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

Yale > Princeton

Voter fraud in western democracies is like microdosing, we all know that it is going on but it is just small enough to avoid investigating, but in many cases it is large enough to influence the outcome of the event.

We all knew the brojo's were incredibly dumb...but this is just sad. They can't tell the difference between someone claiming it's rigged against him and someone who won the poplular vote wanting a recount. It's truly sad that the brojos run letsrun....

John in PDX wrote:

lipstick on a pig wrote:And you've just proved my point that Adams makes more sense than so many posters in this thread.

endless droning from John in PDX.........................

And you too have made my point. It's like taking candy from a baby.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Voter fraud in western democracies is like microdosing, we all know that it is going on but it is just small enough to avoid investigating, but in many cases it is large enough to influence the outcome of the event.

And sometimes the syringes are in plain view i.e. Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe's executive order restoring voting rights to Virginia felons.

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.

Look I am no fan of either candidate, but you are really a stoopid F*uck.

I am sure Cornell lugs you waving your Big Red dildo every time you go high and mighty but for the luv of gawd you present like a middle school dropout.

Just play to your strengths and feign some outrage about Peds and leave politics to the grown ups

Cornell '74

Rojo,

Why don't you sit the rest of this one out?

Signed,

A non-brainwashed conservative

There is a big part of me that hopes he doesn't back down and tries to pull something foolish after he loses the election. Just so they can throw his ass in jail for treason! He has already worked with Russia to hack political databases. I am sure everyone is chomping at the bit to take him down PERMANENTLY.

Slickrixk wrote:

There is a big part of me that hopes he doesn't back down and tries to pull something foolish after he loses the election. Just so they can throw his ass in jail for treason! He has already worked with Russia to hack political databases. I am sure everyone is chomping at the bit to take him down PERMANENTLY.

To paraphrase a quote by Trump: "If I challenge the election, nothing you can do, folks. ... Although the Second Amendment people ... maybe there is, I don't know."

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.

For one supposedly well educated person you are one stupid mofo.

It amazes me how you went to an ivy and still miss out on such important contexts.

Al Gore contested the results - through legal means - AFTER the election, which aligns well enough with a pieceful transition of power that the US prides itself in.

Trump is planning on contesting the results BEFORE the election, showing just how little regard he actually has for democracy and its values.

Further: The 2000 election was close. So close that a few areas in Florida could swing the electoral votes the opposite way. Republicans sued to limit recounts to conservative dominated areas. Dems wanted liberal areas recounted. Both parties look foolish trying to bias the recount to swing Florida.

Trump: He wants to challenge every state vote that doesn't put him on top. Absolutely no comparison to 2000. Trump doesn't want recounts. He wants votes tossed that don't favor him throughout the country. Something a wannabe dictator would try--rig an election after it occurred.

Mmmmkay....

I've read every post in this thread and I still don't see a compelling answer to the question in the op....namely...how is it a threat to our constitutional democracy to have one candidate take a wait-and-see approach to what happens on election night?

If there is voter fraud and vote rigging, as Trump claims there will be, he will be the beneficiary over-all, not Hillary, since 31 of the 50 states have Republican governors who oversee their states elections.

In 1960 Republicans didn't challenge probable voter fraud in Chicago which benefited JFK since they knew any statewide investigation would uncover the vote stealing they did downstate which benefited Nixon. .

Also, in 2000 Gore not only won the national popular vote but clearly a plurality of Floridians thought they had voted for him. Pat Buchanan himself acknowledged that his bizarrely high vote total in Palm Beach County resulted from its notorious butterfly ballot which caused a few thousand confused Gore voters to punch the wrong hole and unintentionally vote for Buchanan.

(I was one of the foolish Floridians who voted for Nader - and helped send my Army stepson to four tours in Iraq.)

lipstick on a pig wrote:

John in PDX wrote:

endless droning from John in PDX.........................

And you too have made my point. It's like taking candy from a baby.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Voter fraud in western democracies is like microdosing, we all know that it is going on but it is just small enough to avoid investigating, but in many cases it is large enough to influence the outcome of the event.

And sometimes the syringes are in plain view i.e. Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe's executive order restoring voting rights to Virginia felons.

So clearly Rojo is a Republican Trump supporter. What gives?

With which part of "Representative Republic" and "Democracy" are you struggling? Take a second or two and really think about it. Because one answer is correct and the other is your undoing.

Iviessack wrote:

It amazes me how you went to an ivy and still miss out on such important contexts.

Al Gore contested the results - through legal means - AFTER the election, which aligns well enough with a pieceful transition of power that the US prides itself in.

Trump is planning on contesting the results BEFORE the election, showing just how little regard he actually has for democracy and its values.

ManOverboard wrote:

Mmmmkay....

I've read every post in this thread and I still don't see a compelling answer to the question in the op....namely...how is it a threat to our constitutional democracy to have one candidate take a wait-and-see approach to what happens on election night?

Because our hero claims he will accept the result if he wins, and challenge it if he loses, no matter how large the loss.

ManOverboard wrote:

Mmmmkay....

I've read every post in this thread and I still don't see a compelling answer to the question in the op....namely...how is it a threat to our constitutional democracy to have one candidate take a wait-and-see approach to what happens on election night?

The Republican Party established a precedence in 2000 having the Supreme Court throw out Gore's election recount challenge. So, Trump cannot challenge the count on that basis. Thank the Republicans. Thank the Supreme Court for agreeing with them.

Because that question was not in the op. He was asking what the difference was between what Trump said in the debate and what Gore did in 2000 and there have been several good responses explaining why they're not even close so calling it hypocrisy was just foolish. Read it again maybe if you missed so much.

wejo wrote:

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.

Here's a Trump narrative for you about rigging elections. His RUNNING MATE'S government is actively throwing out 10's of thousands of votes of the state he governs (which is looking pretty tight in the polls lately) because of apparent typos on