The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[FaxModem1]

Last time I counted. Trump was accused by four women. I thought that was way too high and he was disgusting. But according to the moderator, he's been accused by nine. It just disgusts me beyond words.

[FireNexus]

Trump has spent this debate pivoting the conversation away from the actually valid attacks on Clinton. It's absolutely amazing.

[FireNexus]

I would be ok with Chris Wallace moderating all future Presidential debates. Really knocked that out of the park.

[FireNexus]

Just go tattle to the mods when you think I'm being a bad boy.

Seriously, you two. Just fuck already.

I think we've established that Flagg is MY man. Don't you go messing it up, CWM.

[Iroscato]

I ship The Flagg Republic. And FireFlagg.

[Flagg]

Last time I counted. Trump was accused by four women. I thought that was way too high and he was disgusting. But according to the moderator, he's been accused by nine. It just disgusts me beyond words.

I figured it was higher at this point. Then again I imagine there could be dozens whom he paid off for silence.

[Flagg]

Just go tattle to the mods when you think I'm being a bad boy.

Seriously, you two. Just fuck already.

I think we've established that Flagg is MY man. Don't you go messing it up, CWM.

Pookie.

[Civil War Man]

So, people who've been paying attention have known this was his stance for a long time, but sometimes the debates have a way of distilling things down to easily digestible sound bites.

So far, the effectively unanimous headline coming out of tonight's debate: Trump Refuses to Commit to Accepting Election Results

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump has continually complained that the election is "rigged" against him. When asked during the final presidential debate on Wednesday whether he would accept the results of the election, Trump refused to commit, saying, "I'll look at it at the time."

Trump went on to say that Hillary Clinton should not have have been allowed to run for the presidency, nor allowed to vote. When pressed again by moderator Chris Wallace, Trump replied, "I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense."

Clinton called Trump's answer "horrifying."

It probably won't move the polls much, but when that's the universal headline coming out of this, you know that Donald's in for a bad week.

[Flagg]

I ship The Flagg Republic. And FireFlagg.

I'd get alcohol poisoning and die before getting drunk enough to stop openly mocking him for any "The Flagg Republic" shippage, so it would have to involve necrophilia. But by all means, I'd read it.

[Flagg]

So, people who've been paying attention have known this was his stance for a long time, but sometimes the debates have a way of distilling things down to easily digestible sound bites.

So far, the effectively unanimous headline coming out of tonight's debate: Trump Refuses to Commit to Accepting Election Results

Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump has continually complained that the election is "rigged" against him. When asked during the final presidential debate on Wednesday whether he would accept the results of the election, Trump refused to commit, saying, "I'll look at it at the time."

Trump went on to say that Hillary Clinton should not have have been allowed to run for the presidency, nor allowed to vote. When pressed again by moderator Chris Wallace, Trump replied, "I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense."

Clinton called Trump's answer "horrifying."

It probably won't move the polls much, but when that's the universal headline coming out of this, you know that Donald's in for a bad week.

I would pay a substantial amount of someone else's money to see Donnie Douchebag actually hold his own inauguration ceremony.

But what was his "reasoning" behind the claim that "Hillary Clinton should not have have been allowed to run for the presidency, nor allowed to vote." (I assume the vote thing is his not realizing women are constitutionally allowed to vote), if there was any?

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, if it started to do for the Tea Party what Timothy McVeigh did for the militia movement, that might be for the best in the long run. In a country like the US, where political violence is not normative... A movement that is as crazy as possible without violence for a long time can do more harm than one which disaffects its own membership by edging over into 'violent' territory.

I think it's hilarious that within 12 hours of TRR having a whine over my obvious hyperbole, he in all seriousness suggests that Republicans will resort to terrorism without any indication that he doesn't believe that it's something that could literally happen without the slightest bit of self awareness.

But remember, he's the poor picked on one.

In which Flagg proves he's incapable of going a single God damn page without attacking me for no reason.

I do not claim that all, or even most, Republicans will engage in violence, but I don't think that any reasonable and informed person would completely discount the possibility that some Trump supporters might.

And Flagg's level of animosity and inability to let it go because I dared to criticize one of his posts is almost Trumpian.

And to the rest of you: I'm not a moderator, obviously, but simply for the sake of intelligent and civilized discussion, I would ask you weather you really think its a good idea to feed and encourage someone who is obviously trolling in this manner. I mean, I'm not the one who's trying to continue this- the only reason I even mention it is that their's only so many times you can be subjected to attack and not defend yourself.

Anyway, back to the election:

The debate actually started out seeming like an attempt at a real discussion of the issues, albeit marred by Trump's fumbling attempts to string coherent sentences together. Take every fumbling verbal gaff of George W. Bush, and then multiply. It was kind of pathetic.

