Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to something I heard on the BBC, if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat in November, the constitution prevents Clinton from taking up office.

Is this really true? It sounds incredible. I thought the "graceful speech" accepting your opponent's victory and promising to work with them loyally as an American was essentially a polite formality.

No. The US Constitution does not give a gak.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is a temptation to point at those kind of people and laugh at their stupidity and credulousness but that misses the important point that the national common weal is harmed by everyone not being able to take an effective part in the political decision making process.

The country needs to find a way of re-engaging with such people. The current anti-mainstream media bias they also show makes this look a very difficult task.

Herman Cain's "dinner table laws" idea doesn't sound so dumb now, does it??



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to something I heard on the BBC, if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat in November, the constitution prevents Clinton from taking up office.

Is this really true? It sounds incredible. I thought the "graceful speech" accepting your opponent's victory and promising to work with them loyally as an American was essentially a polite formality.

No. The US Constitution does not give a gak.

So, the Al Gore thing was initiated by someone outside of his campaign??? I know we have avenues for recounts and whatnot, and I asked about it a few pages ago (with no response), just who gets to call for a recount of votes? Is there a threshold percentage? Like, if the election is 80/20 split, could the 20% holder theoretically call for a recount? or is it more like 55/45 split?

I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

Constitutionally, Trump has no leg to stand on if he doesnt like the election. The danger is in some of his supporters buying into his rhetoric and taking it upon themselves to do something regrettable with the passions this election has roused.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

I hear that talk every time a Democrat moves into 1600 Penn.

They said it to Bill Clinton, they said it to Barack Obama.

The talk is just that - talk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Constitutionally, Trump has no leg to stand on if he doesnt like the election. The danger is in some of his supporters buying into his rhetoric and taking it upon themselves to do something regrettable with the passions this election has roused.

Just as well you have a 2nd amendment then, eh?

Clinton's supporters can defend the Republic and the legitimate candidate by exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

Naturally, I'm joking, but like I said, Trump is full of hot air, and talk is cheap.

I'd be surprised if anything happens.

The USA survived Nixon, it will survive Trump getting defeated in November.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

I hear that talk every time a Democrat moves into 1600 Penn.

They said it to Bill Clinton, they said it to Barack Obama.

The talk is just that - talk.

Until one of these days it's not just talk and the unthinkable happens.

You know, with trump spewing his ignorance about how the election is rigged before it even held, and that he won't accept the outcome unless it's in his favor. The other side of that coin is, what if obama doesn't accept the outcome, he joins with trump saying 'it's rigged' then declares the whole election void and stays in office another 4 years til the republicans can unfuck themselves or go the way of the dodo.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I would argue that one could correctly call Trump a Fascist in the political theory dictionary meaning of the word, in much the same way one could use the label on someone like Putin too (authoritarian strongman built around a cult of personality, running on a nationalist and socially conservative platform in oligarchical cahoots with some sectors of private industry and promising a return to a glorified past). Clinton is often callled a Communist, but doesnt fit that definition in the same way, despite whatever else one could reasonably label her (divisive, shifty, ruthless, unaccountable, etc).

Yes, when I describe Trump's general approach to politics as fascist I don't mean it in some abstract bogeyman sense. I don't use it as an insult, I use it as a way of explaining his existence in a way that is actually useful for understanding the political climate. Being adamant that we "can't go there" is ridiculous.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

I hear that talk every time a Democrat moves into 1600 Penn.

They said it to Bill Clinton, they said it to Barack Obama.

The talk is just that - talk.

Honestly I don't take threats as talk, this is borderline terrorism.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

I hear that talk every time a Democrat moves into 1600 Penn.

They said it to Bill Clinton, they said it to Barack Obama.

The talk is just that - talk.

Until one of these days it's not just talk and the unthinkable happens.

You know, with trump spewing his ignorance about how the election is rigged before it even held, and that he won't accept the outcome unless it's in his favor. The other side of that coin is, what if obama doesn't accept the outcome, he joins with trump saying 'it's rigged' then declares the whole election void and stays in office another 4 years til the republicans can unfuck themselves or go the way of the dodo.

Seriously though, what's Trump going to do?

Call upon the South Carolina and Virginia legislature to pass articles of secession?

Trump will slink away, probably get his own TV show somewhere and continue to spout off nonsense about HRC for the next 4 years.

That's as far as it will go.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

I hear that talk every time a Democrat moves into 1600 Penn.

They said it to Bill Clinton, they said it to Barack Obama.

The talk is just that - talk.

Honestly I don't take threats as talk, this is borderline terrorism.

I wouldn't equate real terrorism with the hot air of some Trump supporters.

I remember when Obama got elected and the hysteria about 'rednecks with rifles' who were going to assassinate him.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'd be surprised if anything happens.

The USA survived Nixon, it will survive Trump getting defeated in November.

