Topic: how do the antizionist wing of Trump supporters square with Trump's prozionist statements?
Sheila LaBoof started this discussion 10 years ago #56,593
There's kind of a conflict of ideology there I think. Is the squaring of that circle the Trump Miracle? Something will be known as the Trump Miracle sooner or later.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #729,500
Trump supporters are masters of cognitive dissonance. Anything Trump does can be distorted into a positive light, and any criticism of him can be simply ignored.
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #729,505
@previous (B)
> Hillary supporters are masters of cognitive dissonance. Anything she does can be distorted into a positive light, and any criticism of her can be simply ignored as Russian interference and/or vast right-wing conspiracy.
> Hillary supporters are masters of cognitive dissonance. Anything she does can be distorted into a positive light, and any criticism of her can be simply ignored as Russian interference and/or vast right-wing conspiracy.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #729,506
he is a disposable tool; hes there to shift the overton window back into sane territory and make a mess of the establishment in the process.
hes already done a fine job on both counts and any additional benefit is icing while the negative will be dealt with using the other branches of government
hes already done a fine job on both counts and any additional benefit is icing while the negative will be dealt with using the other branches of government
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #729,507
@729,505 (Metæ)
Nowhere near to the extent of Trump suppprters. They've even taken to accusing American democracy and the media as being rigged, but only when Trump is behind on the polls. They are willing to denounce democracy itself to try and preserve their cognitive dissonance.
Nowhere near to the extent of Trump suppprters. They've even taken to accusing American democracy and the media as being rigged, but only when Trump is behind on the polls. They are willing to denounce democracy itself to try and preserve their cognitive dissonance.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #729,510
@previous (B)
It's not unique to this election. I think most people would agree that the 2000 presidential election was unfair because Al Gore won more votes but lost the election. And in 2004 there were a lot of Democrats claiming the voting machines were rigged in favor of Bush (the company that made the machines, Diebold, was a Bush donor or something like that). There were allegations of voter fraud amongst Republicans in the '08 and '12 elections too. This is something we go through every four years.
The way people talk about it it's like a blasphemy has been committed against God himself. In every election ever going back to Ancient Greece the losing side claimed it was rigged or unfair.
It's not unique to this election. I think most people would agree that the 2000 presidential election was unfair because Al Gore won more votes but lost the election. And in 2004 there were a lot of Democrats claiming the voting machines were rigged in favor of Bush (the company that made the machines, Diebold, was a Bush donor or something like that). There were allegations of voter fraud amongst Republicans in the '08 and '12 elections too. This is something we go through every four years.
The way people talk about it it's like a blasphemy has been committed against God himself. In every election ever going back to Ancient Greece the losing side claimed it was rigged or unfair.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #729,511
@previous (Metæ)
This time around it's definitely the Republicans who are doubling down on the conspiracy theories.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-rigged-election/
> But nearly 70% of Republicans surveyed in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said a victory by Clinton would be the result of illegal voting or vote rigging. The poll also found that just half of Republicans said they would accept Clinton as their president.
As I have been pointing out, Trump supporters need to make heavy use of cognitive dissonance to stay motivated. Trump himself even encourages this thinking.
This time around it's definitely the Republicans who are doubling down on the conspiracy theories.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-rigged-election/
> But nearly 70% of Republicans surveyed in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said a victory by Clinton would be the result of illegal voting or vote rigging. The poll also found that just half of Republicans said they would accept Clinton as their president.
As I have been pointing out, Trump supporters need to make heavy use of cognitive dissonance to stay motivated. Trump himself even encourages this thinking.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #729,512
@729,510 (Metæ)
You're gonna have to refresh my memory on when the last tine a major party nominee for President declared before the election was held that it would be rigged, or that their political opponent would be jailed under their administration, or when 70% of voters from a party believed the election would be rigged before it happened.
You're gonna have to refresh my memory on when the last tine a major party nominee for President declared before the election was held that it would be rigged, or that their political opponent would be jailed under their administration, or when 70% of voters from a party believed the election would be rigged before it happened.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,514
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,515
You mean trumps pro Israel stance?
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,516
@729,511 (B)@729,512 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm trying to refresh Fake anon's memory and I found this and thought you might enjoy it.
