President Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election

[SkepticThinker]

President Trump will abide by the results of a lawful fair election result. His comment is being deliberately misinterpreted. What he “can’t say right now” is that he could possibly lose. As a candidate he can not at this time accept that premise or hypothetical possibility.

On the other hand, his adversaries have demonstrated they won’t accept the results of such an election. This is evinced on they non-acceptance of the 2016 election results. Something they refuse to do to this very day.

When has he ever said that (You know, without his followers having to interpret his words for him)?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When has he ever said that (You know, without his followers having to interpret his words for him)?

Exactly.

By the way, in July Chris Wallace on Fox News asked Trump point blank if he will accept the results of the election. Trump’s response?

“Look, you—I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no.”

He glaringly omits that he will abide by the results of a fair, lawful election. Why does he omit that?

Because he plans to call it unfair and unlawful if he loses ***no matter what***.

This is so obvious. You have to really work hard not to see it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

LOL

The latest false narrative. Bogus.

How can you call it a false narrative when Trump admitted it? You seem to be in denial.

“They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo. “If they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.”
...
“If we don’t make a deal that means they don’t get the money. That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting. They just can’t have it. Sort of a crazy thing,” Trump said on Thursday.

Source: Trump admits he is undermining USPS to make it harder to vote by mail | Donald Trump | The Guardian

 

[Revoltingest]

See post #91. That’s what he actually said.

My point wasn't about all the words linked together,
but rather about the information literally conveyed.
People are being tricked into gleaning inferences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can you call it a false narrative when Trump admitted it? You seem to be in denial.

When you see a Trump supporter behaving in a way that seems irrational or inconsistent, think of this sentence:

Fascism seeks to maintain power regardless of political norms.

... and then ask yourself if their behaviour really is irrational or inconsistent when you keep that in mind.

I've found this illuminating, personally.

 

[Secret Chief]

Trump 2016 campaign 'targeted 3.5m black Americans to deter them from voting'

surprising huh

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My point wasn't about all the words linked together,
but rather about the information literally conveyed.
People are being tricked into gleaning inferences.

He said we'll have to see what happens, we have to get rid of the ballots, and there won't be a transition.

I think he means it.

This isn't inference, just English.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When you see a Trump supporter behaving in a way that seems irrational or inconsistent, think of this sentence:

Fascism seeks to maintain power regardless of political norms.

... and then ask yourself if their behaviour really is irrational or inconsistent when you keep that in mind.

I've found this illuminating, personally.

That's very helpful, thank you. I will remember this one. It explains a lot.

 

[Revoltingest]

He said we'll have to see what happens, we have to get rid of the ballots, and there won't be a transition.

I think he means it.

This isn't inference, just English.

It's what he means that is entirely unclear.
But people will see what the need to see.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's what he means that is entirely unclear.
But people will see what the need to see.

What he means seems entirely clear to me. I think some people don’t want to see what’s in front of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

What he means seems entirely clear to me. I think some people don’t want to see what’s in front of them.

Exactly.

 

[Friend of Mara]

That is one possible view.
But to treat his base as "fascist" is to buy into a leftish
demonizing mantra. I know many people who support
him, & not one likes fascism. If anything, they see
Democrats as the greater risk for that, eg, their
penchant for regulation, including political speech.

We all get along better if we recognize that reasonable
people could be on either side in this election. (And of
course, unreasonable people haunt both sides.) Those
who can't see this are hostiles who shouldn't be touched.
They bite.

I'm not saying all his base is fascist. But the fascists are in his base. Its like white supremacists. Not all of his base is white supremacists. But pretty much all white supremacists are in his base.

So if the KKK supports you in an election and then you make a "yankiing yer chain gonna trigger the libs" racist comment while being the sitting president its a litte suss. My point wasn't that reasonable person can't vote for Trump over Biden. But its willful ignorance to say that they are not a part of his constituency.

I could have a desperate conversation about my views of "decent" people who vote for Trump but that will be a different conversation all together. Though I am very interested to hear the arguments that the dems are more likely to end in fascism. I do not like the dems for sure. Absolutely for sure am not a democrat but they have better upheld democratic ideals consistently for at least the last 20 years.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not saying all his base is fascist. But the fascists are in his base. Its like white supremacists. Not all of his base is white supremacists. But pretty much all white supremacists are in his base.

