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

+1...could you imagine the media reaction had it been the Trump campaign doing these things on video. No way they would accept the result. What the liberal media does to cover for and her lies such as not losing those $5 billion while sec of state is they create a faux rage talking point and just keep talking about it nonstop and the sheep eat it up.

Flagpole wrote:

I for one am not outraged by Trump's comment.

Why? Because the words of a fool who has no chance to win the presidency matters not to me. Trump's foolish comments, his ignorant comments, his odious behavior, his history of racism and misogyny, only make me sad because people still support him.

Rojo, you really should be ashamed of yourself for defending him in any way.

That's fine. Say he's racist, sexist, etc. There are PLENTY of reasons not to vote for Trump. We just don't need one to be that he won't answer some 'gotcha' media question in a certain way.

I am well aware of Trump's flaws. I nailed this election perfectly during the primaries. I said to anyone who would listen, "There is no way Hillary Clinton is president - her negatives are way too high - unless she's running against Trump."

I've already got 4 conservatives that I know who said they can't vote for Trump. They say there is no way they can vote for Hillay or Green Party. So I told them I'd accept their vote. They all agreed to vote for me as no one else had asked.

I've got 4 votes!! I don't think it would be too hard to get some random out of the phone book to beat these two if they had an R or D next to their name.

One ironic thing. Trump believes because of the media the system is rigged against him. Ironically, even in his world view, it's not totally rigged or he'd never have won the GOP nomination.

If Trump loses and calls for violence or something like that, then I'm happy to call him a deplorable. BUt just because he won't answer some hypothetical gotcha question in a certain way now is absurd.

+1000

The MSM is making a faux issue out of Trump's comment because polling had him winning last night's debate, and his comment is in fact an indictment of the MSM's collusion with the Clinton re-election machine and all the things about it Wikileaks have either revealed or confirmed throughout this campaign.

The American people should not accept any result if its clear the whole thing was rigged.

Sanders supporters never should have. Ditto on Gore supporters in 2000; although we may have dodged a bullet there as Lieberman (I from Tel Aviv) was his running mate.

rojo wrote:

I've got to go to bed. But take a look at what Bill Clinton said when he spoke to the nation in December of 2000.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/how-bill-clintons-statement-al-gores-2000-presidential-concession-evolved/359196/

In the 1st draft of his speech, he wanted to say this, ""Let me congratulate Vice President Gore on his principled defense of our most funadamental democratic value - the right of every citizen to vote, and have their vote count.""

So I assume something like that ended up in the speech. Trump hints he'd do something similar and he's now viewed as a monster.

No he's viewed as a monster because he is one. Are you typically this obtuse?

Tycobb wrote:

Gore wasn't going around saying it was rigged even before the election. Florida was close enough for an automatic recount. Big difference. Trump is basically working up the uneducated to hate the government even more.

By uneducated you mean those that don't share the opinion that the mainstream media put into you head and that you think is your own?

The faux outrage over the comment (shocking, right?) and your twisted logic belong in the same category. Trump is like a boxer who makes huge statements to create outrage and fury against him that he uses to fuel his hire. There are plenty of athletes that do this: see Jordan, Michael, Bryant, Kobe.

Unfortunately Trump is not an athlete but a Presidential Candidate and also has a large audience that only reads and hears conspiracy theories all day. The media on the right saw how much money Rush made off the Clintons in the 90's and has been stumbling all over themselves to cash in on the same audience. Hence Rush's lower numbers and the rise of Breitbart and Head Cheerleader Sean Hannity.

His comment is only outrageous in combination with the call to have his supporters watch over intercity polling stations. The implication is that black people are voting multiple times. You know it, I know it.

Great post. I really enjoyed it.

I'm glad to see that we stiill are a role model for the rest of the world.

I have a question for you. Will Africa accept a female US president? If Hillary wins do you think it will help with sexism over there? I hope so.

When Weldon was in Kenya 2007, some Kenyans asked him about the presidential election and if Obama would win. Weldon said, "I don't know Hillary has a good shot." He said one of the Kenyans laughed and replied "But she's a woman. The US would be a laughing stock."

Since you were talking about dictators, I've been saying for months that if Trump wins, the US will have it's own Putin in charge.

And speaking of Putin, I thought Trump's comments on Putin were some of his best of the night.

rojo wrote:

If Trump loses and calls for violence or something like that, then I'm happy to call him a deplorable. BUt just because he won't answer some hypothetical gotcha question in a certain way now is absurd.

If you are uncomfortable giving your business to a man who is willing to undermine American Democracy to defend Donald Trump, consider AdBlocker as an alternative to quitting the site altogether.

rojo wrote:

I am well aware of Trump's flaws. I nailed this election perfectly during the primaries. I said to anyone who would listen, "There is no way Hillary Clinton is president - her negatives are way too high - unless she's running against Trump."

Did you post that here? Or do we have to call Sean Hannity for confirmation?

Duh, Homie wrote:

Let's try to put this in terms that Rojo can understand:

Athlete A says, "If Athlete B beats me tomorrow, I am going to protest. I will refuse to accept the outcome of the race if it is Athlete B who wins."

Supporters of Athlete A are outraged.

Some moron who runs a website says, "Athlete A supporters have no right to be outraged. Remember when Athlete C protested a race result 16 years ago? Sure, that was only after some questionable race contact occurred and it followed standard procedure, but still!"

Carry on.

I like the analogy. It's challenging.

I'd say it's more like this.

Media goes up to Athlete A and says, "You've got the big race tomorrow and if you lose, which we really hope happens, will you accept that Athlete B beat you fair and square?"

Athlete A says, "I'm not going to talk about hypotheticals. I'll talk to you after the race."

Meanwhile, that morning Athlete A's daughter and coach (campaign manager) have already said if he loses fairly, he'll accept it. He just doesn't like to contemplate losing the day before a big race.

And the backstory. Athlete A said a few days ago that race isn't really fair to begin with. If he wins, it will be the biggest upset in sports history as he's only been training for the race for a year and while working part-time, while his competitor has been training full-time her whole life. Also his competitor trains with the help of drugs or nutritional supplements (media) that he doesn't have access to. And there is no post-race drug testing (ID required to vote) .

Rojo, here's a much more correct analogy:

In 2000, Athlete C races Athlete D. The race is extremely close and Athlete C asks that the officials look at the FinishLynx photo (Thanks, Doug DeAngelis!). Turns out that the FinishLynx photo is being read by Athlete D's brother. Athlete C requests an independent reader.

In 2016, Athlete A races Athlete B. For weeks before the race, Athlete B claims Athlete A is cheating and that you can't trust the result. However, Athlete B can't provide any actual evidence of the cheating.

Those are not the same situation. It's not hard to see that. There is no parallel between the situations and only someone with logical reasoning gaps would think there is.

You are a moron Rojo

Mr. Obvious wrote:

rojo wrote:

I am well aware of Trump's flaws. I nailed this election perfectly during the primaries. I said to anyone who would listen, "There is no way Hillary Clinton is president - her negatives are way too high - unless she's running against Trump."

Did you post that here? Or do we have to call Sean Hannity for confirmation?

I can't stand Hannity. I've probably heard a total of 5 minutes of that program in a year. I agree with Dr. Pepper's comments on him above.

Please stop trying to judge me when you know next to nothing about my political views. If one says they are a fan of the Nike Salazar group in Oregon, that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the Nike Schumacher Group as well.

But people who never listen to those shows don't understand that.

rojo wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Did you post that here? Or do we have to call Sean Hannity for confirmation?

I can't stand Hannity. I've probably heard a total of 5 minutes of that program in a year. I agree with Dr. Pepper's comments on him above.

Please stop trying to judge me when you know next to nothing about my political views. If one says they are a fan of the Nike Salazar group in Oregon, that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the Nike Schumacher Group as well.

But people who never listen to those shows don't understand that.

We are judging you based on your ignorant comments in this thread. The Hannity remark refers to one of the thousands of statements your candidate made that demonstrates his inability to think and debate like an adult.

Is this a serious thread? Is OP really that stupid as to not understand the fundamental difference between the Gore situation and what Trump is suggesting weeks in advance of the election?

rojo wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Did you post that here? Or do we have to call Sean Hannity for confirmation?

I can't stand Hannity. I've probably heard a total of 5 minutes of that program in a year. I agree with Dr. Pepper's comments on him above.

Please stop trying to judge me when you know next to nothing about my political views. If one says they are a fan of the Nike Salazar group in Oregon, that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the Nike Schumacher Group as well.

But people who never listen to those shows don't understand that.

I'm just trying to find where I can confirm your prediction. Just let me know.

Disagree - Hillary would've won against any of the Republican candidates that were running (Rubio, Carson, Bush III) as it's established left vs established right and given both sides are equally corrupt there aren't enough old white males to give the right enough votes. After Romney it's obvious they can't win without women and minorities and they've done nothing to attract those voters. I actually think Trump is or maybe at this point was the only chance to beat her as he is a wild card and could've got people frustrated with the status quo to give him a shot. But given his actions during the election I tend to think he doesn't even want to win and (like it was alleged against Carson) that he initially ran more as a sham to try to raise campaign money to then funnel to businesses of his family and friends. Now he appears to be more concerned with how he can ride his wave and make $ after he loses with Trump TV.

But this idea that everyone is upset with both of the candidates seems to be more Republican wishful thinking as there are plenty of voters happy to support Clinton.

Actually Rojo the media being rigged is exactly why he won the GOP nomination. Libs knew their only chance of getting Hillary elected is via ensuring that trump was her opponent and then making up a ton of stuff to attack him with 24/7.

To all those who say this isn't unamerican or a disgrace to the democratic process etc: STFU.

You are supporting a candidate who LITERALLY rigged the democratic primary. She CHEATED to beat sanders. If trump did that, we would have a recount, 24/7 media coverage, and 35 threads full of little libs with their panties in a bunch.