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

[Mr Spinkles]

That Is a whole lotta words in
response to a simple speculation.

I’ll try to include more pictures next time.

I speculate that Trump said what he said because he will not commit to a peaceful transition. (Better?)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Trump's opponents cried foul when he won the first time. They acted like his winning the Electoral College, but not the popular vote was somehow cheating.

Who said that? I didn’t.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wasn't it the Democrats who were recently sowing doubt on the upcoming election by accusing the head of the Post Office of intentionally limiting their ability to process the mail?

Scott, you’ve got this backwards. Trump’s USPS appointee tried to make changes right before the election that would (further) impede their ability to deliver votes in a timely fashion. Trump admitted he opposed funding because it would impede mail in voting.

The Dems raised an uproar. Trump’s appointee backed down. A federal judge ruled it was a politically motivated attack. Problem solved (that particular one, anyway). Thanks, Democrats. They are far from perfect, but happened to be right this time.

To say the Dems were trying to sow doubt is like saying Paul Revere was trying to sow doubt when he said “The British are coming!”

When Trump babbles about this being the most rigged election ever - before a vote has even been cast - he’s making claims that make little sense, without evidence, and without a plan to fix the supposed problems. He WANTS there to be doubt. That’s the difference.

If you can’t see the difference, I’ve got a degree from Trump University I’ll sell ya.

Sources - I suggest you read them:

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

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26836Y

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I blame the left for the rise of Trump. When a Republican Presidential candidate runs, who is a good person, who has class, integrity, intelligence, and the heart of a President, the left media does all it can to chew him/her up and spit them out. Some argue if you can't survive that, you don't have what it takes to be President. Well, guess what happened, we got someone who can tell the media where to stuff it and get away with it, someone who seems to enjoy the controversy. Nice guys finish last. Sad, but true.

Feels like you are blaming the victim.

The Left elected our first black (half white) President for two terms, who was a political moderate and killed Bin Laden.

This enraged the Right, who responded with birtherism and finally by electing its greatest champion, Donald Trump. I still remember vividly the woman who stood at a McCain rally and said she can’t trust Obama “he’s an Arab”. McCain rejected her racism. So the right disowned McCain and embraced Trump. Trump, who said American Muslims were celebrating 9/11, who said we should kill family members of suspected terrorists, who said we need more torture, who said we should ban Muslims, who said there were Muslim prayer rugs in the migrant caravan ... that guy.

And you’re saying ... this is somehow the fault of the **left**? Really?

I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility. Sounds like you’ve embraced a helpless victim mentality, which I thought was supposedly a liberal thing. Guess not.

In 2016, Senator Graham said if we (Republicans) elect Donald Trump, we will have lost the moral authority to govern this great nation. I agree with the 2016 version of Senator Graham. The Right couldn’t handle a moderate black president for two terms so they elected a fascist orange baby. They are adults though. They made their choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

I speculate that Trump said what he said because he will not commit to a peaceful transition. (Better?)

Strange.
Id est, the reason he said what he said is what he said?
That's not a motive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Strange.
Id est, the reason he said what he said is what he said?
That's not a motive.

Yes it is. He said it because he means it. The usual reason people say stuff when it’s not outrageous and we’re not in denial.

 

[Shaul]

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

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

 

[Friend of Mara]

It’s the Democrats that are the ones that are demonstrating they would not accept the peaceful transfer of power. They are preparing many ways to steal the election. Extending deadlines for ballot turn in, requiring no postmarks, no required verification of ballot signatures, or no signatures at all! They have literally a thousand lawyers standing by waiting to file cases after November 3. Cases before left wing Biden sympathetic judges. All designed to stall, delay, and undermine the confidence in the election results. Delays to “manufacture” ballots. Because they are scared they won’t win with genuine voters. For example in Pennsylvania a bank of Democrat judges ruled ballots don’t have to be in on time and can be postmarked after Election Day. Similar measures are happening in most of the battleground states.

The Democrats are scared and trying to steal the election.

How are they doing that when trump controls the USPS? And what are your opinions on trump actively trying to hurt the USPS with seemingly no other motive than to sway the election?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

President Trump will abide by the results of a lawful fair election result.

I think you’re putting words in his mouth. Please share a quote of Trump saying this. Maybe I’m wrong.

His comment is being deliberately misinterpreted. What he “can’t say right now” is that he could possibly lose. As a candidate he can not at this time accept that premise or hypothetical possibility.

So why didn’t he say that? Read his answer. It sounds like he was accepting the premise he could lose but that he would question the legitimacy of the vote if he lost, and there would be no guarantees of anything being “peaceful”. Look at his words, not yours.

But let’s say for the sake of argument he’s being misinterpreted. Why doesn’t he follow up, to clarify what he means? He’s an adult. He clearly knows how to use Twitter when he feels something is important.

Answer: Because he doesn’t care. Because to him it’s not important. If Trump said what you are saying, that might help calm down the country. But it’s unlikely to help him win or challenge a loss. And that’s all that matters to this guy. He’s keeping his options open and he doesn’t care if that possibly leads to violence, just as he doesn’t care if his packed rallies leads to more COVID deaths.

His philosophy is Trump First. America second.

If you can’t see this you’re blind.

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

Which of Trump’s adversaries doesn’t accept the result of the 2016 election? Please name them / provide a source. I’m calling BS. I believe all the major leaders of the Democratic Party, and his opponents in the GOP like Mitt Romney and John Kasich, McCain, etc all accept that he is the President of the United States, as sad as that fact is.

This is separate from the possibility that Russia wanted him to win, committed crimes against the US to help him win, and possibly colluded with his campaign to help him win (which the Mueller report says there wasn’t evidence for - phew).

Just to set the record straight: Donald Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence the 2016 election was rigged. He did that without identifying actionable problems or proposing realistic solutions .... because he doesn’t actually care about the integrity of elections .... he’s a charlatan, who spreads doubt the way a cuttlefish spews ink, and exploits his marks in their stage of confusion.

You may remember Trump was so insistent the 2016 election was fraudulent - that’s why he lost the popular vote, he said - that he created a special commission to investigate. What do you think they found?

Sources:
Trump commission found no widespread voter fraud, report says

Trump's Latest Voter Fraud Misinformation - FactCheck.org

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2482SA

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes it is. He said it because he means it. The usual reason people say stuff when it’s not outrageous and we’re not in denial.

What he said seems intended to not say what he had in mind.
A motive unspoken about what he didn't say isn't much of a motive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What he said seems intended to not say what he had in mind.
A motive unspoken about what he didn't say isn't much of a motive.

You lost me, sorry. What are you saying?

I would just invoke what I call Occam's Kid Scissors with Trump. Below are his words. Why invoke possible additional meaning, when his words are sufficient? If he meant something different, he's an adult. He clearly knows how to use Twitter when there's a message he wants to convey.

“Well, we're going to have to see what happens. You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster. We'll want to have — get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very — we'll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Former Pence aid says we should take Trump's clowning seriously:

White House staffers discussed scenarios where President Donald Trump doesn't accept the results of the November presidential election and refuses to leave, according to a former staffer who has since spoken out against the president.

Olivia Troye, who worked on the coronavirus task force and served as an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence on counterterrorism and homeland security, said Friday she and other staffers held closed-door conversations about the scenario while she was working on the coronavirus task force.

Troye left the administration in August, long before Trump declined this week to commit to a peaceful transition of power should he lose the election. The president has also repeatedly joked about serving beyond his term limit and accused Democrats of trying to steal the election.

Troye warned the president's comments should be taken seriously, even if he passes them off as jokes.

"The president when he's joking, if he says that he's joking, he's telling you a half truth," Troye told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Friday. "And in there is something fairly frightening and scary."

"What you see is what you get," she added. "You should trust that. He doesn't hide it."

Source: Former Pence aide: Staffers discussed scenarios where Trump won't leave White House

 

[Shaul]

How are they doing that when trump controls the USPS? And what are your opinions on trump actively trying to hurt the USPS with seemingly no other motive than to sway the election?

LOL

The latest false narrative. Bogus.

 

[Revoltingest]

You lost me, sorry. What are you saying?

I would just invoke what I call Occam's Kid Scissors with Trump. Below are his words. Why invoke possible additional meaning, when his words are sufficient? If he meant something different, he's an adult. He clearly knows how to use Twitter when there's a message he wants to convey.

“Well, we're going to have to see what happens. You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster. We'll want to have — get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very — we'll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."

Twas the masterful expression of no clear intention at all.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Twas the masterful expression of no clear intention at all.

Or, he meant what he said. Peaceful transition? “We’ll see what happens” he said. I believe he thinks that. He’s not that masterful his audience is just full of suckers.

 

[Friend of Mara]

LOL

The latest false narrative. Bogus.

Evidence to the contrary?

 

[Revoltingest]

Or, he meant what he said.

But what did he actually say?

 

[Friend of Mara]

But what did he actually say?

Just to weigh in on the argument when a person is the leader of a whole nation (especially one as powerful as the US) whose base is already affiliated with known fascist you can see how it's a bit sus for him to drop such obvious fascist rhetoric. It's not just yanking chain when he has the history, affiliations and position he has.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just to weigh in on the argument when a person is the leader of a whole nation (especially one as powerful as the US) whose base is already affiliated with known fascist you can see how it's a bit sus for him to drop such obvious fascist rhetoric. It's not just yanking chain when he has the history, affiliations and position he has.

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

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

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But what did he actually say?

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