45 ms·

He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost. It’s not like this was some imagined scenario. He barely accepted the actual outcome! Despite winnin

He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost. It’s not like this was some imagined scenario. He barely accepted the actual outcome! Despite winning, he couldn’t resist calling it rigged and saying millions of illegal votes were cast.

microcolonel 7y ago
Could it be that perhaps his opinions... didn't depend on the result? Seems like what you're describing is basically ideological consistency: believing the same thing both before and after it suits you, for the same stated reasons (polling places not adequately protecting the integrity of the ballot) on either side. Hillary Clinton just tried throwing a family friend under the bus because his research led somewhere she doesn't like; does that bother you equally?
- guelo 7y ago
  > Hillary Clinton just tried... No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    A thread pulled together here by a helpful Twitter user, since Dr. Epstein doesn't know how to use Twitter properly: https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 I got my news about this from the horse's mouth, I'd been following the guy's work before Hillary threw him under the bus. This is not a "biased right wing" story, it is a true story. > No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals. Frankly, how dare you cast those aspersions on me? Take that back. You can't just go calling people cynical, bad-faith actors because they've said something you aren't willing to look in to. I really do miss the left who were willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a politician who receives significant monetary and material support from a particular major corporation, is willing to go to bat for that corporation in spite of the facts. It is no crime for you to be fond of Hillary Clinton, the Doctor himself is, despite what she's done to him this week. However, not every criticism of her actions is pseudo-something; sometimes it's just something.
    - guelo 7y ago
      I tried following that twitter thread but I just got bored with all the details. Why should I care? The obsession with Hillary is like some weird social disease. For example nobody talks about John Kerry. I don't get it.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        If you aren't willing to read a couple paragraphs of text from a PhD who is sympathetic to your politics, you aren't even in the conversation. Why publish your opinion if you admit you are unwilling to make even the slightest effort to back it up?
        mikeash 7y ago
        Why derail the conversation and start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with some professor when the original topic was Donald Trump and his attacks on the legitimacy of the 2016 election? You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all.
        microcolonel 7y ago
        > You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all. Well, I'll set your mind-reading aside. > Why ... start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with ... professor when the original topic was Donald Trump ... 2016 election? Because Hillary Clinton is in active denial, with a seeming corporate motive, about the election at least as much as you've accused Donald Trump of intending to be. Nobody in that race is clean of this particular accusation. I brought up the recent example of conduct related to that state of denial specifically because it demonstrates that if we're going to go down that road, nobody will emerge without mud on them.
        mikeash 7y ago
        What does “denial” have to do with anything? My complaint is about undermining the peaceful transition of power that is fundamental to the idea of democracy.
- mikeash 7y ago
  “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win.” Consistency is not one of Trump’s strong points.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > Despite winning, he couldn’t resist calling it rigged and saying millions of illegal votes were cast. This is the bit in particular I'm responding to. Wouldn't it be more worth criticizing to stop saying the election was rigged once you won it? Nobody here is particularly saying he's generally consistent, though on that matter it can sometimes be said. People you don't like, you shouldn't rely on them to be wrong and bad in every way just to prove your one point; your foes will have a tendency to let you down on that!
    - mikeash 7y ago
      That quote is directly connected to the bit you’re responding to. He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning. It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose. It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win. It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win. It’s bad to say that and then question its legitimacy after you win. He did, or said he would do, all of these things.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        > He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning. My question then is, why is it worse to you that he chose to say it was rigged after he was elected? It seems you're saying he should have done the politically expedient thing, and stopped saying it after winning. Wouldn't you criticize him for that as well?
        mikeash 7y ago
        Where am I saying it’s worse? He did a bunch of bad stuff related to questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election and I’m not attempting to rank them.
jlawson 7y ago
"He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost." This is a is objectively untrue. You cannot find an in-context quote of Trump saying this 'outright'. You need to apply several layers of hostile interpretation, which the media is happy to do.
- mikeash 7y ago
  “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win.” Doesn’t take more than one small layer of perfectly reasonable interpretation.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    It takes at least three layers: Interpretation Layer 1: He's mocking critics who were saying he wouldn't accept the outcome. Since he's mocking, he's not serious. You have to interpret a mocking response as serious. Interpretation Layer 2: He never said he wouldn't accept if he lost. You have to infer that yourself. Interpretation Layer 3: He said 'totally', which often means the alternative is 'not totally'. He could have meant he would just complain about the results, but still accept them. To think he would fully reject them in an outright, actionable way you need to interpret the words in a special way. -- So the original statement was false as I said. Nothing here is even close to 'outright' saying he wouldn't accept the result.

