So people are outraged by Trump not committing to accept election results? Remind me, did Al Gore accept in 2000?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Do you have any evidence that felons who are not allowed to vote are being allowed to vote?

Do you have any evidence of immigrants who are not citizens voting?

I mean if your point is only that any sort of irregularity could swing a very close election, well, congratulations, you've won a rhetorical point. Who could refute that?

I challenge you to present any evidence that those things are happening, not just theoretical possibilities!

For someone whose name is Mr. Obvious, it should be pretty obvious that even at some small level these things occur. Even if it is for innocent reasons, felons may not know they can't vote, illegals may get registered to vote when they get a drivers license and assume that means they can vote, etc, it is bound to occur at some level.

Felons voting was a big part at a lawsuit surrounding the 2004 Gubernatorial election in Washington.

Illegals voting in Philly:

and Virginia:

With felons (not allowed to vote) voting, they could just as likely vote Republican ad Democrat, but either way they shouldn't be voting.

(That lifezette site looks to be right wing I only found it by just googling quickly now).

The issue of illegals voting plays well with Trump's base, just as the issue of Republicans suppressing minorities from voting does with Hillary's.

Wejo and Rojo: Still hoping for a response - especially to what Trump would do if confronted with the facts that Gore faced. A fair question since you brought up the Trump/Gore comparison.

Unemployed forklift operator wrote:

Undecided: wrote:

We'll likely go back to our jobs so we can pay for a large majority of hitlery supporters to live. Your welcome.

Says the guy who's posting on here in the middle of the workday...

Been on call for 36 hours, prior to yesterday, what's your excuse?

Rojo stop being an idiot. There was an entire supreme court case revolving around this and he lost Florida by approximately 500 votes, which is certainly within the margin of error to warrant a recount. It is widely believed that the Supreme Court's decision was politically motivated. You should at least try to research topics before you spew nonsense about it.

Whoops sorry should have read previous posts. Pls respond to this.

Trump is getting election advise from Mehkissi

There's some interesting discussion here. A few things from someone who pities Americans because they have to choose between those two:

1. What do people think Trump will attempt to do if he loses? (and why wait a couple of weeks to do it, why not do it now if he's all about contempt for democratic establishments and processes?) If the media truly is in bed with HRC, any attempt at gaining support to overthrow the results will quickly fizzle out, and you can be sure that Trump already knows that. Which leads to...

2. Context. Statements need to be taken in context. Clearly in light of wikileaks revelations etc a point was being made and reinforced. In the past, Trump has been good at using the media to draw attention to his offensive or controversial comments, which often also summarise an issue of concern to many Americans. This was another attempt. At all costs Trump wanted to point out the corruption that was coming to light, and with an allegedly hostile media his options are limited. Did he miscalculate? Definitely.

Modern society tends to understand sound bites only and not look at the context. Definitely HRC is well-studied in the use of pleasant-sounding sound bites. That is smart, and Trump could learn something. But both of them speak from a context, and their words should be weighed in that light. Trump spoke in a live debate to a question he had not seen beforehand while under the pressure of losing his talking point. He generally shoots from the hip when he speaks. That's part of the context. (The bigger context is that he got where he is by fleecing people, just as HRC has.)

All this talk of bigger context leads to...

3. I don't have revolution from Britain as a proud part of my past as Americans do, and I'm not advocating it. But what led to American independence? It wasn't the form of government (although republicanism was formed to try to avoid some problems they faced); it was the self-serving aspect of the government that then was. If CNN had existed back then, they would have ridiculed a demonstration against paying tax on tea. Are critical thinkers distinguishing support for a process from refusal to be abused by the power brokers? Is America fundamentally better off than just before the revolutionary war, when now you are told not only what taxes to pay, but also what to think?

This is not advocating revolution, and especially not one by either of the candidates; but in a thread about being two-faced, one has to ask whether critics of revolution now would disavow that founding part of American history. To deny revolution at all costs is to pledge allegiance to a form of government and not to see the form of government as a means to an end of pursuing those inalienable 'rights' of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thanks for the links. I'll respond to each.

On June 6, 2005, Judge John E. Bridges ruled that the Republican party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible. So it was evaluated by the legal process and not proven. So another unproven allegation.

Illegals are not eligible to get driver's licenses in Virgina, so the mechanism they propose is not possible.

one study by a Loyola Law School professor found 31 known cases out of a billion votes cast in United States elections from 2000 to 2014.

Mr Obvious,

Wejo/rojo aren't big on the whole "details" thing.