Context:
Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. "Give 'em hell, Harry" was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. The polls and the pundits, however, all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught. Indeed, Truman's own staff considered the campaign a last hurrah. Even Truman's own wife Bess had private doubts that her husband could win. The only person who appears to have considered Truman's campaign to be winnable was the president himself, who confidently predicted victory to anyone and everyone who would listen to him.
...
As the campaign drew to a close, the polls showed Truman was gaining. Though Truman lost all nine of the Gallup Poll's post-convention surveys, Dewey's Gallup lead dropped from 17 points in late September to 9 points in mid-October to just 5 points by the end of the month, just above the poll's margin of error. Although Truman was gaining momentum, most political analysts were reluctant to break with the conventional wisdom and say that a Truman victory was a serious possibility. On September 9 – nearly two months before election day – pollster Elmo Roper announced that "Thomas E. Dewey is almost as good as elected...I can think of nothing duller or more intellectually barren than acting like a sports announcer who feels he must pretend he is witnessing a neck-and-neck race."[37] Roper stopped polling voters until the final week before the election, when he took another poll. It showed "a slight shift to Truman; it still gave Dewey a heavy lead, however, so he decided not to hedge his bet."[38]
In the campaign's final days, many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new "Dewey Presidency." Life magazine printed a large photo in its final edition before the election. Entitled "Our Next President Rides by Ferryboat over San Francisco Bay", the photo showed Dewey and his staff riding across the city's harbor.[39] Newsweek polled fifty experts; all fifty predicted a Dewey win.[40] Several well-known and influential newspaper columnists, such as Drew Pearson and Joseph Alsop, wrote columns to be printed the morning after the election speculating about Dewey's possible choices for his cabinet. The day before the election, Pearson wrote that Truman's election was "impossible", and his column printed the day after the election stated that Pearson had "surveyed the closely-knit group around Tom Dewey who will take over the White House 86 days from now."[41] Walter Winchell reported that gambling odds were 15 to 1 against Truman. More than 500 newspapers, accounting for over 78% of the nation's total circulation, endorsed Dewey. Truman picked up 182 endorsements, accounting for just 10% of America's newspaper readership, being surpassed by Thurmond, who got the remaining 12% from many Southern papers. Alistair Cooke, the distinguished writer for the Manchester Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, published an article on the day of the election entitled "Harry S. Truman: A Study of a Failure."[42] For its television coverage, NBC News constructed a large cardboard model of the White House containing two elephants that would pop out when NBC announced Dewey's victory; since Truman's defeat was considered certain, no donkeys were placed in the White House model.
...
As the campaign drew to a close, the polls showed Truman was gaining. Though Truman lost all nine of the Gallup Poll's post-convention surveys, Dewey's Gallup lead dropped from 17 points in late September to 9 points in mid-October to just 5 points by the end of the month, just above the poll's margin of error. Although Truman was gaining momentum, most political analysts were reluctant to break with the conventional wisdom and say that a Truman victory was a serious possibility. On September 9 – nearly two months before election day – pollster Elmo Roper announced that "Thomas E. Dewey is almost as good as elected...I can think of nothing duller or more intellectually barren than acting like a sports announcer who feels he must pretend he is witnessing a neck-and-neck race."[37] Roper stopped polling voters until the final week before the election, when he took another poll. It showed "a slight shift to Truman; it still gave Dewey a heavy lead, however, so he decided not to hedge his bet."[38]
In the campaign's final days, many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new "Dewey Presidency." Life magazine printed a large photo in its final edition before the election. Entitled "Our Next President Rides by Ferryboat over San Francisco Bay", the photo showed Dewey and his staff riding across the city's harbor.[39] Newsweek polled fifty experts; all fifty predicted a Dewey win.[40] Several well-known and influential newspaper columnists, such as Drew Pearson and Joseph Alsop, wrote columns to be printed the morning after the election speculating about Dewey's possible choices for his cabinet. The day before the election, Pearson wrote that Truman's election was "impossible", and his column printed the day after the election stated that Pearson had "surveyed the closely-knit group around Tom Dewey who will take over the White House 86 days from now."[41] Walter Winchell reported that gambling odds were 15 to 1 against Truman. More than 500 newspapers, accounting for over 78% of the nation's total circulation, endorsed Dewey. Truman picked up 182 endorsements, accounting for just 10% of America's newspaper readership, being surpassed by Thurmond, who got the remaining 12% from many Southern papers. Alistair Cooke, the distinguished writer for the Manchester Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, published an article on the day of the election entitled "Harry S. Truman: A Study of a Failure."[42] For its television coverage, NBC News constructed a large cardboard model of the White House containing two elephants that would pop out when NBC announced Dewey's victory; since Truman's defeat was considered certain, no donkeys were placed in the White House model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948#General_election
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,521
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,524
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Read the political cartoon:
> Poll - Dewey to get 37 states
> Poll - Electoral Votes: Dewey 333 Truman 82
> Poll - Dewey to carry Virginia
> Poll - All over but the shouting
> Dewey to Truman: What's the use of going through the election?
