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

Nobody has given a good answer

Contesting an election is contesting an election.

Gore even tried to RIG it by requesting a recount in only a few counties he expected to win, and was rightfully denied.

I cannot understand how people are so up in arms. I think the media has decided that they can go apoplectic over any phrase they decide and all you folks will gladly get all frothy alongside them.

Yawn, next scandal.

I'm sure it's been said, but don't be so dense. The Florida vote was close, so there was recount. It's pretty clear that this won't be close, and after the recount Al Gore did accept the Ignominious result.

Harambe wrote:

Nobody has given a good answer

Wrong.

norphxc wrote:

As lots of posters have been saying: Trump has been claiming at his rallies that if he looses the election must be rigged. This is fundamentally different than the hanging chad thing.

In the 2000 election, people cast their votes, ballots were being counted, and there was a technology issue with how machines were counting imperfect ballots.

Back then, the principle of democracy was fine, but there possibly was an issue with the technological logistics of democracy.

Trump is claiming our government is fundamentally a sham (a democracy with predetermined elections is not a democracy).

A must read:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/an-establishment-in-panic-2/

lol lol lol lol wrote:

A must read:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/an-establishment-in-panic-2/

Yeah, great. Pat Buchanan is just the kind of crazy that aligns with Donald.

Harambe wrote:

Nobody has given a good answer

Contesting an election is contesting an election.

Gore even tried to RIG it by requesting a recount in only a few counties he expected to win, and was rightfully denied.

I cannot understand how people are so up in arms. I think the media has decided that they can go apoplectic over any phrase they decide and all you folks will gladly get all frothy alongside them.

Yawn, next scandal.

Ummm, the Republicans tried to RIG the 2000 final vote by TRYING TO recount in only a few counties THEY expected to win.

The Supreme threw both the Republicans and the Democrats out. The votes is what the vote is. Trump can thank the Republicans for getting the Supreme Court make this decision 16 years ago. Trump can't do anything about. He can only whine about losing to a girl.

The longer this goes on the more astonished I am by the "brojos" petulance and imbecility. From their all-caps celebration of the humiliating middle-school walk-out over a transgender kid using a bathroom last year to this facile and inaccurate "political analysis"--can I call it that?--these two walking John Hughes-movie-villain lookalikes find new ways to muck up their own Web site regularly.

Seriously, if you guys can't understand why preemptively, gratuitously, and groundlessly rejecting election results in the world's greatest democracy is dangerous and vile--why it's a gesture full of contempt for this country and its citizens, and why it's practically tantamount to terrorism in its destabilizing effect--there's no hope for you.

And if you can't see that even the farthest-left liberal would support Trump's right to a recount in a too-close-to-call election, you're the worst sort of intellectual frauds. This isn't about libs trying to crush Donald's chances; it's about, as another poster has written, the spectrum of people who actually live in reality calling out a raging, impulsive, ugly-spirited, racist, lying narcissist.

Please. Stop this.

Gay/tranny Hillary lover detected. Gross!

Caramba wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Nobody has given a good answer

Contesting an election is contesting an election.

Gore even tried to RIG it by requesting a recount in only a few counties he expected to win, and was rightfully denied.

I cannot understand how people are so up in arms. I think the media has decided that they can go apoplectic over any phrase they decide and all you folks will gladly get all frothy alongside them.

Yawn, next scandal.

Ummm, the Republicans tried to RIG the 2000 final vote by TRYING TO recount in only a few counties THEY expected to win.

The Supreme threw both the Republicans and the Democrats out. The votes is what the vote is. Trump can thank the Republicans for getting the Supreme Court make this decision 16 years ago. Trump can't do anything about. He can only whine about losing to a girl.

Exactly! Both sides attempted to RIG it.

Glad we are on the same page.

This basically solidifies the Gore-Trump comparison. Thank you for proving my point. Brojos, glad to be of service today.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Nobody has given a good answer

Wrong.

norphxc wrote:

As lots of posters have been saying: Trump has been claiming at his rallies that if he looses the election must be rigged. This is fundamentally different than the hanging chad thing.

In the 2000 election, people cast their votes, ballots were being counted, and there was a technology issue with how machines were counting imperfect ballots.

Back then, the principle of democracy was fine, but there possibly was an issue with the technological logistics of democracy.

Trump is claiming our government is fundamentally a sham (a democracy with predetermined elections is not a democracy).

The DNC emails indicate that blatant voter fraud has crossed the mind of his opponents.

It makes perfect sense for the man to warn his supporters of this.

Yawn, next

Hillary Clinton has a chance to be president, this is far from the greatest democracy in the world so lets cool it with those claims.

Yes and another huge difference was the context. Gore didn't constantly say the election was rigged during the lead up to the vote. Trump is basically saying that democracy here doesn't work because we don't have a legitimate voting system. Trump is threatening not to accept the results without any specific reason. Gore only challenged due to the razor thin Florida results with the hanging chad issues.

Big difference. Gore believed in the basic system.

Harambe wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Wrong.

The DNC emails indicate that blatant voter fraud has crossed the mind of his opponents.

It makes perfect sense for the man to warn his supporters of this.

Yawn, next

You're either a Rojo sock or someone just as big of a moron as he is.

He contested it after not before!

Who are you voting for? The fact Americans are even considering Trump shows that it's true what everyone says about them..

The reason the US Supreme Court threw out the recount was that to make it fair both Democrat and Republican leaning areas would need to be recounted. Statistics tell you that in the end the revised count would average out and overall end result would be very close to the same. What that means is that there would be a roughly equal number of adjustments made to both sides.

Conundrum wrote:

Trump is threatening not to accept the results without any specific reason

Was he indeed 'threatening'? Or was he refusing to get cornered into making foolish promises?

Granted it's tiring to hear him talk about unfairness all being on the democratic side.

Big difference. Gore believed in the basic system.

One can support and abide by the rule of law and at the same time criticise its flaws using the legal means available.

Rojo has taken a lot of heat. But why?

He certainly has a point, which all the blustering and all the ad hominem arguments can't make disappear: in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with contesting election results. (Gore did it.) To try to make someone promise not to use appropriate means to do so is to require more of him than of their own people. Of course Trump should not agree.

The smell of the air in the room is that Trump would not confine himself to appropriate means, and that is the real reason his answer is deplorable. Obviously there's a lot of assuming behind that. But aside from that, note the subtlety of the question put to him: it excluded appropriate as well as inappropriate contesting of results. In other words, it was a setup. You can be sure that if Trump had said he would abide by the result huand then later contested a 20 vote loss on which the election hung, the Democrats would be holding to his 'promise'. No matter how he answers he loses.

But he especially loses if in a televised debate he starts addressing how he is planning to handle HRC's victory. Clearly the idea was to hear Trump start speaking from a posture of defeat and loss. That is a direction it was not right to take the debate. If the Democrats were behind it, it was smart; but still, it was not right. And no one seems to be concerned about the bias and the assumptions that underlay the question. (Shades of 'are you still beating your wife?') Instead the news is all about the response of one who tried to get out of the corner he was being painted into.

('Smart but not right' applies to both parties in spades, for what it's worth. Sadly it is a reflection of political landscapes of every sort.)

You have no clue about the 2000 election situation. Stop posting and making yourself look more foolish than you already have.

I have suspected Cruz is either a fake or extremely dangerous for quite some time (and I'm certainly not a leftist). Cruz says the most unrealistic things, a 10% flat tax. That only works in countries that have never had a welfare system or in virtual tax havens (like Hong Kong). Whilst taxes are certainly too high in the US, closing down the IRS and then only collecting 10% across the board will cause America to default, Hillary's surrogates would have hit him day and night on this as 'trickle down economics.' The silly bathroom laws being pushed by Democrats also bought out the stupidity in Cruz. If someone was a man but had their ding-dong removed they are hardly a threat in the toilets, nor would be a woman from birth that has changed to be a man.

John in PDX wrote:Seriously, if you guys can't understand why preemptively, gratuitously, and groundlessly rejecting election results in the world's greatest democracy is dangerous and vile--why it's a gesture full of contempt for this country and its citizens, and why it's practically tantamount to terrorism in its destabilizing effect--there's no hope for you.

lol

Explain it to us again.

How does not committing to conceding on election night endanger our democracy and way of life?

Sheesh..people get trolled SO easily!