Elections Pelosi pulling the hypocritical, hyperbolic (D) line about Trump not conceding really, really early

[spamking]

I suspect a learning disability here. No matter how often the actual argument is repeated, you keep reading it as something entirely different. Spamking, this again illustrates the moral and intellectual collapse of the right. These guys are no longer able to engage in a rational discussion.

Then what would you say crap like this illustrates?

No chance he can quote any of it because it's not true. These guys will follow Trump off the most uneducated cliff around. It's really bizarre. F the constitution because TRRRUUMMMPPPPP

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here you go @zebby23

You're going to have to define "Trump-style" rhetoric, I guess.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Then what would you say crap like this illustrates?

Frustration?

Read through this thread. The point is very simple--the actions that Trump took after *winning* would amount to a crisis in our democracy if he took them as president and after losing. The argument for it not being a problem is the idea that his underlings will either not take him seriously or will defy him. I think it's actually likely that one of those things will happen, but that's a different kind of crisis. Our democracy is under serious threat (and just last night, we saw the Executive Branch openly defying the law to cover up Trump's income sources, which creates another crisis). Yet not a single right-winger in this thread is willing to address those points honestly. None. It's all personal attacks, deflections (like your posts), and misrepresentations of the arguments.

 

[spamking]

You're going to have to define "Trump-style" rhetoric, I guess.

I have to spell out where a sitting politician threatens to nuke citizens who don't do what he says? Really?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have to spell out where a sitting politician threatens to nuke citizens who don't do what he says? Really?

Do you think that's an honest description of the conversation?

 

[spamking]

Frustration?

At least @Trotsky had to balls to call @zebby23 out for the left wing troll he/she is . . . you can't even do that.

Read through this thread. The point is very simple--the actions that Trump took after *winning* would amount to a crisis in our democracy if he took them as president and after losing.
The argument for it not being a problem is the idea that his underlings will either not take him seriously or will defy him. I think it's actually likely that one of those things will happen, but that's a different kind of crisis. Our democracy is under serious threat (and just last night, we saw the Executive Branch openly defying the law to cover up Trump's income sources, which creates another crisis). Yet not a single right-winger in this thread is willing to address those points honestly. None. It's all personal attacks, deflections (like your posts), and misrepresentations of the arguments.

What am I deflecting from? I addressed a specific post in my response. I haven't made a comment about the actions Trump has taken or those you think he'll take if he loses.

 

[HereticBD]

Do you think that's an honest description of the conversation?

A guy saying there would be war if the Dems go after the 2A, and the Dem in turn telling him it would be a short war because the government has nukes. Yeah, I'd say his was an apt description of the conversation.

You're just being intentionally dense. This is why you have a reputation around here of being woefully dishonest.

 

[ElKarlo]

I suspect a learning disability here. No matter how often the actual argument is repeated, you keep reading it as something entirely different. Spamking, this again illustrates the moral and intellectual collapse of the right. These guys are no longer able to engage in a rational discussion.

I'm not saying the right is correct. Thays what you're not seeing and it is being mimicked by the left. Which is also what you're not seeing.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

If the president is publicly accusing someone of a crime, typically you'd expect to see some action on that. And if the president is saying that the election was stolen, you'd expect mobilization on that. As I said, the argument that it *won't* lead to problems depends on Trump being dismissed by his own appointees as a clown and/or on public servants standing up for the Constitution against the president. One or more of those is likely but people should not just assume that we're safe. We are facing a serious threat.

I have no doubts he will want his opponents locked up but I don't see how he could achieve that. He can at most order the US attorneys to prosecute the candidates but that will not land them in jail as they will be subject to a trial. Congress can also stop that by impeaching an attorney. And that's if, as you said, they just simply didn't dismiss him for having no legal case.
He could also declare a national emergency or just act outside the law, order tanks to occupy the streets, people to riot etc, which would lead to his impeachment and I don't think he has enough support anywhere to get all the military or law enforcement onboard with that.

 

[spamking]

Do you think that's an honest description of the conversation?

Oh let me guess . . . you don't so therefore I'm wrong.

Please . . . tell me how this should be taken?

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not saying the right is correct. Thays what you're not seeing and it is being mimicked by the left. Which is also what you're not seeing.

You give no examples of it, and you can't. I've noted before that when partisans try to defend indefensible actions, they tend to fall back on bothsidesism.

I haven't made a comment about the actions Trump has taken or those you think he'll take if he loses.

Correct. Exactly.

I have no doubts he will want his opponents locked up but I don't see how he could achieve that. He can at most order the US attorneys to prosecute the candidates but that will not land them in jail as they will be subject to a trial. Congress can also stop that by impeaching an attorney. And that's if, as you said, they just simply didn't dismiss him for having no legal case.
He could also declare a national emergency or just act outside the law, order tanks to occupy the streets, people to riot etc, which would lead to his impeachment and I don't think he has enough support anywhere to get all the military or law enforcement onboard with that.

I said from the start that I don't think he'd succeed but that the danger of it is higher than it's ever been. Do you think that the TS, El Karlo, or Heretic would, if they were gov't workers, defy illegal orders? Lots of those types are out there now. We know the president doesn't think the law applies to him and that many of his supporters agree. We are counting on a lot of people to be better than them. It's likely they are, but the danger level is at the highest its been since the Civil War.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh let me guess . . . you don't so therefore I'm wrong.

