Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[zamyrabyrd]

Not if the argument comes down to, "I lost, therefore there is proof of widespread voter fraud."

I do agree with your proposition but there are still many variables ahead. In other words, it didn't happen yet.

[San Antone]

Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.

The basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.

Because they were not happy with the outcome of the 2000 election, despite Al Gore exhausting his legal options, Democrats loudly questioned the legitimacy of Bush's victory throughout his first term, and even into his second.  Democrats are attempting to preempt Trump from exercising his legal right to investigate voting irregularities or fraud in this election, no different that what Al Gore did. And they have the audacity to claim that it is somehow "un-American" if he doesn't announce, no matter what kind of fraud may occur, that he will not question the outcome.

Trump is not suggesting an armed revolt in the wake of a Clinton victory (that's liberal press scare tactics to inflame public opinion), he is holding open his legal options in case there is evidence of fraud or voting irregularities. 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Madiel]

Because they were not happy with the outcome of the 2000 election, despite Al Gore exhausting his legal options, Democrats loudly questioned the legitimacy of Bush's victory throughout his first term, and even into his second. 

Which "Democrats" are these, exactly? A bunch of supporters on social media?

Not Al Gore, presumably. You know, the guy who actually ran for President.

You can't stop every single "Democrat" or "Republican" saying stupid shit. Right now, though, you have the actual Presidential candidate talking about things being rigged (including Republican primaries) and the supporters being the ones trying to hose it down and say that the Presidential candidate doesn't really mean it.

Just like all the other things he didn't really mean. I'm actually more than willing to give people the benefit of the doubt about how they've been interpreted, but some of the things that Trump has said have been extraordinary. With the the best will in the world, the "2nd Amendment people" one came across very badly and really did sound like a suggestion that a gun was the solution. Then there's the one about blood coming out of a female journalist. Or the call to look at a woman who accused him of sexually inappropriate behaviour. Or the whole thing about a judge being biased because of a Mexican heritage.

[Karl Henning]

Trump is not suggesting an armed revolt in the wake of a Clinton victory (that's liberal press scare tactics to inflame public opinion)

No, that is wondering what to make of your preferred candidate's own dodgy words about "second amendment people" and what they can about things, if they don't get their desired electoral result.

I marvel at your logical gymnastics, to make everything that El Tupé says or does, into some kind of "normal."  Really, you should take over for Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have given up trying to explain away the candidate's blather.

Not Al Gore, presumably. You know, the guy who actually ran for President.

Right:  that gracious concession, and El Tupé's "I'm gonna leave you in suspense" . . . pretty much the same thing . . . .

[San Antone]

No, that is wondering what to make of your preferred candidate's own dodgy words about "second amendment people" and what they can about things, if they don't get their desired electoral result.

I marvel at your logical gymnastics, to make everything that El Tupé says or does, into some kind of "normal."  Really, you should take over for Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have given up trying to explain away the candidate's blather.

Right:  that gracious concession, and El Tupé's "I'm gonna leave you in suspense" . . . pretty much the same thing . . . .

"Second amendment people" are those who care about having judges on the Supreme Court that will uphold the 2nd amendment.  They are not assassins.  "I'm gonna leave you in suspense" is Trump saying he won't rule out a legal challenge until he is satisfied that no fraud or irregularities occurred.

You skew his words to mean something "dangerous" instead of accepting his second amendment phrase was Trump getting his voters out in order to help him win, since after the election it was too late to avoid her putting judges on the Supreme Court that will undermine gun rights.

This has been the Clinton's MO, with help from the press and her supporters, to use innuendo and a whisper campaign to imply Trump is "dangerous" or un-American by reading into his statements something that is not there.

Disgusting.

[San Antone]

Which "Democrats" are these, exactly? A bunch of supporters on social media?

All the way from people with a bumper sticker that said "selected, not elected" to Democrat talking heads on the Sunday talk shows and even some elected officials saying Bush had no mandate, because of how he was elected.

But I forget, Democrats rely on a double standard and selective memory.

[Madiel]

All the way from people with a bumper sticker that said "selected, not elected" to Democrat talking heads on the Sunday talk shows and even some elected officials saying Bush had no mandate, because of how he was elected.

But I forget, Democrats rely on a double standard and selective memory.

You certainly do forget if you think I'm a Democrat.

[Madiel]

"Second amendment people" are those who care about having judges on the Supreme Court that will uphold the 2nd amendment. 

Do you really think the issue here was identifying the people?

It wasn't. It was identifying what action the people could take. What, precisely, do you think was the "something" these people could do if Clinton gets to pick her judges?

Okay? The context is that the judges have been picked. To say it's about picking judges is to quite deliberately ignore the context that was actually used, which conveyed not a way to PREVENT Clinton picking her judges, but a RESPONSE to Clinton picking her judges.

But then, I have little faith in your analytical abilities. Not just here, your little spat about Schoenberg in Hollywood was entirely consistent with the couple of times you decided to argue against yourself when I agreed with you. Because apparently I'm a "Democrat" and therefore everything I say is automatically wrong even when I'm agreeing with something you previously said. A medal in mental gymnastics lies in your future.

[Mahlerian]

Did Trump's responding to the accusations of sexual misconduct against him with "I haven't even apologized to Melania, because I didn't do anything wrong" strike others as absolutely bizarre?

If you haven't done anything wrong, why bring up not apologizing as if it's any indicator of anything?  It's not as if Trump apologizes when he has done something wrong, but just imagine the following discussion:

WIFE: Are these allegations true?
MAN: No.  And I'm not gonna apologize either.  They're not true.

...??

[Mirror Image]

Did Trump's responding to the accusations of sexual misconduct against him with "I haven't even apologized to Melania, because I didn't do anything wrong" strike others as absolutely bizarre?

If you haven't done anything wrong, why bring up not apologizing as if it's any indicator of anything?  It's not as if Trump apologizes when he has done something wrong, but just imagine the following discussion:

WIFE: Are these allegations true?
MAN: No.  And I'm not gonna apologize either.  They're not true.

...??

Did you expect anything less from Tump? I sure as hell didn't. He's a scumbag.

[Mahlerian]

Did you expect anything less from Tump? I sure as hell didn't. He's a scumbag.

Somehow, he manages to keep lowering the bar.  Either that or I'm overly optimistic about the humanity of a narcissist and likely sociopath.

[drogulus]

     Gore did not claim in advance that the election he was about to contest would be rigged.

     The Florida recount was not initiated by actions of either the Gore or Bush campaigns. Once the battle had moved to courts and recounts both campaigns fought the battle there.

Trump is not suggesting an armed revolt in the wake of a Clinton victory (that's liberal press scare tactics to inflame public opinion), he is holding open his legal options in case there is evidence of fraud or voting irregularities.

      Trump has no more need to hold options open than Gore did. Why would he? The point is he is telling everyone the election will be rigged against him. That is not at all like holding your options open to respond to apparent irregularities that might turn out to be real and potentially decisive.

[Mister Sharpe]

He's a bad hombre, that's fer sure.

[Karl Henning]

Did Trump's responding to the accusations of sexual misconduct against him with "I haven't even apologized to Melania, because I didn't do anything wrong" strike others as absolutely bizarre?

Ayyup.

[Karl Henning]

Yawn:

"I will keep you in suspense": Trump knows he's in trouble, so he crafted his own reality show cliffhanger

[zamyrabyrd]

Yawn:
"I will keep you in suspense": Trump knows he's in trouble, so he crafted his own reality show cliffhanger

There were much better ways to answer the Hildebeest, so many missed opportunities!

[Brian]

That was Hillary's finest performance of the year - she actually managed to give clear, eloquent, mature adult answers while Trump melted down into a puddle next to her. Her Roe v. Wade answer (seeing governments in China and Romania regulate women) was a high point for her campaign, in terms of her ability to defend a controversial position in an appealing fashion. If only she were as eloquently defending TPP!

This is the first debate that Hillary legitimately won on merit, rather than simply because Trump was a disaster. It was also far more civilized, substantive, and interesting than the hellish second debate. Credit to Chris Wallace for much of that, but also to Hillary for her best performance.

Trump made a few massive mistakes - like the now-infamous "I'll keep you in suspense" - and they overshadowed a few minor details which ordinarily would be considered mistakes, like once again agreeing that he paid no taxes (fewer taxes than illegal immigrants, Hillary added, for icing on the cake), or like confusingly standing up to praise Barack Obama's immigration policy.

[Brian]

There were much better ways to answer the Hildebeest, so many missed opportunities!

He missed a TON of opportunities - he brought up emails once, but otherwise his attacks were lame and weak. Bringing up the Clinton Foundation was really foolishly walking into a trap, given that his own foundation is fraudulent. He had to know the 6-foot portrait retort was coming. Had to.

[Mister Sharpe]

He's a bad hombre, that's fer sure.

Or is he a (paricularly) nasty woman?

[Mirror Image]

Since Trump is so filled with conspiracy theories, do you mind if I spout off one of my own and please indulge me for a second: it is quite possible Trump was a Democratic plant and he knew he was going to throw in the towel last night as part of a plan to tear the Republican Party down from top to bottom. Fair-fetched? I'm quite sure, but I've just never seen someone do so badly unless we look back at John McCain's massive failure of a campaign, which his biggest misstep was bringing that batshit crazy Alaskan governor, Sarah "I Kill Many Moose And Smile About It" Palin.