Can you draw any parallels between this cartoon, and the Presidential election of 2016? Hint:Replace "Dewey" with "Clinton" and replace "Truman" with "Trump"
Read the political cartoon:
> Poll - Dewey to get 37 states
> Poll - Electoral Votes: Dewey 333 Truman 82
> Poll - Dewey to carry Virginia
> Poll - All over but the shouting
> Dewey to Truman: What's the use of going through the election?
Can you draw any parallels between this cartoon, and the Presidential election of 2016? Hint:Replace "Dewey" with "Clinton" and replace "Truman" with "Trump"
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,525
@729,516 (Metæ)
Okay, but it's not relevant to what I'm saying. I'm talking about Trump supporters being whipped into a delusional frenzy, not some people from 68 years ago.
Okay, but it's not relevant to what I'm saying. I'm talking about Trump supporters being whipped into a delusional frenzy, not some people from 68 years ago.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,526
@previous (B)
Okay, now look at what you've done. You've just made the whole thing pointless because no matter what I turn up it's going to be "not relevant" because it's from "people 68 years ago".
Goalpost status: [x] Shifted [ ] Not shifted
Can't you just enjoy that in the course of my research I found a funny political cartoon that perfectly describes the state of the election today?
Okay, now look at what you've done. You've just made the whole thing pointless because no matter what I turn up it's going to be "not relevant" because it's from "people 68 years ago".
Goalpost status: [x] Shifted [ ] Not shifted
Can't you just enjoy that in the course of my research I found a funny political cartoon that perfectly describes the state of the election today?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,527
@previous (Metæ)
Why is it relevant? I'm calling Trump supporters delusional. My only point here is that they're conspiracy theorists. You saying "other groups have done it too" changes nothing about the Trump suppprters.
Why is it relevant? I'm calling Trump supporters delusional. My only point here is that they're conspiracy theorists. You saying "other groups have done it too" changes nothing about the Trump suppprters.
Sheila LaBoof (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,528
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,533
@729,524 (Metæ)
I mean...this isn't news to me. This is literally polling 101. I don't see what its relevance is. Every person conducting or analyzing polls knows this.
I mean...this isn't news to me. This is literally polling 101. I don't see what its relevance is. Every person conducting or analyzing polls knows this.
Moonman replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #729,637
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,731
@729,512 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> You're gonna have to refresh my memory on when the last tine a major party nominee for President declared before the election was held that it would be rigged, or that their political opponent would be jailed under their administration, or when 70% of voters from a party believed the election would be rigged before it happened.
Hillary Clinton supported rigging the Palestinian elections in 2006:
“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
I think this shows that she is not morally opposed to rigging elections.
> You're gonna have to refresh my memory on when the last tine a major party nominee for President declared before the election was held that it would be rigged, or that their political opponent would be jailed under their administration, or when 70% of voters from a party believed the election would be rigged before it happened.
Hillary Clinton supported rigging the Palestinian elections in 2006:
“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
I think this shows that she is not morally opposed to rigging elections.
Sheila LaBoof (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,734
@previous (Metæ)
that's kind of a US government chronic problem for 150 years isn't it? look at the history of every other country ever and the US was involved
that's kind of a US government chronic problem for 150 years isn't it? look at the history of every other country ever and the US was involved
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,736
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,760
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,764
Trump supporter so paranoid of voter fraud that she committed voter fraud:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/29/voter-fraud-iowa-trump-supporter
A Des Moines woman charged with committing voter fraud has said she voted twice because she was afraid her vote for Donald Trump would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Participating in early voting in Iowa, registered Republican Terri Rote allegedly cast two ballots for the Republican presidential nominee. Arrested and charged with election misconduct, she was released from jail on Friday on a $5,000 bond.
