I think this plays into it more than people are admitting. Meaning, if he were running against a man, I think he'd still struggle with the idea of losing and hint at it being rigged. Losing to a woman, though? And in a potential landslide? I think that is really, really hard (if not completely impossible) for him to accept, hence the doubling and tripling down on the calls of "rigged!"
Two key differences: 1) he was actually winning the primaries by vote counts and delegates 2) he said repeatedly he wouldn't run as a third party candidate (which would've been the primary equilivent). His own people are saying they'll accept it. His campaign manager, his Vice President, his party. They all know what it means when he says he won't accept it, it means potential civil war and violent rebellion, not to mention a total undermining of democracy. I'm sorry, if he were losing to a man, he would definitely be butt-hurt and angry, but not "burn the nation to the ground" angry like he seems to be now, especially because he is going to lose to a woman and because women despise him. Fuck, some of his followers were tweeting about repealing the 19th amendment (never mind that those same people would literally kill people who tried to repeal the 2nd amendment). This election has become inexorably intertwined with gender politics, and trump is furious to be on the losing side. He also knows a LOT of his followers feel the same, and he can use that influence. If he wants to bitch that the media turned on him, or there was bias, fine. But to undermine the entire point of democracy cause he got his ass whooped by a "nasty woman?" C'mon.
Not hyperbole. The entire point of democracy is a peaceful transfer of power to the winner of the election. By refusing to concede and filing lawsuits, not to mention ralling his batshit crazy base, he will be undermining over two hundred years of democracy. He will effectively be telling his followers that the entire election is invalidated, and they will believe him. Plus, if his followers think the election was fraudulently stolen, do you really think they WONT go violent? They already feel persecuted, this would be the push they need to go full "sons of Liberty." There are a lot of insane militia groups out there just itching for a reason to rebel against the government, and Trump is giving them one on a silver platter. There is a reason even republicans and his own Vice Presidential nominee are saying they'll accept the results. The alternative is literally the end of democracy. And that is just in America. You think foreign nations won't take notice? You think they won't sense that weakness of a divided America with a batshit insane man and his followers challenging the legitimacy of the President? What if others follow suit? What if the governor of Alabama just says "we don't recognize the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton's win or the federal election"? Imagine the shitstorm that could come from that; from following Trump's lead. This isn't some small, insignificant play here. Again, even his own party is telling him to knock this shit off because it is fucking dangerous.
He wouldn't even do that. Trump's a lazy bullying coward. He's not going to actually create violent revolution, just like he's not going to actually sue the NYT. Like literally every other bully ever, he'll stir the pot, but the second it's time for real action he'll back down.
Either he'll not let it go and make a public spectacle about how it was rigged for months (potentially using it as fodder for his new media "empire"), or he'll say something along the lines of, "I've got more important things to go do that is better than being President. And you're ugly, and I wouldn't do you."
Just a hunch, but I think you're giving him and his supporters too much credit. This is like WWE to them -- they enjoy the theatre of it all, and they'll enjoy bitching about how it was rigged and she's a crook, but they're too complacent to do anything. Not sure I fully believe the "average Trump supporter makes $72,000" study, but the majority are plenty comfortable, and there's a percent who are content being on welfare. I also believe that if the militia groups were gonna do something, it would've been after a black man became president, and that deep down they have the sense to realize they don't actually stand a chance against the U.S. army. Yet again, South Park summed it up beautifully last night: much of what we're seeing is the result of a country resting on its laurels. People are bitching and supporting a reality TV star because they can, and they find it fun. Not that I'd be shocked if violence does occur, but he wants their eyeballs and money more than he actually gives a shit about the election.
It's funny, because there's a minority demographic that are saying if Trump is elected it will literally bring the country down. Between his policies and the international conflict he would create, we're on the edge of total war. But the other minority demographic is saying that if he LOSES he will trigger violence and destruction and the collapse of an entire democracy. Folks, where does this, "The end of the world draweth nigh!" obsession come from? And how is it helpful? It's like both sides secretly in their heart of hearts want the entire works to collapse. If Trump wins, he'll be a barking idiot that staffers will have to follow behind with a pooper scooper. However, he'll likely hand off the actual work to people who know what they are doing, because god knows he has no intentions of spending the next four years in a board room going blind reading up on international trade agreements. If he loses he'll make a big fit so he doesn't lose face. He'll get a lot of clicks and interviews and he'll sell it to the world that, "We all know Trump really won, but crooked Hillary stole it!" but, again, he's uninterested in going blind on lawsuit paperwork and he absolutely lacks the constitution to physically storm the capital. To the people half way hysterical: calm the fuck down. The sun will rise the day after the election. The new president will get sworn in in January. The roads will still operate and taxes will still get collected. Things aren't that bad, they aren't that dire. It's irresponsible to try and convince anyone otherwise.
The media... be it social or news or main stream. Sensationalism sells, "nothing to see here" is boring. In order to get any attention you have to say something sensationalist, and we are living in a physical and virtual world of attention seekers. It may be over-played, but it's still highly relevant.
The media, sure. But there are also posters on this board doing it. Is it purely to get attention, like the media but on a smaller scale? Because it feels like some people actually believe we're on a precipice of mortal danger, when in reality it's just an election with two bad candidates.
A large percentage of people just parrot what they've heard, and don't apply any critical thinking. They find a source that they can identify with or "fight for" (regardless of accuracy), and then carry on that fight. Or they just have an incomplete understanding of the situation. Or they just think something is a certain way and go out of their way to latch onto anything that corroborates that thinking without doing any real fact finding or due diligence. It's almost like having a favourite sports team... sometimes there's no rational explanation why they are "your team", but they are, so you defend them. "I'm telling you, the Browns are going to win the SuperBowl this year..." Or anti-vaxors... they fight strongly in their "beliefs"... regardless of reality or science. I think politics is just an extension of this, to a certain extent, and the internet just gives people a platform to espouse their beliefs and opinion where maybe they should just shut the fuck up.
I also think part of it is that in politics, there is no "wrong" answer... it comes down to your vote, and you're allowed to vote any way you want. There's no requirement to prove it, or rationalize it... you get to vote for whomever you want, and you don't have to say why. An individual's reason for voting for someone can be anything; she's a woman, he's a man, he's not a woman, he's an outsider, she knows how the game is played, she's not an idiot, he's not owned by big banks, she's for RvW, he hates women, I'm a gas worker and she's for fracking, I live in a border state and he's for stopping immigration, etc., etc. It's like religion... there isn't one true outcome, it's up to the person, and their own context when it comes to their individual experiences and beliefs and what is important to them. And like religion, most people feel this overwhelming need to validate their decision, prove that they're right, while at the same time convincing the other person that they're wrong, when there are no real rules about being right and wrong or winning and losing. I think that's why a lot of boards don't allow political or religious discussion, because it's so personal, and so arbitrary, and the anonymity brings out the lowest common denominator in everyone. You can see it here how quickly it devolves into name calling and "are you an idiot?" vitriol. There's a general lack of respect for other people's opinions unless they align with your own, which is why we try and keep everyone above that and motivate them to have civilized discussions where they actually consider the other side. Combine that with an overwhelming desire to get the last word in, and it gets tired, fast. To be honest, there is very little intellectual discussion in political threads, because it so quickly devolves into name calling from some moral high ground. One of the reasons we partitioned this thread off is because it's easier to ignore the overwhelming amount of crap that's in it.
If there's anything this election has taught me, it's that until the two party/single issue voting system changes, I can't, in good conscience, vote Republican. Which is a bummer, because there are conservative ideals that I like. A smaller, more efficient government being one of them. Personal liberty being the other. I like the idea of having lower taxes if that means I can take care of my family better. But when a party that espouses family values continually does everything in its power to make it harder to have or take care of family, they lose me.
I was talking to my mother in law about this, and it's where I have an issue with republicans vs. trump supporters. She's a trump supporter. Didn't understand how I can call myself a conservative and still support Clinton. Well, for one thing, I WANT to vote Republican. I want to with all my heart. But until they change their stance on marriage equality, abortion, marijuana legalization, accept that we need reasonable measures on gun control (such as what Clinton suggested last night) and embrace supporters from all religions or no religion instead of thinking the bible is their law.... well, I just can't get behind them. But I'm with you JJ. I want a smaller government. I think the best way to govern is to let the private sector do what they do best and get the government out of their way. With a smaller government will come lower taxes needed to run it, which will give me more money to spend in the economy. But at the end of the day, I have a two year old son. I could die tomorrow and he'd still have to grow up and live life. Maybe he's gay, maybe he's not. Maybe he works hard in a blue collar job, maybe he's finds his place behind a desk and does creative work or management or wants to be a chef. Maybe he gets married, and maybe he wants to have kids. Maybe he's religious like my wife, maybe he's atheist like me. Hell if I know, hell if I care. But since Colt can't vote and I can, I need to ensure that whatever becomes of him, he will have the most avenues for success and find the fewest doors closed. The next President will change the landscape of the Supreme Court for his generation. So what happens if Colt becomes a cocksucker atheist who wants to marry a bad hombre then their surrogate has issues during the third trimester where if she doesn't abort the baby she will die? Well, if Trump wins, then my son is shit out of luck.
The WW3, cratered ruins of a communist wasteland talk is over the top. Sure, but how the country is governed is certainly important. The ballooning debt, long term concerns of our economy's direction, trillions spent on military operations that are making problems worse. Providence depends on making the right decisions, but yeah, life will go on and not be so terrible in any case. Having watched CNN's reporting(or lack thereof) on the wikileaks, this made me laugh. Last I checked they still haven't decided if the Russians wrote the wikileaks, or if they say nothing incriminating.
Let me be clear: I don't think the world will end, and I think a Civil War won't happen. I do think violence is possible (I.e. Shootings at mosques, planned parenthood clinics, or even government buildings a la the Oklahoma City bombing increasing, in the name of "rebelling against a stolen government") and encouraged by Trump telling his followers the government is not a legitimately elected one. I think the dragging out of this election will only harm America, not just here but also abroad as we struggle to deal with Russia and Syria. I could easily see Putin and other nations claiming the US President is an illegitimate one (tell me you couldn't see Putin pulling that shit) and using that for leverage and/or making a tenuous foreign relations time even worse. I also think it serves to further divide our already divided nation and also continues to create an environment where compromise is considered the worst evil ever (because republicans that compromise with dems will be viewed as traitors, and they've already shown an overwhelming inability to offend their base), resulting in four more contentious years and this shit show repeating itself in 2020. I think if Republicans do manage to maintain control of congress, it'll mean four more years of shut downs and obstructionism and an 8 (or 7) member Supreme Court because a republican senate will not approve any single Clinton nominee. All because Trump is a butt hurt little rich boy.
Hillary told a lot of lies about guns last night, starting with the Heller decision. It had absolutely nothing to do with children, and Trump was a fool for not calling her on it. He probably doesn't know what the Heller decision was. Also, if you think the no-fly list is a reasonable measure on whether a person can buy a gun, you're crazy. She called them terrorists on the list, but if they're all terrorists then why are they just on a list instead of in prison? I've said it before - if having your name on the no-fly list prevents you from buying a gun, then we'll all be on it.
The no-fly list is fucking scary. Many high-ranking officials have ended up on that list erroneously, and the only way they got off that list was due to the fact that they were high ranking officials and could make a few calls to have some strings pulled. "Normal" people have practically no reasonable recourse, and if you're put on that list, you won't know why, and are pretty well fucked from that point on. Never mind that the scope of the no-fly is expanding, and a number of other nations are aggregating all of their own lists into one, big, global, list. Welcome to the Patriot act, and "safety".
My whitebread, ex army captain brother in law somehow wound up on that list. He's off, but it was a pain in the ass. Along the lines of what Jimmy posted - I think we need something closer to what Great Britain has as opposed to our winner takes all 2 party system. Most would say that, as a middle aged white man, I've been represented well in the White House. When we elect a moderate atheist Italian American from the northeast, let me know.
Everybody keeps talking about the deplorables coming out of the woodwork this election. Just a reminder they've always been around.