Trump continues to claim that the only way he will lose is if Democrats "rig" the election (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,377
Reaction score
5,648
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I don't think I have ever heard a presidential candidate make such a claim. Trump has now been making a version of this claim for several weeks. This kind of rhetoric has no genuine political value - it isn't based on policy or appeal. It serves only to predispose a segment of the electorate (his supporters) to reject any result of the election in which Trump does not win.

Certainly the claim isn't based on anything scientific and polling shows the president lagging behind Biden both nationally and in swing states. So is this rhetoric dangerous? Should Republicans urge the president to stop making such claims? Or is this all just politics and we should have faith that the institutions will prevail?

 

Saintamaniac

Rise Sons of the Gold & Purple
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
682
Reaction score
1,358
Age
51
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
This is all he has left. The writing is on the wall for Trump. Trump knows what trump has done. His options are running low. While he still has the power of the pardon, there is a level of uncertainty of what would happen if he actually attempted to pardon himself on the way out. That's not something he has complete control over because it's unprecedented and most certainly would be challenged in the courts. His only real hope is for a contested election. I'm guessing what he doesn't realize or understand that in the event it is challenged and runs past Jan 21, 2021, he's no longer president and wouldn't have the power of the pardon available to him. Trump is a desperate man with very few options leff for him to avoid jail. He's like an animal backed into a corner and he will go down flailing.
 

First Time Poster

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
243
Reaction score
1,170
Age
39
Location
Louisiana, Georgia, Texas
Offline
I don't think I have ever heard a presidential candidate make such a claim.
I have. As a candidate, in 2016, he did the same thing. The exact same thing. The difference now and what makes it more gross? He's the sitting President. People can hate Obama all they want but he is right. The President is supposed to be the foremost custodian of our democracy. Not the foremost advocate seeking to tear it down. It's Putin's job to sow discord in our Union and form of governance. Not the President.

JE and fellow Trump supporters can attempt to whataboutism, falsely, all they want to but no candidate for President or President I can think of has ever questioned the legitimacy of our elections on the basis of "if I don't win." That’s bullshirt and banana republic stuff.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Nashville
Offline
I don't think that's a fair characterization in the least.
Why?
You had, in 2017, Hilary Clinton openly questioning the legitimacy of the election. You had an Administration spying on people closely connected to the Trump campaign.
Granted, I do not think Clinton was making the claim before the actual election as Trump is doing, but given recent history it doesn't strike me as some hugely unprecedented act.
 

Brandon13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
966
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
Why?
You had, in 2017, Hilary Clinton openly questioning the legitimacy of the election. You had an Administration spying on people closely connected to the Trump campaign.
Granted, I do not think Clinton was making the claim before the actual election as Trump is doing, but given recent history it doesn't strike me as some hugely unprecedented act.
How about it being a fairly unprecedented act?

Even if you're being serious with the Hillary stuff, the sitting President saying "the only way [he] can lose is if the election's rigged" is pretty unprecedented, no?

I assume you're being a fair bit flip here though as I have a difficult time believing that you don't have more developed thoughts on the subject.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #9
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,377
Reaction score
5,648
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
Why?
You had, in 2017, Hilary Clinton openly questioning the legitimacy of the election. You had an Administration spying on people closely connected to the Trump campaign.
Granted, I do not think Clinton was making the claim before the actual election as Trump is doing, but given recent history it doesn't strike me as some hugely unprecedented act.
It's completely different. Hillary didn't openly question the legitimacy of the election until the intelligence community's report of significant Russian efforts to influence the election in favor of Trump and possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. Any (and all for that matter) question of the legitimacy of the election was predicated upon those reports.

And let's not forget that exhaustive investigations in both the executive and legislative branch concluded that there actually was significant effort by Russian operations to influence the election in Trump's favor.

But "questioning" (if she even did that, I'm not sure that she did and she easily could have been more assertive about it - Trump certainly would have been) based on a factual predicate of election shenanigans largely sustained by multiple investigations isn't even in the same universe as stumping in advance of an election by claiming that the only way the candidate loses is if the election is rigged. And you know this, come on.

It isn't based on anything factual, it has no predicate. Baseless allegations of rigged elections are the stuff of banana republics.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Nashville
Offline
How about it being a fairly unprecedented act?

Even if you're being serious with the Hillary stuff, the sitting President saying "the only way [he] can lose is if the election's rigged" is pretty unprecedented, no?

I assume you're being a fair bit flip here though as I have a difficult time believing that you don't have more developed thoughts on the subject.
No, I am not being flip. You could see this coming from a mile away, just like you are going to see impeachment used as a political sword, not to mention the likelihood of using intelligence agencies to investigate campaigns.
To the extent Trump has had success people are copying him - his personal attacks, even his silly twittering, etc. It is the nature of politics to copy precedent that has shown some degree of success - and, perhaps, expand it.
See - Kamala Harris "lock him up": something that 4 years ago was somewhat shocking (to the extent we can be shocked anymore) is now copied by the "other side"
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Nashville
Offline
It's completely different. Hillary didn't openly question the legitimacy of the election until the intelligence community's report of significant Russian efforts to influence the election in favor of Trump and possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. Any (and all for that matter) question of the legitimacy of the election was predicated upon those reports.

