Trump refuses to say whether he will accept results of Nov. 8 election

[Erod]

Democrats oppose every effort to verify voters are Americans and secure the process from fraud....and they freak out by Trumps cynicism about the process?

 

[Cardinal]

Your assertions are empty, based completely upon a short phrase "the vote is rigged". Completely ridiculous to try and assume he means the electoral college process.

"The vote is rigged" is what he provided. Again, if you'd like to provide actual specific then I'd be happy to entertain them.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Democrats oppose every effort to verify voters are Americans and secure the process from fraud....and they freak out by Trumps cynicism about the process?

There have been less than 40 cases of electoral fraud brought in the last decade. It's a fraudulent effort to block Democrat voters.

 

[radcen]

The problem is a reasonably articulate HS student could make the point that of course he will accept the will of the people, and still reserve the right for legal challenges should clear evidence of fraud or other wrongdoing emerge. Would take Kellyanne about a minute to draft a totally appropriate response.

And this question isn't coming out of the blue, and your response assumes it does, frankly. The backdrop is obviously that Trump is making repeated, baseless, and reckless charges that the results will be "rigged" before the election even happens, and statements that Hillary should be jailed and should not even be eligible to run for POTUS.

The question was in fact a layup, a soft ball right across the middle of the plate, that EVERY candidate for the entire history of the U.S. could and would have hit out of the park and Trump failed, threatened to undermine the core principle of a democracy which is the peaceful transfer of power based on the results of an election. It's why Chris Wallace and nearly everyone else including Republicans were stunned at his reckless response.

I'm no fan of Hillary but I voted this morning and it was in fact one of the easiest votes of my lifetime. Any reckless idiot that cannot get that question correct has no business anywhere near any lever of power in this country. That's the kind of BS we'd expect in a banana republic.

Your assumption is incorrect, and your assessment might carry some weight if you hadn't cherry-picked what I said and quoted it without complete context. If you had left the entire quote intact so that it could be viewed in context then readers would be able to note that I did allude to Trump handling it ham-handedly.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Sounds a lot like Al Gore.......
Republicans: Gore refused to accept election results, too - POLITICO

Algore is one word.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Trump is toast...but his rabid fans are already talking revolution.

Yeah, that angry white christian uneducated man demographic...

Its the last gasp for the angry, uninformed losers, not a very good strategy to try to win a campaign.

Your post seems kind of rabidly angry.

 

[EvaPeron]

Trump refuses to say whether he will accept results of Nov. 8 election



Even moderator Chris Wallace could not believe what he was hearing from Trump, so he asked Trump again which elicited the same asinine response.

Trump will not commit to accepting the US election results if he should lose.

Before knowing if the election is conducted fairly and without fraud, how can anyone answer that question fairly? It is like saying, "Trump, no matter how the election is conducted, if you lose, will you accept the results." I think it is a stupid question myself. If he loses and the election is held according to our laws, he has no choice. It is that simple so a waste of a couple of minutes in the debate if you were to ask me.

 

[ocean515]

Notice that you can't talk about Trumps competence at all. Hillary was vulnerable and instead of making Hillary answer difficult questions Trump made it about him.

And for the record, Hillary is immensely qualified to be president. She may not be the most trustworthy or likable candidate, and she may have a ton of baggage and scandals, but she is easily the most qualified candidate to run for POTUS in the modern era. Does anyone think that Hillary would make a worse president than Bill? You may not be happy about a Hillary presidency, but the country will be in pretty good shape at the end of it.

LOL

For the record, I think Hillary is massively unqualified to be President of the United States. She is a confirmed liar, fraud, and deceiver.

You don't believe that, so why you possibly think I would buy your take on her?

 

[JasperL]

No, you don't accept the outcome because you still argue it didn't work the way it should have!

But I never argued that. I said, in fact, "Your question above about the SCOTUS is a legal/procedural question that I'm not competent to answer. "

So you're trolling or being deliberately dishonest.

You are resigned to the outcome of the 2000 election, but you don't accept it.

Now you're making a baseless psychological conclusion right after completely misrepresenting my typed words. This is beneath you.

To accept it you would have said "Yes, Bush was the rightful winner" ... but you didn't.