Of course, it quickly degenerated into one of the most vicious displays I've ever seen. Clinton actually started out seeming more blunt and aggressive to me (and I do not care for her the aggressiveness of her rhetoric on Russia, because that is an area where a President must move very cautiously), but Trump quickly joined in with more of his usual horse shit.

The most appalling moment of the night has got to be Trump, when asked about the peaceful transition of power and weather he would accept the election result, telling the moderator that he would leave him in suspense, and refusing to say that he would accept the results.

Also... he actually said that the election was rigged because Clinton was allowed to run. We need to seriously ask ourselves, at this point, weather, if we elect Donald now, their will be an election in four years. And yeah, you can call that hyperbole or alarmist if you want. I don't care. Democracies have fallen into despotism before, and I don't delude myself that America is so special and pure that it could never happen here.

If nothing else, the mere fact that Trump would say that shows that he is a dangerous man, unfit to be President. As if their was any doubt.

I do wish that Clinton had had a stronger defence (or any defence) to some of Trump's accusations. I can sort of understand not wanting to waste time responding to bullshit that's been brought up so many times before (say, the emails), or is obviously false, but when your opponent accuses you of inciting violence and protecting a rapist and you don't offer a rebuttal, some people will, rightly or wrongly, take it as an admission of guilt, and a win for Trump. But I do understand that one has limited time in a debate, and one must choose which points they address strategically at times.

I do think that Clinton got in some very good zingers at Trump, though, and she obviously had more substance to offer on policy (as if their could be any doubt on that score). I'd still call tonight a win for her, certainly, though the real test, in a way, is the polls, of course.

One more thing: my commendations to the moderator (whose job I do not envy). While I felt that he sometimes seemed to inject opinion into his questions more than I would have preferred, he asked both candidates tough questions, and did the best he could reasonably be expected to do keeping everyone in line. Best moderator of this general election hands down, I think. Well done, sir.

And finally, finally, someone asked Clinton about the risks of a no fly zone in Syria, and she gave a fairly reasonable (if vague) answer. That alone elevates my opinion of this debate somewhat, since I've been wanting Clinton to get asked about that for a while.

Anyway, at least the shit show is over, and hopefully Clinton will gain, or at least not lose, ground between now and election day.

[SpottedKitty]

Also... he actually said that the election was rigged because Clinton was allowed to run. We need to seriously ask ourselves, at this point, weather, if we elect Donald now, their will be an election in four years.

Repeat after me: "Nehemiah Scudder is a fictional character!"

I watched some of it, out of morbid curiosity. Did he, at any point, make sense or say something that was actually, y'know, true?

[The Romulan Republic]

Mostly just a stream of the usual Trump bullshit, with some extra garnishing of threats, accusations, and fear-mongering.

[Lord Revan]

Any victory Trump will have will be close enough that it'll be more likely that Trump will removed from office due to overstepping his authority then him being able to appoint himself as "president for life" as you imply.

You got remember that remember that Donald Trump doesn't have a ready made force of organizied enforcers loyal only to him and willing and capable of suppressing opposition to his policies, in vein of the SA/SS or Mussolini's Blackshirts. The Secret Service is loyal to the US goverment as is the US military. Unless you can show that Donald Trump has sufficient amount of fanatical enough follwers that they're willing to wage civil war to keep him in office. I seriously dout Trump will be able to suspend the presidental elections.

While it's not a good thing that person like Trump is a major candidate in the US presidental elections, it is still alarmist to assume he'd be able to turn USA in to clear dictatorship with him as president for life, with the opposition for him being this clear and strong.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think Trump could simply declare himself the dictator the day after the election, no.

But I believe that their are not inconceivable scenarios where he could erode our democracy to that point over a period of years. Look at, say, the gradual erosion of democracy in Turkey under Erdogan, culminating in the coup attempt and subsequent crackdown this year (I actually think Erdogan is possibly a more apt comparison to Trump than Hitler).

And if Trump somehow wins (God forbid), it will likely be with a Republican House and Senate, which shortly means a Republican Supreme Court. And the last several years have taught me that the Republican establishment in general, however much they may dislike him, cannot be trusted to stand up to him when push comes to shove.

I'm not saying that it will happen. And it'll probably be a moot point in any case when he loses by a landslide in three weeks. But it would be foolish to assume that such a thing could never happen in America. Already our democratic structures have been eroded more than is healthy or entirely safe.

Good news: CNN instant poll has Clinton as the winner 52 to 39. That makes it 3 for 3 against the Orange Shit.

[Flagg]

Honestly, if it started to do for the Tea Party what Timothy McVeigh did for the militia movement, that might be for the best in the long run. In a country like the US, where political violence is not normative... A movement that is as crazy as possible without violence for a long time can do more harm than one which disaffects its own membership by edging over into 'violent' territory.

