The Final Debate

[roo_ster]

[KD5NRH]

Targeting is another discussion.

"Target the reavers.  Target everybody.  Somebody fire!!"

[Perd Hapley]

"Target the reavers.  Target everybody.  Somebody fire!!"

Maybe it's just me, but that's one of my favorite parts of that movie. He all but stole that movie right out from under the TV cast.

[Ron]

Trumps buffoonery isn't really buffoonery oftentimes.

He keeps harping on the rigged nature of the election process and every time there is an irregularity it lends credence to his words.

I've seen more stories about voting irregularities this time around than any other election than I can recall.

Trump is emboldening folks to actually look, find and call it out.

[never_retreat]

I was kind of hopping trump would take one for the team. Like walking up to her to shake hands and go all hulk.
Hulk smash.

[Hawkmoon]

The boob tube was on in the shop above the shooting range this afternoon. I saw Charles Krauthammer, whose opinions I have until now generally respected, stating that Trump  is wrong to not come out and say that he WILL accept the result of the election, because "historically" that's what we have done in previous elections (with one exception), and because it's important for everyone to believe that the election process is fair and objective.

That's what he said, and I stood there wondering what he was smoking just before he went on camera. Why in the world should anyone "believe" the election is fair and above-board in the face of hard evidence all over the country that the process is NOT fair and above-board?

[Jim147]

I was wanting a wwe cage match or better yet thunder dome. Disappointed again.

[Blakenzy]

The boob tube was on in the shop above the shooting range this afternoon. I saw Charles Krauthammer, whose opinions I have until now generally respected, stating that Trump  is wrong to not come out and say that he WILL accept the result of the election, because "historically" that's what we have done in previous elections (with one exception), and because it's important for everyone to believe that the election process is fair and objective.

That's what he said, and I stood there wondering what he was smoking just before he went on camera. Why in the world should anyone "believe" the election is fair and above-board in the face of hard evidence all over the country that the process is NOT fair and above-board?

I find it very 1984ish to see all the media outrage coming out at the suggetion that the voting process may be rigged. Why should you accept a result if there is credible evidence that there was foul play. Don't question the holy of holies 

[mellestad]

Our election system is distributed. If it's (significantly) crooked, it's crooked in so many places at so many times by so many different elected officials that you've got to have your tinfoil on very tightly to buy it. I can buy that there's corruption at the local level (duh) but the idea that there's corruption widespread enough, on only one side, to influence a presidential election is not realistic.

That would have to be some kind of vast left/right wing conspiracy. Now, if someone goes for that kind of thinking that's fine but you can't really have a discussion if the basic assumption is that everyone is corrupt, including all the grannies that volunteer for the polling stations.

[De Selby]

LOok guys, I'm going to have to side with the MSM on this one.

The fact is that in the past in the close election between Bush and Gore, democrats lined up to support the process for the good of the country.  Say what you will about them, but the democrats absolutely did not rattle on for years about how Bush stole the election in attempts to delegitimise his presidency.  They accepted the results of the election.

There's no telling where we'd be today if they hadn't.  What Trump is doing is a completely new danger zone.  Ask yourselves people:  would we even have an America today if the democrats hadn't put self interest aside and accepted that Bush won against Gore?  We have got to show the same civic virtue this time around!

[TommyGunn]

LOok guys, I'm going to have to side with the MSM on this one.

The fact is that in the past in the close election between Bush and Gore, democrats lined up to support the process for the good of the country.  Say what you will about them, but the democrats absolutely did not rattle on for years about how Bush stole the election in attempts to delegitimise his presidency.  They accepted the results of the election.

There's no telling where we'd be today if they hadn't.  What Trump is doing is a completely new danger zone.  Ask yourselves people:  would we even have an America today if the democrats hadn't put self interest aside and accepted that Bush won against Gore?  We have got to show the same civic virtue this time around!

   DeSelby, the democrats on your planet must be different than the ones on my planet .....

[De Selby]

   DeSelby, the democrats on your planet must be different than the ones on my planet .....

What're you implying?  That they didn't accept the results of the 2000 election?

I can prove you wrong.  America still exists, and according to the MSM it would be destroyed if anyone running for office refused to accept the outcome.

[HankB]

Say what you will about them, but the democrats absolutely did not rattle on for years about how Bush stole the election in attempts to delegitimise his presidency.  They accepted the results of the election.

So I suppose the recurrent Democrat cries of "Selected, Not Elected" which continued until the next election meant something else entirely than a refusal to accept the election as legitimate?

[AJ Dual]

What're you implying?  That they didn't accept the results of the 2000 election?

I can prove you wrong.  America still exists, and according to the MSM it would be destroyed if anyone running for office refused to accept the outcome.

What do you mean they "accepted" it? They didn't and still bitch about 2000 to this day..

If by "not accepting" you mean some sort of revolt or coup, Clinton refusing to leave the White House and trying to command the military to help him keep control? Then yes... I guess they "accepted it".  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpYwiYvSO8M

Many of us are getting sick of constantly battling against the inherent double-standards endemic to this sort of Alinskyite bullshit.  Much of the American Left owes the fact they are still breathing because the productive class in this country have jobs, kids, and mortgages.

[De Selby]

So I suppose the recurrent Democrat cries of "Selected, Not Elected" which continued until the next election meant something else entirely than a refusal to accept the election as legitimate?

What's this you say?  Democrats didn't accept an election and the world kept turning!

How has no one noticed this today when we're all freaking out about Trump!?

[De Selby]

Wh
Many of us are getting sick of constantly battling against the inherent double-standards endemic to this sort of Alinskyite bullshit.  Much of the American Left owes the fact they are still breathing because the productive class in this country have jobs, kids, and mortgages.

That Trump doesn't get stuck in this kind of left vs right crap is to his credit

[TommyGunn]

What're you implying?  That they didn't accept the results of the 2000 election?

I can prove you wrong.  America still exists, and according to the MSM it would be destroyed if anyone running for office refused to accept the outcome.

The  democrats  accused the supreme court of being "rigged,"  Bush was "illegitimate,"  and whined ad nauseum for 8 years about the election being "stolen."    That America "still exists" proving me wrong is non sequitor and absurd on its face.  

[RoadKingLarry]

What do you mean they "accepted" it? They didn't and still bitch about 2000 to this day..

If by "not accepting" you mean some sort of revolt or coup, Clinton refusing to leave the White House and trying to command the military to help him keep control? Then yes... I guess they "accepted it".  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpYwiYvSO8M

Many of us are getting sick of constantly battling against the inherent double-standards endemic to this sort of Alinskyite bullshit.  Much of the American Left owes the fact they are still breathing because the productive class in this country have jobs, kids, and mortgages.

If republicans and gun owners were as violent and unstable as the left like to portray them we wouldn't have to listen to their crap anymore.

[roo_ster]

DS is yanking your chain, folks.  Read closely.  He has no problem with Trump not automatically giving any result his full endorsement.

Our election system is distributed. If it's (significantly) crooked, it's crooked in so many places at so many times by so many different elected officials that you've got to have your tinfoil on very tightly to buy it. I can buy that there's corruption at the local level (duh) but the idea that there's corruption widespread enough, on only one side, to influence a presidential election is not realistic.

That would have to be some kind of vast left/right wing conspiracy. Now, if someone goes for that kind of thinking that's fine but you can't really have a discussion if the basic assumption is that everyone is corrupt, including all the grannies that volunteer for the polling stations.

Your post is naive.

No tinfoil necessary given:
1. The rather regular charges and indictments of those committing election fraud.
2. The many times Dem electioneers are caught on video actively committing fraud, helping describe how to commit fraud, or bragging about election fraud.
3. Even Dems, decades after the elections, admit that several close races were brought home by them due to election fraud.

And the election fraud only need be in several of the contested states.  Or in one city to deliver an entire state (Chicago). 

[De Selby]

DS is yanking your chain, folks.  Read closely.  He has no problem with Trump not automatically giving any result his full endorsement.

Your post is naive.

No tinfoil necessary given:
1. The rather regular charges and indictments of those committing election fraud.
2. The many times Dem electioneers are caught on video actively committing fraud, helping describe how to commit fraud, or bragging about election fraud.
3. Even Dems, decades after the elections, admit that several close races were brought home by them due to election fraud.

And the election fraud only need be in several of the contested states.  Or in one city to deliver an entire state (Chicago). 

To my mind the best Trump response would've been to say:

"I will absolutely respect the vote if the American people.  It's essential to recognise that Hillary is part of a machine trying to disenfranchise voters, just like they did in Iowa when they won 6 coin tosses in a row, and when they booted tens of thousands of voters in Brooklyn because they supported Bernie sanders.  If you have any doubt as to the Clintons willingness to separate election returns from votes, just ask a Sanders campaigner about the primary.

If the people elect Hillary, you bet I'll respect them.  If Hillary tries to disenfranchise the people, you bet I'll do everything in my power to make their votes count."

[Hawkmoon]

The fact is that in the past in the close election between Bush and Gore, democrats lined up to support the process for the good of the country.

Then how did it get to the Supreme Court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States Supreme Court decision that resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election.

...

under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium.

The Democrats didn't "accept" the result until the SCOTUS put a stop to their recount attempt and they had no choice other than to accept the result. Even then, as has been noted, they spent years kvetching about it.

[Perd Hapley]

The night of the debate, I was taking a class for election workers. While we waited for the class to start, a black woman was talking to a white man* about the idea of a rigged election. When the guy broached the topic, the lady dismissed the idea as fanciful. "How could it be rigged?" A few seconds later, she was admitting her skepticism about the 2000 election result in Florida.   



* I mention race, as the lady's skin color indicates she almost certainly votes for the Jim Crow party.

[mellestad]

Polling results in from debates--this data includes polls from the last few elections for comparison. Interesting!

Data from Gallup/CNN, article from 538.