• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump: 'I will totally accept' election results 'if I win'

Jack Hays said:
The principle is the same, and your track record with attempted word game gambits is poor.
Click to expand...

You must be confused.

The principle is not the same.

When a candidate claims that an election was rigged before it took place, they are lying, much like your lie that "the principle is the same" when it's dramatically different.
 
Absentglare said:
You must be confused.

The principle is not the same.

When a candidate claims that an election was rigged before it took place, they are lying, much like your lie that "the principle is the same" when it's dramatically different.
Click to expand...

it's not possible for an election to be rigged before the election takes place? Oy.

Anyway. Hypocrisy on full display. It's ok when my party does it but not when the other party does it.

I'm not a fan of it either way. I disliked it when the democrats did it (multiple times).. I dislike it when Trump does it.

I'm not even a fan of Trump, and yet here I am having to defend him from stupidity of the MSM and the left.
 
Cryptic said:
His quote is remarkably similar to AL Gore's actions when Gore demanded a recount of a recount using only methodologies that favored him (reshuffle part of the deck until I win). Al Gore then rejected a State court ruling that effectively confirmed his loss and went to SCOTUS insisting that the deck shuffling continue until he got a result that he was happy with.

In short, the only result Al Gore was only inclined to accept was the result he wanted. He just ran out of options. If it was good for Gore, its good for Trump.
Click to expand...

Gore's loss was due to a small number of votes in Florida. Of course he wanted a recount. Once the recount was done and the House selected Bush as president, Gore didn't go on to claim the election had been "rigged" or that he didn't support the president. The peaceful transfer of power happened as it has since the foundation of the republic. Moreover, Gore did not say, before the election was held, that he might not support the outcome, nor did he claim that the election was rigged. Gore is no Trump.

Meanwhile, Trump knows he will lose by a wide margin. All he's doing now is playing to his core supporters who will never acknowledge that he lost fair and square.
 
tres borrachos said:
I can't open the link, but these 8 Liberals were all candidates for President, saying it was rigged before the actual election?
Click to expand...

Al Gore wasn't a candidate for President ???
 
Absentglare said:
You must be confused.

The principle is not the same.

When a candidate claims that an election was rigged before it took place, they are lying, much like your lie that "the principle is the same" when it's dramatically different.
Click to expand...

It's non-acceptance of a valid democratic result.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Gore's loss was due to a small number of votes in Florida. Of course he wanted a recount. Once the recount was done and the House selected Bush as president, Gore didn't go on to claim the election had been "rigged" or that he didn't support the president. The peaceful transfer of power happened as it has since the foundation of the republic. Moreover, Gore did not say, before the election was held, that he might not support the outcome, nor did he claim that the election was rigged. Gore is no Trump.

Meanwhile, Trump knows he will lose by a wide margin. All he's doing now is playing to his core supporters who will never acknowledge that he lost fair and square.
Click to expand...

So, you don't like Donald Trump saying, "I am not addressing that yet" and you are changing his words to say what you want them to say to demonize him, yet I don't see any post's from you speak out against Creamer who was busted saying that they DID have efforts to bus fraud voters in to throw elections....You know, an ACTUAL undermining of our electoral system....What a joke.
 
Cardinal said:
Donald Trump: 'I will totally accept' election results 'if i win' - CNNPolitics.com



He's just trolling now.
Click to expand...

Gotta love them CNN sound bites and headlines.

Here's the reality, though.

"Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result," Trump said. "And always, I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all of the many candidates who have come before me. Always."
Click to expand...

Would anybody honestly say his position is a bad thing?


btw, Cardinal. I agree with you that Trump is trolling the media. He's pretty good at it and they, being the suckers they are, keep falling for it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Gore (and those favoring him) wanted a re-count done in only 4 FL counties that he heavily won. That "option" was not consitent with FL election law.
Click to expand...

I believe this concludes the matter.

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida ...

www.nytimes.com/.../examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-flo...The New York Times


Nov 12, 2001 - ... review of uncounted Florida ballots from 2000 presidential election, ... margin ifFlorida court order to recount more than 43000 ballots was ...

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
It's non-acceptance of a valid democratic result.
Click to expand...

Yes but you're intentionally discarding the actually relevant detail: the candidate is intentionally seeding that idea to their followers.
 
j-mac said:
So, you don't like Donald Trump saying, "I am not addressing that yet" and you are changing his words to say what you want them to say to demonize him, yet I don't see any post's from you speak out against Creamer who was busted saying that they DID have efforts to bus fraud voters in to throw elections....You know, an ACTUAL undermining of our electoral system....What a joke.
Click to expand...

I'm not changing his words. "I'm not addressing that yet," repeated twice just for good measure, is clear enough.

I'm also not equating a presidential candidate saying he might not accept the results of an election he has already dubbed "rigged" with a presidential candidate who called for a recount after a very close election.

