3 ms·

“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.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        But it seems like you're criticizing something which, if he didn't do it, you'd criticize him for not having done it.
        mikeash 7y ago
        So what? It’s not like the only two possibilities were “delegitimize the election he won after saying he would accept the results” or “accept the results of the election he won after saying he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost.” He could have, for example, said he’d accept the results, period. Or reserved the right to challenge the results if there was evidence of irregularities. You don’t get to build your very own custom Kobayashi Maru and then complain that it’s a no-win scenario. Keep in mind that my original comment was a reply to someone who seemed to be implying that Democrats made up accusations that Trump wouldn’t accept the results. I was pointing out that not only did Trump say he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost, he really didn’t accept them even the way it happened. This being bad is a secondary point (although it certainly is bad); the main point is that this was a real thing, not something made up by Democrats.
  - LyndsySimon 7y ago
    > It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose. With the "(without evidence)" part of this, I agree. I think "question" may be too strong a word - "challenge", perhaps. It's certainly bad to challenge election results without evidence of malfeasance. > It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win. I wholeheartedly disagree here. If Trump believes that the election was unfair in some way or that there were attempts to illegally influence it, then he absolutely should question in. Since he won, it would be reasonable for him to have ordered an investigation into it. > It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win. I think that's certainly boorish, but the action isn't necessarily bad. The man obviously believed he would be a good and faithful President, and apparently believed that Clinton would make a poor President. Why would he challenge the result upon winning, and risk putting someone he believed to be unfit into office?
    - mikeash 7y ago
      “It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win” was meant to implicitly have the same “without evidence” qualifier as the previous statement. I must disagree with your last paragraph in the most strenuous possible way. The peaceful and orderly transition of power is by far the most important aspect of democracy, and public faith in elections is a crucial part of that. I don’t care how great Trump thought he was or how awful his opponent was, saying he’ll only accept the result if he wins, with no evidence of any problems with the electoral process, is extremely destructive to the foundation of the whole country. If it was Jesus versus Satan, I’d still expect Jesus to say that he’ll accept the results of the election if Satan wins.

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.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      But it seems like you're criticizing something which, if he didn't do it, you'd criticize him for not having done it.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        So what? It’s not like the only two possibilities were “delegitimize the election he won after saying he would accept the results” or “accept the results of the election he won after saying he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost.” He could have, for example, said he’d accept the results, period. Or reserved the right to challenge the results if there was evidence of irregularities. You don’t get to build your very own custom Kobayashi Maru and then complain that it’s a no-win scenario. Keep in mind that my original comment was a reply to someone who seemed to be implying that Democrats made up accusations that Trump wouldn’t accept the results. I was pointing out that not only did Trump say he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost, he really didn’t accept them even the way it happened. This being bad is a secondary point (although it certainly is bad); the main point is that this was a real thing, not something made up by Democrats.
- LyndsySimon 7y ago
  > It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose. With the "(without evidence)" part of this, I agree. I think "question" may be too strong a word - "challenge", perhaps. It's certainly bad to challenge election results without evidence of malfeasance. > It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win. I wholeheartedly disagree here. If Trump believes that the election was unfair in some way or that there were attempts to illegally influence it, then he absolutely should question in. Since he won, it would be reasonable for him to have ordered an investigation into it. > It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win. I think that's certainly boorish, but the action isn't necessarily bad. The man obviously believed he would be a good and faithful President, and apparently believed that Clinton would make a poor President. Why would he challenge the result upon winning, and risk putting someone he believed to be unfit into office?
  - mikeash 7y ago
    “It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win” was meant to implicitly have the same “without evidence” qualifier as the previous statement. I must disagree with your last paragraph in the most strenuous possible way. The peaceful and orderly transition of power is by far the most important aspect of democracy, and public faith in elections is a crucial part of that. I don’t care how great Trump thought he was or how awful his opponent was, saying he’ll only accept the result if he wins, with no evidence of any problems with the electoral process, is extremely destructive to the foundation of the whole country. If it was Jesus versus Satan, I’d still expect Jesus to say that he’ll accept the results of the election if Satan wins.