So if the KKK supports you in an election and then you make a "yankiing yer chain gonna trigger the libs" racist comment while being the sitting president its a litte suss. My point wasn't that reasonable person can't vote for Trump over Biden. But its willful ignorance to say that they are not a part of his constituency.

Demonization by association doesn't fly with me.
Rioters, looters, arsonists, racists, & socialists support Biden.
But I don't judge him by that.
Instead, I consider what he'd likely effect in office.

I could have a desperate conversation about my views of "decent" people who vote for Trump but that will be a different conversation all together. Though I am very interested to hear the arguments that the dems are more likely to end in fascism. I do not like the dems for sure. Absolutely for sure am not a democrat but they have better upheld democratic ideals consistently for at least the last 20 years.

I don't trust Dems or Pubs to ensure civil liberties.
Both should be watched, & resisted as necessary.
For example, Bill Clinton, a very popular Dem Prez
had a poor record....
- Supported the Petty Offense Doctrine, which gives government
the right to unilaterally waive a defendant's jury trial right in some
cases.
- Advocated suspending some free speech rights regarding group
homes in residential neighborhoods.
- Tried to end the right against warrantless searches if on lived in
public housing.
- Signed the 1994 Crime Bill. Joe Biden was the prime mover
behind it.

Fascism isn't always delivered by a leader who looks like evil
incarnate. Sometimes it makes enticing promises with caring smile.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Demonization by association doesn't fly with me.
Rioters, looters, arsonists, racists, & socialists support Biden.
But I don't judge him by that.
Instead, I consider what he'd likely effect in office.

It isn't guilt by association. That is a hard stretch to strawman I have ever seen. Or you are missing my point. I assume you put the socialists in there as a jab. If Joe Biden as a sitting president (which is rather important for the context as he is currently a powerless person outside of office) said "Should people start killing police officers? I don't know we'll see." as a yanking your chain kind of joke then I say we have full and well gained reasonable doubt into that person.

*edit* Just to add to this point. The reason his base is important is because he has some level of control over them. If the president suggests something those that follow feel a need to follow through. Not everyone for sure. But it is a dangerous sentiment. At actual worst I could see him getting is SC justice in. Then suing to remove all mail in ballots to make him the winner. And then because he has a majority in the SC he legally does so. Then people get really really mad. Then his base remembers him saying some stuff about insurrection and we get actual bloody conflicts. And make no mistake if he throws out votes in order to secure his election it will not happen quietly. *end edit*

The one thing you can count on for Trump is that no one knows what he is actually gonna do. Not even his cabinet members. There are things he did that were better than I thought and some far worse than I had imagined.

I don't trust Dems or Pubs to ensure civil liberties.
Both should be watched, & resisted as necessary.
For example, Bill Clinton, a very popular Dem Prez
had a poor record....
- Supported the Petty Offense Doctrine, which gives government
the right to unilaterally waive a defendant's jury trial right in some
cases.
- Advocated suspending some free speech rights regarding group
homes in residential neighborhoods.
- Tried to end the right against warrantless searches if on lived in
public housing.
- Signed the 1994 Crime Bill. Joe Biden was the prime mover
behind it.

Fascism isn't always delivered by a leader who looks like evil
incarnate. Sometimes it makes enticing promises with caring smile.

Both parties are authoritarian for sure. But fascism is a specific kind of authoritarianism. Like heavy handed authoritarianism bad. Horrible. Habanero pepper spicy. But fascism is the aficionado. The Carolina reaper to communism's ghost pepper. All bad but some worse than others. But at this point I think we are just getting into the semantics of what constitutes fascism vs good old fashion government asshattery.

 

[Revoltingest]

It isn't guilt by association. That is a hard stretch to strawman I have ever seen. Or you are missing my point.

I'll pick door #2, Monty.

I assume you put the socialists in there as a jab.

I simply listed groups who are bad for the country (IMO), & are among
Biden's supporters.
The point is that I don't judge him by the worst of such people & groups.
Rather, I go by his record in public office, & stated agendas.