And let's not forget that exhaustive investigations in both the executive and legislative branch concluded that there actually was significant effort by Russian operations to influence the election in Trump's favor.

But "questioning" (if she even did that, I'm not sure that she did and she easily could have been more assertive about it - Trump certainly would have been) based on a factual predicate of election shenanigans largely sustained by multiple investigations isn't even in the same universe as stumping in advance of an election by claiming that the only way the candidate loses is if the election is rigged. And you know this, come on.

It isn't based on anything factual, it has no predicate. Baseless allegations of rigged elections are the stuff of banana republics.
It was a political tactic to question the validity of the election, used by many Democrats even before the inauguration.
As far as the basis of any claim by Trump - see the questioning of his legitimacy itself, the impeachment, as well as the potential for fraud in a massive mail-in ballot election: it is not as if his claim just came out of mid-air, the Democrats have singularly focused on de-legitimating and removing him from office.

I think it is dangerous to say what he is saying, I think he said something sort of similar although not as forceful in the 2016 campaign as well. But Democrats had success is questioning the legitimacy of his Presidency (and perhaps he did as well to the extent he talked about in 2016), so why would he not get the ball rolling on trying to cash in on some success of his own?
 

Brandon13

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
966
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
No, I am not being flip. You could see this coming from a mile away, just like you are going to see impeachment used as a political sword, not to mention the likelihood of using intelligence agencies to investigate campaigns.
To the extent Trump has had success people are copying him - his personal attacks, even his silly twittering, etc. It is the nature of politics to copy precedent that has shown some degree of success - and, perhaps, expand it.
See - Kamala Harris "lock him up": something that 4 years ago was somewhat shocking (to the extent we can be shocked anymore) is now copied by the "other side"
There are those more developed thoughts on the subject I knew you had though LOL
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #13
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,377
Reaction score
5,648
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
It was a political tactic to question the validity of the election, used by many Democrats even before the inauguration.
As far as the basis of any claim by Trump - see the questioning of his legitimacy itself, the impeachment, as well as the potential for fraud in a massive mail-in ballot election: it is not as if his claim just came out of mid-air, the Democrats have singularly focused on de-legitimating and removing him from office.

I think it is dangerous to say what he is saying, I think he said something sort of similar although not as forceful in the 2016 campaign as well. But Democrats had success is questioning the legitimacy of his Presidency (and perhaps he did as well to the extent he talked about in 2016), so why would he not get the ball rolling on trying to cash in on some success of his own?
I suppose that gets back to my original question of whether it’s purely rhetorical or does it go deeper? To be clear, the predicate upon which the democrat claims you’re referring to was real - the bases you’re referring to as supporting his claims are not actually real (why should Democrats be the only ones to benefit from mail-in fraud?).

But if it’s nothing more than rhetoric I suppose that’s just where we are in America these days. It’s striking that neither of these candidates has really even talked about policy at all. I just hate all of this. It makes my stomach turn.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Nashville
Offline
I suppose that gets back to my original question of whether it’s purely rhetorical or does it go deeper? To be clear, the predicate upon which the democrat claims you’re referring to was real - the bases you’re referring to as supporting his claims are not actually real (why should Democrats be the only ones to benefit from mail-in fraud?).

But if it’s nothing more than rhetoric I suppose that’s just where we are in America these days. It’s striking that neither of these candidates has really even talked about policy at all. I just hate all of this. It makes my stomach turn.
Might be getting off-topic, at least how I understand it, but I believe for Trump most everything is rhetorical. I do not think he is an ideologue, and it is actually why I think he is fairly harmless as an Executive although he has proven he can be dangerous in his tactics (like in this particular case) and even more so in garnering a particular reaction from people who are ideologues and have a wide-ranging uncompromising moral certainty.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #15
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,377
Reaction score
5,648
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
Might be getting off-topic, at least how I understand it, but I believe for Trump most everything is rhetorical. I do not think he is an ideologue, and it is actually why I think he is fairly harmless as an Executive although he has proven he can be dangerous in his tactics (like in this particular case) and even more so in garnering a particular reaction from people who are ideologues and have a wide-ranging uncompromising moral certainty.
I don’t think that’s off-topic, it gets right to the core of the topic, at least as I was trying to frame it. I think I pretty much thought the same thing for the most part. As it ratchets up I question it, but that’s probably still accurate.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,031
Reaction score
6,828
Location
Midwest
Offline
I wish people (reporters) would just quit asking him the question. It’s not up to him to “accept” the results. The results are what they are whether he “accepts” them or not. My suspicion is that he thinks he has some sort of authority to declare the election “invalid” if he doesn’t win, which is the dangerous part.

He doesn’t have to concede if he loses, it’s not required. But, AFAIK, he doesn’t get to decide whether the election is valid. And I do worry that he thinks he has that power.
 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
1,960
Online
The results are what they are whether he “accepts” them or not. My suspicion is that he thinks he has some sort of authority to declare the election “invalid” if he doesn’t win, which is the dangerous part.
Science doesn't care whether he accepts it or not either, but he managed to kill 170,000+ Americans when he chose not to accept it.

If he doesn't accept the results, bad things will happen.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom