Trump Won't Commit To Support Of Peaceful Election(?)! (Not Down-Ticket Supportive!)

[Claudette]

Your inference is hogwash, just like the rest of the media. If there are questions you expect him to go faintly into the night? You didn’t expect Al Gore to. And he was not speaking of violence. At least USAToday included what he was inferring in this paragraph of their article-
In the past, including during the 2016 and 2020 elections, Trump has declined to say whether he would accept voters’ results, suggesting he wants to leave his options open to contest those results.

As he should. Trays up ballots being found in fields, etc., already.

Yeah, like the Dems conceded the win in 2016. They still don't concede that Trump won and Hitlery lost.

How much shit have the Dems put Trump and his people through??

Russia, Kavenaugh, the Ukraine and they sure aren't done after 3
and a half years.

Anyone who votes by mail if they don't have to is dumber than a box or rocks. Go to the polls. Get off your lazy ass and make sure your vote gets into the machine to be counted.

Hillary conceded on election night. Cut it with the lies please.
As for your "oh poor Donald - Everyone was MEAN to him" whine list is laughable.
You put Obama through the mill for eight long years.
COUNT THE VOTES - If he loses, he LEAVES
Stop propping up a wannabe dick-tater!

No. She conceded the next day. The night of her defeat she threw a fit and was throwing things all over the place. Hell she wouldn't even go out and thank those gathered for her supposed acceptance speech. She sent Podesta out there.

Oh the Oh poor Donald is your take on it. Mine is the Dems never accepted Hitlery's defeat. Hell they tried everything to get rid of him.

Dems 0

He's still there and will be for another four years. So get ready to moan, groan and complain while the rest of us LOAO at your stupidity.

 

[toobfreak]

The Democrats have no motivation to 'steal' the election. We know that an honest election will resut in a Biden landslide.

SO THAT IS YOUR SERIOUS PREDICTION? THAT A MAN WITH NO INTEGRITY,
NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS, NO CAMPAIGN, NO MESSAGE, NO PERSONA,
AND NO MIND is going to win in a landslide against the most loved,
most accomplished, most bold president in a hundred years?

And all if we just get out of the way and LET IT HAPPEN.

DAMN, H, you have said some stupid shit, but THAT TAKES THE CAKE.

 

[mascale]

Trump is getting booed at the the RGB event, today! "Vote Him Out!"

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(When it comes to foreign aid, Deut 23: 19-20, is not about that!)

 

[LeftofLeft]

Trump will go, quietly or screaming, but if he loses he will go,

The US Marshals will escort him out of the WH.

So you people have a problem with Federal Law Enforcement protecting Federal buildings but have no problem in a scenario to use federal law enforcement to remove someone sitting peacefully in the White House?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for confirming how full of shit your side is. Maybe Trump will take another page from your book and defund the US Marshall's service by executive order. Not saying he would be successful but it would be worth it to watch the Democrats get their titties all twisted and have to defend funding law enforcement.

 

[Richard-H]

Trump will go, quietly or screaming, but if he loses he will go,

The US Marshals will escort him out of the WH.

So you people have a problem with Federal Law Enforcement protecting Federal buildings but have no problem in a scenario to use federal law enforcement to remove someone sitting peacefully in the White House?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for confirming how full of shit your side is. Maybe Trump will take another page from your book and defund the US Marshall's service by executive order. Not saying he would be successful but it would be worth it to watch the Democrats get their titties all twisted and have to defend funding law enforcement.

The fallacy in your post is your equating political protesters with a takeover by a dictator. They are in no way equivalent.

False equivalencies are a form of logical fallcy:

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LeftofLeft]

Trump will go, quietly or screaming, but if he loses he will go,

The US Marshals will escort him out of the WH.

So you people have a problem with Federal Law Enforcement protecting Federal buildings but have no problem in a scenario to use federal law enforcement to remove someone sitting peacefully in the White House?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for confirming how full of shit your side is. Maybe Trump will take another page from your book and defund the US Marshall's service by executive order. Not saying he would be successful but it would be worth it to watch the Democrats get their titties all twisted and have to defend funding law enforcement.

The fallacy in your post is your equating political protesters with a takeover by a dictator. They are in no way equivalent.

False equivalencies are a form of logical fallcy:

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before you go about identifying false equivalencies, you might want to assess protestors vs. rioters.

 

[kyzr]

kyzr, go back and read the 12th Amendment and the election process. None of what you suggest can happen until the voting returns are decided. If that is not done by 20 January, the SoH becomes President.

Say it is Pelosi, who assumes the Presidency, then a week later the returns say it is Trump, and she says, "No, I am President."

1. All of the states will certify their vote counts on time, guaranteed, or else their votes don't count disenfranchising their entire state, that won't happen. So all the state vote counts will be certified on time.
2. The Senate opens the certified state EC vote counts and declares the winner. The only way things get dicey is if the EC vote count is 269 to 269, then the Senate and House elect the new president and VP. There is no reason for the House and Senate not to elect the new president and VP on time. I don't ever see a need to have the Speaker of the House become president, which may not be Pelosi if the GOP flips (~17) House seats in November.

 

[Richard-H]

Trump will go, quietly or screaming, but if he loses he will go,

The US Marshals will escort him out of the WH.

So you people have a problem with Federal Law Enforcement protecting Federal buildings but have no problem in a scenario to use federal law enforcement to remove someone sitting peacefully in the White House?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for confirming how full of shit your side is. Maybe Trump will take another page from your book and defund the US Marshall's service by executive order. Not saying he would be successful but it would be worth it to watch the Democrats get their titties all twisted and have to defend funding law enforcement.

The fallacy in your post is your equating political protesters with a takeover by a dictator. They are in no way equivalent.

False equivalencies are a form of logical fallcy:

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before you go about identifying false equivalencies, you might want to assess protestors vs. rioters.

So you're saying that protesters and rioter are not the same? That the BLM movement is not responsible for the rioting?
Thanks for acknowledging that!

Politically motivated rioters are also not equivalent to a takeover by a dictator...not by a long shot!

 

[LeftofLeft]

Trump will go, quietly or screaming, but if he loses he will go,

The US Marshals will escort him out of the WH.

So you people have a problem with Federal Law Enforcement protecting Federal buildings but have no problem in a scenario to use federal law enforcement to remove someone sitting peacefully in the White House?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for confirming how full of shit your side is. Maybe Trump will take another page from your book and defund the US Marshall's service by executive order. Not saying he would be successful but it would be worth it to watch the Democrats get their titties all twisted and have to defend funding law enforcement.

The fallacy in your post is your equating political protesters with a takeover by a dictator. They are in no way equivalent.

False equivalencies are a form of logical fallcy:

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before you go about identifying false equivalencies, you might want to assess protestors vs. rioters.

So you're saying that protesters and rioter are not the same? That the BLM movement is not responsible for the rioting?
Thanks for acknowledging that!

Politically motivated rioters are also not equivalent to a takeover by a dictator...not by a long shot!

The point of my post was that your side considers riotous behavior to be that of peaceful protestors. BLM, ANTIFA and their handlers are responsible for the violence and destruction.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kyzr, go back and read the 12th Amendment and the election process. None of what you suggest can happen until the voting returns are decided. If that is not done by 20 January, the SoH becomes President.

Say it is Pelosi, who assumes the Presidency, then a week later the returns say it is Trump, and she says, "No, I am President."

1. All of the states will certify their vote counts on time, guaranteed, or else their votes don't count disenfranchising their entire state, that won't happen. So all the state vote counts will be certified on time.
2. The Senate opens the certified state EC vote counts and declares the winner. The only way things get dicey is if the EC vote count is 269 to 269, then the Senate and House elect the new president and VP. There is no reason for the House and Senate not to elect the new president and VP on time. I don't ever see a need to have the Speaker of the House become president, which may not be Pelosi if the GOP flips (~17) House seats in November.

If there are states without certified State EC votes, the Senate cannot declare a winner. The Presidency goes to Pelosi, She might not give it back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump will go, quietly or screaming, but if he loses he will go,

The US Marshals will escort him out of the WH.

So you people have a problem with Federal Law Enforcement protecting Federal buildings but have no problem in a scenario to use federal law enforcement to remove someone sitting peacefully in the White House?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for confirming how full of shit your side is. Maybe Trump will take another page from your book and defund the US Marshall's service by executive order. Not saying he would be successful but it would be worth it to watch the Democrats get their titties all twisted and have to defend funding law enforcement.

The fallacy in your post is your equating political protesters with a takeover by a dictator. They are in no way equivalent.

False equivalencies are a form of logical fallcy:

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before you go about identifying false equivalencies, you might want to assess protestors vs. rioters.

So you're saying that protesters and rioter are not the same? That the BLM movement is not responsible for the rioting?
Thanks for acknowledging that!

Politically motivated rioters are also not equivalent to a takeover by a dictator...not by a long shot!

I will judge the protests by rioters when you judge police by the most violent cops. Grow up,

 

[LeftofLeft]

Trump will go, quietly or screaming, but if he loses he will go,

The US Marshals will escort him out of the WH.

So you people have a problem with Federal Law Enforcement protecting Federal buildings but have no problem in a scenario to use federal law enforcement to remove someone sitting peacefully in the White House?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for confirming how full of shit your side is. Maybe Trump will take another page from your book and defund the US Marshall's service by executive order. Not saying he would be successful but it would be worth it to watch the Democrats get their titties all twisted and have to defend funding law enforcement.

The fallacy in your post is your equating political protesters with a takeover by a dictator. They are in no way equivalent.

False equivalencies are a form of logical fallcy:

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Before you go about identifying false equivalencies, you might want to assess protestors vs. rioters.

So you're saying that protesters and rioter are not the same? That the BLM movement is not responsible for the rioting?
Thanks for acknowledging that!

Politically motivated rioters are also not equivalent to a takeover by a dictator...not by a long shot!

I will judge the protests by rioters when you judge police by the most violent cops. Grow up,

I will bet that the ratio of rioters /protestors is far greater than the ratio of violent cops/ good cops. The problem is that you people believe "protestors" have the right to smash windows, scale fences, and block traffic. On the cop side, your side believes that the cop is 100 percent accountable and the detainee -shooting his/her mouth off, resisting arrest, threatening the officer, going for the officer's weapon - has no accountability and is 100 percent victim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I bet there are far fewer violent protesters than violent cops.

 

[kyzr]

kyzr, go back and read the 12th Amendment and the election process. None of what you suggest can happen until the voting returns are decided. If that is not done by 20 January, the SoH becomes President.

Say it is Pelosi, who assumes the Presidency, then a week later the returns say it is Trump, and she says, "No, I am President."

1. All of the states will certify their vote counts on time, guaranteed, or else their votes don't count disenfranchising their entire state, that won't happen. So all the state vote counts will be certified on time.
2. The Senate opens the certified state EC vote counts and declares the winner. The only way things get dicey is if the EC vote count is 269 to 269, then the Senate and House elect the new president and VP. There is no reason for the House and Senate not to elect the new president and VP on time. I don't ever see a need to have the Speaker of the House become president, which may not be Pelosi if the GOP flips (~17) House seats in November.

If there are states without certified State EC votes, the Senate cannot declare a winner. The Presidency goes to Pelosi, She might not give it back.

1. Every state will certify their votes on time. They always have and will in 2020.
2. If any state does not submit their votes on time, their EC votes don't count, ever, the Senate declares the candidate with a majority of EC votes the winner.
3. Pelosi does not get the presidency unless she wins the Speaker job, and the Senate and the House don't elect the president and VP. Never happen. Never has happened. Won't happen. Read the 12th Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Every state will certify their votes on time. They always have and will in 2020.
2. If any state does not submit their votes on time, their EC votes don't count, ever, the Senate declares the candidate with a majority of EC votes the winner. do,
3. Pelosi does not get the presidency unless she wins the Speaker job, and the Senate and the House don't elect the president and VP. Never happen. Never has happened. Won't happen. Read the 12th Amendment.

If they do, fine. The Senate can wait for the final certified votes if the body so chooses. Pelosi will be chosen Speaker. Your negative reading of the 12th is dismissed.

 

[BluesLegend]

The White House won't accept any peaceful outcome--

It's all up to the democrats whether they run an honest election or steal it. Heaven help you if you steal it. You don't want to see Trump's bad side.

IF by some miracle Dems steal the election...Trump is going to troll them without mercy.

 

[kyzr]

1. Every state will certify their votes on time. They always have and will in 2020.
2. If any state does not submit their votes on time, their EC votes don't count, ever, the Senate declares the candidate with a majority of EC votes the winner. do,
3. Pelosi does not get the presidency unless she wins the Speaker job, and the Senate and the House don't elect the president and VP. Never happen. Never has happened. Won't happen. Read the 12th Amendment.

If they do, fine. The Senate can wait for the final certified votes if the body so chooses. Pelosi will be chosen Speaker. Your negative reading of the 12th is dismissed.

Here is the 12th Amendment explained so even you can understand it.

12th Amendment – Annenberg Classroom

The Twelfth Amendment modifies the way the Electoral College chooses the president and vice president.

www.annenbergclassroom.org

For anything weird to happen there needs to be a 269-269 tie in EC votes.
Then the House and Senate elect the president and VP, where each state has (1) vote.
Pelosi should enjoy not being Speaker since she was so bad at it.
No way Pelosi becomes "president" unless BOTH the House and Senate votes for president and VP end up 25-25. Never happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kyzr that you will not take the real explanation is on you.

 

[kyzr]

Kyzr that you will not take the real explanation is on you.

I provided the truth in the above link, and you provide unsubstantiated bullshit.
Show me a credible link backing up your bullshit claims, or STFU.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You provided your opinion. I gave you the facts. So you cogitate.