Re: US Election 2016 General Discussion Topic
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:32 pm
We can't stump Trump but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on his potential conflicts of interest that could lead to him stumping himself.
'Everyone' didn't go crazy. There was a subset of people who found Trump's statement disturbing, but obviously it wasn't everyone.bookworm wrote:How is it that everyone went crazy about Trump giving the possibility of not accepting the election outcome
Obviously it's not the same population of people that's rioting, otherwise everyone would be rioting, which clearly isn't happening.bookworm wrote:But the same people went rioting in the streets causing over a million of dollars in damages and two full weeks later are still calling for audits of votes and demanding electoral college members vote for Clinton regardless of how their state voted? This is beyond hypocrisy.
Clearly I wasn't referring to 'everyone on earth' the 'everyone' was of the people who had a reaction to Trump's comments. As far as I saw if someone was saying something about it they came down on the critical side.Tea Ess wrote:There was a subset of people who found Trump's statement disturbing, but obviously it wasn't everyone.
This is correct; I noticed right after I posted that this part was ambiguously worded.Tea Ess wrote:Obviously it's not the same population of people that's rioting, otherwise everyone would be riotingbookworm wrote:But the same people went rioting...
I'm not drawing conclusions about anyone, I'm talking directly and only about the people involved. I didn't say all Clinton supporters were doing this, and I wasn't narrowing my remark at only the protesters themselves. They're of course the main part, but this also extends to those who are excusing their actions. Even if they denounce the violence, if they're saying it's understandable people are so upset and they need to keep up the protest they fall into this. Because this isn't about the riots I'm talking about the broader reaction behind them. See next paragraph.Tea Ess wrote:But you're taking the actions of the rioters (who didn't necessarily vote for Clinton) and drawing conclusions about all Clinton supporters.
Please explain this to me. I don't say that antagonizingly, I genuinely want to know what you mean by this because either you're not understanding the point I was making or I am really missing something you see. It is undeniably hypocritical. They are literally doing exactly what they had previously blasted Trump about. In fact they're going even further because they're actually doing what he only said he might do. Three weeks ago the message was "How DARE he maybe not accept the outcome! If it doesn't go his way he has to just accept it!' Today: "We WILL NOT accept this outcome! How dare anyone tell us we should!"Tea Ess wrote:it's not necessarily hypocritical to have been horrified at Trump's statement and now be protesting the election
Well, Trump seems to be appointing the... President of Exxon for some reason? Oh, and he has ties to Russia, Vlad himself literally awarded him a medal of friendship. All is most definitely not forgiven.The Top Crusader wrote:Well, if the rumors pan out that Mitt Romney may be Secretary of State, all will be forgiven.
My main disagreement with your earlier post was that it seemed to be making a generalization and equating the two groups of people as a means of invalidating the concerns of the first group. Not that it was your intention, that's just how it came across.bookworm wrote:"The same people" can be read as saying "every one of the aforementioned" but I was using it to simply say individuals from the second group were also members of the first.
I don't think that's necessarily accurate. One could have been horrified at Trump's statement and when he was elected, decided to protest to show solidarity with minorities, for example. Or maybe some protesters are hoping to catch the attention of an elector in the hopes that the Electoral College will choose someone else. A person with that line of reasoning could have been shocked at Trump's comments for their vague and ominous nature (after all, what does "not accepting the results of the election" mean? Armed revolt? Snide remarks on Twitter? ), while hoping to change the results of the election through a legal mechanism that already exists.bookworm wrote:Please explain this to me. I don't say that antagonizingly, I genuinely want to know what you mean by this because either you're not understanding the point I was making or I am really missing something you see. It is undeniably hypocritical. They are literally doing exactly what they had previously blasted Trump about. In fact they're going even further because they're actually doing what he only said he might do. Three weeks ago the message was "How DARE he maybe not accept the outcome! If it doesn't go his way he has to just accept it!' Today: "We WILL NOT accept this outcome! How dare anyone tell us we should!"
ie: not accepting the outcome of the election. Which was absolutely unacceptable when Trump hinted at it, but it's entirely acceptable, and even celebrated, now that it's the other side doing it?Tea Ess wrote:while hoping to change the results of the election through a legal mechanism that already exists.
I don't have a problem with people who are upset about the result making their disappointment known (through legal and peaceful means only) that's their right to do. And it would have been Trump's same right to do had he been the loser. But when he was doing it that was "threatening our democracy" according to Clinton herself. So which is it?bookworm wrote:Either they're wrong for reacting this way now, or they're wrong for acting that way then. There's no third option. If not accepting the election outcome is wrong to do, it's wrong to do independent of which side is doing it.
There's a massive difference between a presidential candidate and a random protester in terms of their influence over the United States and the potential to cause unrest and violence. Personally, I also see a large difference between ranting about how Hillary rigged the election and "the illegals" causing the vote split, and peacefully protesting/asking your elector to change their vote. You've boiled a complex and polarizing situation down to the single statement of "not accepting the results of the election." People are going to have different lines of reasoning, and there's different ways to not accept the results of the election. For example, peacefully protesting versus armed rebellion.bookworm wrote:I don't have a problem with people who are upset about the result making their disappointment known (through legal and peaceful means only) that's their right to do. And it would have been Trump's same right to do had he been the loser. But when he was doing it that was "threatening our democracy" according to Clinton herself. So which is it?bookworm wrote:Either they're wrong for reacting this way now, or they're wrong for acting that way then. There's no third option. If not accepting the election outcome is wrong to do, it's wrong to do independent of which side is doing it.
This is why we can't have nice things.Amerigo Primero wrote:I plan to get up Monday morning, eat breakfast, help out my grandpa with his racer in the garage, hop on a call at work, finish the call, turn on C-SPAN, watch the votes...
AND LAUGH. AND LAUGH. AND LAUGH SOME MORE.
Because guess what? WE WON!
Man up or woman up all ye who dwell on college campuses! I hate to offend you, but Jesus is still on the throne.
Which is actually good news for liars, adulturers, murderers, idolaters, rapists, and, yes, homosexuals. Because you have time to repent. But you have no idea how much, so why wait?
George Soros will not be there to help you at the Judgment Seat. At this rate he'll have problems of his own.
My mirth at this overblown temper tantrum knows no bounds!!!