McConnell, other Republicans split with Trump on peaceful transfer of power

[EVENKEEL]

Was barrack asked about peaceful transfer of power after his first term? I don't recall. It just seems like the dems are scripting a scenario of Trump refusing to leave the WH. The news is full of "what if's", could happen. Coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't what I consider news.

Edited September 26, 2020 by EVENKEEL

[RJRS1301]

9 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Was barrack asked about peaceful transfer of power after his first term? I don't recall. It just seems like the dems are scripting a scenario of Trump refusing to leave the WH. The news is full of "what if's", could happen. Coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't what I consider news.

There was no need for anyone to question the ethics, understanding of constitutional requirements of election results, of Obama, but with the erratic antics of Trump, seems a reasonable question.

 

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Was barrack asked about peaceful transfer of power after his first term? I don't recall. It just seems like the dems are scripting a scenario of Trump refusing to leave the WH. The news is full of "what if's", could happen. Coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't what I consider news.

 

Did Obama air intentions not to do so? Or repeatedly cast doubt on the elections being legit? No. Did Trump do these things? Yes. Here's your answer. Not too complicated. Doubt you weren't aware already.

[EVENKEEL]

31 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

There was no need for anyone to question the ethics, understanding of constitutional requirements of election results, of Obama, but with the erratic antics of Trump, seems a reasonable question.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Did Obama air intentions not to do so? Or repeatedly cast doubt on the elections being legit? No. Did Trump do these things? Yes. Here's your answer. Not too complicated. Doubt you weren't aware already.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine is the dems are sensationalizing something Mr Trump has said.

The "experts" on the libs news have said there is no evidence of voter fraud, yet "Russian Interference" news headlines have been going on for over 3 yrs now.

 

All I'm saying is - Have the election and deal with the results as they happen. Accusing our POTUS of not stepping down should he lose the election is simply the dems attempt to feed their dogs.

[geriatrickid]

Putin  must be thrilled to see the USA in such turmoil. His  ongoing strategy of sabotage  has paid off.

[bendejo]

26 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

38 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Was barrack asked about peaceful transfer of power after his first term? I don't recall. It just seems like the dems are scripting a scenario of Trump refusing to leave the WH. The news is full of "what if's", could happen. Coulda, woulda, shoulda isn't what I consider news.

There was no need for anyone to question the ethics, understanding of constitutional requirements of election results, of Obama, but with the erratic antics of Trump, seems a reasonable question.

There has always been the assumption that the person that becomes POTUS will be an honorable sort who would respect the rules.  Then this guy came along.  It worked for 200+ years, but those days are gone.  The reason he's gotten away with so much is all these rules never had to be enforced before, the mere appearance of impropriety was itself a scandal.  The motto of this administration is "and what are YOU gonna do about it?"

 

Anyway, he didn't have to be asked, he says this stuff without prompting.

 

 

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine is the dems are sensationalizing something Mr Trump has said.

The "experts" on the libs news have said there is no evidence of voter fraud, yet "Russian Interference" news headlines have been going on for over 3 yrs now.

 

All I'm saying is - Have the election and deal with the results as they happen. Accusing our POTUS of not stepping down should he lose the election is simply the dems attempt to feed their dogs.

 

You seem to get the timeline wrong. Trump issued related comments without any prompting for a long while now. Since his previous campaign, actually. Most of what he says is not supported by fact. 

 

You can spin and try to tie this to investigations regarding Russian meddling - these are not quite the same issues, just an attempt to muddy the waters. Ignoring that the views of various USA intelligence agencies support claims regarding Russian intervention is a choice. So is the fact that people on Team Trump were found guilty of various related offenses. 

 

All you're saying is that as far as you're concerned, Trump is not responsible even for the words he utters.

[RJRS1301]

24 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The "experts" on the libs news have said there is no evidence of voter fraud, yet "Russian Interference" news headlines have been going on for over 3 yrs now.

POTUS has been going about alleged "voter fraud" for this election, long before the results are even beginning to be tallied. This has required no evidence on his part, despite him decreasing funding to the  Postal Service initially. 

Pots and Kettles??

 

[Surelynot]

He wants civil unrest.....and will get it.

[Surelynot]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine is the dems are sensationalizing something Mr Trump has said.

The "experts" on the libs news have said there is no evidence of voter fraud, yet "Russian Interference" news headlines have been going on for over 3 yrs now.

 

All I'm saying is - Have the election and deal with the results as they happen. Accusing our POTUS of not stepping down should he lose the election is simply the dems attempt to feed their dogs.

 

[MaxYakov]

It certainly hasn't been "peaceful" since the 2016 election thanks to the Democrats who still have not accepted Trump's being legitimately voted in, I agree with at least one commenter (Masterton, HERE ) that this article is an example of poor journalism by Reuters. So what is the definition of "peaceful" w/r to an election anyway?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

It certainly hasn't been "peaceful" since the 2016 election thanks to the Democrats who still have not accepted Trump's being legitimately voted in, I agree with at least one commenter (Masterton, HERE ) that this article is an example of poor journalism by Reuters. So what is the definition of "peaceful" w/r to an election anyway?

 

You, and other Trump supporters, keep repeating this nonsense about not accepting election results. All of these comments are not supported by fact - and somehow imply that such 'acceptance' is to be expressed in a manner resembling rolling over. While at it, you may want to revisit how Republicans behaved during Obama's term. Doubt you consider that to have been an example of 'not accepting results'.

 

In any factual and real terms, there was an acceptance of election results, and the same goes for the peaceful transition of power.

 

Spin it whichever you like, there was nothing from the Democrats on par with Trump's statements, or actions.

[Mavideol]

Trump, for the past couple months, has been laying ground for the rebuttal of mail in ballots thus if he loses election, he can go back and say ""I told you so"" all part of his game plan to keep grip on power, he's jealous of his friends who have been in power for longer then him, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, Kim Jung Un, Saud Prince, Netanyahu, Xi, Lukashenko, etc., Trump's main goal for now is a 2nd term and after that he will challenge the  courts for a 3rd/4th term, president/ dictator for life that's on his mind, these type of people should never been allowed to run for any presidential/senator or even congress places, quite sure many of US citizens, Now regret having voted for him back in 2016

[Dumbastheycome]

An in-law of mine from S.c  emailed me the  following. I find it difficult to disagree.

 

Dan Rather

There is no more time for silence. There is no more time for choosing party over country. There is no more time for weighing the lesser of two evils. All women and men of conscience must speak or they are complicit in America lurching towards a dangerous cliff of autocracy and chaos.

This is a moment of reckoning unlike any I have seen in my lifetime. I have seen this country in deep peril, as the hungry begged for sustenance during the Great Depression, as the Nazis marched across Europe and the Japanese across Asia, as missiles were moved into Cuba, as our political leaders were murdered, as a president ran a criminal conspiracy from the Oval Office, as planes were hijacked into skyscrapers. All of these were scary times, but through it all I never worried about a president actively undermining American democracy and inciting violence to do so - even Nixon, for all of his criminal activity.

What Donald Trump said today are the words of a dictator. To telegraph that he would consider becoming the first president in American history not to accept the peaceful transfer of power is not a throw-away line. It's not a joke. He doesn't joke. And it is not prospective. The words are already seeding a threat of violence and illegitimacy into our electoral process.

I suspect he is doing this because he feels he needs to. It is the same reason he sought dirt on Joe Biden, because he is deeply afraid of losing. Losing an election could mean losing in a court of law. It could mean prison time and ruin. But I suspect Trump's motives are more instinctual. He needs to hold on to power for the sake of power. He cannot lose, even if he has to cheat to win. Even if he has to blow up American democracy. He considers little if any about 200,000 plus deaths from COVID. Why would he care about our Constitution or Bill of Rights?

There is no sugarcoating the dangers and darkness we live in. But I remain heartened that the majority of Americans do not want this. Trump is in danger of losing states that he should be winning handily. Yes, his base is energized and numerous. But so is the opposition. I have seen opposition parties in foreign countries channel the morality of their causes to bring great change. And most of those opposition movements didn't have the strength, power, and resources of those who stand against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has himself defined the stakes of the election. This is a battle for American democracy as we've known it. We are well past warning shots. Allies across the political spectrum are ringing alarm bells. Right now, all those seeking to defeat Donald Trump know winning a close election may not be enough. The size of a victory will likely matter. Failing that, what happens? I don't know. But I would say we all should try to remain steady. Try to conserve our energy for the battles ahead. Be committed to your community, your country, and your conscience. If enough Americans of decency and courage come together, the future of this nation can be better, fairer, and more just.

[MaxYakov]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

23 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

It certainly hasn't been "peaceful" since the 2016 election thanks to the Democrats who still have not accepted Trump's being legitimately voted in, I agree with at least one commenter (Masterton, HERE ) that this article is an example of poor journalism by Reuters. So what is the definition of "peaceful" w/r to an election anyway?

 

You, and other Trump supporters, keep repeating this nonsense about not accepting election results. All of these comments are not supported by fact - and somehow imply that such 'acceptance' is to be expressed in a manner resembling rolling over. While at it, you may want to revisit how Republicans behaved during Obama's term. Doubt you consider that to have been an example of 'not accepting results'.

 

In any factual and real terms, there was an acceptance of election results, and the same goes for the peaceful transition of power.

 

Spin it whichever you like, there was nothing from the Democrats on par with Trump's statements, or actions.

You've got to be kidding. Sadly, (for your sake) I guess you're not.

[Surelynot]

He breaks norms, rules, and laws with impunity.

He lies, on average, 15 times a day.

He peddles fake conspiracy theories and irrational magical thinking.

He has been accused of sexually predatory behavior by at least 25 women.

He blames, scapegoats and gaslights as easily as he breathes.

He undermines the vital role of the free press because he abhors oversight and accountability.

His lies and anti-scientific advice and intentional downplaying of the coronavirus pandemic has led to countless American deaths.

He is callous and cold and unfeeling because he has no conscience.

He denigrates and humiliates anyone and everyone in his path.

He has no respect for military heroes or renowned experts.

He is racist and xenophobic.

He incites violence and culture wars.

He is obsessed with power and adoration.

He is a greedy opportunist.

He is corrupt to the core.

 

 

Bet you can't guess to whom these psychologists are referring.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

You've got to be kidding. Sadly, (for your sake) I guess you're not.

 

Kidding how? In what meaningful way did the Democrats not accept elections results? In what meaningful way was there no peaceful transition of power?

 

Since when is the opposition barred from criticizing and censuring those in power? Is it unacceptable for a the opposition to utilize legal means in order to affect political change? How are Democrat practices worse than what both Republicans and Trump were up to during Obama's terms? Did you consider Republicans as not 'accepting' election results back then?

 

Which part of Trump's words or actions do you deny, exactly?

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

POTUS has been going about alleged "voter fraud" for this election, long before the results are even beginning to be tallied. This has required no evidence on his part, despite him decreasing funding to the  Postal Service initially. 

Pots and Kettles??

 

Since there is no voter fraud the "Russian interference" the dems were looking for before is non existent.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Since there is no voter fraud the "Russian interference" the dems were looking for before is non existent.

 

What are you on about? Do you somehow imagine all instances of voter fraud are somehow tied only to Russia's efforts?

[Cod Face]

On 9/25/2020 at 4:58 AM, RJRS1301 said:

Amazing how POTUS cannot contemplate that he may not be wanted by the voters for another term.

Narcissism on steroids', tinged with delusions of grandeur.  

Amazing that some voters think that there will need to be a transition of power.  Naïvety on steroids tinged with illusions of adequacy.

[EVENKEEL]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What are you on about? Do you somehow imagine all instances of voter fraud are somehow tied only to Russia's efforts?

The experts say there is no voter fraud, so can we put the Russian Interference to rest. Next, all this talk of Trump not stepping down if he loses is all talk. Just something to feed the frenzy. All the "what might happen" hype is just a way to sensationalize the news, so the talking heads can talk about "what might happen"

 

Have the election and let the chips fall as they may.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The experts say there is no voter fraud, so can we put the Russian Interference to rest. Next, all this talk of Trump not stepping down if he loses is all talk. Just something to feed the frenzy. All the "what might happen" hype is just a way to sensationalize the news, so the talking heads can talk about "what might happen"

 

Have the election and let the chips fall as they may.

 

How is elections fraud exclusively tied to Russian interference?

 

Again, you wish to deny Trump's own words, Trump's actions? That's your choice. It doesn't make them go away, though. I think that at some point, even the worn 'he's just kidding', 'he's just trolling' gets past its due date. Even if you do not consider his words meaningful, the question remains if it's appropriate for the President to say such things (and not forgetting the rest of his nonsense), and all the more so this close to the elections?

 

I seriously doubt you'd be as nonchalant and accepting of such an attitude had it been expressed by a Democrat President.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

21 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The experts say there is no voter fraud, so can we put the Russian Interference to rest. Next, all this talk of Trump not stepping down if he loses is all talk. Just something to feed the frenzy. All the "what might happen" hype is just a way to sensationalize the news, so the talking heads can talk about "what might happen"

 

Have the election and let the chips fall as they may.

The Russian interference is real but it is primarily about sowing discord in social media and similar tactics. 

The 'what might happen' hype wouldn't be necessary if he himself wasn't directly saying he won't accept it. 

I hope the day comes  where Trump supporters say, 'Hey Donald we like the way you do things but this talk of not accepting the election outcome is a step too far.' 

As you seem to be saying he can say what he likes; If he loses he'll be turfed. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Fat is a type of crazy

[RocketDog]

On 9/25/2020 at 5:31 AM, Puchaiyank said:

Yes, but, but, but...HRC is on record telling Joe Biden to not acknowledge defeat...hang tough until the numbers are in his favor...however long it may take!  In your face corruption!

 

Trump is doing a tit for tat routine...

For sure, you described trump's style concisely. Thank you for acknowledging such childish behavior. 

[johnnybangkok]

24 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The experts say there is no voter fraud, so can we put the Russian Interference to rest. Next, all this talk of Trump not stepping down if he loses is all talk. Just something to feed the frenzy. All the "what might happen" hype is just a way to sensationalize the news, so the talking heads can talk about "what might happen"

 

Have the election and let the chips fall as they may.

Another day, another Trump devotee having to interpret what comes out of his beloved leaders mouth; he didn't mean that; he's only stirring the pot; he's been misquoted.

When asked if he would committ to a peacful transistion of power, Trump uttered the immortal words, '“We’re going to have to see what happens,”

This unprecidented refusal to accept defeat and expressing less than complete confidence in the US democratic electoral process is of such concern that even his own Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans have had to reassure the public with a  'There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792," 

Just let that sink in. The Senate Majority Leader, Trumps Senate Majority Leader has had to publicly come out and assure the American people that the current POTUS will leave office if voted out. Because the POTUS himself refuses to do that.

But yeah, it's just 'something to feed the frenzy' another 'nothing burger'.....nothing to see here, just move along.

Just ask me this, at what exact stage will you guys stop trying to forgive the unforgivable, stop excusing the inexcusable, stop defending the indefensable? I mean , you must be exhausted.

[NanLaew]

On 9/25/2020 at 6:18 AM, scorecard said:

On 9/25/2020 at 5:49 AM, simple1 said:

trump world spin. Clinton said don't concede on election day if initial results show a narrow win for trump, in that circumstance, wait until mail in votes have been counted. It is currently estimated about 50% of all votes will be via mail so a logical statement.

Sure, there should be a mail in voting option to give everybody the opportunity to vote and sure they should wait a set number of days, 7 days seems logical and fair.

 

If the contenders have to wait the 7 days so be it.

Only seven days? I have a distant memory of it taking longer than that for a hanging chad in Florida to fall.

[NanLaew]

If Trump is so confident of winning, why his rush to get another SCOTUS nominee on the bench?

 

Maybe he has Chavez Syndrome, a delusional idea that if he preloads the supreme judiciary with his nominees, if he does take his re-election failure to the Supreme Court then surely they will rule in his favor, no? In Venezuela, Maduro caught it from Chavez and we an all see what a stellar successional success that has proved to be.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Cod Face said:

Amazing that some voters think that there will need to be a transition of power.  Naïvety on steroids tinged with illusions of adequacy.

Have you heard of free and fair transparent elections, these are election at which the outcome and number deciding votes are NOT decided before closing of polling and end counting??

A small matter of relative democracy.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by RJRS1301

[plentyofnuttin]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Since there is no voter fraud the "Russian interference" the dems were looking for before is non existent.

When various investigations have concluded that there is virtually no voter fraud they mean that no fraudulent ballots were cast. The Russians have not been accused of that.

What they have been accused of is spreading misinformation to influence the election by such means as bots, fake facebook accounts, and fake news including falsified videos and such. Your attempt to conflate the 2 is an obvious and transparent ploy to confuse the issue of Russian interference.

Edited September 26, 2020 by plentyofnuttin

[RocketDog]

On 9/25/2020 at 7:34 AM, Masterton said:

The way this article is framed is dishonest, which is what we've come to expect from Reuters. Another opinion hitjob article against the president, complete with Democrats accusing others of doing what they are doing. The reason Trump expects the SC to decide the election is due to the Democrats preparing to refuse to concede under any circumstances if they lose and already planning for legal action, ie Biden having already hired some 700 lawyers to do this. It is not because Trump is planning to challenge it or refuse to concede or chain himself to the desk or whatever other <deleted> he gets accused of daily by the Democrat media. 

Once you identify a dangerous animal and understand his behavior you take precautions against it. 

Snake leg guards for instance.. Maybe they will strike and maybe they won't.

All you know for sure is that their mind doesn't work the same as yours and there is no possibility of reasoning with them. 

 

In this case the animal has shown himself to be arrogantly devious, destructive, deceitful, aggressive, and often times irrational and even self-destructive. Preparation for such behavior is simple prudence. 

 

One either sees it or they don't. I'm hopeful that this time around most people see it and take action.