As has been proven on this thread over and over again, the Gore Trump comparison here is absurd. Are they still trying to make this case??

Hell, Gore conceded BEFORE he actually had officially lost (before automatic recount began whole process).

If the Clinton/Trump election results go down almost exactly like the Bush/Gore one did, and Trump behaves exactly as Gore did.....NO ONE IS GOING TO BE COMPLAINING ABOUT TRUMP'S ACTIONS OR "FORGETTING" WHAT GORE DID. Really. Pretty sure we'll remember it.

brojos, admit it was a dumb comparison and move on. Geesh.

ROJO.....You are brainwashed like all the rest of the the closed minded republicans. Trump is right....he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose supporters...SMH

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

Wejo/rojo aren't big on the whole "details" thing.

rojo sez: that theyre be trew. us brojos aint not need no stinkin facts an aint not need no stinkin detales neether

wejo sez: amens to whut rojo rights. are unkel wdoobooyah dun told we that only three things be importunt in life. one - fambly konnekshus and muny is moor importunt than branes (lucky for us), too - dont not never admit that yews be wrong (and us brojos is allmost allways wrong), and c - mericuns be stoopid

rojo sez: are unkel wdoobooyah be won smart hombray. him went frum bein a draft dodgin coward two steelin an elekshun

The president of the organization that is the source of the "Lifegazette" information is not credible:

http://mediamatters.org/people/j-christian-adams

Felons can vote in several states, when their time is served. And in several others after release and parole period is over. Get your facts together.

Whatchu alt-right faaaags gonna do when your boy goes down in flames?

Wait for that trump/brietbart news network to take off?

rojo wrote:

People are apparently (at least on twitter) outraged that Trump said he won't automatically accept the election results. Why?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but didn't Al Gore contest the 2000 results?

Am I wrong?

Rojo - Yes, you are wrong.

A few points you seem to have missed.

First, Trump has been making wild and unsubstantiated accusations about the election being rigged against him. He has been whipping his supporters into a frenzy over this. Context matters.

Second, conservatives and liberals and moderates have been astounded by his statement. When it spans the spectrum like that, maybe you might want to think about things a little more deeply.

Third, all Trump had to do was say yes, I will accept the results and then provide some nuance. For instance, if the election comes down to a few thousand votes in a state or two, I will use legal means to ensure a fair process for certifying the results. Then when that process is over, I will accept the outcome. No one would be talking about it now.

But we know Trump was doing this to get supporters riled up and keep the conspiracy theories alive.

Absolutely laughable comparison, Trump has been going on about a rigged election since he became way behind on the polls.

Gore asked for all the votes to be counted

Honestly some utter retardation from the OP

Gainesville/Miamiguy wrote:

Wejo and Rojo: Still hoping for a response - especially to what Trump would do if confronted with the facts that Gore faced. A fair question since you brought up the Trump/Gore comparison.

I didn't bring this up. Robert did.

Your guess is just as good as mine.

Before the Supreme Court ruled, Trump would do Gore's people did, fight to get every vote counted for him and disqualified for the other side. He'd be way more in your face about it. I don't think he'd care how he got the votes. It would be about winning.

Once the Supreme Court decision came down, the best Trump could do would be to emulate Al Gore and accept the Supreme Court decision and offer his concession. But this being Donald Trump I can't say with confidence that would happen because I don't know what is going through that guy's mind. The optimistic side of me thinks what alternative does he have? I'd like to think common sense would rule out and he'd have to accept it. The other side of me, wonders what the hell would happen as he doesn't follow convention at all.

Gore and more so his supporters may complain today at the the election was stolen, but Gore 100% to his credit accepted the Supreme Court decision when it came down. This was very crucial for our system of government continuing. People already bitch about the Supreme Court being political but if we stop following its rulings soon the system falls apart. We're based on the rule of law.

Wejo,

I appreciate your thoughtful - and, yes, reasonable - response. I understand Rojo originated this thread, and I did say that I "especially" would like a response on how Trump would react. But "especially" is not "exclusively," and I would be happy to read your response on the rest of my post. Though I can understand you may feel this is beaten to death and not worth the effort.

Final thought: I truly love the focus letsrun has on integrity in our sport. Whether it be drug cheats or race cheats. That makes me want to be a strong supporter of you guys. I am an oldtimer, white male LIBERAL, but honesty and integrity are, I pray, non-partisan values. Rojo's initial post really disappointed me since his equating Gore's behavior in 2000 seems, frankly, close to dishonest. After all he is intelligent and well-educated - and surely not trolling his own site.