The Democrats WILL NEVER ACCEPT A TRUMP WIN, no matter what.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college, just as Al Gore did in 2000. In both cases, the losers conceded to the winners, commenting on the time-honored traditions of our democracy and putting country ahead of politics. This is how it's always been done (as far as I know). It's expected of any candidate who runs for higher office. Even in 1860, Sen. Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency: "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you."
It's worth reading both Gore's and Clinton's concession speeches to get a sense of what it means to graciously lose and "yield" to patriotism.
Unfortunately, we still remember in 2016 how Donald Trump declared the election "rigged" (when he believed he was going to lose). And there's widespread expectation he will do the same if he loses this fall. So it is rather curious to see someone claim the Democrats will never accept a Trump victory when they already have once, just four years ago. And this was when Trump lost the popular vote by more than 2 million votes.
What is especially sad is to see how much our country has changed during these last four years, how many time-honored traditions and democratic ideals have been trampled on by a president who was always woefully unfit for the job and who shows nothing but disdain to those who served in Vietnam and in other wars . . . a man who doesn't value or even understand the concept of public service. Can we even imagine Donald Trump delivering a concession speech that puts country ahead of himself—or paying homage to time-honored traditions of the past? I cannot.
But you might be right. If Trump wins this fall, it will be a very bitter pill to swallow for millions and millions of Americans who still remember a time when presidents didn't do such things and knowing, too, how things have gone these past four years. Not swimmingly, I'd say.
_________________ -Geo Question everything
The following user would like to thank geo for this post: ant, Harry Marks
The Democrats WILL NEVER ACCEPT A TRUMP WIN, no matter what.
Well, we have one experiment on that hypothesis, and the results say you are wrong.
It wasn't an "experiment" and there is more to it than a customary concession speech after having lost and after you lectured your opposition prior to the concession that they and their base better accept defeat.
Oh the irony! Oh the hypocrisy! Oh the humble pie!
Don't you just love the clowns on both sides?
You'd have to be feeble minded not to see it.
The following user would like to thank ant for this post: Harry Marks
there is more to it than a customary concession speech after having lost and after you lectured your opposition prior to the concession that they and their base better accept defeat.
If what you are saying (it often isn't clear) is that many Democrats will wear "Not my president" gear, yeah, that will happen if Trump is re-elected. It doesn't really amount to much compared to the non-acceptance by the Fox News followers of Obama and his election. I still shudder at stuff I saw and heard about, and I was out of the country. So there is an element that will refuse to give Trump an even-handed evaluation. But that's very different from what I thought I was reacting to - an implication that Democrats would refuse to let Trump be inaugurated if he wins.
Trump hasn't declined. He was just never elevated.
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post: ant
If what you are saying (it often isn't clear) is that many Democrats will wear "Not my president" gear, yeah, that will happen if Trump is re-elected. It doesn't really amount to much compared to the non-acceptance by the Fox News followers of Obama and his election. I still shudder at stuff I saw and heard about, and I was out of the country. So there is an element that will refuse to give Trump an even-handed evaluation. But that's very different from what I thought I was reacting to - an implication that Democrats would refuse to let Trump be inaugurated if he wins.
The times now are nothing like they were when Bathhouse Barry was elected. Obama said, "We need a Civilian National Security Force that's just as powerful (as our military)." Well, he now has it with Antifa and the Marxist BLM, Inc. They've torched 48 out of America's 50 largest cities, and now they're setting fire to the Pacific Northwest. And they've said that if Trump performs his constitutional duty and appoints a replacement for Ruth Ginsburg, then they'll burn EVERYTHING down. The anti-Obama malcontents were a fart compared to the hurricane of the maniac anti-Trumpers.
Twitter freezes RT Host Steve Malzberg from platform for sharing video of Joe Biden touching children by claiming it is a “Violation of Child Sexual Exploitation Policy”. (Think about this. Biden's sexual exploitation of children is permitted by Twitter, but commenting on it is not) thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/cant-make- ... on-policy/
Trump is rising in the polls, and Biden just gets weaker. He's wheezing at his speeches now. It's outright elder abuse. The other day he talked about the Harris-Biden ticket, and Kamala Harris mentioned the "Harris administration." So they've finally admitted what the scheme is, to put the unpopular Harris into office with subterfuge. Harris is, if possible, even more disliked than Hillary Clinton, so I don't see how pushing her to the front of the ticket helps.
Biden will be trounced in the election. And the Obama dupes will burn even more buildings and forests. His former atty gen Eric Holder is heading up an army of 800+ lawyers to try to steal the election. Some articles on the election and its possible aftermath:
So this election is NOTHING like the Obama elections. In those, white America elected a black man. The black man then spent eight years fomenting the most intense race hatred he could, and now he's set to push it to the next level with race war.
To be frank our current situation reminds me of Weimar Germany. The communists ran amok, and the Germans elected Hitler to restore order. Trump's no Hitler (to his credit Hitler was a vigorous war hero who did a lot of his own legwork), but with a couple of young lieutenants Trump could become the dictator that the Left has falsely claimed him to be.
There's a difference between meandering a bit too much during a speech and the total breakdown Nancy Pelosi had.
Seriously.
A Pelosi apologist claims that the person running the interview introduced her again halfway through, as if there was a broadcast error. So she responded something stupid.
Not that I believe an anonymous apologist, but a glitch makes more sense when you consider someone is talking in your ear.
And as long as KS is cherry picking rather harmless memes against Biden, Trump is recorded saying this(for contrast):
"I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.
I did try and fuck her. She was married.
And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
I think the only thing more embarrassing than the democratic party pushing Joe up front as their candidate are the people that continue to overlook incidents like this:
Under God.., like, I mean, for real
Last edited by ant on Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Oh c'mon, of all his gaffe's, I don't see that as being one. And even more embarrassing are trumpanzees overlooking incidents like Trump saying trees will explode.
The issues are on both sides. One side thinks the other is overlooking their own gaffe's, because each side only points out the gaffe's of the other. All you can say about Trump's comments is that they get you weirdly turned on. Well, perhaps he is your candidate after all.
_________________ “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Oh c'mon, of all his gaffe's, I don't see that as being one. And even more embarrassing are trumpanzees overlooking incidents like Trump saying trees will explode.
The issues are on both sides. One side thinks the other is overlooking their own gaffe's, because each side only points out the gaffe's of the other. All you can say about Trump's comments is that they get you weirdly turned on. Well, perhaps he is your candidate after all.
"what about the other guy" is not a rational argument, sorry. The fact remains.
I think the only thing more embarrassing than the democratic party pushing Joe up front as their candidate are the people that continue to overlook incidents like this:
Under God.., like, I mean, for real
Call me obtuse if you want, but I don't see anything like a gaffe (not the word you used) in this. As something to run up the flagpole, it's a dud.
Oh c'mon, of all his gaffe's, I don't see that as being one. And even more embarrassing are trumpanzees overlooking incidents like Trump saying trees will explode.
The issues are on both sides. One side thinks the other is overlooking their own gaffe's, because each side only points out the gaffe's of the other. All you can say about Trump's comments is that they get you weirdly turned on. Well, perhaps he is your candidate after all.
"what about the other guy" is not a rational argument, sorry. The fact remains.
There's an implied double standard at work when in the context of a political debate, minor stuff by one guy gets attacked, while the other guy's more blatant bloopers are ignored.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!
Tweet This Topic
