Analysis: Trump 'rigged' vote claim may leave lasting damage

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Oops!

Are you on the wrong thread?

Again?

I was responding to Srikcir so you should address your query to him.

[thaibeachlovers]

29 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

MSM does not publish every claim of every person all of the time concerning anything.

 

There is always editorial judgement in every news article published by responsible and respected journals. The process includes allegations or charges of sexual harassment.

 

The mass of highly financed rightwing media make their own rules however. So do the rightwhingers themselves.

 

The thread and topic are however about the 2016 Republican Party and its agents trying to destroy American democracy, the Constitution, the Republic in this historic general election, by discrediting the entire 240-year legitimate electoral process of the United States. Nothing like it has occurred in US history except in 1860. 

 

Trump the Birther.

All is permitted in democracy. If one party is not convincing the electorate they will not win. Even the Constitution can be thrown out if a sufficient majority will it.

I don't watch MSM, but do they spend as much time on the e mails as they do attacking Trump?

 

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All is permitted in democracy. If one party is not convincing the electorate they will not win. Even the Constitution can be thrown out if a sufficient majority will it.

I don't watch MSM, but do they spend as much time on the e mails as they do attacking Trump?

 

 

If you don't watch MSM how can you assert that they are totally in HRC's pocket?

[Mrjlh]

Here's Part II of a video I recently posted in case no one has already posted it. This time it's about committing voter fraud.

 

 

[Publicus]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All is permitted in democracy. If one party is not convincing the electorate they will not win. Even the Constitution can be thrown out if a sufficient majority will it.

I don't watch MSM, but do they spend as much time on the e mails as they do attacking Trump?

 

 

Insurrection against the government is our right in the United States.*

 

However, an insurrection is not acceptable at the present time.

 

The single reason is that a present insurrection is advocated and supported by people who are uniquely American fascists. As I've been saying, Donald Trump is how fascism manifests in America.

 

Trump and most of his most active supporters do present us with, and openly advocate, a uniquely American fascism. It's just that they don't dare call it that -- at least not openly.

 

 

(*It is also true a government has the inherent right to protect itself against insurrection or revolution. It works both ways.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MiKT]

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

Insurrection against the government is our right in the United States.*

 

However, an insurrection is not acceptable at the present time.

 

The single reason is that a present insurrection is advocated and supported by people who are uniquely American fascists. As I've been saying, Donald Trump is how fascism manifests in America.

 

Trump and most of his most active supporters do present us with, and openly advocate, a uniquely American fascism. It's just that they don't dare call it that -- at least not openly.

 

 

(*It is also true a government has the inherent right to protect itself against insurrection or revolution. It works both ways.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please Publicus, for the benefit of us forin ignoramussesss, would you be kind enough to explain how "Insurrection" can be a "right" in the USA?

 

Possibly you could also provide a link that explains why the extra privileged parts of the Thai Army also think they have this right? No I guess not, ignore that request, it would be digressing and I would hate to derail any part of this interesting thread.

 

 

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, MiKT said:

 

Please Publicus, for the benefit of us forin ignoramussesss, would you be kind enough to explain how "Insurrection" can be a "right" in the USA?

 

Possibly you could also provide a link that explains why the extra privileged parts of the Thai Army also think they have this right? No I guess not, ignore that request, it would be digressing and I would hate to derail any part of this interesting thread.

 

 

 

Foreigners might not have any knowledge of, or a sufficient contact with the Declaration of Independence....

 

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...

(Hold on cause here it comes)

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...   

 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

 

By the time the Constitution had been adopted in 1789, the name was the United States of America. Same same name we see on Air Force One.

 

The USA having been founded via a war of independence, a war of insurrection, a war of revolution, could hardly deny its own people the same right.

 

Still, however, it is paradoxically recognised that a government has the inherent right to protect itself and to preserve itself. Moreover, we'd easily find certain Americans absolutely opposed to any or all of the three, as if altering or overturning the government were some kind of commie thing only. (The observation has been made the Trump Troopers do sound an awfully like Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, of whom Vladimir Putin is an open and lifetime admirer.)

 

The conflicting rights to or against insurrection etc presents something of a paradox of legal and moral standing. So, it's an old cliche' that history is written by the winners. An insurrection is anyway a lesser task, but it also defies the laws of the state and its government - which a given government tends not to like or respond to passively.

 

The Trump Troopers are unmistakably clear they want to tear the whole thing down to start all over again, which sounds serious to me. Can't say they don't know what they mean when they keep talking it daily the past couple of years.

 

Some countries haven't ever had a French Revolution kind of thingy but being oblivious to the notion of altering or changing completely the government, to include insurrection or rebellion, is sort of weak.

[boomerangutang]

Thankfully, the US has never had a coup d'etat.  It's the military which would most likely take over, if a take-over had a chance of succeeding.  And, in the 240 years since the USA has existed, there's never even been an attempted coup, unless you count the Civil War - though in that case, the South wanted to secede so as to become a separate nation, and not be told what to do by the north.  

 

Americans have the option of a process to add, amend or delete Amendments to the US Constitution.  Granted, it's a drawn-out difficult process, but it allows for a sort-of pressure-relief-valve (prv, and yes, I've been a plumber).   That's part of what makes the Constitution a 'living' document, rather than a list of edicts carved in stone, which can never be changed or amended.   Perhaps it's not a perfect system, but it's arguably as good as a British-style parliamentary system (though the Brits have the House of Lords and the monarchy, which is based on hereditary succession).   

 

I also don't mind the current electorial college system, as opposed to a general vote.  I think state-by-state voting for blocks of electorial votes makes things more interesting and manageable.  Regardless, if Trump won by the current system, he'd say it was great and he would poop on any mention of 'a rigged election.'    But because he's going to lose, he's going to blame the system.   It's like a losing football team blaming the refs, the locale, the rules of the game, the shoes, the lights, the turf, the newspaper reporters, .....ad nauseum.  Trump is POOR LOSER personified.   He may actually contribute his name to a new word:  trumpism (n.),  trumped (adj.)  trumpster (n.)  all related to being such a sore loser, as to blame everyone/everything, except themselves.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If you don't watch MSM how can you assert that they are totally in HRC's pocket?

I don't, but others do, and I choose to believe them.

I have watched CNN, and it is as cr*p as the BBC international. I don't waste my time on them anymore.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Foreigners might not have any knowledge of, or a sufficient contact with the Declaration of Independence....

(Hold on cause here it comes)

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government...   

 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

 

 

The conflicting rights to or against insurrection etc presents something of a paradox of legal and moral standing. So, it's an old cliche' that history is written by the winners. An insurrection is anyway a lesser task, but it also defies the laws of the state and its government - which a given government tends not to like or respond to passively.

 

 

Quote edited for brevity.

 

Is it necessary to always use 10 words when 1 would do?

 

I would have just said that the founding fathers recognized that a future government might become a very bad one, and the right to bear arms is a safeguard against that.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

 

We are of course in the present time of the mass of highly financed right wing media and its appendages. Such as Breitbart and Faux which sitteth on each shoulder of Donald Trump. 

Quote edited for brevity.

 

As usual with zealots for one side, you omit to mention that very bad multi millionairs like Soros ( look at what he did to Thailand ) are in the bag for HRC.

[boomerangutang]

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't (watch CNN) but others do, and I choose to believe them.

I have watched CNN, and it is as cr*p as the BBC international. I don't waste my time on them anymore.

 

That may be a factor in the coming depressive state of mind you're girding yourself for.  Just because some of the news doesn't suit your biases, doesn't mean the news organizations are telling lies.  Perhaps because the news they report doesn't suit your proclivities, you therefore discount the organizations that report it (shoot the messenger).  I listen to various news outlets.  Besides the two mentioned above, I even listen to Fox sometimes.  I want to know what's going on, even if I don't agree with some of the the opinions.  Below is an opinion piece which Trump fans won't like.  But I like it because Keith Olbermann speaks with passion and conviction (and I fully agree with him).  Take a listen. . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Ugly American villain --

 

Enjoy the artwork here:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/10/20/sketches-from-the-third-and-final-presidential-debate/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4e45db3d1fae

[MiKT]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Quote edited for brevity.

 

Is it necessary to always use 10 words when 1 would do?

 

I would have just said that the founding fathers recognized that a future government might become a very bad one, and the right to bear arms is a safeguard against that.

 

I don’t wish to dispute too much with you gentlemen about the US Constitution, but in the case of the Second Amendment I do have a little knowledge from previous jousts with the TV pro-gun lobby.

  So, in (I think the latest ruling made on this issue, but please correct me if this is not the case) -  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

This seems quite straightforward, but for the life of me I cannot see how traditionally lawful purposes can be construed as a justification for insurrection.

[MiKT]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Thankfully, the US has never had a coup d'etat.  It's the military which would most likely take over, if a take-over had a chance of succeeding.  And, in the 240 years since the USA has existed, there's never even been an attempted coup, unless you count the Civil War - though in that case, the South wanted to secede so as to become a separate nation, and not be told what to do by the north.  

 

Americans have the option of a process to add, amend or delete Amendments to the US Constitution.  Granted, it's a drawn-out difficult process, but it allows for a sort-of pressure-relief-valve (prv, and yes, I've been a plumber).   That's part of what makes the Constitution a 'living' document, rather than a list of edicts carved in stone, which can never be changed or amended.   Perhaps it's not a perfect system, but it's arguably as good as a British-style parliamentary system (though the Brits have the House of Lords and the monarchy, which is based on hereditary succession).   

 

I also don't mind the current electorial college system, as opposed to a general vote.  I think state-by-state voting for blocks of electorial votes makes things more interesting and manageable.  Regardless, if Trump won by the current system, he'd say it was great and he would poop on any mention of 'a rigged election.'    But because he's going to lose, he's going to blame the system.   It's like a losing football team blaming the refs, the locale, the rules of the game, the shoes, the lights, the turf, the newspaper reporters, .....ad nauseum.  Trump is POOR LOSER personified.   He may actually contribute his name to a new word:  trumpism (n.),  trumped (adj.)  trumpster (n.)  all related to being such a sore loser, as to blame everyone/everything, except themselves.

 

Good post, except it's inarguably not as good as a British-style parliamentary system. 555.

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Quote edited for brevity.

 

Is it necessary to always use 10 words when 1 would do?

 

I would have just said that the founding fathers recognized that a future government might become a very bad one, and the right to bear arms is a safeguard against that.

 

That's the way my Lower School teacher put it. (Maybe you missed your calling. You also might have risen to have been a scolding school principal.)

 

My poly sci profs at uni said it in different terms however.

 

And about that right to bear arms btw...OTT abusers of the 2nd Amendment are the last people to listen to in the matter.

[Publicus]

55 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

I don’t wish to dispute too much with you gentlemen about the US Constitution, but in the case of the Second Amendment I do have a little knowledge from previous jousts with the TV pro-gun lobby.

  So, in (I think the latest ruling made on this issue, but please correct me if this is not the case) -  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

This seems quite straightforward, but for the life of me I cannot see how traditionally lawful purposes can be construed as a justification for insurrection.

 

Declaration of Independence doesn't mention an amendment that did not exist at the time of its writing. I haven't read Heller but it's unlikely the Declaration is mentioned or referenced in it, although there's no telling what some of the rightwing justices often do.

 

I presented the excerpt from the Declaration in reply to a poster foreign to the USA who asked what gives people in the USA the "right" of insurrection. The Declaration states it unequivocally. So I hope I answered his inquiry.

 

The 2nd Amendment and its abusers such as the National Rifle Association leaders have no bearing on the Declaration, same as the precisely stated and focused Heller ruling has no connection to the Declaration. 

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Quote edited for brevity.

 

As usual with zealots for one side, you omit to mention that very bad multi millionairs like Soros ( look at what he did to Thailand ) are in the bag for HRC.

 

My post deals in fact.

[Skywalker69]

On 2016-10-17 at 5:07 AM, MZurf said:

 

That's OK. The trumpets don't do reality.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/maher-trump-che-guevara/index.html

[Skywalker69]

Trump Claims Fox News’s Chris Wallace Rigged The Debate For Hillary Clinton.

 

Donald Trump is claiming that the third presidential debate was fixed as he believes that Fox News's Chris Wallace gave Hillary Clinton the questions in advance.

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/20/trump-claims-fox-newss-chris-wallace-rigged-debate-hillary-clinton.html

[Skywalker69]

Look at the body language, they all know it´s over.

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Declaration of Independence doesn't mention an amendment that did not exist at the time of its writing. I haven't read Heller but it's unlikely the Declaration is mentioned or referenced in it, although there's no telling what some of the rightwing justices often do.

 

I presented the excerpt from the Declaration in reply to a poster foreign to the USA who asked what gives people in the USA the "right" of insurrection. The Declaration states it unequivocally. So I hope I answered his inquiry.

 

The 2nd Amendment and its abusers such as the National Rifle Association leaders have no bearing on the Declaration, same as the precisely stated and focused Heller ruling has no connection to the Declaration. 

Except that the Declaration of Independence is not a document issued by or the USA.  It was just a statement by some representatives of 13 colonies that were declaring their intention to break away from the UK. It has no legal force at all. Zero. None. There was no United States of America when it was written.

There is a group of people who do agree with you, though. They are called Dominionts. They say that since God is invoked in the Declaration, that existene of  God is officially recognized by the United States and therefore religious laws are constitutional.

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

Look at the body language, they all know it´s over.

Title of the photo:  in like a hurricane, out like a donkey who couldn't find any other ass to mate with.

 

Here are some zingers from Colbert re; the debate. . . . . . .

 

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Except that the Declaration of Independence is not a document issued by or the USA.  It was just a statement by some representatives of 13 colonies that were declaring their intention to break away from the UK. It has no legal force at all. Zero. None. There was no United States of America when it was written.

There is a group of people who do agree with you, though. They are called Dominionts. They say that since God is invoked in the Declaration, that existene of  God is officially recognized by the United States and therefore religious laws are constitutional.

The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are separate and distinguishable. As you point out the former was not a legally binding instrument while the latter was. The DOI set forth the ideas and principles behind a just and fair government, and the Constitution outlined how this government would function. The first eight Amendments placed restrictions on how the government operated to prevent the transformation into an abusive, king-like government. 

thttps://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Sie/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/12/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-declaration-of-independence-and-the-constitution/

 

There is succession and there's insurrection. They are not synonmous.

Unilateral succession of individual states from the United States of America (The Union) through a peaceful democratic process (ie., ratification by state congress) that was not illegal until 1869 as a result of a US Supreme Court ruling. If South Carolina had in 1860 brought a legal challenge to the US federal court to the right of succession as a  state's right instead of proceeding directly to armed conflict, who knows how the USSC might have ruled?

 

On the other hand insurrection through the physical ejection of US federal officials and confiscation of US federal property (ie., Confederate attack on and capture of Fort Sumpter) would have been criminal acts but unlikely treason.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Except that the Declaration of Independence is not a document issued by or the USA.  It was just a statement by some representatives of 13 colonies that were declaring their intention to break away from the UK. It has no legal force at all. Zero. None. There was no United States of America when it was written.

There is a group of people who do agree with you, though. They are called Dominionts. They say that since God is invoked in the Declaration, that existene of  God is officially recognized by the United States and therefore religious laws are constitutional.

 

Declaration of Independence is a founding document. It was agreed in Congress, unanimously by the thirteen original States. They called themselves the united, States of America. the U coming a decade or so later.

 

It was produced to say to anyone interested (or literate) what, why, how come, to what purposes and goals; the factors that impelled/compelled the founders to declare their independence of Great Britain, and on what basis, code, moral and legal authority.

 

The Dominionists you reference, led by Justice Clarence Thomas argue each state can officially establish an official state religion based on the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment via the legal doctrine of Incorporation. The Declaration is their inspiration, the Constitution is their instrument (obstacle).

 

Scotus in 1919 cited the Constitution (while ignoring the Declaration) in the case of the anarchist Schenck v United States, in identifying Mr. Schenck as a "clear and present danger" because he'd piled weapons in front of a city hall and talked about insurrection. Scotus said nothing about the Second Amendment at all, much less it protecting the anarchist Schenck in his campaign to protect himself against the evil and wicked government he wanted to destroy.

 

The 2nd Amendment is silent in respect of the lunatic hollering of the fringe right that it guarantees citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves against the evil government - or against "a really bad one," as wrongly presented by another poster. So if the Trump Troopers might show up at polling stations on election day, or whenever, nothing in the Constitution or in any founding document, to present laws, would allow them to interpose themselves in the elections process and those implementing it.

 

While a right of insurrection is not to be found in any legal instrument to include the Constitution, it is enshrined in a founding document, i.e., the Declaration of Independence.  Dominionists have a (crackpot) agenda. I have a point and nothing more.

 

I'm not encouraging insurrection at this time for the reason I'd stated in a post. I am in fact discouraging it, not because insurrection is necessarily wrong or forbidden, but because the wrong set of people are considering it if not actively trying to initiate it. 

[Scott]

Please get back to the topic.  

[ilostmypassword]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Quote edited for brevity.

 

Is it necessary to always use 10 words when 1 would do?

 

I would have just said that the founding fathers recognized that a future government might become a very bad one, and the right to bear arms is a safeguard against that.

except if you actually had read the amendment you would know that it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  They actually gave the reason for putting in that amendment. Not a word about it being a safeguard. Are you mind reading what the authors of this amendment wrote? You must be using a Ouija board.

[iReason]

Just now, Skywalker69 said:

Look at the body language, they all know it´s over.

 

And don't let the door slam behind you.

All of you.

 

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

except if you actually had read the amendment you would know that it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  They actually gave the reason for putting in that amendment. Not a word about it being a safeguard. Are you mind reading what the authors of this amendment wrote? You must be using a Ouija board.

 

Likely yes of course that he is, but the poster who happens to be a foreigner to the USA is simply doing what the rest of 'em over there are doing, which is running with the pack. The wild pack.

 

Trump knows how to set 'em off howling about the imaginary 2nd Amendment that's in the complex of mirrors in their minds, an imaginary amendment that certainly hasn't anything to do with the text of the Amendment, or of its record of discussion at the Constitutional Convention.

 

Those who don't know the amendment and listen only to the wild radicals self-define it get a fantasy mantra. The gun nut fantasy recitation. People do not get the text of a provision in the U.S. Constituion. I seriously doubt Donald Trump has ever read the actual text. Or if he had, maybe he sees different words, or something between the lines no one in his right or honorable mind sees.

 

Trump however relies on these rightwing vigilante gunmen for his votes.

 

It is apparent he's counting on 'em in his refusal to accept the result of the election that is fast approaching. If Donald Trump wants on election day to send throughout the country gangs of gunmen because he's losing severely, as he's indicating he'll do as his proposed informal poll "watchers," then we'd see a uniquely American fascism become militantly manifest. 

[Morch]

16 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't, but others do, and I choose to believe them.

I have watched CNN, and it is as cr*p as the BBC international. I don't waste my time on them anymore.

 

Oh, well....that explains how Trump's "many people are saying". "I've heard" nonsense is seen as credible.