Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

IanforHeisman

IF Trump loses the election

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

 

This is about whether Trump (the Presidential Candidate) will concede the election if he loses.  (Original Poster on here suggesting he won't and will try to start a coup and keep himself in office as a dictator)

Contrary to your incorrect assertion, John McCain, the 2008 GOP Presidential candidate did concede the 2008 election after he lost.

Also, the political party doesn't deliver a concession speech---the candidate does.  (A group identity isn't a single thing, and does not deliver speeches)

You're being pedantic and you know it. I was referring to the insinuation that the Democrats do not accept the results of the 2016 election. If we want to accept that assertion as fact, than the Republicans didn't accept (or concede) the results of the 2008 election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
14 hours ago, Spaztecs said:

Please show me in all of his comments about the subject where he has said he will step down.

In the prior election he said he would not honor the election results if he lost. He has threatened that his base would start a civil war if he lost the next election. He has also said he would refuse to leave after two terms.

He loves and admires all the other dictators who pushed aside their democracies and made themselves president for Life.

What makes you believe he would accept losing or term limitations ?

I guess there are people out there that actually believe that Trump "will start a civil war" and try to remain in office as an un-elected dictator if he loses.

(see above post).   Wow.  This comes across as pure TDS. 

 

Start thinking of Trump voters in terms of actual people you know (not the fanatical ones you are imagining), and you quickly realize how improbable this anti-Trump fantasy is. 

 No one in Idaho or Wyoming (heavy Trump voting states) would agree to keep Trump in as a dictator, or fight an American civil war, just because a Republican lost the election.   And there is no basis to think that Trump would try to be a dictator, or that the military or anyone would support the coup you are describing.   This is a preposterous fantasy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
13 minutes ago, retrofade said:

You're being pedantic and you know it. I was referring to the insinuation that the Democrats do not accept the results of the 2016 election. If we want to accept that assertion as fact, than the Republicans didn't accept (or concede) the results of the 2008 election. 

I had to look up the word pedantic (I'm a simpleton:  use the smaller, simpler words, please).

 

PEDANTIC

"marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"

 

Nope.  

 

I am responding to the original Post.  Whether Donald Trump (SINGULAR) would concede the election.  You are trying to do a "whataboutism" making this into whether the entire GOP (GROUP of half the country's voters) conceded the 2008 election.  

Sorry, but a "group" does not concede elections (of course they don't because there is no single spokesperson for such a large group, and opinions vary in a group).

The one person (SINGULAR) that concedes an election is the Presidential Candidate.  And sorry, but John McCain absolutely conceded the 2008 election.   So, your assertion that the GOP (it's candidate) did not concede the 2008 election is a poor analysis and wrong.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

I had to look up the word pedantic (I'm a simpleton:  use the smaller, simpler words, please).

 

PEDANTIC

"marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"

 

Nope.  

 

I am responding to the original Post.  Whether Donald Trump (SINGULAR) would concede the election.  You are trying to do a "whataboutism" making this into whether the entire GOP (GROUP of half the country's voters) conceded the 2008 election.  

Sorry, but a "group" does not concede elections (of course they don't because there is no single spokesperson for such a large group, and opinions vary in a group).

The one person (SINGULAR) that concedes an election is the Presidential Candidate.  And sorry, but John McCain absolutely conceded the 2008 election.   So, your assertion that the GOP (it's candidate) did not concede the 2008 election is a poor analysis and wrong.  

 

No, you responded directly to me

Thanks for the reminder as to why I don't bother with your nonsense as a rule any longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, retrofade said:

No, you responded directly to me

Thanks for the reminder as to why I don't bother with your nonsense as a rule any longer. 

 

^^^ Whenever his opinions are legitimately challenged, gets upset, and calls the other person out for perceived bad behavior (rather than respond to their argument).

 

To walk you through it once again...

I said I am responding in the context of the original post (SINGULAR, as in Donald Trump conceding the election) vs you then trying to steer it to a GROUP whataboutism (whether the entire GOP conceded the 2008 election).   As if the two ideas are the same (they are not).

