A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[TheDeamon]

https://www.wifr.com/2020/07/19/chicago-fraternal-order-of-police-ask-trump-administration-for-help-amid-violence/

The Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara Jr. sent a letter to President Donald Trump, asking for the federal government to help fight the violence. The Trump Administration reached out to Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot in June and offered to sit down to devise a plan to fight the violence in the city. Lightfoot responded on Twitter saying “I don’t need leadership advice from Donald Trump.

Now the FOP tells Trump in a letter they are willing to sit down and discuss how to bring peace back to the streets.

“I am certain you are aware of the chaos currently affecting our city on a regular basis now,” the letter states. “Mayor Lightfoot has proved to be a complete failure who is either unwilling or unable to maintain law and order here.”

[Fenring]

She doesn't want the Federal government stepping in and doing whatever they please or think is a good idea, even if it is to address the problems she specifically listed.  She want helps, locally directed and controlled, so that the help actually doesn't make things worse.

I have no doubt that anything Trump does there is going to be like a bull in a china shop, and wouldn't be surprised if the manner of execution of helping stop illegal gun sales wouldn't be what the mayor wants. I wasn't trying to argue that he's her best buddy now, I was pointing out that DonaldD (and the article he was citing) misrepresented what the move to put people in Chicago was about.

Now you believe that Trump isn't sending in shock troops.  But will they be coordinating with local police and the local police will be in charge?  If they are not going to coordinate, how effective do you think they will be, being unfamiliar with the city?  And if they are going to coordinate, why hasn't the Chicago police chief informed her of his talks with the Federal agents coming in?

DonaldD's quote was meant to illustrate to us that the Emperor is sending in the stormtroopers in yet another rise towards fascism. But the article he got that quote from was specifically about a move to send investigators to Chicago, which said *explicitly* that this was unrelated to Trump's statement about wanting to send people in to liberal cities to get them under control. The fact that Trump has previously said he'll take matters into his own hands if local government won't, we already know; he said that quite a while ago. This article's information didn't say anything about Trump following through on that threat, explicitly said this was a different operation, but the writer of it tried to make it sound like this was Trump sending in stormtroopers, to scare the reader. That is pretty much the gist of propaganda: make the facts sound how you want them to sound to elicit a response of your choice, even though the facts themselves don't imply what you are making them imply.

Your argument that Mayor Lightfoot may still be upset about Trump's move is beside the point. I probably even agree with you that it won't be what she wants. But my point was that DonaldD was playing the Rise of Hitler card and the article he got that information from says nothing like that.

[wmLambert]

... have no doubt that anything Trump does there is going to be like a bull in a china shop, and wouldn't be surprised if the manner of execution of helping stop illegal gun sales wouldn't be what the mayor wants. I wasn't trying to argue that he's her best buddy now, I was pointing out that DonaldD (and the article he was citing) misrepresented what the move to put people in Chicago was about.

That's incendiary rhetoric. Trump was prepared to sit down with local leaders and find out how best to work with them. We have always had a partnership relationship with Feds and Locals, but evidently, Lightfoot wants to create a new non-relationship with the Feds. She's the bull in the china shop - not Trump.

[TheDrake]

A post by Donald Trump's official Facebook account purports to show violence in the US but is in fact of an event in another country.

The advert shows one image of Mr Trump in a calm setting talking to police officers beside another of a security official being surrounded by protesters, saying: "Public safety vs chaos and violence".

I'll be waiting to hear from the people who have criticized news outlets for using images from the wrong place and time also denounce this as manipulation.

[Wayward Son]

Link to the photo TheDrake refers to.

[Wayward Son]

From our Very Stable Genius President: "Because, yes, the first few questions are easy, but I'll bet you couldn't even answer the last five questions. I'll bet you couldn't, they get very hard, the last five questions."

Here's a copy of the test President Trump is referring to.

Can anyone tell me which five questions he was referring to?  You know, the "very hard" ones.

Then tell me why I should vote for a man who thinks these are "very hard" questions. 

[TheDrake]

Actually I'd probably blow the date question. I always have to look at my phone or computer to determine the day of the month. I'm not too thrilled about the watch-ruler commonality. Stopwatch maybe. But ruler has multiple definitions, and watch can be a verb. I'm not a professional, they probably have their reasons and maybe the ambiguity is intentional. I also wonder if I'd remember a random string of words, I have a hard time with any memorization, but I guess 5 minutes after repeating it twice might be enough. 

I'm sure I'd get a passing score, but probably not a perfect score. I'm not sure I'd call them very hard, though. It's not exactly the GMAT.

[Fenring]

That's incendiary rhetoric. Trump was prepared to sit down with local leaders and find out how best to work with them. We have always had a partnership relationship with Feds and Locals, but evidently, Lightfoot wants to create a new non-relationship with the Feds. She's the bull in the china shop - not Trump.

You may or may not be right, but this was a side comment and not my main point. My point was that an out-of-context quote was drawn from an article, and the description offered suggested something contrary to what the article actually says. I am talking about spinning news into being whatever one wants; what you think about Trump's relationships with local government is a fine topic but a separate one.

[DonaldD]

The President asked about an accused sex trafficker (Ghislaine Maxwell):

I just wish her well, frankly.

[DonaldD]

So, the sitting president just supported a person accused of sex trafficking, yet... radio silence.  It's a sign of just how morally bankrupt the president has shown himself to be that this doesn't rate a single response.

[Fenring]

So, the sitting president just supported a person accused of sex trafficking, yet... radio silence.  It's a sign of just how morally bankrupt the president has shown himself to be that this doesn't rate a single response.

This sounds like a separate thread topic to me, as it's not really about Trump sound bites that are stupid. If you're asking how he could tacitly endorse someone like this, you really need to ask how such people (especially Epstein) become as powerful and connected as they are in the first place. Even Trump is not likely to publicly denounce a Mossad asset connected to politicians far and wide.

[DonaldD]

Did you just imply that the president of the United States was unable NOT to say nice things about Ghislaine Maxwell because she is a secret agent of Mossad?

And yes, I suppose discussing how Epstein wasn't just rich but wielded secret power, as well as the secret cabal with which he was associated from whence he derived this secret power probably deserves its own thread... 

It's weird though, Trump being the champion who is secretly fighting those evil forces, that he would go out if his way to complement her... But that's probably multi-level deception he's employing, in order to misdirect the deep state...

[TheDeamon]

Biden basically needs his own thread, but this seems as good a place as any:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/politics/joe-biden-trump-first-racist-president/index.html

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Wednesday said Donald Trump was the first racist to win the presidency.

...

"No sitting president has ever done this," he said. "Never, never, never. No Republican president has done this. No Democratic president. We've had racists, and they've existed, that tried to get elected president; he's the first one that has."

I guess he never heard of this dude called Woodrow Wilson.

And on a scale of racist/bigoted presidents in America's past, with Wilson being a 10, I'm hard pressed to see Trump rating much above a 4, if he even gets that far. And you have to twist the meaning of "racist" to get that far.

[Fenring]

Did you just imply that the president of the United States was unable NOT to say nice things about Ghislaine Maxwell because she is a secret agent of Mossad?

Well the context is if he's asked point blank "what do you think of the Maxwell situation" he has basically three choices: say something bad about her, say something like "no comment" (very unlike Trump), or make a lukewarm pleasant statement and move on. I suppose a fourth option would be to say something glowingly positive, but that would really be bad. I don't realistically see high-ups slinging crap at her on the air, which leaves a nondescript lukewarm remark as the least noteworthy and most expedient since refusing to say anything at all looks a bit weird (like "I have nothing to say about that").

[DonaldD]

Uh, well an actual adult might have said that it is in front of the courts and he is confident that the court system will get to the truth of the matter/provide justice, etc.

[yossarian22c]

Until Trump was president it wouldn't have been odd at all for a sitting president to decline to comment on an ongoing federal criminal case. Or to have a statement so bland it could be applied to any criminal case.

[Fenring]

Actually I think it would extraordinarily rare for a sitting President to make public statements with actual content about active intelligence assets. That's the sort of thing that is kept out of the airwaves. This case is strange because she and Epstein kind of got outed for other reasons but it's likely still a powder keg behind the scenes. A handwave and 'let's move on' is all I would expect from a politician on this. Let's be real, you are not going to start trash-talking an ally's agents no matter what their public image is.

[DonaldD]

Who is talking about trash talking? The president literally "wished her well" - a person arrested for child trafficking, by his own justice system, the one of which he is the titular head.  I know the bar has dropped so far that we barely bat an eye when he brings the stupid now, but numbness really is not an excuse for rationalizing new instances of stupid. If he had "no commented" or made a pat response about confidence in the justice system, it would have been a non-issue.

[TheDeamon]

Who is talking about trash talking? The president literally "wished her well" - a person arrested for child trafficking, by his own justice system, the one of which he is the titular head.  I know the bar has dropped so far that we barely bat an eye when he brings the stupid now, but numbness really is not an excuse for rationalizing new instances of stupid. If he had "no commented" or made a pat response about confidence in the justice system, it would have been a non-issue.

Maybe you consult some tea leaves or a magic 8 ball to better decipher Trump's motivation.

I'm hard pressed to find a nefarious slant to "I wish her well" both in the vein of Trump likely having met her personally on a few occasions, given previously known ties to Epstein and her being associated with Epstein in the time-frame Trump wasn't otherwise estranged from the guy.

Or the matter that Epstein's own suicide while in custody does raise a number of concerns about her own potential well being, and reports that they're moving her around a lot, as though they assume her life is in danger from outside parties. And the list goes on and on.

Her prosecution potentially puts a lot of high profile and highly powerful people at some unknown degree of risk, and we probably don't want to know what kind of reach those people have if angered. So in that respect his "I wish her well" could simply be a circumspect(unusual for Trump, I know) statement from Trump that he hopes she lives to see her trial through to completion if nothing else.

[TheDrake]

Did you just imply that the president of the United States was unable NOT to say nice things about Ghislaine Maxwell because she is a secret agent of Mossad?

Well the context is if he's asked point blank "what do you think of the Maxwell situation" he has basically three choices: say something bad about her, say something like "no comment" (very unlike Trump), or make a lukewarm pleasant statement and move on. I suppose a fourth option would be to say something glowingly positive, but that would really be bad. I don't realistically see high-ups slinging crap at her on the air, which leaves a nondescript lukewarm remark as the least noteworthy and most expedient since refusing to say anything at all looks a bit weird (like "I have nothing to say about that").

You don't see Trump slinging crap at people on the air, eh? He doesn't really do much holding back, even when it is a reporter sitting right there in the room. A normal human president would just refer them to the DOJ and the AG, or just generally express confidence in the justice system finding the truth.

[Fenring]

You don't see Trump slinging crap at people on the air, eh?

I know some people here think Trump is so deranged and senile that he can't even figure out who he's talking about, but I think that the sort of people who he slings crap at in public are not the type of person we're talking about now. Maxwell is the sort of person who is supposed to not exist, she'd not a public figure. That she is now widely known is a gigantic failure, but that's a side point to the fact that Trump slings mud at talking heads and politicians, not at obscure figures who are important behind closed doors. That is standard and he knows that.

A normal human president would just refer them to the DOJ and the AG, or just generally express confidence in the justice system finding the truth.

If you say so.

[rightleft22]

Who is talking about trash talking? The president literally "wished her well" - a person arrested for child trafficking, by his own justice system, the one of which he is the titular head.  I know the bar has dropped so far that we barely bat an eye when he brings the stupid now, but numbness really is not an excuse for rationalizing new instances of stupid. If he had "no commented" or made a pat response about confidence in the justice system, it would have been a non-issue.

Maybe you consult some tea leaves or a magic 8 ball to better decipher Trump's motivation.

I'm hard pressed to find a nefarious slant to "I wish her well" both in the vein of Trump likely having met her personally on a few occasions, given previously known ties to Epstein and her being associated with Epstein in the time-frame Trump wasn't otherwise estranged from the guy.

Or the matter that Epstein's own suicide while in custody does raise a number of concerns about her own potential well being, and reports that they're moving her around a lot, as though they assume her life is in danger from outside parties. And the list goes on and on.

Her prosecution potentially puts a lot of high profile and highly powerful people at some unknown degree of risk, and we probably don't want to know what kind of reach those people have if angered. So in that respect his "I wish her well" could simply be a circumspect(unusual for Trump, I know) statement from Trump that he hopes she lives to see her trial through to completion if nothing else.

Decipher Trump's motivation... I'm tired of it. Standard defense of trump is to He says what he means except when he doesn't in which chase you have to read between the lines. And You never get to know when to apply the rules.

A leader should be clear. A intelligent leader understanding their role would have said no comment.  It just stunning who Trump wishes well and who he decides to call names and such.
But yeah we are the problem, we read to much or to little in what his says and or what his actions point to. We can take Trump at his word except for those comments that were not to.

[TheDrake]

I think it is as simple as the fact that she is an attractive woman who used to flatter him, and Trump admires that above all else.

[Wayward Son]

Just imagine Trump saying this:

Reporter: "What do you think of the Jeffrey Dahmer situation?"

Trump: "I don’t know – I haven’t really been following it too much. I just wish him well, frankly. I have met him numerous times over the years, especially since I have a house in Milwaukee, and I guess he lived in Milwaukee. I even had dinner with him once. But I wish him well, whatever it is."

I think that will give you a good idea how it sounds to most of America.

[TheDeamon]

I think it is as simple as the fact that she is an attractive woman who used to flatter him, and Trump admires that above all else.

Not going to argue that one, it probably is valid to a large degree.

The other side, in response to Donald, is that if Trump went "no comment" then press and tin-foil hat types would be going "Trump's scared he's going to be named by her." Or "Trump's going to have her killed."

[TheDeamon]

The other side, in response to Donald, is that if Trump went "no comment" then press and tin-foil hat types would be going "Trump's scared he's going to be named by her." Or "Trump's going to have her killed."

Correction, that should have been Wayward Son, should have been paying more attention to which name was attached to which post.

[Fenring]

Decipher Trump's motivation... I'm tired of it. Standard defense of trump is to He says what he means except when he doesn't in which chase you have to read between the lines. And You never get to know when to apply the rules.

I'm not really interested in deciphering his motivation or defending him, but as there is a constant barrage of people trying to make political hay out of everything he says, such as above with the out-of-context quote about stormtroopers, the form of using those soundbites is what needs to be pushed back against. That this is used against Trump 99.9% of the time since he's always the main event is not my choice, but I would push back against this type of gotcha tactic in any context if it was being done repeatedly.

[rightleft22]

Decipher Trump's motivation... I'm tired of it. Standard defense of trump is to He says what he means except when he doesn't in which chase you have to read between the lines. And You never get to know when to apply the rules.

I'm not really interested in deciphering his motivation or defending him, but as there is a constant barrage of people trying to make political hay out of everything he says, such as above with the out-of-context quote about stormtroopers, the form of using those soundbites is what needs to be pushed back against. That this is used against Trump 99.9% of the time since he's always the main event is not my choice, but I would push back against this type of gotcha tactic in any context if it was being done repeatedly.

I failed to find the out-of-context quote about storm-trooper . Was this something Trump said or DonaldD said?

I agree with you on the misuse of soundbits understandably difficult with a President who's primary means of communication is the twitter soundbite.

That it might not be your choice to make Trump the main event I suspect it is his. I would argue that Trump intentionally uses the soundbite to remain center of attention, and for the most part is works in his favor. If he gets burned by that strategy every now and then is his bad. To complain about being the attention while seeking out attention is disingenuous at best.

Asking that trump be clear in his communication may be a gotcha tactic... you might think after 3 years he would figure out a better way of communication if it was really bothering him. As he is not a stupid man I suspect his communication style is intentional. It works for his base and that is all he needs. 

The gotcha tactic being done repeatedly I was referring to is the one were we are being asked to take Trumps comments at face value except for the ones were not.  The choosing of how we ought to respond to a comment left to Trump apologists.

What we should be pushing back on is a Leader the fails to communicate intelligently and that plays these types of games.  Maybe 'I wish her well' means nothing. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt however his history of calling out "criminal" makes it understandable that for many people it begs the question of why he would be kind to her. Trumps political persona is not one of kindness. Trump himself plays the game when reading into other peoples sound bits so I don't go into this Poor Trump he's being victimized crap.

We all should be demanding better but I fear we get what we deserve.

