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

And his name is McMullin with an "i". I guess I better learn how to spell it because in Texas I can't pull the lever for him, if I go that route I have to write him in.

wejo wrote:

And his name is McMullin with an "i". I guess I better learn how to spell it because in Texas I can't pull the lever for him, if I go that route I have to write him in.

You said you were going to only post once in this thread but that's your second post. How many more times are you going to post in this thread after saying you were only going to post once?

Rojo. Seriously, how can you be such an idiot? (And I use the word not to be mean, just accurate.)

Gore initially conceded based on early reports from FL, then heard that he might have won the state after all and "unconceded." Nothing at all like accusing the US of running a rigged election

The extraordinary closeness of the popular vote in FL triggered an automatic recount of all 67 counties. This is simply protocol--again, no accusation of rigging.

Palm Beach County said that they will recount all (whatever it was, tens of thousands) of votes. BUSH--NOT GORE--SUED TO STOP THEM. (So much for your vaunted local control, amiright?)

Gore sued to extend the deadline based on credible evidence of inconsistencies/irregularities.

The case is called Bush v. Gore because Bush, not Gore, was the petitioner, and Gore was the defendant.

Blah, blah , blah. It's true: this was a nightmare scenario. But to say that Gore didn't accept the vote and acted as though the system were rigged is flat-out wrong, and as such is so typical of your usual political babblings.

Secretary Clinton will obliterate Trump in a few weeks. Absolutely destroy him. Any serious, thinking person will admit that the Republicans advanced a terminal candidate--a horrible, impulsive, ignorant racist--and will concede with gratitude and relief that the numbers completely reflect Americans' repudiation of these qualities.

What Trump is doing is suggesting that his blowout loss--it may "only" be 4-5 points, but in a country as divided as ours right now, that's still pretty huge--is somehow the result of "rigging." By what mechanism he never says precisely, but he seems to suggest that African Americans are somehow going to be allowed to vote not just five or ten, but 20 times on voting day, on a scale of coordinated effort massive in its scope, by its very nature unprofessional in its execution, and yet, somehow, entirely secret.

This is so flagrantly unAmerican--and, honestly, so illogical and unsupportable--an accusation I can't even fathom it. But for you to compare an addled conspiracy theory with an automatic process established to protect the voice of all Americans is right down there with it.

So please. Go back to the Dodgers game. Oh, and do keep us posted on your trenchant analysis of Joe Maddon's use of the hit-and-run or whatever other brilliant thoughts pop into your head.

QFE

This guy has it right. Forget parties, What trump did is what we would expect from Russia or Iran. Period.

A few points. If Trump just said this today as Rojo said he did, this is what he should have said last night, "Of course, I would accept a clear election result. But I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result. Right?"However, Trump couldn't say that last night. He's incapable of holding himself back.1) Trump is exactly how I was when I was 12 and played basketball and lost. Instead of admitting I just got beat, I would have an excuse. Mine often was "I wasn't trying my hardest". As Hillary pointed out yesterday, Trump has a history of saying things are rigged.If Trump loses big to Hillary I wondered how he keeps the macho bravado because at his core he is super insecure. He does it by saying the system is rigged. He's reportedly planning a TV network so a lot of this will play well on it. The media is biased, the FBI investigation was a joke, etc. Even if those things are true, once all the votes are counted Trump would have to accept the results. But it's against his bravado to say he got beat fair and square.There is a difference between the media being in the tank for a candidate or even the incumbent administration and the election being rigged. Which leads us to #2.2) Then there is the possibility of voter fraud and the possibility of the an election being "stolen." I think this is more troubling to people on both sides. This is America, our system is supposed to be fair. It's not a banana republic.There are 3 ways I see elections could be "stolen" or rigged. 1) Not counting votes accurately 2) Generating fake ballots 3) Letting people who aren't allowed to vote vote and 4) Preventing people who are allowed to vote from voting.If #2-4 happen, what are we going to do? statistically resample the votes? Probably not. We're screwed. If #1 happens, we could keep recounting.Now unless the election is super tight it is highly unlikely that voter fraud tips the outcome. Having said that Trump's supporters have a lot of concern about illegal immigrants voting in elections and tipping an election. There's also concerns about felons (and dead people) voting. You may laugh but Al Franken won a Senate seat by 312 votes and without it, Obamacare never would have passed. The argument that those votes were won by illegals and felons not allowed to vote voting (who predominantly are believed to vote Democratic) seems plausible.That is what I call more "passive" voter fraud as it's not actively generating fake votes. They are votes that never should have been allowed, but party operatives the day of the election aren't creating them. To say "active" voter fraud can't exist in American may be naive. Some scholars believe Illinois went to Kennedy in the 1960 Presidential Election because of active fraud in Chicago. Granted that was nearly 60 years ago, but this plays into the Trump narrative perfectly.For fraud to tip an election it has to be super tight.3) Trump should have said last night what he did today, "Of course, I would accept a clear election result. But I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result. Right" Of all the outrageous stuff he's said, I think there was lot of faux outage last night but we do need confidence in the system and a system we can be confident in.

Real deal on 00 election wrote:

RoJo you can't compare the 2 things. Bush did NOT win the election via any voting system and had it stolen for him by his power brokers all the way up to the Supreme Court in the 5-4 vote by party line. The court ruling was on the legitamacy of the re-count of votes in Florida that never were fully counted as they had the damn hanging chads. But those votes were eventually counted and overwhelmingly favored Gore. Yet Gore still accepted the decision. Everyone knew it was a stolen election.

Essentially you are saying we should ignore the Supreme Court. Is is acceptable for Trump or Clinton to say the same thing?

As for "The court ruling was on the legitamacy of the re-count of votes in Florida that never were fully counted as they had the damn hanging chads. But those votes were eventually counted and overwhelmingly favored Gore." it just isn't true:

(The only way Gore could have won is if they counted ballots with overvotes (people voting for 2 candidates or writing in one candidate and also voting for a cadidate))

Your rhetoric undermines our system. You aren't running for president but let's not pretend both parties don't say the system is rigged or elections are stolen.

It's best if candidates cite specific complaints of something wrong instead of the conspiratorial, "it's rigged".

Trump may be trying to drum up the base but his mistake was a) in saying it before the election and b) he wouldn't accept the final result. Totally unnecessary. It's not like the guy is known for saying something clearly thought out. He could have pointed out problems with illegals voting, the system being corrupt, etc and gotten his base riled up while still saying what he said today and not offending everyone else.

Examples of both sides saying stuff about elections

WSJ saying Franken stole election:

(doesn't even mention illegal aliens and felons which people are talking about now)

Hillary Clinton saying Bush was "elected" not "selected"

and this month Gore and Clinton were at a rally in Florida where the crowd was chanting he "won"

What's the point in running if you think the whole thing is rigged? It's a sorry excuse before the fact.

MSM is dead to me wrote:

codeman wrote:

And yet it now seems to be the go-to denial of reality that Trumpers have decided upon to try to spin the most Anti-American and Anti-Democracy thing any major presidential nominee has ever said.

If you want to know what's anti-democratic about this election, it's the fact that the mainstream media is 96% in the pocket of one candidate and they are doing all that they can to discredit the other one while refusing to cover any of the dirt on the chosen one.

An informed voter base is of paramount importance to living in a successful democracy... and please don't reply with the tired refrain of: "case in point, Trump supporters". There are a lot of ignorant people supporting Trump, but the same is true for Hillary.

This is correct

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.

Wait, aren't you the one who has repeatedly made statements on these boards about Gore actually winning 2000? About how that election was stolen and Gore was the legitimate winner?

rojo wrote:

Are people going to apologize now that Trump just said the following?

“Of course, I would accept a clear election result. But I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result. Right?"

So Trump just gets to keep making revised statements until he gets it right, then we're supposed to forget the things he's already said once he manages to say something that is politically palatable? Is that the general idea, here?

Trump: "I sexually assault women."

You: "That's terrible."

Trump: "I mean, no I don't."

You: "Oh, good, glad you cleared that up."

Trump: "But I may not accept the result of the election."

You: "Well, I guess that's okay, but some people seem miffed about it."

Trump: "I mean, yes I will."

You: "Oh, great!"

Zen bro wrote:

You could avoid a lot of embarrassment by 1) googling "false equivalency," 2) learning some history on the 2000 election, and 3) deleting this thread before too many people see it.

This is *the* response that should have ended this discussion. And by the way, take a look at the latest piece on Trump's shady financial dealings:

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.

Sometimes I wonder if you really graduated from college or if perhaps your we need to review your schools accreditation.

1) Gore didn't say the election was rigged before the election.

2) There was one state in question, Florida.

3) The vote was close enough there was a mandatory recount.

4) After the recount there was still issues and questions about the ballots (Hanging chads etc.)

5) There were reported incidents of black voters being turned away/mislead. These needed to be investigated.

After recounts/investigations. Gore let it go.

This in no way is the same as someone clearly losing in polls whining about rigged elections etc.

Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me 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.

Wait, aren't you the one who has repeatedly made statements on these boards about Gore actually winning 2000? About how that election was stolen and Gore was the legitimate winner?

Sort of. I believe the evidence shows that if the intent of the voters were measured...gore would have won. Several thousand people clearly thought they were voting for gore but instead voted for Buchanan or Robertson- I forgot which. The ballot was designed poorly.

But they voted for bush so you have to count the votes as cast. I was never for tossing out the result.

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.

Sometimes it's hard to be a Trumpster

Giving all your love to just one man

You'll have bad times

And he'll have good times,

Doin' things that you don't understand

But if you love him you'll forgive him,

Even though he's hard to understand

And if you love him oh be proud of him,

'cause after all he's just a man

Stand by your man,

Give him two arms to cling to,

And something warm to come to

When nights are cold and lonely

Stand by your man,

And show the world you love him

Keep giving all the love you can

Stand by your man

Those Trump Supporters wrote:

Many of Trump's supporters have claimed they will start a revolution if Trump loses not matter what the election results are.

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence advised a supporter against staging a “revolution” in the event that Hillary Clinton is elected president.

--

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dont-say-that-mike-pence-rejects-supporters-suggestion-for-revolution-if-trump-loses-165357927.html

Conservatives Warn Of Revolution, Civil War if Trump Loses

--

http://bizstandardnews.com/2016/08/14/conservatives-warn-of-revolution-civil-war-if-trump-loses/

Pat Buchanan: If Trump Loses, There Could Be A Revolution

--

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/pat-buchanan-if-trump-loses-there-could-be-a-revolution/

They will not of course maybe some little protest here and there. They are the kind of people who are keyboard warriors for a savior . Also Hillary ones.

My point is everyone suddently feels al mighty and powerfull and revolutionary during elections and everybody suddently is an expert in economics and politics and military during elections.... Then you see why the country is like it is.

wejo wrote:

If Trump loses big to Hillary I wondered how he keeps the macho bravado because at his core he is super insecure. He does it by saying the system is rigged. He's reportedly planning a TV network so a lot of this will play well on it. The media is biased, the FBI investigation was a joke, etc. Even if those things are true, once all the votes are counted Trump would have to accept the results. But it's against his bravado to say he got beat fair and square.

This is Trump's spiel for his new TV network/show where he will assume the role of President. The entire show will be based on what he would do as president. This has been the plan his entire campaign. He can make any imaginary decision he wants. He will make money than he could as president. Stay tuned.

Once again Scott Adams makes more sense than so many posters in this thread:

"The biggest buzz from the debate seems to be Trump’s refusal to say in advance that he would accept the election results if they went against him. The pro-Clinton pundits are framing that as another example of Trump’s terribleness. But of course it is nothing but Trump keeping all of his options open as he does in every other situation when he can. He wants to maintain the right to complain later if the result looks rigged to him. That seems reasonable to me, and no real danger to the Republic. But the Clinton-friendly parts of the media will make it a thing this week.

If you want a reason to be worried, ask yourself why the mainstream media is so keen on framing the election as “not rigged.” The message I’m getting from them, collectively, is that they think it will be. (Because it will be.) We just don’t know how much the rigging will matter.

Why do I say it will be rigged?

Because whenever humans have motive, opportunity, a high upside gain, and low odds of detection, shenanigans happen 100% of the time. Our vote-counting systems have plenty of weak spots. Rigging (to some degree) is a near guarantee.

And keep in mind that Team Clinton has framed Trump as the next Hitler. That gives every citizen moral cover to do outrageous things to stop him. The stakes are sky-high. In this environment, it would truly be a miracle to have an unrigged election. But again, we don’t know how much rigging there will be. It might not be enough to matter.

There will almost certainly be election rigging for the same reason there has been debate rigging. If you don’t believe me about debate rigging, ask a woman who did some of that debate rigging herself. Allegedly. Unless it was Russia’s fault."

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152067706781/i-score-the-third-debate

That's just a bunch of jabber dude, all he's doing is waving his hands around and getting red in the face.

Rojo, you were mistaken. How you ask?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-al-gore-recount-fact-check_us_580842a7e4b0dd54ce37f853

Bush sued first, to stop a legally mandated recount, eventually taking it to the US Supreme Court, after the Florida Supreme ruled against him.

Gore only sued to extend the recount.

The involvement of the US Supreme Court in a state matter is also questionable.

Mostly true:

1) I thought for a while why Trump would want to lose, my only logical deduction was that he was trying to get say 262 electoral college votes, then set up a media business to replace Fox news whilst having influence over the GOP. Or he is trying to establish a Trump political dynasty like the Roosevelts, Adams, Bushs, Kennedys, Clintons.

2) The 1960 election, is a bit like the 1980s steriod era or the 1990s (and early 2000s) EPO era. The further we get from it chronologically the less likely it was true. Interestingly, Nixon always blamed the Federal Reserve for his loss in 1960. Arthur Burns warned him about 6-12 months before the election about the Fed's actions. That is why as soon as he could he appointed Arthur Burns fed chairman.

3) Trump is not a quick thinker, scarily Ted Cruz would have absolutely destroyed Hillary last night. There is only one person worse than Trump or Hillary and that is Ted Cruz.