Sorry, but this is not an echo chamber, and different opinions are allowed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

The fact you feel compelled to chime in given your record of doomsday predictions that never materialize tells me it IS ridiculous....  RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!, war with NK, war with Russia, war with Iran, net neutrality, Kurdish genocide, Kavanaugh, etc.  Your record is so awful with Mr Grumpy I can’t even take anything you say serious anymore. 

Once again I'll call you out on your bullshit. Find even one post I made where I claimed Trump colluded with the Russians. I'm not sure you possess the gray matter necessary to comprehend it but there's a big difference between saying the Russians influenced the election and that Trump helped them do it. And war with Russia? WTF? War with Iran? WTF? Net neutrality? Hell, I'm pretty sure I've never even said a single thing about that. Although I'll admit I said much about North Korea, it was in the way of predicting exactly what has happened, i.e., that Trump's claim of some great lasting agreement between the two countries would prove to be untrue. Just like thousands of other statements your idol has made since taking office.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I mean, if we want to go there, I waited for the GOP to concede the 2008 election for eight years and it never happened. :shrug: When the GOP had their huge win in 2010, practically the very first thing that Cocaine Mitch said was that it was his mission to make Obama a one term President. So let's not act like this is only endemic to Democrats.  

Is it not always the goal of the party not in the White House to make that president a one-term president?  What a stupid comment.

I forget how many times the Republicans tried to over turn the will of the electorate and impeach Obama.  I will give you half a point for the Garland nomination, but that was power politics and you would have been ok with it had it been the reverse situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Did McCain concede or not?  Go on record.

Of course he did, just as Hillary did in 2016.

This is a really stupid argument. As someone already mentioned, candidates concede elections not political parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

Is it not always the goal of the party not in the White House to make that president a one-term president?  What a stupid comment.

I forget how many times the Republicans tried to over turn the will of the electorate and impeach Obama.  I will give you half a point for the Garland nomination, but that was power politics and you would have been ok with it had it been the reverse situation.

  1. My entire point is exactly what you're stating. It's hypocritical to reeeeeeeee about the Democrats "not conceding" the 2016 election when they didn't "concede" the 2008 Election. 
  2. Did the Republicans try to overturn the will of the electorate and impeach Clinton? Or did they take action in the fact of a President who lied under oath? What a stupid statement. Impeachment was designed for situations like Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. 
  3. I wouldn't have been okay with a reverse Garland situation. The President has the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, as enshrined within the Constitution. What Cocaine Mitch did was to tell Obama to go +++++ himself instead of proceeding as the Constitution lays forth.
     
    Quote

    ... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    Instead of proceeding through confirmation hearings, McConnell told Obama that he wouldn't consider any of his potential nominees, even if he were to withdraw Garland. Further, Garland is and was a fairly moderate Justice, at least through the second half of his time on SCOTUS. 

Now, back to Point #1, I wish that our politics weren't so blindly partisan that both sides are seemingly incapable or unwilling to work together for the betterment of the country. It's all about "winning" and "owning" the other side. That's a big part of why I've long wanted a legitimate third party in the Country, to force the idiots in the extremes to come together instead of working to fight against each other in a never ending power struggle in search of domination of American politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Did McCain concede or not?  Go on record.

Of course he did...

gordon ramsey idiot GIF

I was responding to the inane accusation that the Democrats as a whole never "conceded" the 2016 election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

tenor.gif

 

6 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

tenor.gif

Okay shit for brains, please point out where I said that as a definitive statement? I'll even quote my post for you if it helps you out. 

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

I mean, if we want to go there, I waited for the GOP to concede the 2008 election for eight years and it never happened. :shrug: When the GOP had their huge win in 2010, practically the very first thing that Cocaine Mitch said was that it was his mission to make Obama a one term President. So let's not act like this is only endemic to Democrats.  

There's a key statement that you apparently missed... I've bolded it for you to better comprehend the context. Hell, I'll even break it down for you. "If we want to go there" isn't stating that I agree with the premise, but rather that if you want to make that claim, then an equal and opposite claim about the Republicans can be made. 

