the "narrative" I got from Trump himself...and that we are all still getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said: Actually, that is the "narrative" I got from Trump himself...and that we are all still getting. Trump has claimed that he can't be trusted with the nuclear codes. and suggested that if he gets elected we are all going to die in a big mushroom cloud of evil? Huh. Interesting. I missed that somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Just now, Swordfish said: Trump has claimed that he can't be trusted with the nuclear codes. and suggested that if he gets elected we are all going to die in a big mushroom cloud of evil? Huh. Interesting. I missed that somehow. Swordfish, you can be deliberately obtuse if you like, but I think most people know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 7 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Anyone who expects the majority of the population to react on a consistent matter has not been paying attention. If it was not so tragic that we are now stuck with Trump, it would be amusing to see democrats dusting off a lot of the things they've scoffed at and ridiculed the right for for so long. Fear of nuclear annihilation, revival of cold war fear of the russians, voter fraud. I mean, you have people openly advocating for the EC to throw out the legitimate result of the election process. Sadly, it's difficult under the circumstances to really even get any schadenfreude out of this mess. But what is a "legitimate result". If it is lawful for electors to turn their cloak then how is seeking such an outcome throwing out the legitimate result? One might argue that a fine and / or a prison sentence for voting against the outcome of the state's result is throwing out the legitimate result. However if the person's vote for the other candidate stands then surely the outcome of the ECV is legitimate, and one could advance the argument that the people who voted their conscience and suffered for it are the true champions of democracy. Of course the reality is no such thing will happen. So the only amusing thing is that the left feels there is even the remotest possibility that there could be a return on their efforts to get people to vote against their state's result. But seeking such an outcome is completely legitimate. The only way the EC system gets changed or abolished is if the Republicans wind up on the bad side of a few NPV/ECV mis-matches. But that hardly seems like it will ever happen since the EC systems favours the Republican party. 2 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Oh geez..... I'm curious about what 'not accepting the result' would look like to you? Not accepting the result isn't something that can be judged until the electoral process if fully concluded. In this period immediately after election day there are various processes that can legitimately be applied to attempt to confirm results that are on a knife edge, regardless of the reason why one might think a result is questionable, going through those processes is legit and many have argued it is right to do so. And in the case of the USA, there are processes that can be legitimately applied to attempt to influence that real vote for president in the electoral college. Once the electoral college has voted then we'll see what level of "non-acceptance" exists. If you call non-acceptance anyone voicing great displeasure at Trump being elected, then I guess no side ever really accepts the result of the election. But if "not accepting" is limited to calling the outcome and legitimacy of the ECV into question and claiming Trump did not win according to the law, then I would say there's going to be almost no one who will see it that way. And I think for the purposes of casting aspersions on one or other side, it's continuing to advance the claim that Trump is an illegitimate president (once the EC has voted) that is really what "not accepting" means. Unlike 2000, where many people continue to believe that Gore probably won Florida, subject to the 2016 recounts being undertaken in a fair and transparent manner assuming the result comes out in Trump's favour those thoughts that Hillary actually got more votes in those states won't exists, except in the minds of the true conspiracy nuts. And it is completely unfair to claim that left-wing conspiracy nuts represent the generality of the left. So I think there will be pretty much universal acceptance of the ECV by the mainstream of the left. They will strongly oppose and condemn Trump in almost all things except for his TPP exit. But opposing is what opposition parties and politicians do. Including public protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Oh geez..... I'm curious about what 'not accepting the result' would look like to you? Perhaps the insecure winner saying millions voted illegally? And specifically calling out states without a hint of fucking evidence? See the difference? Hillary and even Stein work within the rules to recount specific states. Hillary doesn't contest the election or even go to media; just works to ensure a very close total was legit in something that should be done automatically. Trump wins and cant stop bashing the media and trying to inflate his own vote total. Trump wins and cant stop bashing the media and trying to inflate his own vote total. But hey, no worries. In four years the official state media will remind us that once all the fraud was taken care of Trump won with 100% of the popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 19 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Swordfish, you can be deliberately obtuse if you like, but I think most people know what I mean. I always hated the nuclear codes narrative. It suggests Trump is MORE unhinged than Kim Jong Un. And for all Trump's many and significant personal faults, I think his hinges are a little more tightly attached than Kim's. I might be wrong, but I never gave any credence to the whole can't be trusted with the nukes rhetoric. Of course if I'm wrong, then that will prove a very costly error of judgement by about 120K voters in 3 states. But the best thing now is to believe that all that blather about the nuclear codes is just hot air. If people are genuinely afraid that nuclear consequences are a substantial risk, then I suggest they vote with their feet and find a place to go that will be minimally impacted by a nuclear exchange. Which might mean staying in or moving to the USA, ironically. On the bright side, a nuclear winter puts an immediate and total halt to global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 19 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Swordfish, you can be deliberately obtuse if you like, but I think most people know what I mean. I'm not being obtuse. I was speaking in specifics. 'Fear of nuclear war' is not an obtuse concept. 10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: But what is a "legitimate result". If it is lawful for electors to turn their cloak then how is seeking such an outcome throwing out the legitimate result? One might argue that a fine and / or a prison sentence for voting against the outcome of the state's result is throwing out the legitimate result. However if the person's vote for the other candidate stands then surely the outcome of the ECV is legitimate, and one could advance the argument that the people who voted their conscience and suffered for it are the true champions of democracy. Of course the reality is no such thing will happen. So the only amusing thing is that the left feels there is even the remotest possibility that there could be a return on their efforts to get people to vote against their state's result. But seeking such an outcome is completely legitimate. The only way the EC system gets changed or abolished is if the Republicans wind up on the bad side of a few NPV/ECV mis-matches. But that hardly seems like it will ever happen since the EC systems favours the Republican party. Not accepting the result isn't something that can be judged until the electoral process if fully concluded. In this period immediately after election day there are various processes that can legitimately be applied to attempt to confirm results that are on a knife edge, regardless of the reason why one might think a result is questionable, going through those processes is legit and many have argued it is right to do so. And in the case of the USA, there are processes that can be legitimately applied to attempt to influence that real vote for president in the electoral college. Once the electoral college has voted then we'll see what level of "non-acceptance" exists. But what form would that even take? If there are riots after that will you concede a lack of acceptance? What would it take? Either way, the original point stands. If the roles were reversed, the tenor of whether or not these activities are rejection of the result would be vastly different on this board, and in many liberal circles. 10 minutes ago, SkynJay said: Perhaps the insecure winner saying millions voted illegally? And specifically calling out states without a hint of fucking evidence? See the difference? Hillary and even Stein work within the rules to recount specific states. Hillary doesn't contest the election or even go to media; just works to ensure a very close total was legit in something that should be done automatically. Trump wins and cant stop bashing the media and trying to inflate his own vote total. Trump wins and cant stop bashing the media and trying to inflate his own vote total. But hey, no worries. In four years the official state media will remind us that once all the fraud was taken care of Trump won with 100% of the popular vote. .I know you are but what am i?' Is that basically your response here? I'm not defending Trump here, so i have no idea why you think these tweets are really relevant, but since you brought it up, but I cna't help but point out your obvious double standard here. Trump sends a couple dumb tweets based on no evidence of fraud. OUTRAGE!!! Stein and Clinton attempt to engineer a recount based on very scant evidence of fraud: >PArt fo the process. Should be done anyway. No big deal.' Apparently the threshold that separates these claims is attaching a number to it? Totally fine to allude to fraud based on scant evidence, provided it doesn't come with a vote total? Is that the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: I always hated the nuclear codes narrative. It suggests Trump is MORE unhinged than Kim Jong Un. And for all Trump's many and significant personal faults, I think his hinges are a little more tightly attached than Kim's. I might be wrong, but I never gave any credence to the whole can't be trusted with the nukes rhetoric. Of course if I'm wrong, then that will prove a