Accepting the results of the election...

[theDoctorisIn]

Nonsense. Context and circumstances are always relevant. Clinton's comments are not equivalent to a current Presidential candidate claiming that he won't accept losing .

Really? That's very hard to believe. Two people essentially make the same comments questioning the legitimacy of an American election, but one of them is more egregious than the other?

Suddenly circumstances and context come into play. But the comments remain the same. Past, present, nominee, senator, all of that is irrelevant. The content of the commentary doesn't suddenly change just because of who you are or where you are in the space-time continuum.

Circumstances and context are always in play. The meaning of a phrase is more dependent on it's context and circumstances than it's "content".

This isn't about "gotcha" moments, or a tit-for-tat competition. There's a world of difference between questioning the results of an election after it occurred and attempting to de-legitimize it in advance of an almost assured loss.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

 

[TemplarKormac]

A presidential candidate questioning the results AFTER the election is not the same thing as a presidential candidate questioning the PROCESS before the election

That's not true. In both circumstances they criticized the integrity of the electoral process. It doesn't matter when you did it, you still did it. That makes you fair game.

 

[Coyote]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

So am I because what you said isn't what I said.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

Donald Trump is not a "private citizen", he's the Republican Party's candidate for President.

 

[leftwinger]

In the meantime, where is all of this alleged voter fraud?

few examples in this video. Bragging about doing it and how they don't get caught.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

So am I because what you said isn't what I said.

Pardon?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

Donald Trump is not a "private citizen", he's the Republican Party's candidate for President.

Well, perhaps you should make Coyote aware of that. That designation was hers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A presidential candidate questioning the results AFTER the election is not the same thing as a presidential candidate questioning the PROCESS before the election

That's not true. In both circumstances they criticized the integrity of the electoral process. It doesn't matter when you did it, you still did it. That makes you fair game.

Of course it matters, from a rational perspective.

It's only "fair game" if you're looking for a cheap "gotcha".

 

[Coyote]

In the meantime, where is all of this alleged voter fraud?

few examples in this video. Bragging about doing it and how they don't get caught.

You have an edited video talking that is unsubstantiated.

AGAIN - where is this voter fraud? Voter fraud is taken seriously. Where is the investigation? Charges? Indictments?

Please don't say it's not investigated because of some grand conspiracy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

Donald Trump is not a "private citizen", he's the Republican Party's candidate for President.

Well, perhaps you should make Coyote aware of that. That designation was hers.

I'm pretty sure that if you re-read Coyote's post, you'll see that she wasn't referring to Donald Trump as a "private citizen".

 

[The Professor]

If Trump wins, few on the Left will accept it. In fact, some think the Left will take extreme measures to invalidate a Trump win.

You must remember this age old truism. Whatever the Left accuses their opponents of, they are guilty of.

If Trump wins, always possible - I would accept it. I would be utterly disgusted at the electorate, I would truly fear for our country's future and pray that Congress can keep him in check (since Trump doesn't seem to realize that the POTUS is not synominous with CEO) and I would count down the years, months and days to the next election.

I would NOT say it was rigged. I would NOT encourage violence. What's more - I haven't seen Clinton encouraging violence if she doesn't win.

You should fear a Cankles win far more than a Trump win, but this would require you to think.

We obviousy differ on that. However the issue is not WHO wins - it's accepting the results of an election - not undermining the very process itself and calling for violence.

You don't get it and most likely never will.

But I'll try to break it down so even you can understand what's going on.

If a party wins by engaging in massive voter fraud, that party is guilty of “undermining the very process itself.” No rational person would expect the losing party in that case to accept the results. Would you? Do you believe that a party which gains office by voter fraud should be allowed to reap the benefits of their illegal activity without challenge? Do you believe that the will of the people should be thwarted by those who cancel their votes by either destroying them or by flooding the system with illegal votes?

If a party loses by voter fraud, they should contest the election, in fact I think they have a moral obligation to do it. The entire process depends on the integrity of the system and cheating makes the process nothing more than a charade. If voter fraud is involved, Trump should challenge the results for two reasons: (1) giving the election to cheaters corrupts the process and deprives Americans of one of their greatest rights; and (2) anyone who engages in unethical conduct to win an election will also be corrupt in governing once he/she gets in office.