I think it's hilarious that within 12 hours of TRR having a whine over my obvious hyperbole, he in all seriousness suggests that Republicans will resort to terrorism without any indication that he doesn't believe that it's something that could literally happen without the slightest bit of self awareness.

But remember, he's the poor picked on one.

In which Flagg proves he's incapable of going a single God damn page without attacking me for no reason.

I do not claim that all, or even most, Republicans will engage in violence, but I don't think that any reasonable and informed person would completely discount the possibility that some Trump supporters might.

And Flagg's level of animosity and inability to let it go because I dared to criticize one of his posts is almost Trumpian.

And to the rest of you: I'm not a moderator, obviously, but simply for the sake of intelligent and civilized discussion, I would ask you weather you really think its a good idea to feed and encourage someone who is obviously trolling in this manner. I mean, I'm not the one who's trying to continue this- the only reason I even mention it is that their's only so many times you can be subjected to attack and not defend yourself.

Grow a thicker skin, stop making wild hair on fire comments that slander entire groups of people, and stop being a crybaby. You sure can throw shit, but you can't take even the smallest rebuke without flipping out like a 15 year old girl whose favorite contestant on some shitty reality show got voted off. The only reason you think I have some kind of vendetta (I don't) is because everyone else (Except SolarpunkFan) just rolls their eyes and ignores your over the top hair on fire posts.

And you notice how aside from a few cases I'm getting along fine with everyone else here (despite your pathetic "Flagg is mean, he made me cry, don't be nice to him, sniffle sniffle" post? Does that maybe give you some consideration that your penchant for batshit conspiracy or "If Trump loses militias will bomb everyone!" Crap? I mean I have my faults, one is not suffering fools without calling them on their foolishness.

So grow the fuck up and stop with the crazy conspiracy shit.

[Lord Revan]

The thing to remember about Erdogan is that people like him aren't really a new thing in Turkish history, sure he is more successful then the previous attempts but by no means unpresidented, however Trump being able to erode US democracy to a point that he'll be able to declare himself president for life in just 4 years seems highly unlikely to me, especially with the opposition he's getting even within his own party, say what you will about previous GOP candidates or presidents they were generally fairly well liked or at least not highly disliked where as Trump seems to be outright hated by some parts of the GOP base like the religious right. So the idea that the opposition against him would go away with close victory and it seems that even if Trump wins it'll be a close victory or that him winning means that GOP wins everywhere is just paranoia.

I as I said before there's being careful and there's being "the sky is falling" paranoid.

[Flagg]

The thing to remember about Erdogan is that people like him aren't really a new thing in Turkish history, sure he is more successful then the previous attempts but by no means unpresidented, however Trump being able to erode US democracy to a point that he'll be able to declare himself president for life in just 4 years seems highly unlikely to me, especially with the opposition he's getting even within his own party, say what you will about previous GOP candidates or presidents they were generally fairly well liked or at least not highly disliked where as Trump seems to be outright hated by some parts of the GOP base like the religious right. So the idea that the opposition against him would go away with close victory and it seems that even if Trump wins it'll be a close victory or that him winning means that GOP wins everywhere is just paranoia.

I as I said before there's being careful and there's being "the sky is falling" paranoid.

Yeap, 100% correct.
It doesn't matter how many of Donnie Douchebag's supports are active gun toting militia as opposed to 500lb couch cetaceans, unless he's got a very large part of the Militay behind him (He doesn't) and supporting of supplanting the legally elected POTUS with him (they don't) he poses no threat to the rule of law as mandated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So now you've back to taking cheap shots at me in posts that don't even have anything to do with me? Yeah, you're totally the mature, reasonable one here.



Just how many of your posts have a positive substance to insult ratio?

But since I'm really not interested in derailing this thread by engaging in yet another one of your sad little pissing contests, that's the last I'll say on it.

Just go tattle to the mods when you think I'm being a bad boy.

Hi!

Flagg, your initial hyperbole was not obvious to me. It can actually be rather difficult to distinguish between you using hyperbole, and you flying off the handle into cuckooland.

So you will cease this behavior. It is bordering on a vendetta violation.

I was very very happy to see Part III of this thread locked because it got too big, rather than because shitposting and trolling mandated it. You will not tarnish that record.

Placeholder

Flagg is an asshole sometimes. Don't react to him when he decides to be an ass.

---

This has been the informal warning from the local forum moderator. Further violations will result in violators wearing the cone of the hall of shame. If it persists beyond that, my actions will become increasingly formal and no one wants that.

[Patroklos]

Why exactly does not accepting the results (as stupid as that is) = lack of a peaceful transition of power? There is some serious leaps of logic there. I can think of no reason why violence should be assumed in that scenario. Especially violence of a scale that would in any way interfere with the transition of power in any effective manor. Especially since there will be no hesitation from the sitting government not to vacate, which is where the problems generally come from in the first place. Obama is going to hand the reigns to whomever the election officials say.