microcolonel 7y ago

Could it be that perhaps his opinions... didn't depend on the result? Seems like what you're describing is basically ideological consistency: believing the same thing both before and after it suits you, for the same stated reasons (polling places not adequately protecting the integrity of the ballot) on either side. Hillary Clinton just tried throwing a family friend under the bus because his research led somewhere she doesn't like; does that bother you equally?

guelo 7y ago
> Hillary Clinton just tried... No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  A thread pulled together here by a helpful Twitter user, since Dr. Epstein doesn't know how to use Twitter properly: https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 I got my news about this from the horse's mouth, I'd been following the guy's work before Hillary threw him under the bus. This is not a "biased right wing" story, it is a true story. > No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals. Frankly, how dare you cast those aspersions on me? Take that back. You can't just go calling people cynical, bad-faith actors because they've said something you aren't willing to look in to. I really do miss the left who were willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a politician who receives significant monetary and material support from a particular major corporation, is willing to go to bat for that corporation in spite of the facts. It is no crime for you to be fond of Hillary Clinton, the Doctor himself is, despite what she's done to him this week. However, not every criticism of her actions is pseudo-something; sometimes it's just something.
  - guelo 7y ago
    I tried following that twitter thread but I just got bored with all the details. Why should I care? The obsession with Hillary is like some weird social disease. For example nobody talks about John Kerry. I don't get it.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      If you aren't willing to read a couple paragraphs of text from a PhD who is sympathetic to your politics, you aren't even in the conversation. Why publish your opinion if you admit you are unwilling to make even the slightest effort to back it up?
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Why derail the conversation and start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with some professor when the original topic was Donald Trump and his attacks on the legitimacy of the 2016 election? You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all.
        microcolonel 7y ago
        > You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all. Well, I'll set your mind-reading aside. > Why ... start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with ... professor when the original topic was Donald Trump ... 2016 election? Because Hillary Clinton is in active denial, with a seeming corporate motive, about the election at least as much as you've accused Donald Trump of intending to be. Nobody in that race is clean of this particular accusation. I brought up the recent example of conduct related to that state of denial specifically because it demonstrates that if we're going to go down that road, nobody will emerge without mud on them.
        mikeash 7y ago
        What does “denial” have to do with anything? My complaint is about undermining the peaceful transition of power that is fundamental to the idea of democracy.
mikeash 7y ago
“I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win.” Consistency is not one of Trump’s strong points.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > Despite winning, he couldn’t resist calling it rigged and saying millions of illegal votes were cast. This is the bit in particular I'm responding to. Wouldn't it be more worth criticizing to stop saying the election was rigged once you won it? Nobody here is particularly saying he's generally consistent, though on that matter it can sometimes be said. People you don't like, you shouldn't rely on them to be wrong and bad in every way just to prove your one point; your foes will have a tendency to let you down on that!
  - mikeash 7y ago
    That quote is directly connected to the bit you’re responding to. He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning. It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose. It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win. It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win. It’s bad to say that and then question its legitimacy after you win. He did, or said he would do, all of these things.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning. My question then is, why is it worse to you that he chose to say it was rigged after he was elected? It seems you're saying he should have done the politically expedient thing, and stopped saying it after winning. Wouldn't you criticize him for that as well?
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Where am I saying it’s worse? He did a bunch of bad stuff related to questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election and I’m not attempting to rank them.

jlawson 7y ago

"He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost." This is a is objectively untrue. You cannot find an in-context quote of Trump saying this 'outright'. You need to apply several layers of hostile interpretation, which the media is happy to do.

mikeash 7y ago
“I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win.” Doesn’t take more than one small layer of perfectly reasonable interpretation.
- jlawson 7y ago
  It takes at least three layers: Interpretation Layer 1: He's mocking critics who were saying he wouldn't accept the outcome. Since he's mocking, he's not serious. You have to interpret a mocking response as serious. Interpretation Layer 2: He never said he wouldn't accept if he lost. You have to infer that yourself. Interpretation Layer 3: He said 'totally', which often means the alternative is 'not totally'. He could have meant he would just complain about the results, but still accept them. To think he would fully reject them in an outright, actionable way you need to interpret the words in a special way. -- So the original statement was false as I said. Nothing here is even close to 'outright' saying he wouldn't accept the result.