When Trump was asked if would accept the results of the election, the perfect answer would have been: “We must wait and see how the election unfolds. If I believe the election was fair, of course I will accept the results; however, if I believe it was rigged I will fight it with everything I've got. Wouldn't you?” What he did say was close enough.

Those who expected Trump to say “yes” without further comment have either never heard of voter fraud or don't care about it. Trump cares. I care. Every decent man and Woman in America cares. The only ones who do not care are those so blinded by party loyalty that winning means everything, no matter what the cost.

Now let's talk about all of Hillary's lies and crimes especially her illegal wars in the Middle East that have killed and maimed our men and women in uniform and which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousand of innocent men, women and children and displaced many more. Let's talk about her supporting and arming terrorists (those who have vowed to kill Americans) to help overthrow the duly elected government in Libya and Syria. Let's talk about her open borders policy which allows criminals and terrorists to enter the USA. American men and woman have already been killed and women raped by Hillary's and Obama's illegal invading hordes.

PS: Trump never called for violence. On the other hand, Hillary's minions have engaged in violence against Trump supporters. If there is violence because of massive voter fraud, it will because of those who have committed the fraud, not Donald Trump.

You have the last word. I am done with you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

Donald Trump is not a "private citizen", he's the Republican Party's candidate for President.

Well, perhaps you should make Coyote aware of that. That designation was hers.

I'm pretty sure that if you re-read Coyote's post, you'll see that she wasn't referring to Donald Trump as a "private citizen".

Then who exactly was she referring to then? Because, Trump to my knowledge was/is a private citizen who is now running for president.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A presidential candidate calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is not the same thing as a private citizen complaining about it.

Huh? Really? Whoa.

So, being a private citizen makes the comment more serious than having a newly minted Senator from New York doing the same thing?

I'm confused...

Donald Trump is not a "private citizen", he's the Republican Party's candidate for President.

Well, perhaps you should make Coyote aware of that. That designation was hers.

I'm pretty sure that if you re-read Coyote's post, you'll see that she wasn't referring to Donald Trump as a "private citizen".

Then who exactly was she referring to then? Because, Trump to my knowledge was/is a private citizen who is now running for president.

I believe she was drawing a comparison between Trump and other people making the same claims - like for example, posters on this message board.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But since you two put it that way, Doc, neither one of these two are private citizens anymore. Hillary certainly wasn't when she made her comments, Trump obviously isn't now since he is running for office.

How does that change the meaning of what they said?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But since you put it that way, Doc. Neither one of these two are private citizens anymore. Hillary certainly wasn't when she made her comments, Trump obviously isn't now since he is running for office.

Agreed.

But that still doesn't make their comments equivalent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But that still doesn't make their comments equivalent.

Why not? If I still remember how to comprehend the modern English language, the words that come off the tongue have the same meaning in the past as they do the present, or vise versa.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But that still doesn't make their comments equivalent.

Why not? If I still remember how to comprehend the modern English language, the words that come off the tongue have the same meaning in the past as they do the present, or vise versa.

If my girlfriend were to say "I need some money" to me, would that be equivalent to a man pointing a gun at me on the street saying the same words?

 

[TemplarKormac]

But that still doesn't make their comments equivalent.

Why not? If I still remember how to comprehend the modern English language, the words that come off the tongue have the same meaning in the past as they do the present, or vise versa.

If my girlfriend were to say "I need some money" to me, would that be equivalent to a man pointing a gun at me on the street saying the same words?

That's not a good analogy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But that still doesn't make their comments equivalent.

Why not? If I still remember how to comprehend the modern English language, the words that come off the tongue have the same meaning in the past as they do the present, or vise versa.

If my girlfriend were to say "I need some money" to me, would that be equivalent to a man pointing a gun at me on the street saying the same words?

That's not a good analogy.

It's not meant to be analogous to Trump and Clinton's comments.

It's meant to demonstrate the importance of context and circumstance over "content".