Almost certainly, yes. People just dont like even a hint of that prospect though, particularly with how delusional some people have become with this election, its not out of the realm of possibility for one idiot out of 320 million people to go off and do something stupid.

But yeah, in all likelihood nothing will happen.

It all comes down to is it something you ignore until something bad happens? These are the kinds of people I hope tabs are being kept on at the least.

The trump supporters need to report on themselves

So apparently he just said he'll accept the results...If he wins.

What a guy

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

If Trump is nuts enough to try to organize revolt I think there families whose members gets killed in the process might give a gak I would think.

Now while any sane person can see it would be short lived revolt who says Trump is sane? And there's already his fans who are saying they are willing to take up to arms if needed(though at least some % of that is all talk, no action if it really came down to it).

Could become civil unrest which results in deaths and even more wounds to heal.

Hell it doesn't even have to be wild spread of issue. Some nuthole fans deciding to take matters into their own hands could lead to other(s) getting hurt or killed. Even one death is one too many and at least 1 family that will give a gak.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

Unlikely, given violence currently is being directed at the RNC. But if so Bring it.
I do believe the US Army is 3-0 in motivating compliance with the Constitution:
*Shay's Rebellion
*War of Northern Aggression
*Little Rock Nine SCOTUS enforcement (rednecks and governor O, "I ed Hitler" EIsenhower and the 82nd Airborne 1)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I had a quick look through my copy of the US constitution, and I find nothing in the articles or the amendments concerning recounts or what to do if one candidate refuses to accept the result.

Most of it is more concerned with what to do if the President dies in office or is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors

For once, I think Frazz is spot on. Who gives a gak if Trump fails to accept the result in the event of a clear Clinton victory...

I don't think the problem will be with Trump, but with his hard core supporters that may rile up and possibly violence. These are the same people who have been quoted wanting armed uprising if Trump does not get elected.

I hear that talk every time a Democrat moves into 1600 Penn.

They said it to Bill Clinton, they said it to Barack Obama.

The talk is just that - talk.

Honestly I don't take threats as talk, this is borderline terrorism.

No its terrorism when its terrorism. Right now its the First Amendment. Both sides have their rabblerousers every time. Its ok. Its what we do.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So apparently he just said he'll accept the results...If he wins.

What a guy

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll contradict himself later.

 Frazzled wrote:

I do believe the US Army is 3-0 in motivating compliance with the Constitution:
*Shay's Rebellion
*War of Northern Aggression
*Little Rock Nine SCOTUS enforcement (rednecks and governor O, "I ed Hitler" EIsenhower and the 82nd Airborne 1)

Well, I don't think the War of the South Eating Dirt ( )would count, seeing as how a large chunk of the U.S. military broke off to support the Secessionists. You could use the Whiskey Rebellion and John Brown's Raid instead, however.

Ruby Ridge!

Waco!

South Park the Day before the Day after Tomorrow!

infinite_array wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I do believe the US Army is 3-0 in motivating compliance with the Constitution:
*Shay's Rebellion
*War of Northern Aggression
*Little Rock Nine SCOTUS enforcement (rednecks and governor O, "I ed Hitler" EIsenhower and the 82nd Airborne 1)

Well, I don't think the War of the South Eating Dirt ( )would count, seeing as how a large chunk of the U.S. military broke off to support the Secessionists. You could use the Whiskey Rebellion and John Brown's Raid instead, however.

Well we can agree to agree to disagree on the War Between the States Where Claifornia Shrugged Its Shoulders and Went Meh
but I forgot about the other two. Thanks!

Is it me or am I the only one who caught Trump say "bigly" twice? And no he did not say "big league" I rewound it and watched his lips say it because I was so shocked.

 Frazzled wrote:

Is it me or am I the only one who caught Trump say "bigly" twice? And no he did not say "big league" I rewound it and watched his lips say it because I was so shocked.

He has the best words

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is a temptation to point at those kind of people and laugh at their stupidity and credulousness but that misses the important point that the national common weal is harmed by everyone not being able to take an effective part in the political decision making process.

The country needs to find a way of re-engaging with such people. The current anti-mainstream media bias they also show makes this look a very difficult task.

Herman Cain's "dinner table laws" idea doesn't sound so dumb now, does it??



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to something I heard on the BBC, if Trump refuses to acknowledge defeat in November, the constitution prevents Clinton from taking up office.

Is this really true? It sounds incredible. I thought the "graceful speech" accepting your opponent's victory and promising to work with them loyally as an American was essentially a polite formality.

No. The US Constitution does not give a gak.

So, the Al Gore thing was initiated by someone outside of his campaign??? I know we have avenues for recounts and whatnot, and I asked about it a few pages ago (with no response), just who gets to call for a recount of votes? Is there a threshold percentage? Like, if the election is 80/20 split, could the 20% holder theoretically call for a recount? or is it more like 55/45 split?

It's a state issue because states control the voting procedures within themselves. Different states have diffferent laws and thresholds for recounts. Some states have automatic recounts if a race is tight enough other states will do a recount if a threshold is met and a candidate/campaign ask state for one. Not all recounts are the same sometimes it's a statewide recount but it could also be a sampling of random or selected precincts within a state or a random selection of ballots within a precinct or precincts. So depending on the voting in all the states we could have a drawn out process and possible court cases to determine the winner.

Sounds like there are a lot of dirty tactics being used in this election. Is this normal for American Politics? Do the Republicans use similar tactics?

(and please, do watch this video and in particular pay attention to the clips of DNC affiliates, officials, campaigners etc captured on hidden cameras talking about the tactics they use before snorting in derision and dismissing the video outright because of the title. The clips this guy talks about are quite worrying and sound borderline illegal.)

Even if it's an electoral college landslide over-all, Trump can still drag gak out by demanding recounts and initiating court actions in a few of the closer states.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Sounds like there are a lot of dirty tactics being used in this election. Is this normal for American Politics? Do the Republicans use similar tactics?

(and please, do watch this video and in particular pay attention to the clips of DNC affiliates, officials, campaigners etc captured on hidden cameras talking about the tactics they use before snorting in derision and dismissing the video outright because of the title. The clips this guy talks about are quite worrying and sound borderline illegal.)

Spoiler:

I listened to 5 minutes of that consipiracy theory BS. Thanks for that.

Voter fraud is a myth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/opinion/the-success-of-the-voter-fraud-myth.html?_r=0

As study after study has shown, there is virtually no voter fraud anywhere in the country. The most comprehensive investigation to date found that out of one billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were 31 possible cases of impersonation fraud. Other violations — like absentee ballot fraud, multiple voting and registration fraud — are also exceedingly rare.

 kronk wrote:


Voter fraud is a myth.

...

(and please, do watch this video and in particular pay attention to the clips of DNC affiliates, officials, campaigners etc captured on hidden cameras talking about the tactics they use before snorting in derision and dismissing the video outright because of the title. The clips this guy talks about are quite worrying and sound borderline illegal.)

I'm not talking about Voting Fraud. There are more ways to "rig" an election than direct voting fraud.

Like for instance...Democrat officials/affiliates/campaigners being caught on camera admitting to recruiting mentally ill and "psychotic" (their words) people and sending them to Trump rallies hoping they'll cause a scene and provoke a violent reaction from Trump supporters in front of the media. I think the term used was "Bird-dogging"?

I mean, WTF? Who in their right uses (in their own words) mentally ill people to go feth with your opponents' rallies?

The guy is a conspiracy theorist who makes videos he's trying to monetize via youtube so he doesn't have to get a job.

I will not watch anymore of that gak than I already have.

Thanks!

 kronk wrote:
The guy is a conspiracy theorist who makes videos he's trying to monetize via youtube so he doesn't have to get a job.

I will not watch anymore of that gak than I already have.

Thanks!

In short: Ad Hominem. ..."la la la Can't hear you, not listening. Nope, I'm not gonna look at that link you posted"....

And FOR feths SAKE, even if you don't take the Youtuber and his views seriously, just look at the clips of Democrats in the video. Their own words, caught on CAMERA, are pretty damning.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 kronk wrote:
The guy is a conspiracy theorist who makes videos he's trying to monetize via youtube so he doesn't have to get a job.

I will not watch anymore of that gak than I already have.

Thanks!

In short: Ad Hominem.

I was 19 and gullible once.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Voter fraud is a myth.

...

(and please, do watch this video and in particular pay attention to the clips of DNC affiliates, officials, campaigners etc captured on hidden cameras talking about the tactics they use before snorting in derision and dismissing the video outright because of the title. The clips this guy talks about are quite worrying and sound borderline illegal.)

I'm not talking about Voting Fraud. There are more ways to "rig" an election than direct voting fraud.

Like for instance...Democrat officials/affiliates/campaigners being caught on camera admitting to recruiting mentally ill and "psychotic" (their words) people and sending them to Trump rallies hoping they'll cause a scene and provoke a violent reaction from Trump supporters in front of the media. I think the term used was "Bird-dogging"?

I mean, WTF? Who in their right uses (in their own words) mentally ill people to go feth with your opponents' rallies?

who da F is dumb enough to fall for those tactics so that they assault a 69 year old woman? trumpers of course. yes it's bad to pull childish things like that, but it's criminal to assault a 69 year old woman to the cheering of the crowds!

 kronk wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 kronk wrote:
The guy is a conspiracy theorist who makes videos he's trying to monetize via youtube so he doesn't have to get a job.

I will not watch anymore of that gak than I already have.

Thanks!

In short: Ad Hominem.

I was 19 and gullible once.

19? Who are you referring to?

And FOR feths SAKE, even if you don't take the Youtuber and his views seriously, just look at the clips of Democrats in the video. Their own words, caught on CAMERA, are pretty damning.