The Iowa Starting Line blog subsequently reported that Rote’s Facebook page contained racist imagery and language.
“I wasn’t planning on doing it twice. It was spur of the moment,” Rote told Iowa Public Radio.
Echoing Trump’s repeated remarks about widespread voter fraud, disputed by Republicans and Democrats and made without evidence, Rote added: “The polls are rigged.”
Participating in early voting in Iowa, registered Republican Terri Rote allegedly cast two ballots for the Republican presidential nominee. Arrested and charged with election misconduct, she was released from jail on Friday on a $5,000 bond.
The Iowa Starting Line blog subsequently reported that Rote’s Facebook page contained racist imagery and language.
“I wasn’t planning on doing it twice. It was spur of the moment,” Rote told Iowa Public Radio.
Echoing Trump’s repeated remarks about widespread voter fraud, disputed by Republicans and Democrats and made without evidence, Rote added: “The polls are rigged.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/29/voter-fraud-iowa-trump-supporter
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,766
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. If they're changing Trump votes to Clinton, wouldn't that just make two Clinton votes?
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. If they're changing Trump votes to Clinton, wouldn't that just make two Clinton votes?
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,767
@previous (Metæ)
There have been postal workers throwing away Trump ballots and bragging about it on social media
There have been postal workers throwing away Trump ballots and bragging about it on social media
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,768
@729,760 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Ok but brown people elections don't matter and you should know that by now.
Right, Palestine isn't a real country but I still find Hillary's support of rigging elections - any elections - to be troubling and undemocratic.
> Ok but brown people elections don't matter and you should know that by now.
Right, Palestine isn't a real country but I still find Hillary's support of rigging elections - any elections - to be troubling and undemocratic.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,844
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,853
System replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,855
@previous (Metæ)
not really http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/palestinian-court-suspends-local-elections-160908084522573.html
not really http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/palestinian-court-suspends-local-elections-160908084522573.html
Sheila LaBoof (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 45 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,870
FUCKING OUTRAGE
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,881
@729,855 (System)
That doesn't change the fact that Hillary Clinton is on tape, enthusiastically supporting rigged elections. These aren't our values. My mom taught me when I was little that "but all the other kids are doing it!" is not an excuse.
Would you be this nonchalant if it was a tape of Trump saying we should rig the Crimean elections?
That doesn't change the fact that Hillary Clinton is on tape, enthusiastically supporting rigged elections. These aren't our values. My mom taught me when I was little that "but all the other kids are doing it!" is not an excuse.
Would you be this nonchalant if it was a tape of Trump saying we should rig the Crimean elections?
Metæ double-posted this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,884
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,886
@729,881 (Metæ)
He is on tape several times accusing the US election of being rigged when there's no evidence of it being so. He has, as the polls show, cultivated a distrust of American democracy.
I feel that's like a reversed yet comparable level of badness to what Hillary said about Palestine. They're both trying to undermine a democratic process for their own ends.
He is on tape several times accusing the US election of being rigged when there's no evidence of it being so. He has, as the polls show, cultivated a distrust of American democracy.
I feel that's like a reversed yet comparable level of badness to what Hillary said about Palestine. They're both trying to undermine a democratic process for their own ends.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,895
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,909
@729,881 (Metæ)
It depends on what your definition of "determine" is. If you mean "influence" then yes it's election rigging. If she meant "figure out who is likely to win" then it's her pointing to the failure of the contemporary Bush administration's foreign policy with respect to Israel. With only these 15 seconds it's impossible to figure out.
