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

Let's choose the simplest possible explanation. Like him or loathe him, Trump is a negotiator and he's learned that it's best to say "I'll consider that," when an offer is on the table, so he is reverting to his training. Such that it is.

I don't think he was talking about overthrowing the rule of law and inciting some giant sh*tstorm.

And just for the record, I loathe him. But let's get a perspective, huh?

ManOverboard wrote:

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.

When the rest of the world views the U.S. as the most stable Democracy and the Republicans (supposedly stable political party) promote a tyrant like Trump to take a shot at running the country, the rest of the world begins to question the stability of the country.

This has far reaching consequences.

The first being the dominance of the U.S. Dollar. It dominates because of the perception of a stable government backing it. There is so much more to it, but, that's a start.

I doubt he would've lost the primary had the tape been released earlier - he has a LONG history of saying disparaging things about minorities and women as it's those types of comments that make for good reality TV. The tape didn't reveal some hidden secret - it's just a continuation of what he has been saying all along and his supporters will dismiss no matter what. Plus if the media is some puppet master tricking people into voting for Hillary why haven't they been able to get anyone to hack into any emails on the Republican side. Of course more scoops are going to be about Trump as the medial has had 20+ years to dig up stuff on the Clintons - they're old news and Trump is fresh meat on the political stage at least.

Wasn't the Florida recount mandated by law because of how close it was? I remember that the AP or someone called it for Gore but when the numbers started to come in Bush was leading and it was so close they had a recount because the overall electoral college votes hinged on Florida. Gore did concede after the recount was not going his way.

The problem with Trump's comments are that he won't concede and will maintain the election wasn't fair even if loses in a land slide. If polling can be believed it's not coming down to one state where they popular vote is so close it will determine the outcome of the overall election.

“I accept the finality of the outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College” he said. “And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/al-gore-concedes-presidential-election

[quote]simple explanation wrote:Trump is a negotiator /quote]

No. He's a liar and a tireless self-promoter.

agip wrote:

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.

Hillary lover detected! Gross!!!

Al Gore did not allege that the election was "rigged" prior to the vote taking place. He won the popular vote and the outcome of the election turned on the electoral college. Florida was the decisive state. Florida did not certify the results on election day. Florida went into a legally mandated recount because the vote was so close. Al Gore rightfully took issue with Florida's recount process because the Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris stopped the recount process after several tries came up inconclusive (remember the "hanging chad"). Katherine Harris then just handed the election to George Bush by decree and not based on a conclusive recount result. Al Gore went to the courts to challenge this move and was eventually denied by the USSC. After that decision, he conceded the election.

Donald Trump is basically saying that the election is invalid if he does not win. He is clinging to a bunch of alt right conspiracy theories about voter fraud and his own conspiracy theory about the media singling him out by reporting on what he actually said. Donald Trump is making a preemptive strike on a seemingly inevitable Clinton administration much the same way the birthers tried to de-legitimize President Obama.

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.

0/10

good trolling though.

agip wrote:

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.

This ^ is true. It is the single most important point to consider in this election.

Big Electoral High School wrote:

agip wrote:

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.

This ^ is true. It is the single most important point to consider in this election.

Oh good. I was hoping we were going to have to consider whether a candidate lied to parents of dead soldiers while the bodies were still warm, or mocked and attacked her husbands rape victims, or made a mockery of the democratic process by rigging the primaries, or committed several federal crimes. Thank god we don't have to consider those things and only have to consider whether someone with the balls to point out our version of democracy is a fraud is or is not the enemy of our nation. Close one.

Dial it up wrote:

Big Electoral High School wrote:

This ^ is true. It is the single most important point to consider in this election.

Oh good. I was hoping we were going to have to consider whether a candidate lied to parents of dead soldiers while the bodies were still warm, or mocked and attacked her husbands rape victims, or made a mockery of the democratic process by rigging the primaries, or committed several federal crimes. Thank god we don't have to consider those things and only have to consider whether someone with the balls to point out our version of democracy is a fraud is or is not the enemy of our nation. Close one.

not a single one of those accusations is true

except maybe she broke a federal law on mishandling documents. But long precedent suggests civilians are NEVER prosecuted for breaking it, so she gets a pass there since she is one of a large group of people not prosecuted for the same crime. If it is a crime.

and if saying 'bimbo eruptions' once is mocking, then ok that one too. Fairly small point tho.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Goper not groper wrote:

And to be fair to Gore, he was right. He should have been President. Just think... no 9/11, no Iraq, no Afghanistan... just crazy to think about all that.

Gore would have been every bit as bad as Bush. He was for the Gulf War, he supported the Iraq war, and 9/11 would have happened just the same with him in office.

And don't forget he's Al Gore Jr. He inherited his senate seat. His role in politics was to be a good ol' boy just like W.

The Afghan war was started by that peace-loving Jimmy Carter. As was the ongoing, pointless US-Iran cold war.

Moral of the story is they are ALL pigs.

On the contrary, Mr. Gladwell, Gore was opposed to Iraq from the very beginning.

This is exactly correct. It amazes me that very few people understand what the real issues should be. It is fairly clear both HC & DT are unworthy candidates (putting it mildly) yet supporters of either are busy trying to point out who is more unworthy.

If you think one is not fit to be president the other is as well. It is a matter of character - neither has any. If you can look past the lack of character issue then it should come down to the types of things Justthefacts speaks of, policy and implementation... yet all we hear is rhetoric.

If you can't get past the character issue you should not vote for either of these candidates. Write in your own name if you can't find anyone else for all I care but don't try to tell me one is more evil than the other so your going to vote less the less evil ticket.

I love the irony in these two rojo statements:

"Please stop trying to judge me when you know next to nothing about my political views."

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

Translate: "Don't assume you know why I make my decisions when you don't actually know. But I'm gonna go ahead and assume I know why you make your decisions because _________"

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.

This exemplifies a serious lack of basic reasoning and language comprehension on your part rojo.

It was as far from a hypothetical gotcha question that you could possibly have. It is a straight up black and white question: will Trump respect and honor the basic tenet of Democracy which at America's founding set us apart from the rest of the world and literally is one of the most important things that makes America great?

His answer was he might not.

Every other candidate in history has shown their answer is an unequivocal YES.

Trump's answer puts him in direct opposition to the very heart and soul of America. Un-american, un-patriotic, anti-democracy.

50 years from now this statement is what people will remember Trump for.

Can we all just take a step back and acknowledge that rojo can't spell better than a 10 year old?

Football Coach A throws a challenge flag during a game because he thinks the refs made a mistake. Football coach B then complains that the refs are going to make a mistake in a game that is going to be played six weeks from now and announces way before the game that his team is going to be cheated and that if they lose, it will be the ref's fault. Rojo concludes that coach A and coach B have engaged in the exact same behavior.

jamin wrote:

You're exactly right, rojo.

Let's also remember that Donald Trump has hired his own independent statisticians that show him up 60/30/10 (Trump/Hillary/Undecided) nationally.

You are delusional, blind, ignorant. pick 3.