Please . . . tell me how this should be taken?

I asked a question that I guess you're not going to answer.

You have a guy saying that if a law he doesn't like is passed, he'll start murdering people. The Rep then says that his efforts would fail and recommends talking it out rather than resorting to violence.

 

[kpt018]

This is what @Jack V Savage doesn't see. Pelosi is already building s case for something that doesn't exist yet. Trump blisters a lot and a lot of it is bluster and nonsense. To thibk that he wouldn't step down after an election defeat is silly.
Your side is just trying to out Trump him, and in so doing so, looks really bad. Being a jerk is one thing, being an unoriginal one is usually worse.

This argument is ridiculous on (at least) two fronts. If Pelosi is "building a case" as you say it actually will not matter at all if Trump accepts a loss and transitions power peacefully. So why the criticism? Secondly, Trump can squash it all and come out and say that he will unequivocally accept the results of the election and leave office if it results in a loss (barring a lot of evidence of actual vote count issues like in FL in the past). But instead he's doing the opposite - building a case to stay in power. He has questioned elections results already (and pushed CTs about voter fraud), has mentioned that he won't look to stay in power past his term "unless you want me to" (big smile), he is accusing his political opponents of being criminals, he is very likely using the Justice Department to investigate political opponents, he is refusing to comply with oversight requests for tax returns, he claims the media is the enemy of the people and are lying, etc.. He has the incentive of staying out of jail under the idea that sitting presidents cannot be indicted (SDNY has a campaign finance case against him and hundreds of former prosecutors agree that he would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't the President). It all lines up.

We're laying out the case, which is all in plain sight btw, as to why we are extremely worried. And it seems like the best response you guys can muster is "it's just silly! He wouldn't do that!" when we all know Trump has a history of break norms (and laws).

And trust me, I would love to be wrong. I really hope that if Trump loses there is a peaceful transition of power. And if he does attempt a coup I hope patriotic Americans do the right thing.

 

[HereticBD]

I asked a question that I guess you're not going to answer.

You have a guy saying that if a law he doesn't like is passed, he'll start murdering people. The Rep then says that his efforts would fail and recommends talking it out rather than resorting to violence.

Predicts war would happen = Threatening to MURDER people

Claims war effort would be a short one, because the government has nukes = Just trying to talk it out.


ROFL.

 

[vengeful]

Oh let me guess . . . you don't so therefore I'm wrong.

Please . . . tell me how this should be taken?

I take it as him telling an idiot that it's stupid to think you can go to war against a government that has nuclear weapons, and that talking about the issue is much smarter than going to war.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

You give no examples of it, and you can't. I've noted before that when partisans try to defend indefensible actions, they tend to fall back on bothsidesism.



Correct. Exactly.



I said from the start that I don't think he'd succeed but that the danger of it is higher than it's ever been. Do you think that the TS, El Karlo, or Heretic would, if they were gov't workers, defy illegal orders? Lots of those types are out there now. We know the president doesn't think the law applies to him and that many of his supporters agree. We are counting on a lot of people to be better than them. It's likely they are, but the danger level is at the highest its been since the Civil War.

No but could they even make it to a government job? Outside of direct appointments. There are some psychological and knowledge tests to work for the government as a civil servant or military, I guess. And appointments go after some vetting process, like a Senate vote.
Guys like Jeff Sessions, General Mattis, all of them defied Trump. Sessions was an evil southern racist and still recused himself in relation to Russia, Mattis simply ignored orders, Kelly also ignored orders.
I guess some lower ranking cops, military and bureaucrats could cause some trouble but they would be contained.
In general I'd put the risk as very low outside of Trump causing a deadlock and delays, like the government shutdown. I think he could delay the process with recounts, lawsuits etc but he would step down in the end or get arrested.

 

[zebby23]

At least @Trotsky had to balls to call @zebby23 out for the left wing troll he/she is . . . you can't even do that.



What am I deflecting from? I addressed a specific post in my response. I haven't made a comment about the actions Trump has taken or those you think he'll take if he loses.

When did trotsky call me out? I'd love to see this

 

[Trotsky]

At least @Trotsky had to balls to call @zebby23 out for the left wing troll he/she is . . . you can't even do that.

What am I deflecting from? I addressed a specific post in my response. I haven't made a comment about the actions Trump has taken or those you think he'll take if he loses.

Hmm, I didn't call zebby a troll. I said he shit posts fairly frequently and doesn't get very deep into his positions. I haven't had nearly enough exposure to him to say that he's trolling, which would mean that he's intentionally being disingenuous or doesn't really believe what he posts. He could be, but, as I said, I haven't seen enough of his posts or had enough exchanges with him to say that. WarDosAnjos is the only person I suspect of being a genuine left-wing troll.

Also, I haven't read this conversation at much length and don't have a strong opinion on it (of course Trump cannot be tethered to any expectation of humility, honesty, or norm-conformance, but speculating how that shameless moron will behave is a fool's errand imo), but @kpt018 as usual has had high quality and on-point posts itt.

 

[zebby23]

Then what would you say crap like this illustrates?

lol truth? Tell me something Trump has done or could do which would make you lose all support. 1 thing

 

[zebby23]

When did trotsky call me out? I'd love to see this

Ahhh. I read his response and he is accurate. I can get deep into posts but when dealing with the right wingers on this site that's fairly difficult to do. Also, I believe everything I post. Everything