It depends on what your definition of "determine" is. If you mean "influence" then yes it's election rigging. If she meant "figure out who is likely to win" then it's her pointing to the failure of the contemporary Bush administration's foreign policy with respect to Israel. With only these 15 seconds it's impossible to figure out.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,910
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Even if you're generous the statement: “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” Is still very undemocratic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I read (giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt re: meaning of "determine who was going to win"):
1. We should not have pushed for an election in Palestine.
2. If we did, we should have done research beforehand to forecast who was likely to win.
3. If it was predicted that bad people (Hamas) would win, we won't push for an election.
4. Therefore, we'll only push for elections if they are likely to be won by favored parties.
Even if you're generous the statement: “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” Is still very undemocratic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I read (giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt re: meaning of "determine who was going to win"):
1. We should not have pushed for an election in Palestine.
2. If we did, we should have done research beforehand to forecast who was likely to win.
3. If it was predicted that bad people (Hamas) would win, we won't push for an election.
4. Therefore, we'll only push for elections if they are likely to be won by favored parties.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,912
@previous (Metæ)
Yes, with the caveat being "favored parties" means "the only one of the two parties that isn't an internationally recognized terrorist organization". The preferred party lost, obviously, and that has led to a period of ten years with a civil war and zero general elections. That was probably not the preferred outcome for anyone.
Edit: And you still haven't provided a single actual answer to my question from before so I will just assume you concede my point that Trump is doing something unique in american politics.
Yes, with the caveat being "favored parties" means "the only one of the two parties that isn't an internationally recognized terrorist organization". The preferred party lost, obviously, and that has led to a period of ten years with a civil war and zero general elections. That was probably not the preferred outcome for anyone.
Edit: And you still haven't provided a single actual answer to my question from before so I will just assume you concede my point that Trump is doing something unique in american politics.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,913
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
She's still saying the Palestinians don't have the right to choose their elected representatives if they make the wrong choices. That's a rigged system. It would be like the British telling the Northern Irish they can't vote for Sinn Fein and they can only have elections if they're going to vote for Unionist parties. Or that Britain can only have a referendum on EU membership if "remain" is forecast to win.
She's still saying the Palestinians don't have the right to choose their elected representatives if they make the wrong choices. That's a rigged system. It would be like the British telling the Northern Irish they can't vote for Sinn Fein and they can only have elections if they're going to vote for Unionist parties. Or that Britain can only have a referendum on EU membership if "remain" is forecast to win.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,914
@previous (Metæ)
No she's saying the U.S. should not have pushed for an election in Palestine. I would think that you would approve of the U.S. staying out of meddling in other people's politics given your political beliefs. She's saying if we decided to do the wrong thing, we should do it in a way that is in line with U.S. interests. Meaning the Bush administration made the wrong plan (rigging for an election to occur), and executed it incorrectly (didn't even rig the election so the good guys win). I just don't find this super exciting, or a good example of an answer to my previous question.
No she's saying the U.S. should not have pushed for an election in Palestine. I would think that you would approve of the U.S. staying out of meddling in other people's politics given your political beliefs. She's saying if we decided to do the wrong thing, we should do it in a way that is in line with U.S. interests. Meaning the Bush administration made the wrong plan (rigging for an election to occur), and executed it incorrectly (didn't even rig the election so the good guys win). I just don't find this super exciting, or a good example of an answer to my previous question.
(Edited 39 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,919
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I would think that you would approve of the U.S. staying out of meddling in other people's politics given your political beliefs.
I would support that. If she said "we should stay neutral in the internal affairs of other countries, whether it be Palestine or Panama or Pakistan" I would support it 10,000%. But she's decidedly non-neutral. She's saying "we should push for an election only if the good guys win". That's not democratic or Democratic.
> I would think that you would approve of the U.S. staying out of meddling in other people's politics given your political beliefs.
I would support that. If she said "we should stay neutral in the internal affairs of other countries, whether it be Palestine or Panama or Pakistan" I would support it 10,000%. But she's decidedly non-neutral. She's saying "we should push for an election only if the good guys win". That's not democratic or Democratic.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,920
@previous (Metæ)
She literally said, “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," I don't know how you draw from that statement literally the exact opposite, that she meant "We should push for an election only if X". She's just pointing out that if you are already going to do what she is opposed to, it should at least be done in an intelligent way.
She literally said, “I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," I don't know how you draw from that statement literally the exact opposite, that she meant "We should push for an election only if X". She's just pointing out that if you are already going to do what she is opposed to, it should at least be done in an intelligent way.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,921
@729,912 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> when the last tine a major party nominee for President declared before the election was held that it would be rigged, or that their political opponent would be jailed under their administration, or when 70% of voters from a party believed the election would be rigged before it happened.
I cannot find anything satisfying these specific conditions. I agree: it's unique in American politics.
I will say though the poll was an internet poll of 1,000 people, that they probably put on World Net Daily, or Zerohedge or some shit so I wouldn't put too much stock in that.
But let's say Trump loses and doesn't accept the result of the election? Who cares?! Is there some clause in the Constitution that a Presidential inauguration can only go forward if the loser concedes? Do you think Trump is going to stage a coup? That Putin's going to install him like we installed Pinochet??
> when the last tine a major party nominee for President declared before the election was held that it would be rigged, or that their political opponent would be jailed under their administration, or when 70% of voters from a party believed the election would be rigged before it happened.
I cannot find anything satisfying these specific conditions. I agree: it's unique in American politics.
I will say though the poll was an internet poll of 1,000 people, that they probably put on World Net Daily, or Zerohedge or some shit so I wouldn't put too much stock in that.
But let's say Trump loses and doesn't accept the result of the election? Who cares?! Is there some clause in the Constitution that a Presidential inauguration can only go forward if the loser concedes? Do you think Trump is going to stage a coup? That Putin's going to install him like we installed Pinochet??
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,922
@729,920 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's implied in the statement. If the non-terrorist party won, would she have regretted it?
It's implied in the statement. If the non-terrorist party won, would she have regretted it?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,925
@729,921 (Metæ)
> I cannot find anything satisfying these specific conditions. I agree: it's unique in American politics.
Thanks.
As for the reliability of the poll, it was an online poll, which are kind of new, but not incredibly unreliable, and my guess is there are other polls with numbers in the same ballpark.
> But let's say Trump loses and doesn't accept the result of the election? Who cares?! Is there some clause in the Constitution that a Presidential inauguration can only go forward if the loser concedes? Do you think Trump is going to stage a coup? That Putin's going to install him like we installed Pinochet??
There is no constitutional obligation to concede gracefully, or at all, but it is hard to effectively govern a country when about 40 percent of its people feel the election was stolen by the new leader. Also it undercuts the most important feature of American democracy, which is the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next. The worst part of it though, is the precedent it sets. Suppose Trump refuses to concede, and then hillary clinton loses her reelection campaign to some new Trump 2.0 guy. During Trump 2.0's reelection campaign 4 years later, he loses but thanks to precedent set by trump, refuses to leave office because he believes the polls were rigged. You now have a constitutional and political crisis that has never been seen in America, and for which there is no real answer except open conflict among civilians, and the possibly the beginning of a dictatorship. Serious political crises can destroy nations and with Trump trying to play cute with the very fabric of democracy and saying he wants to keep us "in suspense" as to whether he will concede the election if he loses is so incredibly vile and narcissistic that it should be anathema to any person who cares about american democracy.
> I cannot find anything satisfying these specific conditions. I agree: it's unique in American politics.
Thanks.
As for the reliability of the poll, it was an online poll, which are kind of new, but not incredibly unreliable, and my guess is there are other polls with numbers in the same ballpark.
> But let's say Trump loses and doesn't accept the result of the election? Who cares?! Is there some clause in the Constitution that a Presidential inauguration can only go forward if the loser concedes? Do you think Trump is going to stage a coup? That Putin's going to install him like we installed Pinochet??
There is no constitutional obligation to concede gracefully, or at all, but it is hard to effectively govern a country when about 40 percent of its people feel the election was stolen by the new leader. Also it undercuts the most important feature of American democracy, which is the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next. The worst part of it though, is the precedent it sets. Suppose Trump refuses to concede, and then hillary clinton loses her reelection campaign to some new Trump 2.0 guy. During Trump 2.0's reelection campaign 4 years later, he loses but thanks to precedent set by trump, refuses to leave office because he believes the polls were rigged. You now have a constitutional and political crisis that has never been seen in America, and for which there is no real answer except open conflict among civilians, and the possibly the beginning of a dictatorship. Serious political crises can destroy nations and with Trump trying to play cute with the very fabric of democracy and saying he wants to keep us "in suspense" as to whether he will concede the election if he loses is so incredibly vile and narcissistic that it should be anathema to any person who cares about american democracy.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,928
@729,922 (Metæ)
She would have thought it was the wrong decision, but that the outcome was not as bad as it possibly could have been. It's like if your friend decided to do a backflip while on the edge of the roof of a building. You would prefer if they didn't, but if they did, you would prefer they land back on top of the building rather than fall down 80 stories. Stupid idea, but given that a stupid idea was made, there are definitely outcomes which can be better or worse than other outcomes.