If Joe Biden as a sitting president (which is rather important for the context as he is currently a powerless person outside of office) said "Should people start killing police officers? I don't know we'll see." as a yanking your chain kind of joke then I say we have full and well gained reasonable doubt into that person.

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that he'd ever say that.

*edit* Just to add to this point. The reason his base is important is because he has some level of control over them. If the president suggests something those that follow feel a need to follow through. Not everyone for sure. But it is a dangerous sentiment. At actual worst I could see him getting is SC justice in. Then suing to remove all mail in ballots to make him the winner. And then because he has a majority in the SC he legally does so. Then people get really really mad. Then his base remembers him saying some stuff about insurrection and we get actual bloody conflicts. And make no mistake if he throws out votes in order to secure his election it will not happen quietly. *end edit*

We shouldn't get all worked up over unlikely scenarios, eg,
Trump's controlling the USSC. I'm more concerned about
his appointments will rule in the actual cases before them.

The one thing you can count on for Trump is that no one knows what he is actually gonna do. Not even his cabinet members. There are things he did that were better than I thought and some far worse than I had imagined.

I agree that he's been a mixed bag.
For all his personal faults, he's not the worst Prez (IMO) my lifetime.

Both parties are authoritarian for sure. But fascism is a specific kind of authoritarianism. Like heavy handed authoritarianism bad. Horrible. Habanero pepper spicy. But fascism is the aficionado. The Carolina reaper to communism's ghost pepper. All bad but some worse than others. But at this point I think we are just getting into the semantics of what constitutes fascism vs good old fashion government asshattery.

Fascism in Ameristan (IMO) would creep in with popular regulations
here & there over time. Either party is capable of playing a role to
ease it in.
Trump has one advantage for us in that he's a poor advocate &
negotiator. So just as Bill Clinton failed in some attempts to make
the country more authoritarian, so has The Donald.


Btw, did you know that your teacup is gay?
I mention it because I once went all day here
with a "KICK ME" sign taped to my back.
(I think @Quagmire had some roll in that.)

 

[Friend of Mara]

I'll pick door #2, Monty.

Heard.

I simply listed groups who are bad for the country (IMO), & are among
Biden's supporters.
The point is that I don't judge him by the worst of such people & groups.
Rather, I go by his record in public office, & stated agendas.

I can agree to that. I will try to explain the contention between our original points below while also tying into it that we agree on this point.

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that he'd ever say that.

Which is kind of the point isn't it? He wouldn't? For obvious reasons. And yet...Trump does...So I think we are well within our rights to be concerned and reactive about it.

We shouldn't get all worked up over unlikely scenarios, eg,
Trump's controlling the USSC. I'm more concerned about
his appointments will rule in the actual cases before them.

Fair. Though I might disagree with how "unlikely" it is.

I agree that he's been a mixed bag.
For all his personal faults, he's not the worst Prez (IMO) my lifetime.

I can agree. Bush Jr. was the worst president of my lifetime. Though I was born during Clinton so I've only ever seen 4 presidents. Who do you think was the worst in your lifetime? I am curious. Overall perhaps ever was probably Andrew Jackson.

Fascism in Ameristan (IMO) would creep in with popular regulations
here & there over time. Either party is capable of playing a role to
ease it in.
Trump has one advantage for us in that he's a poor advocate &
negotiator. So just as Bill Clinton failed in some attempts to make
the country more authoritarian, so has The Donald.

Perhaps. His sentiments and words have always toed that line. More so than any other president I know of. The camps at the boarder. Pretty blatant race bating. Attempting to declare ANTIFA a terrorist organization. Defying both international and constitutional law with regards to breaking up peaceful protest and harassing media personnel. Advocating (joking or not) for citizens to engage in violence against his political enemies. Inviting (joking or not) foreign intervention into our elections. Especially those that are known dictators that HAVE and DO interfere with our elections.

Also the video in my thread about patriotic education. Its so saturated in fascist rhetoric that it feels copy/pasted and sent through google translate from a 1940's Italian or German speech.

Btw, did you know that your teacup is gay?
I mention it because I once went all day here
with a "KICK ME" sign taped to my back.
(I think @Quagmire had some roll in that.)

lol. I respect the sexual preferences of my tableware.