QuakerOats;1816288 wrote:That is not "to be fair" at all. And you know it. You are starting to paint yourself into a corner.

It's absolutely fair. Did you not watch the video about this?

I'm not making excuses for intentionally stirring up chaos. The fact that this is a coordinated effort between the PACs and the DNC using consultant middle men should frankly be investigated, because it's absolutely unethical, and probably illegal. However, it would also be ineffective if it wasn't seemingly so easy to get someone to respond violently. THAT is fair to say. If you don't disagree, state what part of that is untrue.

This isn't the first time such a strategy has been implemented. Remember the WBC? Guess how they're able to fund their trips around the country to picket soldiers' funerals. They know how to provoke someone into assaulting them without themselves breaking the law, and they have good lawyers.

It's unethical, but it's effective if you can count on physical violence so readily.

You're out. I will stick with what is important --- these criminal scandals make Watergate look like a game of checkers.

It is unimaginable that there is no mass prosecution underway.

[h=1]'QUID PRO QUO': Top State Dept. official offered key posts for altering Clinton emails, say FBI files[/h]

QuakerOats;1816293 wrote:You're out. I will stick with what is important --- these criminal scandals make Watergate look like a game of checkers.

It is unimaginable that there is no mass prosecution underway.

'QUID PRO QUO': Top State Dept. official offered key posts for altering Clinton emails, say FBI files

Did I disagree with you? I said they should be investigated. I said they were unethical and probably illegal (implying that there should be prosecution).

All I was saying was that perhaps the Trump base should take the opportunity to learn from this. The underbelly of the DNC/Dem PAC machine are counting on violent reactions, per the video. If you don't give it to them, they just have a bunch of people showing up in awkward shirts or yelling.

Not sure how that makes me 'out' unless you think the violent responses are warranted and should be allowed legally.

O-Trap;1816297 wrote:Not sure how that makes me 'out' unless you think the violent responses are warranted and should be allowed legally.

He didn't have a response and had more dumb links for us to ignore.

friendfromlowry;1816313 wrote:He didn't have a response and had more dumb links for us to ignore.

Was wondering if I was speaking Greek or something.

QuakerOats;1816236 wrote:Your party is the party of rioting, looting, and other assorted street activism, agitation, law breaking and vote fraud; not ours.

Way to not answer or address any of the damn points.

I'll try again.

I have a larger question for those few Trump supporters on here. As Trump is expected to lose (he has about a 15% chance of winning), will his supporters and him accept the outcome? Are you guys going to say ok, like in 2008 and 2012, our guy lost, accept it, or are you going to fight the result due to the system being rigged, whatever the fuck that means?

They will go back to work like every other day but this time they'll have less money in their pockets come pay day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ptown_trojans_1;1816570 wrote:Way to not answer or address any of the damn points.

I'll try again.

I have a larger question for those few Trump supporters on here. As Trump is expected to lose (he has about a 15% chance of winning), will his supporters and him accept the outcome? Are you guys going to say ok, like in 2008 and 2012, our guy lost, accept it, or are you going to fight the result due to the system being rigged, whatever the fuck that means?

Sure. I'll accept it. I think even Mr. Trump's VP has publicly stated they will accept the outcome of the election.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/pence-trump-election-outcome/

Point of note: I am neither a Clinton nor Trump supporter. I realize I don't fit your criteria for answering the question.

ptown_trojans_1;1816570 wrote:Way to not answer or address any of the damn points.

I'll try again.

I have a larger question for those few Trump supporters on here. As Trump is expected to lose (he has about a 15% chance of winning), will his supporters and him accept the outcome? Are you guys going to say ok, like in 2008 and 2012, our guy lost, accept it, or are you going to fight the result due to the system being rigged, whatever the fuck that means?

I think it really depends on the margin of victory and how much fraud is reported. If it's really close (it won't be) and there is a lot of fraud being reported, they have an obligation to contest the result.

Wikileaks proved the DNC rigged their own election, so why would they stop there?

I thought it would take a Trump win to really change the system at the national level, but the more wikileaks and now Okeefe release and the more it's picked up by people in this country maybe a Trump win wont be necessary. That is my end game in this, the end of establishment politics at the national level.

Trump screwed up the party, the last 30 years we have been fooled to thinking we were voting for two choices when in reality it was always 1.

Clinton campaign goal to "please" George Soros ............nice. (per one of the emails)

ptown_trojans_1;1816570 wrote:Way to not answer or address any of the damn points.

I'll try again.

I have a larger question for those few Trump supporters on here. As Trump is expected to lose (he has about a 15% chance of winning), will his supporters and him accept the outcome? Are you guys going to say ok, like in 2008 and 2012, our guy lost, accept it, or are you going to fight the result due to the system being rigged, whatever the fuck that means?

I don't think anyone will not accept the results, unless there is continued democrat vote fraud that potentially swings it. Better question would be: will the democrats pledge zero vote fraud, and prove it?

friendfromlowry;1816313 wrote:He didn't have a response and had more dumb links for us to ignore.

You are willing to accept corruption at the highest federal level. You don't deserve a republic. Take a hike.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3606764/wikileaks-deniers-the-new-breed-of-conspiracy-nut/

QuakerOats;1816273 wrote:There are no coal mines to return to .................68,000 miners thrown out of work by obama/clinton and their radical minions.

