You know there is this difficulty in talking to the left sometimes, because some of you certainly love playing with words, intentionally or unintentionally, as if you simply cannot get what they mean. Let's examine what I actually said.
I said IF I KNOW my opponent cheats in a game and he wins, I will not accept the result of the game. Will you?
Here's where it gets interesting. I've heard a lot of people here say they "know" the election was being rigged in Hillary's favor. They "know" Hillary is cheating. Really now? Making those claims ignores how incredibly hard it is to rig a national election in this country - for a multitude of reasons.
People "know" a lot of things. And the evidence is often extremely weak. So, when you say what you do - I have to wonder. Are you talking theoretically? And, if so - then surely "knowing" means there is enough evidence to support criminal investigation and prosecution. If that is the case then there is a system in place to pursue before the path of violence.
I also said that Trump's answer in the debate means MEASUREs will be taken if Clinton wins the election by cheating. Does measures mean a civil war? Maybe. Does that mean peaceful protests? Maybe. Does that mean legal measures such as what happened in 2000? Maybe. It all depends on the situation. So where do you see that I'm using a "belief" to justify "any violence"? Don't forget, in an "if" sentence, the conditional clause is ASSUMED to be TRUE. Is this assumption too scary for you?
Ok. I see what you are saying, but I also take into the account the many claims made on these boards that Hillary cheated or would cheat (if she won). That is a "belief" with the "proof" being if she won. Now I don't know where you really stand here - is it all theoretical?
I strongly suspect there are Clinton supporters who believe Trump won by cheating. And there is as little evidence for that as there is for Clinton.
Let me make it crystal clear, that "I know it" means strong evidences are found (therefore, it is "know" rather than "believe"). The hallmark part? Yes, but it has to be under the condition that no strong evidence suggests the election's result is changed by cheating. If in FACT, an election is stolen against the will of the people, should the people accept it? Of course not. We have peaceful transition because everybody agrees to play by the rules. Peace is simply a very nice by-product of the fact that we have a set of rules that everybody is following.
Should this be accepted by the people? No. They'd have a right to not accept it and the right to pursue LEGAL avenues of challenge, as Gore supporters did in the 2000 election. Now was there cheating? I don't think so. But there was enough question to pursue a challenge.
Is the election rigged? It depends on what you mean by "rigged". To me, it means unfair, and the election is unfair.
You feel this election was unfair? Yes...it was...Comey's behavior - breaking precedents and rules less than a week prior to the election through a wrench into it and there is no way of knowing how much damage that did. That is certainly "unfair" - but that is not rigging unless there is some proof that Comey was paid or influenced to do so (and there is none).
Rigging an election goes beyond unfair. Rigging is criminal. Rigging is committing fraud in such a way as to throw an election.
Do you think Sanders was competing with Clinton in a fair race? If your answer is yes, you are simply blind.
The primaries aren't "fair" - they're all about the parties. Primary rules vary from state to state and are set by the parties - some are caucus, some elections - I don't begin to understand it. In fact - a party can take it upon itself to nominate it's candidate - regardless of the election. Primaries aren't about "fairness" they're about the parties. Was Sanders competing with Clinton in a fair race? Yes, he was. Nothing was rigged. There wasn't any fraud. What was
seemingly unfair was the party threw their support behind Clinton because they considered her the party's best choice to win. That's what they often do. The Republicans tried to do the same thing with Trump. They didn't want him. Right up into the convention and after. But unlike Bernie, Trump had gained a huge popular following across a wide swath of the country. They would have been within their rights to discount the vote and nominate their own candidate (it would have been suicidal for the party however). Don't you even wonder what was in the GOP emails? Pity they weren't hacked and leaked.
Does this level of unfairness justify any measure? Maybe, but it does not have to be a violent measure.
If you are talking about the primaries - it may seem unfair
but it's not illegal. If you don't like it, then you work on changing the party rules on primaries.
Why can't a candidate claim the race is unfair when it is indeed unfair?
I think they need to be very very careful. Is it really unfair? Or does it seem unfair? Or is it sour grapes because you're losing?
I think if you are running for the highest office in the land, you have an obligation to maintain the integrity of the system that is the foundation of this country's democratic form of government. That means you have an obligation to not act in such a way as to undermine the public's faith in it. Going back to Gore. That was a very very very close election. Gore was within his rights to ask for a recount. He was within his rights to pursue it in the courts - it was that close. But I don't recall him attempting to undermine the process itself - by claiming it was rigged. Had he continued to pursue it, had he loudly and persistently told his followers it was rigged throughout the election, he would have been undermining the process itself.
It's hard to discuss this with you because you aren't being strictly hypothetical. You're mixing in real situations and asking it to be treated hypothetically.
Are you indicating that people should accept unfairness and just keep silent for the sake of peace? The American people are not people of silence, neither are we afraid of fighting against those who are unfair to us in various ways. Remember, America was born out of a hard-fought war itself. Americans emancipated the slaves by fighting a war, too. If someone goes too far rigging the election, there will and should always be consequences.
Are you then saying that the anti-Trump protesters are in the right with their actions? Many are honestly angry at what Comey did and feel it threw the election into Trumps favor. Are they right?
Edited to add: Everyone has a right to non-violent protests. That's without question. It's when you cross the line to violence that that right becomes a violation.
Well, given they've been faithful supporters, of course you won't disown them.
