Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Edge-]

I think you're naive if you honestly believe Hillary won't contest the outcome. She did so in 2008 with Obama, and didn't concede til after an hour long sit down with Feinstein three days after Obama won the primary.

She did? Do you have any links for that? Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall her making a serious legal challenge to the results of the 2008 primary, and I also don't recall her threatening to contest them if she didn't win.

[Felya]

She did? Do you have any links for that? Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall her making a serious legal challenge to the results of the 2008 primary, and I also don't recall her threatening to contest them if she didn't win.

Wikipedia doesn't agree either:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill...campaign,_2008

In fact:

By June 5, the Clinton camp backed away from any suggestion about the vice presidential slot, with Clinton's spokesperson saying "[she] is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her. The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

The only meeting with Feinstein I could find was in the 6th, with her concession speech on the 7. But, according to Wikipedia:

A flurry of superdelegates declared for Obama on June 3, and that combined with the day's winning of new pledged delegates in the two primaries, meant Obama had gained enough delegates to become the presumptive presidential nominee.

By June 4, several media networks and top Clinton aides confirmed that she had been planning to concede the race for the Democratic nomination and endorse Obama

@Tibb pretty much responding to you.

[Edge-]

Wikipedia doesn't agree either:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill...campaign,_2008

Awesome, thanks for the link. Score one for the 'ol memory box! /self-five

[Felya]

Awesome, thanks for the link. Score one for the 'ol memory box! /self-five

That's one thing this election is teaching, check everything. So much misinformation going around. Not saying I don't slip up in checking, but I was with you... I didn't remember anything about a Hillary refusal to concede. I was thinking it was right, because someone mentioned she won the popular vote in the primaries. But, even that had an asterisk, because Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan. He would have won if he was... so, yeah... google is useful, who woulda thunk it...

[Cooper]

Trump? Because Trump is the one asking why we can't just nuke other countries and advocating for nuclear proliferation.

Though I enjoy that the "HILLARY WANTS WORLD WAR 3 WITH RUSSIA!" meme is still going around, despite it being complete and utter bullshit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us...yber.html?_r=0

The nuclear issue arose when the moderator, Lester Holt, noted that President Obama “reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use,” which has left open the option that the United States would be the first to detonate a nuclear weapon in a conflict, as it did at Hiroshima 71 years ago. After lengthy debate inside the administration, Mr. Obama appears unlikely to alter that policy before leaving office.

“Do you support the current policy?” Mr. Holt asked.

...

“I would certainly not do first strike,” Mr. Trump first declared, appearing to be advocating a change in American policy that dates to the Truman administration.

But he did not stick with it. “I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over,” Mr. Trump said. “At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table.”

That put him pretty much where Mr. Obama ended up after seven and a half years. The president vowed to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in American strategic planning, and he did.

[Tibb]

Tibb[/MENTION] pretty much responding to you.

She did? Do you have any links for that? Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall her making a serious legal challenge to the results of the 2008 primary, and I also don't recall her threatening to contest them if she didn't win.

Contesting a primary is the same as contesting the general election?

To be very clear, I never said it was the same thing as contesting the primary. I also never said she would take legal action. I simply said she'd contest it. because any sane person would(come on, if you lost to the Don, wouldn't you?). She did dodge the question when she was asked after the third debate, after all.

As for wikipedia sources, i'm not to fond of those since they're typically user generated.

My source(which isn't much better than wikipedia) aside from 2008(aside from memory).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...b_9791460.html

Edit* Her speech during the convention didn't acknowledge Obama as the winner, and it wasn't until After the three days of contesting, that she started campaigning for him. And, to her defense, she did a hell of a job campaigning for him.

[KrazyK923]

if hillary wins i seriously worry for her safety

If Obama made it through, Hillary is fine.

I sincerely wish the crazies who want to kill her try so that they're removed from the populace.

[Elegiac]

I sincerely wish the crazies who want to kill her try so that they're removed from the populace.

Is it considered in bad taste to have a daredevil wish that Trump supporters -would- start some civil violence, so you could watch the spectacle?

[KrazyK923]

Is it considered in bad taste to have a daredevil wish that Trump supporters -would- start some civil violence, so you could watch the spectacle?

I don't at this point. These particular conspiracy crazies were legitimized by one of the two major political parties and have expressed seriously dangerous ideas at the thought of Clinton winning.

For as much as people hate Trump, you don't keep hearing about how Clinton supporters are threatening to kill him if he did win.

[Edge-]

To be very clear, I never said it was the same thing as contesting the primary. I also never said she would take legal action.

That's kinda what one does when they context election results, dude.

I simply said she'd contest it. because any sane person would(come on, if you lost to the Don, wouldn't you?).