As a ten year veteran of the coal mining industry, I can assure you that coal's demise started long before Obama came on the scene. It is affected far more by cheap natural gas and related energy generation switching than to anything the EPA or other government body has done. Not even close.

Quaker....come on bro

Trump is going to lose by such a margin that even if there is voter fraud (which there isn't) it wouldn't make a difference

There most certainly is voter fraud. Whether or not it's enough to affect the election is different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bases_loaded;1816655 wrote:There most certainly is voter fraud. Whether or not it's enough to affect the election is different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it happens even once then your statement is factually correct. However, in the arguments of many state supreme courts that have ruled against strict voter ID laws most referenced the infinitesimal impact fraud had on elections. From the Wisconsin supreme court ruling

In July, U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson struck down parts of Wisconsin's strict voter ID law, concluding that there is "utterly no evidence" that in-person voter impersonation fraud is an issue in Wisconsin, or in the rest of the United States.
"The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities," Peterson wrote in his ruling. "To put it bluntly, Wisconsin's strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/05/25/cbs-uncovers-voter-fraud-in-la-n2168330

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/elections-expert-now-4-million-ineligible-dead-voters-american-voter-rolls-video/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

I don't think anyone is saying that it doesn't happen so your link isn't changing the argument. Studies have also found a large discrepancy between claims of fraud and actual prosecuted cases so either there isn't enough beyond the claim to actually make something of it or there's a nationwide conspiracy to make a majority of the claims go away.

I remain ok with the statement "voter fraud happens" because again even it's rare the statement remains true. My problem is stirring the pot of the election is rigged or being stolen. That is dangerous rhetoric. I don't believe Trump is actually trying to incite anything I think his ego won't let him accept losing so this is personal defense mechanism and he's just too ignorant or selfish to realize the damage this kind of talk does to the faith in free democratic election and the peaceful transfer of power.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1816633 wrote:As a ten year veteran of the coal mining industry, I can assure you that coal's demise started long before Obama came on the scene. It is affected far more by cheap natural gas and related energy generation switching than to anything the EPA or other government body has done. Not even close.

The electricity generation moving from coal to nat gas was forced by regulation. While nat gas prices have been low in recent years, largely due to output from fracking plays, it is not the primary reason. Further, the low prices will not last much longer once demand from nat gas power plants heats up, and especially when Hillary and federal EPA ban fracking. Electricity prices for consumers will skyrocket, and it will hurt seniors and those on fixed incomes the most. It will be just another disaster just like obamakare. I buy enormous amounts of nat gas, corporately; I know of what I speak.

QuakerOats;1816605 wrote:You are willing to accept corruption at the highest federal level. You don't deserve a republic. Take a hike.

The suggestion that someone ignoring your links is evidence that they are "willing to accept corruption at the highest federal [sic] level" is a false dichotomy fallacy.

Really, elections are full of that specific fallacy.

jedbartlet02;1816649 wrote:Quaker....come on bro

Trump is going to lose by such a margin that even if there is voter fraud (which there isn't) it wouldn't make a difference

Oh, come on. There's absolutely voter fraud. I'm willing to bet it goes both ways even.

I'm certainly not defending anyone here, and I sincerely doubt it is widespread enough to be used in rigging an election, but to say that it doesn't happen at all is naive.

----

Fun little exchange I thought I'd share. I had a brief exchange with some phone warrior yesterday to that effect (this is the gist of it, anyway):

P1: "Can we count on you to vote for the champion of the environment, Hillary Clinton?"
Me: "No, I'm not voting for Mrs. Clinton."
P1: "Are you voting for Donald Trump?"
Me: "No, I am not voting for Donald Trump."
P1: "Well, even if you're not voting for Donald Trump, by not helping Clinton defeat him, you may be helping his cause."
Me: "That's funny. Trump supporters say the same thing about me helping Clinton by not voting for Trump and helping him defeat her. Please remove my contact details from your records, and do not contact me again."

If not for what was at stake, it'd be hilarious. Both sides blame those not on either side for helping the other side win.

And when you point out this fact, both sides essentially say, "No, but it's actually true this way. Not the other way."

At least in my part of the state....it seems like there very,very few Hillary signs, some Trump, but the radio/tv ads are almost all purely for Hillary. Trump waiting to spend $$$ a little closer and inundated the airwaves or what?

thavoice;1816678 wrote:At least in my part of the state....it seems like there very,very few Hillary signs, some Trump, but the radio/tv ads are almost all purely for Hillary. Trump waiting to spend $$$ a little closer and inundated the airwaves or what?

I've seen little out of the Trump camp to suggest he even has a somewhat competent campaign team. I'll give him some credit though; he's doing 'okay' in the polls despite spending basically nothing. A far cry from an earlier version of Trump that claimed he would spend up to $1B of his own money to win the election.

sleeper;1816679 wrote: A far cry from an earlier version of Trump that claimed he would spend up to $1B of his own money to win the election.

Ultimately, this really shouldn't come as a surprise. It was a promise on a campaign trail. How many campaign promises end up being kept?

Remember Obama saying the very first thing he'd do would be to end the wars and bring the troops home?

LOL