What’s on the Democratic side? “Wicked Annabella”? 
Wicked, nasty - same thing.
So the debate where he failed to uphold the principles of a lawful, ordered society was his best out of all three?
The stupid thing is, I actually agree with you. He at least had a good section where he was merely a bad politician, as opposed to an actively incompetent terrible human being wearing a suit and shouting word salad gibberish on a debate stage.
By the way, hands up those who listened to “Nasty Boys” by Janet Jackson today!
hand up
They should’ve, unless it was a baseless CT like Trump’s.
In the post debate coverage I’ve seen talking heads and internet commentators say that rigging accusations are a threat to democracy. A real threat to democracy is the idea that powerful criminals shouldn’t be confronted. Same attitude about not prosecuting the Bush administration or Wall Street. Wouldn’t want to rock the boat.
This exchange from the debate sounds like it escaped from Owen Ellickson’s Twitter feed:
You have a very poor understanding - in fact no understanding of the EU problem.
The ‘open borders’ of the problem of Brexit are not immigrants from outside of the EU, they are the INTERNAL to the member states of the EU who meet certain
This is the internal European flows of members of the European Union - you obviously confuse that with the refugees and think Europe was having the open borders to the non EU, it is not the case, in fact it is quite hard to get the EU visas of any kind.
The flows of the refugees across the Mediterranean have no thing to do with internal EU borders - they would and will exist no matter what. It is difficult to stop the desperate people from trying to take small boats across the sea and landing on the coast lines on beaches far from major centers of population.
Why would someone accept the outcome of something that hasn’t occurred yet? That person would be a chump.
Because that is the foundation of democracy?
You’re right. For instance, the Nats shouldn’t have agreed in advance that they would accept the outcome of the 5th game of the Nats-Dodgers division series. Look where it got them! Just because the final score was 4-3, Dodgers, should that settle it? The game might’ve been rigged!
Chumps, those Nats.
You got that right!
This statement misstates the question. Trump is not being asked, today, October 19th, to accept that Hillary is the winner.
Trump is being asked if he will accept the results, if November 8th comes and he loses.
American democracy is predicated on the idea that Americans will accept and peacefully support the results of our electoral process. By refusing to play by this rule, the Republican presidential nominee is threatening 240 years of continuing democracy.
Note that “our electoral process” includes mechanisms for deciding close or problematic elections. That’s already part of the process so Trump doesn’t need to hedge his bets. When it’s all over, America depends on the winner to peacefully concede defeat.
Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the electoral process is unamerican.
I also liked where he threw Melania under the bus - she said on her CNN interview that Donald had apologized to her, and she accepted it. Donald said last night that he hadn’t apologized to anyone, not even his wife.
Maybe that’s why he didn’t get a post-debate kiss this time.
I despise Trump and don’t want to ever say anything that might be construed as a defense of him, but this particular issue doesn’t seem legit to me. My reading of it is that he apologized to Melania for the crude remarks he made with Billy Bush. He did NOT apologize for sexually assaulting any of the women who have accused him, because (sez The Donald) he never touched them, so no apology is needed. And Melania says she believes him, so she would not be looking for an apology.
Or are there remarks on record by Donald/Melania that belie this interpretation?
No. A fair election has not taken place yet.
We don’t know if the election is legitimate until it happens.
No it isn’t. It’s ok if some Americans do not accept or support the results.
Has Trump threatened violence? It’s possible I’m missing something. Has he resorted to violence in the past or has he handled conflicts using the court system?
If one person can threaten the democracy, it is not strong. In the past elections have been crooked. Is American acceptance of crooked elections healthier for democracy than a challenge of crooked elections?
I agree it depends on Americans acting peacefully, but not that the nominee concede defeat.
No it isn’t. There have been a range of reactions to elections through history. Many elections have been marked by serious fraud. Election results are not scribed on stone atop Mt. Sinai and brought forth by Wolf Blitzer. To unblinkingly rest faith on whatever results reported is not characteristic of a healthy and skeptical society let alone a healthy democracy.
I agree that Trump’s stance is not in alignment with America’s current civic religion, but such robotic obedience to authority was not a characteristic of the US until later in its history.
Cite?
No. A fair election has not taken place yet.
We don’t know if the election is legitimate until it happens.
No it isn’t. It’s ok if some Americans do not accept or support the results.
Has Trump threatened violence? It’s possible I’m missing something. Has he resorted to violence in the past or has he handled conflicts using the court system?
If one person can threaten the democracy, it is not strong. In the past elections have been crooked. Is American acceptance of crooked elections healthier for democracy than a challenge of crooked elections?
I agree it depends on Americans acting peacefully, but not that the nominee concede defeat.
No it isn’t. There have been a range of reactions to elections through history. Many elections have been marked by serious fraud. Election results are not scribed on stone atop Mt. Sinai and brought forth by Wolf Blitzer. To unblinkingly rest faith on whatever results reported is not characteristic of a healthy and skeptical society let alone a healthy democracy.
I agree that Trump’s stance is not in alignment with America’s current civic religion, but such robotic obedience to authority was not a characteristic of the US until later in its history.
His claim is that he will decide whether it’s fair, instead of leaving it up to the mechanisms in place to make that call. Those mechanisms are already in place.
Our system no more allows candidates to make that call than the NFL allows players to decide whether the tackle was fair. The reasoning in both cases is the same.
Yeah, that’s fine. It’s not fine for a candidate to encourage people not to accept the outcome.
This is an obvious non sequitur. If one person, who’s leading tens of millions of others, can threaten a democracy, it can still be a strong democracy.
Why not? Trump believes the election is illegitimate, and it hasn’t happened yet.
Trump has been saying it’s rigged. How does he know that before it happens?
We don’t know yet if the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow, but I know where the smart money is.
I’ll bet you a thousand dollars the election will be legitimate. If you’re interested in taking my little wager, we’ll determine the definitions and details and find someone willing to judge the result and hold on to the money.
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
No it isn’t. There have been a range of reactions to elections through history. Many elections have been marked by serious fraud. Election results are not scribed on stone atop Mt. Sinai and brought forth by Wolf Blitzer. To unblinkingly rest faith on whatever results reported is not characteristic of a healthy and skeptical society let alone a healthy democracy.
[/QUOTE]
If you believe Trump’s pre-refusal, based on not a shred of evidence, to accept the election results and call them “rigged” is based on being part of a “healthy and skeptical society,” then I would suggest the following:
-
The word “skeptical” is not one generally applied to people whose refusal to accept the plain facts is not based on any evidence of any sort.
-
If you believe Trump is refusing to accept defeat because of skepticism or a sense of civic duty to a healthy democracy, you are plainly not familiar with Donald Trump.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Are liberals unpatriotic when they accuse conservatives of rigging the vote with voter suppression, purging rolls, voter I.D. laws, closing polling and registration stations, or when they say Diebold rigged their machines for Bush in 2004?
[/QUOTE]
Arguing over the mechanics of how elections should be run is perfectly valid. Liberals fighting voter ID laws is as valid a viewpoint as Republicans who keep on trying to strengthen them. We all know why the two sides take the sides they do, and that’s fine, everyone jockeys for a position that might help them.
But after the 2004 election, what happened was that pretty much everyone accepted the result as valid, because it was. Especially a guy named JOHN KERRY, who conceded like a gentleman. You had a few nuts who came up with conspiracy theories about the results, but they were generally ignored. You also have a few nuts who say the Moon landings didn’t happen, there’s always someone who’s crazy.