very costly error of judgement by about 120K voters in 3 states. But the best thing now is to believe that all that blather about the nuclear codes is just hot air. If people are genuinely afraid that nuclear consequences are a substantial risk, then I suggest they vote with their feet and find a place to go that will be minimally impacted by a nuclear exchange. Which might mean staying in or moving to the USA, ironically. On the bright side, a nuclear winter puts an immediate and total halt to global warming. I think he'd be opposed to it just based on the fact that afterward there wouldn't be any buildings to put his name on in 100 foot letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Triskan said: Trump is now claiming that he would have won the popular vote if not for illegal voting. Also, we have always been at war with East Asia. http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/4346903.jpg /He fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "never get involved in an endless war in East Asia"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 57 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Sadly, it's difficult under the circumstances to really even get any schadenfreude out of this mess. That's at the core of every one of your posts. You can stop shoveling bullshit, you've already squeezed every last ounce of schadenfreude out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Triskan said: Trump is now claiming that he would have won the popular vote if not for illegal voting. Also, we have always been at war with East Asia. Trump goes back on another campaign promise; that he would accept the results of the election "if I win". Well Trump you won, so please stop whining and get back to the very important work of picking the name of your SoS out of a hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 45 minutes ago, Altherion said: But it's not just him. Here's an article from Slate (which is strongly liberal and hates Trump) which explains why giving money to this is a bad idea. What she's doing is sort of like the opposite of Kickstarter: she gets to keep all money she collects and she keeps increasing the goal. It started off at $2.5M, but after that was collected it went to $4.5M and then, after that was done too, $7M. It's currently sitting at $6.17M which means that even after deducting the original $2.5M for the recounts, she has collected more money through this effort than through the entirety of her presidential campaign. Just because Trump said it doesn't mean it's wrong. The only way it could constitute fraud is if she didn't make the injunctions. She's made the injunctions. What's the fucking problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That's at the core of every one of your posts. You can stop shoveling bullshit, you've already squeezed every last ounce of schadenfreude out of it. In fairness to me, I said 'difficult', not 'impossible'. In general, I prefer my schadenfreude to come with less collateral damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 42 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Trump has claimed that he can't be trusted with the nuclear codes. and suggested that if he gets elected we are all going to die in a big mushroom cloud of evil? Huh. Interesting. I missed that somehow. Not sure how you missed that. It was widely reported. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-if-nuclear-weapons-them.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/donald-trump-asked-why-us-cant-use-nuclear-weapons-if-he-becomes/ http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-asked-advisor-why-cant-we-use-nuclear-weapons.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Not sure how you missed that. It was widely reported. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-if-nuclear-weapons-them.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/donald-trump-asked-why-us-cant-use-nuclear-weapons-if-he-becomes/ http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-asked-advisor-why-cant-we-use-nuclear-weapons.html If the situation were reversed, would you find those anonymous third hand reports credible and complete enough to draw conclusions from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 17 minutes ago, Swordfish said: .I know you are but what am i?' Is that basically your response here? I'm not defending Trump here, so i have no idea why you think these tweets are really relevant, but since you brought it up, but I cna't help but point out your obvious double standard here. Trump sends a couple dumb tweets based on no evidence of fraud. OUTRAGE!!! Stein and Clinton attempt to engineer a recount based on very scant evidence of fraud: >PArt fo the process. Should be done anyway. No big deal.' Apparently the threshold that separates these claims is attaching a number to it? Totally fine to allude to fraud based on scant evidence, provided it doesn't come with a vote total? Is that the idea? Hardly. Trump won the election and is still calling fraud out in the media and to his base, stocking distrust of the entire process. The state recount effort is based on the closeness of the election; and admittedly a hope and a prayer, but is working completely within the system. Trying to take down the system, working within the system. In no way can these things be seen as alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.