She's given zero indication that she has any desire to contest the election, quite the contrary she's been pretty open that she'll accept the results of the election. As every other president for hundreds of years has done.

She did dodge the question when she was asked after the third debate, after all.

She was not asked, Trump was asked. Because Hillary has never threatened to contest the results. She responded to Trumps BS response, but she was not asked about the question because like with most candidates it's not a fucking issue that even needs to be raised with her.

As for wikipedia sources, i'm not to fond of those since they're typically user generated.

With citations provided for you to check them. I won't argue that there is some bullshittery going on on certain Wiki pages, but all of the information presented there is easily referenced from the citation and fact checkable with simple google searches (did a few myself to make sure Wikipedia was right, and they were).

My source(which isn't much better than wikipedia) aside from 2008(aside from memory).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...b_9791460.html

Not sure why you're linking that, skimmed it briefly and see nothing related to what you are saying it relates to.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...ory?id=5020581

She conceded the Democratic nomination on June 7, 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_D...nal_Convention

The Democratic election was in late August of 2008.

Did I miss the part where she contested it?

Edit* Her speech during the convention didn't acknowledge Obama as the winner, and it wasn't until After the three days of contesting, that she started campaigning for him. And, to her defense, she did a hell of a job campaigning for him.

I'll have to double check on those two points myself, but assuming they're both true neither is her "contesting" anything in the slightest.

[Tibb]

She was not asked, Trump was asked. Because Hillary has never threatened to contest the results. She responded to Trumps BS response, but she was not asked about the question because like with most candidates it's not a fucking issue that even needs to be raised with her.

...As every other president for hundreds of years has done...

Sorry, she actually was asked during the after the debate.

Video:https://youtu.be/RZ3g8phNWzM?t=15s

She dodged, and spun it on him.

I'm not voting Trump, btw. I'm not voting Clinton, either.?

*Edit* We can argue semantics all night but when it comes down to it there isn't much difference between contesting, Not accepting results, and not conceding.

Also a small history lesson on contested elections.

Contested Election in 1800. Thomas Jefferson was selected as winner by House.

Contested Election in 1824. John Quincy Adams was selected as winner by House.

Contested Election in 1860. Four way contest, Abraham Lincoln ultimately selected as winner which led to South Carolina seceding from the Union.

Contested election in 1876. Rutherford B Hays elected.

Contested Election in 1960. JFK wins election. Nixon contests, but ultimately concedes saying “the effect could be devastating to America’s foreign relations. I could not subject the country to such a situation.”

These are example of you definition of contested. where legal action was taken.

[Edge-]

Sorry, she actually was asked during the after the debate.

Video:https://youtu.be/RZ3g8phNWzM?t=15s

She dodged, and spun it on him.

I'm not voting Trump, btw. I'm not voting Clinton, either.

Interesting, so she declined to answer her (it's a female reporter with short hair that asks) and pivots to talking about Trump's refusal to accept them on-stage earlier that night. Considering that was a key message she wanted to hammer home, it makes sense, but curious that she didn't respond. The fact still remains that she's never said she would contest them (that I've heard/read/seen) and I believe she's confirmed that she would on multiple occasions. My google-fu is weak this late at night, so unfortunately all my attempts to turn up search results of her confirming that are only turning up stories about Trump (and searching without trump turns up nothing even remotely relevant as he's referenced in any story surrounding the topic). Will keep poking around a bit to see if I can dig up confirmation.

As an aside, I came across these two pieces of fantastic journalism from pro-Trump sites trying to find another instance of that video.

http://www.infowars.com/nbc-caught-p...fore-election/

Infowars being Infowars as usual, predicting that the results are supposedly already in, with a huge showing for third parties that doesn't mirror any polling as well as the fact that it's showing a roughly 33% drop in votes for both parties.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/elec...ults-15221824/

Hannity being himself and trying to pretend that Hillary expressing personal opinion at a private fundraiser is the same as Trump repeatedly and publicly threatening to contest the results simply because he loses. So the usual intellectual dishonesty and detachment from facts and reality that he needs to continue to engage in to support Trump.

[Cooper]

She's given zero indication that she has any desire to contest the election, quite the contrary she's been pretty open that she'll accept the results of the election. As every other president for hundreds of years has done.

Andrew Jackson spent 4 years saying that John Quincy Adams stole the 1824 election from him by making a deal with Speaker of the House Henry Clay when the election went to the House. Jackson won the 1828 election.

Arguably one could also point to the 2000 election, where Florida was called for Bush, was still for Bush (albeit by a smaller margin) after a mandatory recount, and then Gore demanded another recount (but only in counties that voted Democratic), forcing the issue to the Supreme Court.

Some wanted Nixon to contest the 1960 election due to JFK winning on, arguably, the back of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, but Nixon decided against it.

[Tibb]

Interesting, so she declined to answer her (it's a female reporter with short hair that asks) and pivots to talking about Trump's refusal to accept them on-stage earlier that night. Considering that was a key message she wanted to hammer home, it makes sense, but curious that she didn't respond. The fact still remains that she's never said she would contest them (that I've heard/read/seen) and I believe she's confirmed that she would on multiple occasions. My google-fu is weak this late at night, so unfortunately all my attempts to turn up search results of her confirming that are only turning up stories about Trump (and searching without trump turns up nothing even remotely relevant as he's referenced in any story surrounding the topic). Will keep poking around a bit to see if I can dig up confirmation.

I get you on that, It was actually quite hard to find the video because of the same reason. and i'm not saying she didn't do a good job pivoting. Also, edited my post above.

Andrew Jackson spent 4 years saying that John Quincy Adams stole the 1824 election from him by making a deal with Speaker of the House Henry Clay when the election went to the House. Jackson won the 1828 election.

Arguably one could also point to the 2000 election, where Florida was called for Bush, was still for Bush (albeit by a smaller margin) after a mandatory recount, and then Gore demanded another recount (but only in counties that voted Democratic), forcing the issue to the Supreme Court.

Some wanted Nixon to contest the 1960 election due to JFK winning on, arguably, the back of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, but Nixon decided against it.

Thank you! must be another history buff to know those facts

[Deleted]

if hillary wins i seriously worry for her safety

Well, you have nothing to worry about. Hillary is NOT going to win next Tuesday, she is NOT going to be the next POTUS. Trump is going to bury that corrupt piece of filth in a landslide.

REAL Americans are not going to vote for Hillary and this country has more REAL Americans than some media outlets care to admit. REAL Americans would never vote for such a nasty woman as Hillary Clinton.

[Wyrt]

Well, you have nothing to worry about. Hillary is NOT going to win next Tuesday, she is NOT going to be the next POTUS. Trump is going to bury that corrupt piece of filth in a landslide.

REAL Americans are not going to vote for Hillary and this country has more REAL Americans than some media outlets care to admit. REAL Americans would never vote for such a nasty woman as Hillary Clinton.

WTF is a "REAL American?"

[Felya]

To be very clear, I never said it was the same thing as contesting the primary. I also never said she would take legal action. I simply said she'd contest it. because any sane person would(come on, if you lost to the Don, wouldn't you?). She did dodge the question when she was asked after the third debate, after all.

As for wikipedia sources, i'm not to fond of those since they're typically user generated.

My source(which isn't much better than wikipedia) aside from 2008(aside from memory).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...b_9791460.html

Edit* Her speech during the convention didn't acknowledge Obama as the winner, and it wasn't until After the three days of contesting, that she started campaigning for him. And, to her defense, she did a hell of a job campaigning for him.

Here is the source of one of her chief strategist saying she is conceding, the day after Obama was the presumptive nominee. It's the source in Wikipedia and is simply not mentioned in your article. Which implies that the Feinstein meeting was the catalyst, which ignores what her chief strategist said and her even saying it's up to Obama if he wants her as the VP, before that meeting ever happened. I included the meeting in the timeline you quoted...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us...-campaign.html

[Edge-]

Andrew Jackson spent 4 years saying that John Quincy Adams stole the 1824 election from him by making a deal with Speaker of the House Henry Clay when the election went to the House. Jackson won the 1828 election.

Hot damn, just had to dig back nearly 200 years. Thanks for the correction though, hope I'll remember that random factoid next time I need to know something totally useless at a party! I'm being serious and not sarcastic, I love totally pointless random facts like this that seem like they'll never be important.

Arguably one could also point to the 2000 election, where Florida was called for Bush, was still for Bush (albeit by a smaller margin) after a mandatory recount, and then Gore demanded another recount (but only in counties that voted Democratic), forcing the issue to the Supreme Court.

One could, until one revisits the history and sees that it didn't actually go quite that way and that Gore also didn't spend the better part of his primary campaign complaining about a rigged primary, and the better part of his general election complaining about a rigged election and threatening to contest it if he lost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-process-now/

Solid writeup on why these two situations are so different.

Some wanted Nixon to contest the 1960 election due to JFK winning on, arguably, the back of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, but Nixon decided against it.

Yeah, that election had some serious bullshit going on with the mob in Illinois. Though even if he'd contested and Illinois had flipped, its 13 electoral votes would have still left him sitting at a total of 232, so well short of victory still.

[Felya]

WTF is a "REAL American?"

People who think they are better than avarage Americans. It's a way to divide people for no reason.

[Edge-]

WTF is a "REAL American?"

I think it's something like this.