I'm sure you'll claim that you're right and I'm wrong and blah blah... but I'm calling you out on consistently playing dumb, just like Stunner. You zero in on one tiny detail and ignore the rest of the statement as a whole, thus removing context and allowing you to gaslight freely.

In any event, back to not responding to you... because honestly, it's not worth it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

 

Okay shit for brains, please point out where I said that as a definitive statement? I'll even quote my post for you if it helps you out. 

There's a key statement that you apparently missed... I've bolded it for you to better comprehend the context. Hell, I'll even break it down for you. "If we want to go there" isn't stating that I agree with the premise, but rather that if you want to make that claim, then an equal and opposite claim about the Republicans can be made. 

I'm sure you'll claim that you're right and I'm wrong and blah blah... but I'm calling you out on consistently playing dumb, just like Stunner. You zero in on one tiny detail and ignore the rest of the statement as a whole, thus removing context and allowing you to gaslight freely.

In any event, back to not responding to you... because honestly, it's not worth it. 

So if Trump loses later this year will he concede or not?

If/When he wins, will Trump willingly step down at the end of his 2nd term?

I say yes to both.  What do you say?

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

So if Trump loses later this year will he concede or not?

If/When he wins, will Trump willingly step down at the end of his 2nd term?

I say yes to both.  What do you say?

Okay, last response simply to go on record.

Yes, I do think that he will. Hell, I actually went on record months ago saying the same thing and how I thought the claims that he wouldn't were just as asinine as the GOP fears that Obama wouldn't step down, and the Democratic fears that GWB wouldn't step down. I do think that he'll throw a massive tantrum and claim voter fraud if he loses this year, but that's what I thought he'd do – and what most people thought – if he had lost in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
Just now, retrofade said:

 

Okay shit for brains, please point out where I said that as a definitive statement? I'll even quote my post for you if it helps you out. 

There's a key statement that you apparently missed... I've bolded it for you to better comprehend the context. Hell, I'll even break it down for you. "If we want to go there" isn't stating that I agree with the premise, but rather that if you want to make that claim, then an equal and opposite claim about the Republicans can be made. 

I'm sure you'll claim that you're right and I'm wrong and blah blah... but I'm calling you out on consistently playing dumb, just like Stunner. You zero in on one tiny detail and ignore the rest of the statement as a whole, thus removing context. 

 

Again, I responded in the context of this thread:  Whether a SINGLE Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, would concede the election, or try to become a dictator and start an American Civil War.  (I disagree with the idea).

You tried to steer this in a "whataboutism" direction, and argued that the 2008 GOP did not concede the 2008 election.   Wrong.  (See John McCain concession speech).

 

And you calling others out on "playing dumb" is apparently, nothing more than your inability to make a rebuttal argument, when someone has correctly challenged your factually incorrect statements about the 2008 Election.

Throw a tantrum, and accuse others of bad behavior, all you like.   But ultimately, this is not an echo chamber, and if your ideas can't stand on their own, then maybe ask someone for help.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

 

Again, I responded in the context of this thread:  Whether a SINGLE Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, would concede the election, or try to become a dictator and start an American Civil War.  (I disagree with the idea).

You tried to steer this in a "whataboutism" direction, and argued that the 2008 GOP did not concede the 2008 election.   Wrong.  (See John McCain concession speech).

 

And you calling others out on "playing dumb" is apparently, nothing more than your inability to make a rebuttal argument, when someone has correctly challenged your factually incorrect statements about the 2008 Election.

Throw a tantrum, and accuse others of bad behavior, all you like.   But ultimately, this is not an echo chamber, and if your ideas can't stand on their own, then maybe ask someone for help.

 

I was responding to previous whataboutism, you donkey. You then responded to me and tried to make it about the original thesis of the thread instead of the context in which I said what I did. It's not my fault that you're either too deliberately obtuse – read, a troll – to act in good faith, or simply can't understand the purpose of context within a discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...