Interesting standard - 'answer like I want you to answer or you're wrong!'

 

[ocean515]

It helped that they hated Carter.

Well, they certainly had zero respect for him.

 

[EvaPeron]

Great reply!

 

[ocean515]

False. You can't cite the evidence because it does not exist. And if it does exist, Trump has an obligation to make specific allegations based on the evidence so we can weigh that evidence against an extraordinary before-the-fact claim.



If that was his point, then he should have said so. The problem is he is such an stunningly incompetent candidate, he makes reckless and baseless charges about a "rigged" election and then when given a golden opportunity to clarify his comments, whiffs and stuns pretty much everyone watching including Chris Wallace.

LOL

Give everyone a break. You've rejected the mountain of evidence. Why would anyone waste time providing more for you to reject?

Should I expect the pathetic "Putin Outrage" that Hillary stomped around the stage with?

Too funny.

 

[jmotivator]

But I never argued that. I said, in fact, "Your question above about the SCOTUS is a legal/procedural question that I'm not competent to answer. "

So you're trolling or being deliberately dishonest.

Now you're making a baseless psychological conclusion right after completely misrepresenting my typed words. This is beneath you.

Interesting standard - 'answer like I want you to answer or you're wrong!'

Nope. Your argument was that the outcome of the 2000 election was wrong and gave your reasons, so you don't accept it.

 

[ocean515]

Probably because the two Hilary related things there have been covered to death already. If the wikileaks news was so damning, then why is Hilary at 85% chance to win? The wikileaks news came out ages ago.

Here's the thing:

1. There is no mandate saying that media has to be objective. MSNBC have liberal leaning, Fox have conservative. That's fine.
2. In order for a news publication to really be respected they ought to be objective.
3. Being objective does not mean giving equal coverage to each candidate. It means reporting the truth. If the truth is that Trump is a far worse candidate than Hilary who says dumb things that are far more worthy of being news, that are far more important for the population to consider, then the media can cover Trump more whilst still being objective.

:shock:

Ages ago?

Again, I'm not going to take advantage when evidence reveals deficiencies that will likely be corrected with more time and experience.

Have a nice day.

 

[JasperL]

Your assumption is incorrect, and your assessment might carry some weight if you hadn't cherry-picked what I said and quoted it without complete context. If you had left the entire quote intact so that it could be viewed in context then readers would be able to note that I did allude to Trump handling it ham-handedly.

OK, here's the whole thing in context, omitting only the part about endorsing candidates which has no bearing.

As a general concept, I have no issue with not committing. No reasonable person knows what will happen, and no reasonable person places that kind of expectation on another person. Their reaction at the time needs to be based on what happens.

Having said that, The Donald is not a reasonable person, and I somewhat expect him to be a douche about it regardless, but as a general concept I find no fault with him not making that promise.

The statements I was addressing are bolded and underlined. I'm not sure how the second omitted paragraph changes any of my conclusions or would force me to reconsider your position, but I apologize for it, and I'm willing to listen to how what I did was deliberately misleading.

Perhaps the big point of disagreement is I think his answer and his baseless allegations of fraud are much more significant than merely being "ham handed" or being a "douche." He's asserting ahead of time that the results of the election will be illegitimate, that Hillary cannot legitimately occupy the office. Those are SERIOUS charges and simply unprecedented in American history.

 

[beefheart]

Your post seems kind of rabidly angry.

No...I'm too busy chortling.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Exactly.

Gore never once preemptively said he wouldn't accept the election results. In 2000, it was a razor thin margin, and with more than a hundred million votes cast, with Gore winning the popular vote, and literally a handful of ballots weighed in the balance. And once the results were certified, Gore accepted it, and moved on.

A little recap for those too young and those who may have forgotten:

"Condensed version of what really happened 16 years ago:

1. On election night, several television networks called Florida for George W. Bush, clinching the electoral college — although Gore would end up winning about 500,000 more votes. Gore called Bush to concede.

2. Then the networks uncalled Florida — and Gore unconceded, realizing that he was ahead in the popular vote and if he ended up winning Florida he would have won the election. The election was literally too close to call.

3. A legally mandated recount began.

4. Bush (not Gore) sued to stop recounts in some counties.

5. Gore sued to extend deadlines for recounts.

6. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a more extensive recount. Bush (not Gore) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

7. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount.

8. Gore conceded.
(You can read a full timeline here.)

Florida started a recount before the initial count was done making the recount premature and in violation of the Florida statute. The Bush campaign went to the Florida Supreme Court. THey allowed the recount to continue. The Bush campaign then took it to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS returned decision to the Florida Supreme court and told them that they had some legal problems and to revisit their ruling. The Florida Supreme court came back with a faulty ruling. The SCOTUS ruled that the ruiling from the FLorida Supreme Court violated the Florida statute since the recount was not supposed to begin until the initial count had been completed. The SCOTUS ordered that the recount be terminated. That is when Algore conceded, since he had no choice.

The end.

 

[Captain America]

Trump sucks donkey wang.

That being said, I really don't think his position is that outlandish.

Recount or contest might be mandatory depending on the final tally.

Any type of scandal is conceivable.

Why would ANY presidential candidate voluntarily bend over and let them stick a bad election up their hinder without protest?

I really don't blame him for taking this position. Nor would I blame Hillary if she said the same. It just makes good sense make sure all the ducks were in a row before conceding defeat.

But, really, I think the overall electoral count will be so Hillary sided, that if one questionable state's outcome, just happen's to be governed by the winning candidate's little brother, and the votes are counted by his underling, it just ain't gonna matter this time.

 

[NonoBadDog]

No...I'm too busy chortling.

Angry chortling. Good deal. I am glad I could relieve some of your stress.

 

[JasperL]

Nope. Your argument was that the outcome of the 2000 election was wrong and gave your reasons, so you don't accept it.

Come on, you're better than this. I never argued the outcome was wrong, never gave reasons for an argument I haven't made, so you cannot quote my actual words making that argument. That's just hackery, and I don't know why you're embarrassing yourself on such a minor point.

 

[Erod]

There have been less than 40 cases of electoral fraud brought in the last decade. It's a fraudulent effort to block Democrat voters.

The only reason anyone would oppose voter ID is that they want to cheat the election. There is no other valid reason. Period.

To say differently is to perjure yourself.

 

[Nilly]

:shock:

Ages ago?

Again, I'm not going to take advantage when evidence reveals deficiencies that will likely be corrected with more time and experience.

Have a nice day.

In the context of the election cycle. Yes.

Trump related news - Oct 19th
Hillary related news - July 22nd

1 day ago vs 4 months ago.

Yes, there have been new emails released but they contain nothing of any concernable substance compared to what Trump's saying.

https://twitter.com/AuditTheMedia/status/788781138143768576

 

[jmotivator]

Come on, you're better than this. I never argued the outcome was wrong, never gave reasons for an argument I haven't made, so you cannot quote my actual words making that argument. That's just hackery, and I don't know why you're embarrassing yourself on such a minor point.

Of course you did. You argued that the Florida count was ended prematurely by the SCOTUS which means that you disagree with the outcome. You don't accept it, you have resigned yourself to it.

 

[radcen]

OK, here's the whole thing in context, omitting only the part about endorsing candidates which has no bearing.



The statements I was addressing are bolded and underlined. I'm not sure how the second omitted paragraph changes any of my conclusions or would force me to reconsider your position, but I apologize for it, and I'm willing to listen to how what I did was deliberately misleading.

Perhaps the big point of disagreement is I think his answer and his baseless allegations of fraud are much more significant than merely being "ham handed" or being a "douche." He's asserting ahead of time that the results of the election will be illegitimate, that Hillary cannot legitimately occupy the office. Those are SERIOUS charges and simply unprecedented in American history.

If you're saying that he is purposely and knowingly setting himself up to push blame off on someone else (and I'm still being polite), I agree completely with that. Of course he is. That's what he does and who he is.

Maybe it's just me but when I point out what a reasonable person would think and do, then I point out that The Donald is not a reasonable person, ok it's not in-your-face call-'em-out accusatory on my part, but I thought it was still clear in context.

 

[Incisor]

The only reason anyone would oppose voter ID is that they want to cheat the election.

There is no need for voter ID, and if you think the reason is because someone will cheat, then that's really a reflection on you and not everyone else.