Not sure of what point you were trying to make, did you read my comment?
Louis Weeks
1

Not sure of what point you were trying to make, did you read my comment?

Yes, I did. The part of your comment I was responding to was this:

He is not a generic off ballot Republican, he won the contest according to the rules, now emotionally brittle Liberals want to suddenly change the rules when their guy did not win, typical Liberal mindset.

Christine Zook did not refer to Trump, but to the electors’ plan to “unify behind a Republican alternative“ to Trump. There are only two politicians that large parts of the American public have voted for: Trump and Clinton. If the electors want to vote for another politician, one that wasn’t even on the ballot, then they are voting for a generic off-ballot politician! And these electors are Republican. Hence the irony: you claim that Liberals want to change the rules and let somebody else win, yet this plan is set in motion by Republicans. Party affiliation doesn’t really matter in this case, your sentiment is just … ironic.

And I am not sure what your bases is for claiming Trump is a cancer, can you explain that please?

His bigotry, his racially and sexually charged language and actions, and even his actions so far as President-elect do not inspire confidence and I believe he will have disastrous effects on politics covering topics such as equal rights, education, and of course, science. I believe his most disastrous effect will come from placing dangerous people such as Bannon into high positions in politics. It’s a cancer that spreads fast.

In what way, do you not understand how we elect Presidents? It is not the popular vote even though a lot of uneducated Liberals seem to think so, we do it by scoring “points”, yes people are involved but only as a grouping effect, not an individual one, …

You know, aggressive and insulting language is not a sign of intellectual discourse. It’s sad that you do not seem to be able to show others the same respect they show you. Of course there’s a direct correlation between the will of the people and the outcome of the presidential election. The Electoral College is merely a buffer that tries to compensate for differences in population density. It’s a fix for a country in which people aren’t evenly distributed across the land. The idea is still the same: the person that represents (roughly) most people’s priorities, wins. It’s a popularity contest. There’s a direct link between votes and points, and that’s why football is a terrible analogy. In football, it doesn’t matter what the people outside the football field want.

That is a lie, why do all far lefties like you have to lie? I just do not get this hate you guys express that forces you to insert false claims to try and justify your hate.
What Trump did say when asked if he would accept the outcome was he would have to look at the results and make his mind up then, just like gore himself first admitted defeat then changed his mind and decided to contest the election, Trump was simply he reserved the right to decide one way or the other at the end. Please stop telling lies.

Your style of discussion is tiresome. You’re insulting, you’re charging, you’re making up arguments as you go. Here is what Trump said:

“I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win.”

“Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result. And always, I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all of the many candidates who have come before me. Always.”

He was asked repeatedly if he would accept the results either way. And he clearly said he only promised to accept them if he won. If he didn’t win—well, who knows? In stark contrast to Al Gore, Trump had claimed the system was rigged from the start (without evidence, mind you). He campaigned on the idea that the system was actively against him and his followers. So you do the math: If Trump says the system is rigged before the election, and then he loses—what is he going to do? What are his followers going to do? What does that even mean, “look at the results”? What’s a questionable result? Is it when there are voting irregularities in three different states? Apparently not, because Trump didn’t care about that. At no point in time did Al Gore ever claim the democratic system was rigged; he only objected to specific details of the election process. And that’s only good and fair for any presidential candidate, including Trump—if there is proof for either mistakes or corruption, of course it’s going to be looked into.

The other part of the equation are the voters: What happens when the candidate continuously makes mostly baseless accusations that the system is rigged against him? Here’s a sampler of what Trump voters had to say: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/18/donald-trump-says-the-election-is-rigged-heres-what-his-supporters-think-that-means/

Would they? Seems terribly easy for you to make such a nasty claim of fellow Americans when we have clear examples of Conservatives being trounced by Obama twice and no rioting or large protests, …

There is a difference between Conservatives and Trump-Conservatives. From the start Trump has campaigned on the idea of a rigged system, from the start he has campaigned on racism, xenophobia and us-versus-them thinking. That’s why it’s not surprising that he attracted a lot of bigoted and hateful people (I’ve followed what went on at some Trump rallies). Trump is unlike any Conservative candidate in history. I don’t share a Conservative view point but boy, even Mitt Romney was a hell of a politician next to Trump.

You never actually listened to Trump speak have you? You just take the word of far lefty propaganda and run with is and never bother to check the truth for yourself? Trump never said that, what Trump was talking about was mostly the media who had selected “their candidate” from the start and skewed reporting and stories against everyone else, Bernie Sanders was a victim of this too, and we now know CNN was feeding debate questions to the Hillary Campaign, none of that seems crooked to you?

Yes, I did listen to Trump. As long as I could bear, anyway. Trump repeatedly said the political process was rigged against him, not the media. Of course Trump apologetics have been busy re-interpreting that in lesser ways.

Trump says the system is rigged because the RNC favors insiders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqByMThBpfs — This video is particularly funny today because he’s talking about him self-funding his campaign (did not), about the influence of lobbyists (now he’s busy bringing lobbyists into his cabinet) and about influence from foreign countries (yet he will not give away ownership of his international business).

Trump says the system is rigged because the FBI didn’t pursue Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auviMog1zNI

Another one of Trump’s pet peeves and part of his “rigged system” myth are his continuous claims of voter fraud (obviously against him), even though nothing of the sort can be found in any significant quantity. Here’s an example: http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/trump-claims-serious-voter-fraud-new-hampshire/

Yes, there was some collusion between the DNC and the media; and yes, that’s a problem. But no, Sanders might have been negatively affected, but was not a victim. Far more people voted for Clinton, plain and simple.

Like what you read? Give Willi Kampmann a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.