[TheDeamon]

Trump is very good about digging holes for himself.

The problem is the media seems compelled to lie or otherwise "spin" so much of the rest of what he says with such a high rate of frequency that they're effectively granting him "get out of jail free" cards because people just shrug at the accurate portrayals after being lied to on so many other occasions.

The parable of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

[TheDrake]

I love that people seem to think that out of context quotes are somehow unique to Trump, when we have those same people gleefully pass along the "You didn't build that" quote from Obama or paraphrasing Al Gore saying he invented the internet or any number of more current leaders.

This is precisely why most Presidents are smart enough to remain guarded and highly scripted.

I guess we'll know soon enough if it is truly unfair when we see if Federal agents start pulling a Portland in Chicago.

[DonaldD]

For context, you know who Trump has also wished well?  Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.  Who has he not wished well?  Well, most famously, Obama and Clinton.

For those who missed the pattern, some of those people are felons, who coincidentally have dirt on Trump and who Trump would benefit from their silence.

Interestingly, here's someone who was being retaliated against by the current justice department, until a judge ruled that the Department of Justice had sent Michael Cohen back to prison solely in retaliation for writing another of those tell-all books about Trump.  There is seemingly no stopping Trump's personal attorney, current AG William Barr, from abusing the power of his position to assist the president.

This is another of those weirdly ignored news items: the Department of Justice abusing its power against a private citizen for the purpose of politically assisting the president, getting caught, and the story simply not getting any traction because these types of abuse are now expected from this administration.

[DonaldD]

And what are other Republicans saying about Trump's latest brain-f@rt?

The comment quickly sparked outrage on social media and inside the Department of Justice. [Chip] Roy (R-Texas), among the most conservative members of the GOP, slammed the president's kid-gloves treatment of a woman charged with grooming young girls into a circle of sexual abuse.

“This is unacceptably obtuse for a woman accused of the most morally depraved of crimes, @realDonaldTrump,” Roy wrote on Twitter. “She needs to be severely punished... and justice must be served for the girls she abused. For ALL involved.”

Of course, Roy goes on to drop the requisite "alleged" sentiments by the end of his tweet, which I would have been more careful about.

At any rate, it's pretty clear he doesn't feel there's much ambiguity in the president, the head of the government branch responsible for prosecutions, wishing an accused child predator well...

[DonaldD]

Well, that didn't last long: Trump retweets claim that Fauci misled the public.

Donald J. Trump Retweeted

War Room: Pandemic
@WarRoomPandemic
·
Jul 22
Dr. Lee Vliet: Dr. Fauci has misled the American public on many issues, but in particular, on dismissing #hydroxychloroquine and calling Remdesivir the new gold standard

He can't seem to help himself. He's got the self-control of a 4-year-old in a vat of cotton candy.

[DonaldD]

From today's press briefing (July 28).

So — you know, it’s interesting: He’s got a very good approval rating, and I like that.  It’s good.  Because remember, he’s working for this administration.  He’s working with us, John.  We could have gotten other people.  We could have gotten somebody else.  It didn’t have to be Dr. Fauci.  He’s working with our administration.  And, for the most part, we’ve done pretty much what he and others — Dr. Birx and others, who are terrific — recommended.

And he’s got this high approval rating, so why don’t I have a high approval rating with respect — and the administration, with respect to the virus?  We should have a very high, because what we’ve done in terms of — we’re just reading off about the masks and the gowns and the ventilators and numbers that nobody has seen, and the testing at 55 million tests; we tested more than anybody in the world.  I have a graph that I’d love to show you — perhaps you’ve seen it — where we’re up here and the rest of the world is down at a level that’s just a tiny fraction of what we’ve done, in terms of testing.

So it sort of is curious: A man works for us — with us, very closely, Dr. Fauci, and Dr. Birx also highly thought of.  And yet, they’re highly thought of, but nobody likes me.  It can only be my personality.  That’s all.

This is getting more than a little sad.

[Wayward Son]

When Axios News asked about whether he discussed the bounty on American troops with Putin on July 23, President Trump said:

"No, that was a phone call to discuss other things. And frankly, that’s an issue that many people said was fake news."

Think about it.  The President decided not to talk about that issue because "many people said."  Not his top experts.  Not his trust sources.  "Many people."  He couldn't even name who those people are.

The President won't defend American troops because "many people say" it isn't true.  And he doesn't bother to find out for sure, one way or another. 

This is the leader of the Republican Party.  The man they stand behind and support.

[Wayward Son]

From the same article:

“I read a lot. You know, I read a lot. They like to say I don’t read. I read a lot. I comprehend extraordinarily well, probably better than anybody that you’ve interviewed in a long time. I read a lot.”

Anybody here read a lot?  Anybody here who reads a lot who would say, "I comprehend extraordinarily well?"  Anybody here who reads a lot who thinks that someone who reads a lot would say, "I comprehend extraordinarily well?" Instead of, let's say, "I have extraordinary comprehension."

He doesn't even lie well. 

[TheDeamon]

Anybody here read a lot?  Anybody here who reads a lot who would say, "I comprehend extraordinarily well?"  Anybody here who reads a lot who thinks that someone who reads a lot would say, "I comprehend extraordinarily well?" Instead of, let's say, "I have extraordinary comprehension."

I read a lot, mostly fiction, but I do read. Always have.

In standardized testing that measures such things when placed as a percentile of the population, I was consistently in the top 1 to 2 percent of the population.

Trump's problem, even if he has great comprehension, is he evidently can't reliably separate the wheat from the chaff. He also has coherency issues, I can somewhat sympathize, but the narcissism turns it into a total and complete train wreck.

[DonaldD]

Axios interview: Bounties never brought up with Putin

Swan: John Nicholson, former head of [US] forces in Afghanistan said, and this is when he was working for you, that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban.  Isn't that enough to challenge Putin over the killings of US soldiers
Trump: Well, we supplied weapons [to the Taliban] when they were fighting Russia, too.

The president of the United States (not of Russia!) is arguing that the USA (or its president, at least) should not confront the Russian president over bounties Russia has placed on US soldiers' heads, nor about arming the Taliban, because the USA armed the Taliban against Russia 40 years ago.

Let that sink in.

At some point, one has to ask what is the threshold for "adhering"

[TheDrake]

Axios interview: Bounties never brought up with Putin

Swan: John Nicholson, former head of [US] forces in Afghanistan said, and this is when he was working for you, that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban.  Isn't that enough to challenge Putin over the killings of US soldiers
Trump: Well, we supplied weapons [to the Taliban] when they were fighting Russia, too.

The president of the United States (not of Russia!) is arguing that the USA (or its president, at least) should not confront the Russian president over bounties Russia has placed on US soldiers' heads, nor about arming the Taliban, because the USA armed the Taliban against Russia 40 years ago.

Let that sink in.

At some point, one has to ask what is the threshold for "adhering"

I think he makes a pretty good point here. Although I also suspect that the Soviet Premier had something to say about that.

[DonaldD]

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA

Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

The president does not have the authority to do so, and the current congress would never implement such a change, so
a) Is he just stupid?
b) Is he laying the ground work to refuse to leave office should he lose the vote?
c) Both a) and b)?

[yossarian22c]

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA

Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

The president does not have the authority to do so, and the current congress would never implement such a change, so
a) Is he just stupid?
b) Is he laying the ground work to refuse to leave office should he lose the vote?
c) Both a) and b)?

He's a certain kind of stupid and yet has a pulse on his audience/supporters like the best con men. So if this starts looking like b we should be concerned. Or if he starts advocating for delaying the election.

[DonaldD]

Setting aside the humour - of course it's b)

He sent troops to Portland in order to incite violence and to incite anger in his base - those responses were completely predictable, his intent was transparent, but still, it worked on his base. 

He is now stirring up distrust in the electoral process in order to stir up anger in his base. Again, it is completely transparent, and will likely have the same effect.

It would seem at this point he is willing to set the country on fire in order to hold onto power.

[TheDeamon]

He is now stirring up distrust in the electoral process in order to stir up anger in his base. Again, it is completely transparent, and will likely have the same effect.

It would seem at this point he is willing to set the country on fire in order to hold onto power.

He isn't the only one doing this:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/06/biden-leads-but-voter-suppression-covid-boost-trump-odds-column/5380244002/

Trump will lie, cheat and steal in order to keep the one job that prevents him from being indicted — and his party will help him.

So both sides are running hot rhetoric about how the other side is going to steal the election?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-results/trump-says-he-will-do-other-things-if-he-loses-2020-election-idUSKBN23J2YB

Biden, who is leading Trump in most national polls, earlier this week said his greatest concern was that Trump would try to “steal” the election, though the former vice president did not elaborate on how he thought Trump might cheat. Biden said he is confident soldiers would escort Trump from the White House if he loses and does not recognize the result.

[DonaldD]

So both sides are running hot rhetoric about how the other side is going to steal the election?

You're equating actions taken and words spoken by the president of the country to those of an opinion writer in USA Today... the whataboutism is strong in this one...

[TheDrake]

Is it really so wild to be concerned that Trump might refuse to accept the results of the election, therefore "stealing" it, when he won't stipulate accepting the results?

[DonaldD]

An interesting take by Federalist co-founder Calabresi: Federalist Society co-founder says Trump’s tweet about postponing the election is grounds for ‘immediate impeachment’

Federalist Society co-founder Stephen Calabresi said that President Trump’s tweet suggesting to postpone the election is “fascistic” and “grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment.”

“Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist,” Calabresi wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times. “But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”

[TheDeamon]

So both sides are running hot rhetoric about how the other side is going to steal the election?

You're equating actions taken and words spoken by the president of the country to those of an opinion writer in USA Today... the whataboutism is strong in this one...

You do realize that second quote attribution was from Joe Biden, their presumptive nominee for the Presidency? Both sides are accusing the other of trying to cheat in this upcoming election.

[TheDeamon]

Is it really so wild to be concerned that Trump might refuse to accept the results of the election, therefore "stealing" it, when he won't stipulate accepting the results?

He did answer that question in June. If he loses, he'll leave. In the meantime he's having fun getting the media to talk about him by complaining about how the Democrats want to use voting methods that are even more prone to fraud and disenfranchisement than the existing in-person voting system.

[DonaldD]

Is it really so wild to be concerned that Trump might refuse to accept the results of the election, therefore "stealing" it, when he won't stipulate accepting the results?

He did answer that question in June. If he loses, he'll leave. In the meantime he's having fun getting the media to talk about him by complaining about how the Democrats want to use voting methods that are even more prone to fraud and disenfranchisement than the existing in-person voting system.

And then a month later, he had changed his mind, and clearly stated he would NOT commit to accepting the results of the election. Foxnews: Wallace/Trump interview transcript

WALLACE: But can you give a, can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?

TRUMP: I have to see. Look, you – I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.

So both sides are running hot rhetoric about how the other side is going to steal the election?

You're equating actions taken and words spoken by the president of the country to those of an opinion writer in USA Today... the whataboutism is strong in this one...

You do realize that second quote attribution was from Joe Biden, their presumptive nominee for the Presidency? Both sides are accusing the other of trying to cheat in this upcoming election.

My response was to your link to the USA Today opinion piece.

As to the Biden bit, do you think his concern that "Trump would try to 'steal' the election" is in some way equivalent to Trump encouraging violence in the country and encouraging anger against the violence he himself instigated? Given that Trump continues to waffle on whether he will actually accept the election, encouraging ambiguity on whether he will actually leave the office if and when defeated, is it really a stretch to be concerned that he might refuse to "recognize the result" and "steal" the election?  Sometimes, you need to believe people when they tell you who and what they are.

That's all in addition to Trump's recent attempts to sow distrust in the electoral processes, layered, of course, on top of Republicans' general attempts to disenfranchise non-Republican voters.

[TheDrake]

Is it really so wild to be concerned that Trump might refuse to accept the results of the election, therefore "stealing" it, when he won't stipulate accepting the results?

He did answer that question in June. If he loses, he'll leave. In the meantime he's having fun getting the media to talk about him by complaining about how the Democrats want to use voting methods that are even more prone to fraud and disenfranchisement than the existing in-person voting system.

Well, this is out his own mouth.

Wallace asked Trump “can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?”

“I have to see,” Trump said of accepting the result in November. “I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.”

You tell me how to interpret that as Trump saying he'd accept the results.