This is especially ridiculous given most of the notable election violence perpetrated this cycle is overwhelmingly sourced from the left up to and including fire bombings. Honestly, given the behavior of the left this cycle, do you honestly think there would be no violence against a Trump win regardless of how gracious Hillary was in defeat? Shit, there probably will if she wins.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why exactly does not accepting the results (as stupid as that is) = lack of a peaceful transition of power? There is some serious leaps of logic there. I can think of no reason why violence should be assumed in that scenario. Especially violence of a scale that would in any way interfere with the transition of power in any effective manor. Especially since there will be no hesitation from the sitting government not to vacate, which is where the problems generally come from in the first place. Obama is going to hand the reigns to whomever the election officials say.

This is especially ridiculous given most of the notable election violence perpetrated this cycle is overwhelmingly sourced from the left up to and including fire bombings. Honestly, given the behavior of the left this cycle, do you honestly think there would be no violence against a Trump win regardless of how gracious Hillary was in defeat? Shit, there probably will if she wins.

Trump has
1) Encouraged violence at his rallies which has taken place.
2) The support of neo-nazis, the KKK, and right-wingnut militia groups. All of which have a tendency to be well-armed.
3) Publicly ranted about a conspiracy against him, in a way that is reminiscent of the 1920s anti-semite newsletter The International Jew.

The lack of a peaceful power transition wont come from the sitting president not vacating--but from Trump's supporters. Do I need to draw you a diagram? If he accepts the election results, cool. If he does not and instead whips up his more violence prone supporters, we are going to have problems. And that could happen DURING the elections, as armed skinheads "watch" the polling places--something he has called for them to do, repeatedly.

As for left-wing violence...we will leave the Fascist/Antifascist scuffles out of it, but there was one firebombing, and democrats have on the whole condemned that, and even raised money to help repair the building. Incidentally, the same night that the NC GOP office was bombed, a NC Democrat office was also vandalized in a similar fashion, likely for the same reason.

A lone or mostly lone communist wingnut.

[maraxus2]

This is especially ridiculous given most of the notable election violence perpetrated this cycle is overwhelmingly sourced from the left up to and including fire bombings. Honestly, given the behavior of the left this cycle, do you honestly think there would be no violence against a Trump win regardless of how gracious Hillary was in defeat? Shit, there probably will if she wins.

Is there evidence of that? I was under the impression that the authorities are pretty mum about the motivation right now.

I agree that the idea of widespread violence is pretty silly. Trump's supporters aren't really the people take to the streets. They're upper middle-class/middle class people for the most part, so they have things to lose. Plus, Trump's campaign isn't an encourage-violence-against-the-state kind of campaign.

Trump's pre-emptively questioning the legitimacy of the election, when there's literally no evidence to suggest that anything untoward is happening. He's not just saying that it's rigged, which would be very difficult to say the least, but he's saying it 19 days before election day. His looming defeat is perfectly obvious to everyone at this point. I don't know that making shit up like this is particularly harmful for democracy.

What's more pernicious is Trump's insistence that Black and brown people are going to rig the election, and that he'd be winning if it weren't for them. He's feeding on the same racist belief that allowed Republican legislators across the country to pass pernicious elections restrictions. This is actually harmful for democracy, and that's the part of the story that really needs more attention. Conservatives are restricting the right to vote everywhere they can. This is a real threat that runs to the core of the Republican Party, and Trump is harmful insofar as he normalizes that idea.

Incidentally, this is why I think it's silly for self-identified progressives to donate to repair the building. They already have insurance on the building. All that money they raised goes straight into evil men's pockets. The NCGOP is one of the cruelest political organizations in the US. They don't need money from liberals.

[maraxus2]

The lack of a peaceful power transition wont come from the sitting president not vacating--but from Trump's supporters. Do I need to draw you a diagram? If he accepts the election results, cool. If he does not and instead whips up his more violence prone supporters, we are going to have problems.

Or just supporter. Tim McVeigh was just one dude.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The lack of a peaceful power transition wont come from the sitting president not vacating--but from Trump's supporters. Do I need to draw you a diagram? If he accepts the election results, cool. If he does not and instead whips up his more violence prone supporters, we are going to have problems.

Or just supporter. Tim McVeigh was just one dude.

True. But after the Obama administration, said Deplorables (yes, anyone in a Neo-Nazi group, the KKK, or the right-wing militias is definitionally deplorable. Sorry Patroklos, but that is simply true on its face) have in my estimation been moving toward cook-off, and all of the sudden the much hated clintons will be back in office. If he does not rile them up, it might be one dude. If he does... things get interesting.

[Lord Revan]

I'd surpriced if any violence related to the election would be major enough to seriously threaten change of power and I also dout that Trump has enough supporters that he could stage a succesful coup even if he wanted to do that, which I dout as it would put himself in risk.