As for Creamer, I had to look him up. I found this:

Washington (CNN)A Democratic operative whose organization was helping Hillary Clinton's campaign announced Tuesday that he would be "stepping back" from the campaign after an edited video suggested that he and other staffers hired people to attend Donald Trump's campaign rallies and incite violence.

Robert Creamer -- husband of Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky -- announced his resignation in a statement after conservative activist James O'Keefe released a video under his organization Project Veritas Action, which showed Creamer and other operatives purportedly discussing methods for inciting violence at rallies for the Republican nominee.
Click to expand...

I don't know just how "edited" that video was, but if he really was undermining the democratic process in that way, his resignation was indeed called for.

Now that Trump is undermining the democratic process by claiming a rigged election and refusing to say whether he'll abide by the outcome, perhaps it's time for him to resign as well.
 
Jack Hays said:
8 Times Liberals Claimed an Election Was Stolen or Rigged
Bre Payton, Federalist
Click to expand...

Sheesh, you should be ashamed posting that garbage. See if you can identify the hackery right there at the top of the article? (I've left some clues)

“I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the election process before votes have even taken place,” [Obama] said.

Obama’s memory must be pretty short, so I’ve compiled this list to remind him — and everyone else — of eight times liberals claimed an election was or would be stolen.
Click to expand...

So the article starts with a laughable logical fallacy as the premise, and then quotes a bunch of writers few have heard of, a union official, and then horribly misrepresents some comments by Elizabeth Warren.... This kind of dishonest argument is what it takes to defend Trump, I guess. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
Sheesh, you should be ashamed posting that garbage. See if you can identify the hackery right there at the top of the article? (I've left some clues)



So the article starts with a laughable logical fallacy as the premise, and then quotes a bunch of writers few have heard of, a union official, and then horribly misrepresents some comments by Elizabeth Warren.... This kind of dishonest argument is what it takes to defend Trump, I guess. :roll:
Click to expand...

I won't spend a single erg of energy defending Trump, but Dem hypocrisy is always worth exposing.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not sure why you can't open the link. I just did. No, they were not all POTUS candidates. I hate Trump, but I also hate Dem hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, none were POTUS candidates. Seems to me a key part of the argument is that the POTUS GOP nominee is held to a higher standard than mostly obscure and partisan writers. Seems fair to me.
 
JasperL said:
Well, to be fair, none were POTUS candidates. Seems to me a key part of the argument is that the POTUS GOP nominee is held to a higher standard than mostly obscure and partisan writers. Seems fair to me.
Click to expand...

I could not care less what you deem fair. The point is that Dems too have questioned valid democratic results.
 
Jack Hays said:
I won't spend a single erg of energy defending Trump, but Dem hypocrisy is always worth exposing.
Click to expand...

And your article didn't expose any hypocrisy. It was partisan hackery from start to finish.
 
JasperL said:
And your article didn't expose any hypocrisy. It was partisan hackery from start to finish.
Click to expand...

If that is your view that's fine with me. The only partisan hackery on display, from my perspective, is yours. Remember, I favor neither candidate.
 
Jack Hays said:
I could not care less what you deem fair. The point is that Dems too have questioned valid democratic results.
Click to expand...

So what? It's a straw man you've created. Of course "Dems" have questioned valid democratic results. There are at least 30 million of them - I'm guessing there is little you can claim dems have done that some "Dem" hasn't. What possible difference does that make to criticisms of what Trump is doing?

The question is whether what Trump, who is the GOP nominee for POTUS, has said is appropriate, etc.

I don't know about you, but I don't expect a nominee for POTUS to actively undermine the results of an election by making baseless allegations of it being rigged BEFORE IT HAPPENS. And pointing to what Ezra Klein said about how gerrymandering 'rigs' elections in favor of incumbents (to pick one example of the hackery from that article) is completely off point.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
So what? It's a straw man you've created. Of course "Dems" have questioned valid democratic results. There are at least 30 million of them - I'm guessing there is little you can claim dems have done that some "Dem" hasn't. What possible difference does that make to criticisms of what Trump is doing?

The question is whether what Trump, who is the GOP nominee for POTUS, has said is appropriate, etc.

I don't know about you, but I don't expect a nominee for POTUS to actively undermine the results of an election by making baseless allegations of it being rigged BEFORE IT HAPPENS. And pointing to what Ezra Klein said about how gerrymandering 'rigs' elections in favor of incumbents (to pick one example of the hackery from that article) is completely off point.
Click to expand...

Not at all off point in my view. I expect a nominee for POTUS in our time to say and/or do whatever seems most likely to win. This has been true at least since the Obama campaign's scurrilous attacks on Romney. That's when the bottom dropped out.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not at all off point in my view. I expect a nominee for POTUS in our time to say and/or do whatever seems most likely to win. This has been true at least since the Obama campaign's scurrilous attacks on Romney. That's when the bottom dropped out.
Click to expand...

If the bottom dropped out then, what lower foundation has dropped out now with the Donald's circus show?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom