Trump refuses to commit to accept the results of 2016 Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
That doesn't grant the FBI and National Guard arrest powers for state laws.

Especially not the mass arrest of Republicans on the orders of a Democratic President.
Voter intimidation is a federal crime, the FBI does have jurisdiction. The purpose of the National Guard is to suppress insurrections and protect against invasion. Mass violence against the results of the general election is considered insurrection.
 
If people are right about him really wanting to start a TV network, then I wouldn't expect him to ever concede. Most of his supporters believe that there's no way he can lose unless the election is rigged. So if he's really wanting to start that TV network, then I think it'll be built off the back off him having the presidency "stolen" from him. And his network will be the one that those people can go to that will continually beat that drum. I think that'll also be far more damaging to the Republicans that supported him than anything else in this election.
 
The transition of power will be from Obama, not Donald Trump.


That doesn't grant the FBI and National Guard arrest powers for state laws.

Especially not the mass arrest of Republicans on the orders of a Democratic President.

This is starting to sound like conspiracy nut stuff. Why would the order to arrest come from the president and not an arrest warrant from authorities whose fucking job it is to watch out for that kind of insubordinate shit
 
Voter intimidation is a federal crime, the FBI does have jurisdiction. The purpose of the National Guard is to suppress insurrections and protect against invasion. Mass violence against the results of the general election is considered insurrection.
Not conceding an election is not voter intimidation. And you didn't say shit about insurrections or mass violence. You said:
if there is even one incident of violence when he loses
This can be a drunk smashing a car window because it has a Jill Stein sticker on it.

This is starting to sound like conspiracy nut stuff. Why would the order to arrest come from the president and not an arrest warrant from authorities whose fucking job it is to watch out for that kind of insubordinate shit
Insubordinate lol

For one thing the President would have to conscript the National Guard so that Republican governors couldn't issue orders to their State National Guards to not mass arrest Republicans. And he'd have to sign off on the Justice Department's actions if we're using the FBI. He's the head of the freakin' Executive Branch, not some nobody.

If it's just a state arrest warrant, then the FBI and National Guard need not be involved.

But yeah, I'm the conspiracy nut for thinking there won't be mass violence and insurrection against the government because Donald fucking Trump doesn't know how to lose and is sending secret conspiracy guidelines to his supporters for an uprising.
 
One thing pissed me off early in the debate though.

Trump mentioned Guns in Chicago. Hillary wanted to reply saying that guns come from places with lax laws outside the city and state due to weak regulations.

The moderators knew about the Guns in Chicago situation as many of us do, they shouldn't have let trump spout that off unchallenged.
 
The transition of power will be from Obama, not Donald Trump.


That doesn't grant the FBI and National Guard arrest powers for state laws.

Especially not the mass arrest of Republicans on the orders of a Democratic President.

Right.... to the winner of the election. If someone advocates, and incites, violence to stop that transition they should be arrested
 
One thing pissed me off early in the debate though.

Trump mentioned Guns in Chicago. Hillary wanted to reply saying that guns come from places with lax laws outside the city and state due to weak regulations.

The moderators knew about the Guns in Chicago situation as many of us do, they shouldn't have let trump spout that off unchallenged.

The moderator was clearly bias throughout the whole debate. It was one of the worse moderation I have seen in a long time.
 
Right.... to the winner of the election. If someone advocates, and incites, violence to stop that transition they should be arrested
But no one has done that or suggested that to which I am aware.

We have people here in this very thread already demanding mass state violence against Trump and his supporters before the election even occurs because Trump has said it's rigged and that he might not concede (which is meaningless as many losers didn't concede formally) and someone at some future point in time may commit a single act of violence in response.

Violence begets violence. They are calling for the very thing they are claiming to want to stop by pushing for mass federal arrests, sedition trials and the death sentence for Trump.
 
But no one has done that or suggested that to which I am aware.

We have people here in this very thread already demanding mass state violence against Trump and his supporters before the election even occurs because Trump has said it's rigged and that he might not concede (which is meaningless as many losers didn't concede formally) and someone at some future point in time may commit a single act of violence in response.

Violence begets violence. They are calling for the very thing they are claiming to want to stop by pushing for mass federal arrests, sedition trials and the death sentence for Trump.

Uh? Where?

You might want to take a break, something happened that has caused you to go bonkers.
 
The moderator was clearly bias throughout the whole debate. It was one of the worse moderation I have seen in a long time.

Honestly, I thought he was really good. He did go hard on Hilary but that's fair game, because no one else did. The other two moderators went very hard on Trump, which is understandable because his entire campaign has been dominated by rampant stupidity that needs clarification and criticism, but I think this was the only debate that felt pretty even handed in terms of scrutiny on both candidates.

That said, Trump STILL managed to lose spectacularly, which is pretty amazing. But I think Williams did a good job provoking some discussion about actual issues and policies rather than drama-of-the-week type stuff.

He definitely displayed a conservative bias with regards to the questions themselves, but like it or not, those are things that a lot of voters do care about it. I just don't happen to be one of them and I don't think most people do either.
 
because Trump has said it's rigged and that he might not concede (which is meaningless as many losers didn't concede formally) and someone at some future point in time may commit a single act of violence in response.

giphy.gif
 
It's sad that, not only won't Trump ever see something like a sedition charge, I'm betting that, since he's the GOP nominee, that will shield him from any charges for any of his various and sundry crimes lest it be mistaken for political retribution.
 
I'm venturing after the new polls, a lot of Republicans are jumping ship. Add on his statement on conceding (which I don't see him doing), those who stick by him when the fallout happens will have a lot to answer for.
 
Um, not that I agree with Trump's sentiment, but do you guys not remember Al Gore calling up Bush to retract his concession, and then go on to keep fighting up to a (dubious) Supreme Court decision before he finally restated his gracious concession?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3t_8ZKWYM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001108/aponline180633_000.htm

"Let me make sure I understand," protested Bush, his victory speech in hand. "You're calling me back to retract your concession?"

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, chastened on Election Night when it appeared Bush had lost the state, had just assured his brother it was a done deal. And the TV networks had already declared Texas Gov. George W. Bush the 43rd president of the United States.

"Let me explain something," Gore lectured in a stony tone, "your YOUNGER brother is not the ultimate authority on this."

The conversation, quoted to The Associated Press by two of the 20 or so people in the room with Gore and confirmed by a Bush aide, ended abruptly.

Outside, thousands of supporters, sick from the night's roller-coaster drama, shouted "Stay and fight!" and "Recount!"
President Clinton called Gore to second his decision, praise him for a good night and note consolingly that Gore had won the nation's popular vote.
"We had no TVs. Everyone was on their cell phones," recalled policy adviser Greg Simon. "People were calling us from everywhere, telling us, 'Don't concede.'"

Even Kerry in 2004, while he did concede only once, thought that the vote was rigged against him.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

In 2004, when Kerry lost the Presidential race to George W. Bush, who is widely considered the worst President of the modern era, he refused to challenge the results, despite his suspicion that in certain states, particularly Ohio, where the Electoral College count hinged, proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines. But he could not suffer the defeat in complete silence. He was outraged that Bush, who had won a stateside berth in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, used campaign surrogates, the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to slime his military record. He was furious, too, at Robert Shrum, his chief strategist, and other campaign advisers who had restrained him from hitting back.

“For a long period, after 2004, every time he even half fell asleep all he saw was voting machines in the state of Ohio,” Mike Barnicle, a close friend of Kerry’s and a former columnist for the Boston Globe, told me. This summer, Barnicle spent time with Kerry on Nantucket, where Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz, have a house on the water and a seventy-six-foot, seven-million-dollar sailboat called Isabel. “We were sitting in the bow,” Barnicle recalled, “and we were talking about a bunch of different things—about Iran, about what the President of Iran was like—and I said, ‘Other than not being President, this is pretty good.’ There was a security boat sailing off to the side of us. Then he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, I realize how badly Shrum screwed me.’ ”
 
Trump will do everything he can to be the story on election night. Including not conceding to be a wet blanket on Clinton's victory speech.
 
I'm venturing after the new polls, a lot of Republicans are jumping ship. Add on his statement on conceding (which I don't see him doing), those who stick by him when the fallout happens will have a lot to answer for.

I hope this is the case.

I'm also curious if the reports of more things emerging about Trump are true and if so, how they will impact the Republicans supporting him. I need a timeline on the support, withdraw of support, and then supporting again by Republicans. It's been a mess to navigate.
 
Um, not that I agree with Trump's sentiment, but do you guys not remember Al Gore calling up Bush to retract his concession, and then go on to keep fighting up to a (dubious) Supreme Court decision before he finally restated his gracious concession?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3t_8ZKWYM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001108/aponline180633_000.htm





Even Kerry in 2004, while he did concede only once, thought that the vote was rigged against him.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind

Al Gore conceded after the results of the election were certified. If Trump plans to do the same thing he should say so.

Edit: Just checked the timeline. Gore conceded December 13th the actual results weren't certified until December 18th.
 
I'm venturing after the new polls, a lot of Republicans are jumping ship. Add on his statement on conceding (which I don't see him doing), those who stick by him when the fallout happens will have a lot to answer for.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. They waited too long - they're fucked either way. If they keep the endorsement, they have formally endorsed and associated themselves with literally the worst candidate in modern history; if they unendorse they look like they are only doing it because he's losing and they want to save their own image.

Not that I wouldn't like to see more unendorsements, but the window of time for them to make any difference politically is over for most of those guys.
 
Agreed (here is the code on inciting a riot) If he does pass it though i don't think they shouldn't pursue him for it just because he was a political candidate.
I don't think political candidates should get a different treatment than regular people, but I am generally not a fan of those incitement laws.
I'm not saying that there can't be a situation where I would think it is justified, but let me tell you, I grew up in a country with pretty damn strict laws around these issues and they don't stop violence, they mostly just give the government tools to quelch dissent.
 
He'll accept it on election night. He won't have any alternative after seeing the dimension of his defeat at election night. If it was a toss up, a minor victory, or if he had a popular vote win, then he would start a war. Thank God that won't happen.
 
Al Gore conceded after the results of the election were certified. If Trump plans to do the same thing he should say so.

Edit: Just checked the timeline. Gore conceded December 13th the actual results weren't certified until December 18th.

Yet Trump hasn't specified, says he'll "look into it at the time", we don't give him the benefit of the doubt and call it "horrifying".

Arguments of "he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt" aside, is that fair to judge him so harshly on a stance that half the nation was perfectly fine with 16 years ago? Al Gore "looked into it" too.
 
If Trump commands his supporters to assimilate into him and turn him into a gigantic Tetsuo and even ONE PERSON listens to him the government better be ready with jail time!!!!!
 
Yet Trump hasn't specified, says he'll "look into it at the time", we don't give him the benefit of the doubt and call it "horrifying".

Arguments of "he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt" aside, is that fair to judge him so harshly on a stance that half the nation was perfectly fine with 16 years ago? Al Gore "looked into it" too.
Gore lost by like a couple hundred votes or something like that. Trump is going to get smashed.
 
Yet Trump hasn't specified, says he'll "look into it at the time", we don't give him the benefit of the doubt and call it "horrifying".

Arguments of "he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt" aside, is that fair to judge him so harshly on a stance that half the nation was perfectly fine with 16 years ago? Al Gore "looked into it" too.

Gore didn't "look into it", he conceded before the results were certified. Trump had two minutes to articulate his position. Had he said "Yes, of course i'll accept the results of the election. In the unlikely event I win the popular vote, and there are irregularities in voting that cause me to lose the electoral college, I'll wait until the final vote is certified before conceding" He wouldn't be getting the shit he is today.

Gore lost by like a couple hundred votes or something like that. Trump is going to get smashed.

Gore lost FL, and therefore the election, by a few hundred votes. More people in the US voted for him to be president than Bush winning the popular vote. I realized you know this but it is an important distinction.

I wonder what our country would be like had we created a social security lockbox and not gone to war with Iraq.
 
Yet Trump hasn't specified, says he'll "look into it at the time", we don't give him the benefit of the doubt and call it "horrifying".

Arguments of "he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt" aside, is that fair to judge him so harshly on a stance that half the nation was perfectly fine with 16 years ago? Al Gore "looked into it" too.

You're having to take the hypothetical even further - where we're in such a unique situation where the actual vote is so close and the outcome was legitimately in question - before it's even possible to make the analogy.

Trump doesn't even get that far. Simply asking if he'll concede if he loses (no close vote or even the projected big loss) and he couldn't even do that. And yes, benefit of the doubt does matter as we have no reason to believe he could mean anything else. He is *already* calling it rigged and trying to work his nutjob supporters into doing something.

The comparison doesn't really work
 
I wouldn't be shocked if Latino-Americans are targeted by Trump supporters at the voting booths and killed. They'll say that they were standing up for our democracy by taking out illegals or some other such nonsense. They'd do the same thing to the black community but even they aren't dumb enough to question their citizenship. At least they have that going for them.

Thanks Donald, I expect a few people will die because of your childishness. You may as well have pulled the trigger yourself.
 
Um, not that I agree with Trump's sentiment, but do you guys not remember Al Gore...

Kellyanne...

1) Kerry and Gore did not say they might not agree with the election result ahead of it

2) They did not spend weeks during the campaign casting doubt on the democratic process by saying that if they lost, it meant the elections were rigged

3) if he meant to say "if the results are extremely close, with signs of problems in one or two states that might put the result in question, then I reserve the right to ask for a recount and wait for certification, as many politicians have before me", then he should have said so.

What he basically said, after weeks of calling the system and the election rigged, is that he might not abide by the result of the election, period.
 
I don't remember too much about the Bush/Gore election campaign, so hopefully someone here can fill in the blanks for me, because I don't want to spout off "truths" that are just me not remembering.

During the campaign leading up to the Bush/Gore election, how many times, roughly speaking, did Gore openly say during his campaign that the election was being rigged against him? About the same as Trump? More? Less?
 
I find it fascinating that anyone would handwave something like this.

Who is to say that a President Trump would refuse to accept the results of a 2020 Presidential Election?

Aren't conservatives supposed to be paranoid and anti-government - how would installing a tyrant further that cause?
 
The ones so crazy and violent they never actually getting around to doing much of anything ever? The ones we didn't need to worry about in 2008 and 2012 right? They weren't angry about one of the Presidential candidates winning then were they? No, of course, Trump losing an election he's trailed in for some time is obviously a much more offensive event.

Not a thing
Totally chill
Just people venting is all
They'll probably just fizzle out
Nope, nothing at all
 
He'll accept it on election night. He won't have any alternative after seeing the dimension of his defeat at election night. If it was a toss up, a minor victory, or if he had a popular vote win, then he would start a war. Thank God that won't happen.

"I lost by 10%!? I didn't think the amount of voter fraud was this bigly!"
 
Anyone equating what Trump is doing to what happened with the Bush/Gore election is being so intellectually dishonest. There's really no comparing the two.
 
"I lost by 10%!? I didn't think the amount of voter fraud was this bigly!"

"The polls were close, they were very close, all the experts said so. I see -and I see this all the time- in places -that are not so great, let's be fair- they rig, they rig these elections like you wouldn't believe. They win by so much it's unbelievable. Really. This is the biggest... gap... in what the pollsters said would happen, and what happened."
 
If your answer to a question about the "peaceful transition of power" is "I'll keep you in suspense" you have no business being in any position of power.
 
I woke up still upset about this whole thing. Trump has said some bombastic things this election but for some reason this is sticking to me right now. The fact that this dude just so casually said he'll keep us in "suspense" as to whether he'd concede or not is just unbelievable to me. This guy literally doesn't give a flying fuck about this country and just cares about his own image, his own name, and his own ego. And that he's willing to seemingly take down a republic that's lasted 240 without this type of problem is really amazing. And the fact that at work there'll be Trump supporters actually defending this shit is mind boggling to me. Just what is happening right now???
 
But no one has done that or suggested that to which I am aware.

We have people here in this very thread already demanding mass state violence against Trump and his supporters before the election even occurs because Trump has said it's rigged and that he might not concede (which is meaningless as many losers didn't concede formally) and someone at some future point in time may commit a single act of violence in response.

Violence begets violence. They are calling for the very thing they are claiming to want to stop by pushing for mass federal arrests, sedition trials and the death sentence for Trump.


Go ly dow
 
Trump in complete troll mode right now.

"I will accept the results.....IF I WIN."
Then says he won, and I quote, "every single online poll" regarding last night's debate.

My god, the cojones on this guy to just throw out such a gobsmackingly bold-faced lie without flinching. This motherfucker was losing polls on Breitbart and Fox News, nevermind websites that don't skew towards foaming conservatives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom