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

rojo wrote:

Zev wrote:

Gore won the popular vote.

What does that have to do with anything? Bush won the electoral vote.

So if Trump wins the popular vote, you are fine with him contesting it?

It just amazes me that people are expressing this faux outrage. If you hate Trump, I get it hate him. Hell George Wasahington was a freaking slave holder as were many of the Founding Fathers. Hate whoever you want but at least be intellectually honest.

This argument about 'not accepting election results' when he has no idea what might happen is absurd.

An Ivy League education at work here, folks......

Wendell Gee wrote:

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.

The misinformation out in the public is crazy right now. As far as I have seen/heard, Trump has never said that the votes may be fixed. Has he? Or is this just being assumed? I was under the impression his reasoning for the election being rigged was from a media standpoint. Of course, in the last week or so, the wikileaks release included some emails between high level Clinton staffers that discussed voter fraud in Obama's primary vs Hillary in his run to the White House.

The chairman of her campaign thinks that it is okay for illegals with driver licenses to state they are citizens and vote.

Why would Trump feel that with this new information floating around, that everything is on the up and up?

In the end, Trump is a turd. If he had any decency he would win this election in a landslide. Instead, someone as terrible as Hillary will probably win the election. Everyone loses. Some will benefit, most will hurt.

How does it really threaten our system of government if Trump doesn't concede the results on election night? Who cares? It's not like he's going to storm 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and stage a coup. All he can do is contest the results in court. To do that he needs to pony up a lot of cash for lawyers and have some solid evidence.

One thing I'd like to see the major networks do in their coverage of future presidential debates is take away the phones of their commentators while the debate is on. I'd rather hear their independent views of the debate rather than the narratives tweeted out to them from the campaigns. Flipping around the networks last night it was clear that all the pro-Clinton commentators were working from the exact same script.

Please help me understand wrote:

The misinformation out in the public is crazy right now. As far as I have seen/heard, Trump has never said that the votes may be fixed. Has he? Or is this just being assumed? I was under the impression his reasoning for the election being rigged was from a media standpoint. Of course, in the last week or so, the wikileaks release included some emails between high level Clinton staffers that discussed voter fraud in Obama's primary vs Hillary in his run to the White House.

You are complaining about misinformation and suggesting Trump has never said votes have been fixed? Really?

"Nov. 8, we'd better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged," he said at an Aug. 1 rally in Columbus, Ohio. "People are going to walk in and they're going to vote 10 times, maybe, who knows?

Heres an exchange between Chuck Todd and Trump on Meet the Press in May:

CHUCK TODD:

--do you want to see the voting laws changed to make it easier to vote?

DONALD TRUMP:

I want to see voting laws so that people that are citizens can vote. Not so people that can walk off the street and can vote, or so that illegal immigrants can vote--

CHUCK TODD:

So you're not for same-day voter registration?

DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. I want to make the voting laws so that people that-- it doesn't make any difference how they do it. But I don't think people should sneak in through the cracks. You have to have -- And whether that's an ID or any way you want to do it. But you have to be a citizen to vote.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, of course. That is the law as it stands already. Let me ask--

DONALD TRUMP:

No, it's not. I mean, you have places where people just walk in and vote.

There are many others. Please stop complaining of misinformation while spreading misinformation.

It would take you literally 2 minutes to look up Trump's very specific comments that the election will be rigged at polling locations. This whole "he only means the media" narrative is just an attempt to clean up for him after the fact. Which I'm sure you're aware of.

Prediction: Trump will lose by more than 10 million votes and 100 electors, and he will blame a rigged system.

Dead people and non-citizens are not responsible for his atrocious polling numbers, and they won't explain a perceptible fraction of that margin.

If Trump wins, there will be a much better reason to question the legitimacy of the election, since there is no evidence that he is even close, and since Russia is busy hacking us to elect Trump. So why isn't Clinton saying that she might not accept the results of the election?

Because that's traitorous.

Hillary lover detected! Gross!!!!

webby wrote:

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.

Where did I say that I was voting for Trump?

I already have four people voting for myself.

I'm trying to get college educated people to actual think instead of just being in the tank for HIllary.

This guy nailed it. The electorate has passed the republicans by. There is almost no chance that a true "conservative" that is fiscally and socially conservative in the classic sense can beat a Democrat in a two party system. This isn't really debatable, if we were to run the same election over and over again it would literally get progressively worse for republicans due to ongoing demographic drift away from their core constituency.

What could put classic conservatives back in play is a movement away from our 2 party system. I think there is a real possibility that in the aftermath of this election we will see the rise of something closer to a 4 party system. Just replace Johnson with Trump and add his crazies to libertarian constituency and find a strong progressive candidate than Stein and all of a sudden I can see a Kasisch or Rubio winning.

As for this election, it's over. Trump may lose by double digits in truly embarrassing fashion and frankly he deserves it. He caters to the worst America has to offer and all of American should be ashamed at the mirror he has turned on us.

-A lifelong conservatIve

Rojo there is context.

Trump tells his supporters not to trust America and American institutions. That's his strategy. This is an extension of that, and it is astonishingly irresponsible and selfish. Democracy and civil society only exist because of norms. He has done damage to democracy and civil society. For selfish reasons.

No other major party candidate would tell his supporters not to trust American institutions like the validity of elections.

Trump is an enemy of the nation.

It is indicative of what a child he is and how out of touch he is with reality. If he cant get things to go his way he just alters the reality - its the single biggest reason why he is unfit for any office - anywhere .

rojo wrote:

So after getting irate that the Dodgers were getting crushed, I couldn't watch anymore and started watching the debate on tape.

I'm all with people if they are #NeverHillary #NeverTrump. I can see why people think both shouldn't be president. That being said, I can't stand the hypocrisy of some of those against Trump.

As I was watching the debate, I was also scrolling through twitter.

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?

https://twitter.com/germanotes/status/788941447357751297

It amazes me how people (on both sides of the aisle) will just accept a certain position as it makes them feel good even though it's the exact opposite of what they've done themselves in the past.

Dial it up wrote:

Actually Rojo the media being rigged is exactly why he won the GOP nomination. .

I did find it odd that the Access Hollywood tape mysteriously showed up at the end general election. If that had come out in the GOP primary, Trump would have lost.

LookEveryone wrote:

Hillary lover detected! Gross!!!!

Not a Hillary love. I've been very critical of her and I am not voting for her. All of that is on the record.

I just am posting facts.

ManOverboard wrote:

One thing I'd like to see the major networks do in their coverage of future presidential debates is take away the phones of their commentators while the debate is on. I'd rather hear their independent views of the debate rather than the narratives tweeted out to them from the campaigns. Flipping around the networks last night it was clear that all the pro-Clinton commentators were working from the exact same script.

That's a great idea. I'd like to have the post-race analyzers to watch the debate in solitary confinement with no phones or computers. They just watch the debate. They can't get the consensus on twitter. They can't agree with their colleagues about what they'll say.

Wendell Gee wrote:

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.

Ok I'll take that with a minor modification.

In 2016, Athlete A races Athlete B. Four weeks before the race, Athlete B claims Athlete A is cheating and that you can't trust the result. At a press conference to promote the race two weeks before it takes place, the media asks Athlete B if he'll admit he lost fair and square if he loses. Athlete B refuses to say that because he wants to see if he wins the race and see if he can uncover any evidence of cheating between now and the race and see what happens with the post-race drug tests.

The media then determines that based on this answer Athlete B should immediately forfeit the race.

Well stated. Rojo, I appreciate what you do for the running community with LRC, but your knowledge of politics and your stance on many political issues is on the same level as a Trump speech. Third grade at best. Please resist rom comments of this nature. Stick to running.

rojo wrote:

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

No

Florida had a close election and the results would swing the final election one way or the other.

They went through a recount and the Supreme Court even got involved.

Once the results were finalized, Gore accepted the results.

There were never any official results that Gore contested.

Trump is saying, in advance of the election, that he may not accept the final

results of the choice of the American people in the election system as it is.

It is unprecedented for a candidate to say something like that.

Look how gracious Gore was in the end. He wanted the country to move forward in unity under president Bush.

I get the impression that Trump would lead a civil war if he doesn't win.

I would assume many of the posters to this thread are college educated. Thus, it would seem that having an intellectual debate would not be that difficult. Yet, it seems many of you would rather point fingers, call names and ridicule someone's comments and person, than allow opinions to be expressed and present yours as a counter. But, then this seems to be the culture today and certainly Donald Trump has set a the example at the highest level. He does what many posters do on here, bloviate in the most irate fashion he can think of. As one poster stated, many sports stars do the similar things in picking up interest for an upcoming contest. Mohammad Ali was probably the best in the business. I see Trump in the same light.

What is sad is that our country has fallen into the trap of "reacting" to talk, rather than "intellectualizing" comments and situations. In this case, Chris Wallace tried to direct discussions toward policy and it seemed neither candidate was willing to show their hand. Does anyone know who Trump's inside group will be, those that will set policy and try and work Congress to make changes? I haven't heard. Does anyone know if Clinton will keep Obama's group on board or will she go back and rely on her husband's group or build her own inside advisors? I haven't heard. Isn't that going to be important? It seems to me it is like having a head coach of a sport say, we are going to win the super bowl, yet he doesn't have any players yet.

As has been the case since high school elections for Class President, lots of promises are made, yet little on those promises are ever delivered. We have come full cycle with this election. Two candidates, neither of which have presented a clear path for the next four years that people can think about and decide if it is best for them and the country. Neither shows leadership qualities of uniting the politicians in Washington to work together to make things better for the country. Instead we deal in personalities.

It seems more like a tug of war using a rope where there is a large pool of mud in the middle, and to the victor the spoils, despite having mud all over them.

Has it always been this way and is it the fact that there are so many outlets that post (barrage) us with endless drivel, some true, most false. I think in the past elections were more dignified, but I could be wrong.

The biggest fear of this incessant, instant information that the internet sprays out 24/7 is that one of these times people will really believe what is being posted and all hell breaks out.

I haven't read the whole thread, but if Trump had said something like "I'll support Hillary if she wins the election like I said at the first debate, but I want to make sure that she actually won the election first" or something like that it would have been fine. I don't necessarily think what he said conflicts with that, but, being a trial lawyer, this is the sort of thing where you get very frustrated when your witness starts ad-libbing instead of sticking to the script because you have to come in afterwards and explain away what they meant.