She would have thought it was the wrong decision, but that the outcome was not as bad as it possibly could have been. It's like if your friend decided to do a backflip while on the edge of the roof of a building. You would prefer if they didn't, but if they did, you would prefer they land back on top of the building rather than fall down 80 stories. Stupid idea, but given that a stupid idea was made, there are definitely outcomes which can be better or worse than other outcomes.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,939
@729,925 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> but it is hard to effectively govern a country when about 40 percent of its people feel the election was stolen by the new leader.
Why not let that 40% break away in a referendum? Form a "Red USA" in the red states, and form a "Blue USA" in the blue states. Better to do it with ballots than bullets, right?
> but it is hard to effectively govern a country when about 40 percent of its people feel the election was stolen by the new leader.
Why not let that 40% break away in a referendum? Form a "Red USA" in the red states, and form a "Blue USA" in the blue states. Better to do it with ballots than bullets, right?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,943
@previous (Metæ)
In what universe is dividing the united states in half a good idea? I dont get this point at all.
In what universe is dividing the united states in half a good idea? I dont get this point at all.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,945
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> In what universe is dividing the united states in half a good idea?
The one where Civil War 2.0 is averted.
> In what universe is dividing the united states in half a good idea?
The one where Civil War 2.0 is averted.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,946
@previous (Metæ)
I mean, you could also just admit that Donald Trump decrying the election as rigged is a bad idea and shouldn't be done and achieve the same end. I don't know why this other path is preferable to you.
I mean, you could also just admit that Donald Trump decrying the election as rigged is a bad idea and shouldn't be done and achieve the same end. I don't know why this other path is preferable to you.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,947
so I guess the election is reigged then?
hillary clinton joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,968
Ignore the emails and vote for me
Sheila LaBoof (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,974
@previous (hillary clinton)
who the fuck reads tens of thousands of emails, really
most of them were probably spam
who the fuck reads tens of thousands of emails, really
most of them were probably spam
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #729,977
@729,939 (Metæ)> Would rather his country be split in two than for Trump or his supporters to admit that they're wrong about vote rigging
Meta...
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #729,999
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 48 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #730,016
tl;dr But there is only one thing Trump is, and that is pro-Trump. Everything else is just positioning.
Sheila LaBoof (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #730,037
@729,999 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
indeed, I can't expect H. Clinton would have read or wrote even half of one percent of that shit
indeed, I can't expect H. Clinton would have read or wrote even half of one percent of that shit
dw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #730,045
Not sure ??
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 14 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #730,201
@729,946 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
@729,977 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Hey Trump's not the one who called over a hundred million Americans "deplorable".
@729,977 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Hey Trump's not the one who called over a hundred million Americans "deplorable".
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #730,208
@previous (Metæ)
And at least she apologised for that remark, saying it was overgeneralising and wrong to say. Has Trump ever sincerely apologised for any of his awful statements?
Look... I just can't believe that you say you're all about democracy and liberty, but then you bend over backwards to defend a man who makes it clear that he sees America's democracy and an inconvenience when it doesn't go his way.
There isn't any evidence for Trump's claims of mass vote rigging. 70% of Republicans thinking the election is rigged is (as far as I know) unprecedented in modern U.S politics, so Trump is the one who made them distrust democracy. Is that a very democratic thing to do? Decieving his supporters into rejecting democracy?
And at least she apologised for that remark, saying it was overgeneralising and wrong to say. Has Trump ever sincerely apologised for any of his awful statements?
Look... I just can't believe that you say you're all about democracy and liberty, but then you bend over backwards to defend a man who makes it clear that he sees America's democracy and an inconvenience when it doesn't go his way.
There isn't any evidence for Trump's claims of mass vote rigging. 70% of Republicans thinking the election is rigged is (as far as I know) unprecedented in modern U.S politics, so Trump is the one who made them distrust democracy. Is that a very democratic thing to do? Decieving his supporters into rejecting democracy?
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #730,230
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
But Hillary also doesn't believe in democracy. Both of those people are evil
But Hillary also doesn't believe in democracy. Both of those people are evil