Donald Trump Says He May Not Accept Election Results...Media Freaks Out.

a reply to: carewemust

This is the same media that spent a month, in 2000, fear-mongering the public about the failures of paper ballots and convincing them that doing away with them was the right thing.

Pregnant and dangling chads were mocked endlessly in the press. And yet even those ballots can be recounted and the intent of the voter interpreted. The media acted as if poorly designed punchcard ballots and butterfly ballots could never be improved with a better design...

We'd all be better off going to voting machines. Ha.

Voting machines can only be audited, but the tallies will never change. Votes cast on voting machines can not be recounted.

Essentially, the media fear-mongered and mocked paper ballots until we gave up our ability to verify the vote.

I actually agree with Trump on this one *gasp*...there's no reason for anyone to say they will accept the results until we know what kind of irregularities we see on election day and how widespread they are.

And the media has some nerve pretending like that's such a horrible thing to say.

Just my .02¢.

originally posted by: Grambler

Exactly you are proving my point. Had the people voted for an establishment republican, he could have easily won. Heck the press would have been far more fair to that person even.

This is the whole point. People are tired of these establishment types.

I dunno. People had a chance to vote for Rand Paul in the primaries and it didn't fly - he's less than establishment and far more stable and sane than Trump.

I think Trump caught on not simply because he is anti-establishment but because of the very fact that he is unhinged and reckless. Not trying to troll but he is the very manifestation of white male angst. As if there is some subconscious level acceptance that their demographic will soon be politically irrelevant and they are going out with a loud bang. I'm not saying that's fair, just trying to understand it. It's nihilistic to the core.

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: bknapple32

All the republicans had to do was put out someone who is worthy of the office .

It would have been nice if the Democrats would have found someone worthy too.

Unfortunately we were left with a democratic socialist ( I dont care what any poll says, Trump would have destroyed Bernie), Jim Webb and Martin O Malley.

It was by far the dem's weakest field probably EVER. But again, she at least can be trusted not to say " Nuke em" And change her mind 10 minutes later when its too late. It really gets that simple.

ETA Lincoln Chafee.. But the fact I had to ETA him explains him in a nutshell

In my opinion, neither party fielded any good candidates in the primaries.
Absolutely the WORST crop of candidates EVER!

See now... this is how we start to find out common ground. I really feel like there can be a coming together on this. Even with Hillary winning. I dont think Trump supporters understand how downright annoyed and pissed we are about having to so ardently vote for hillary

This election may be what it takes for more common ground to be found and to work out a way to solve some our problems that we face, a silver lining of sorts.

Wikileaks may provide that sort of impetus too.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kosmicjack

I am a little confused as to why the uproar. I've not yet seen DT quoted directly. He said "I will keep you in suspense." "What I'm saying, I will tell you in time."

-that's it.

Any answer but "I will accept the results of the election" is the wrong answer. If you can't see that then Democracy isn't important to you.

What an ignorant response.

Any answer but a carefully articulated concession? I don't think i like your definition of Democracy.

Seems this rabbit hole of election tampering is just seeing light.

Losing is losing. And our country stands for a peaceful transition of power every 4 years. Clearly you aren't on board with that if you are saying this election isn't legit before a vote has even been cast.

a reply to: carewemust

I don't blame Trump. I'd wait until the last minute too before I decided what to do.

But the bigger question is - So what? What if Trump doesn't accept the final result assuming Hillary wins? Its not like that blocks Hillary from being President or anything. I guess it diminishes the work she did to get there and a lot of PC people, political purists and snowflakes clamoring for their safe spaces will be butthurt over it, but again, so what?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: bknapple32

" This could save our democracy. "

Electing a Pathological Liar is somehow going to do that ? If Anything , she will Destroy it .

It helps if you dont cherry pick. what saves the democracy is all of us coming together and electing someone worthy of the office , outside the system to oust hillary in 2020.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right losing is losing,..whomever is claiming it under whatever pretenses and contrary evidence.

Trust but Verify

Kind of ironic that it comes from the Russians

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler
Now Trump saying he would wait to see if he would accept the results of the election, thats a big deal to the press. I mean, when Gore didn't accept the results that wasn't a big deal, and mnny members of the media that are criticizing Trump still to this day say Bush stole the election, but that was Democrats doing that, and as we all know, Democrats are always right and everyone else always wrong.

You guys really need to stop with this thin comparison. Gore questioned the results of ONE state election AFTER the votes were cast. Plus there was actual evidence of rigging to base the claims on.

HOWEVER when you are questioning the results of the election before the election even happened then you are on a COMPLETELY different level here.

First off, Trump said he will wait and see.

First off, that is an unacceptable answer. There is no answer other than, "yes I will concede defeat". IF however, something happened like in 2000 that presents an opportunity to challenge the results then he can proceed with his rhetoric. But sewing doubt before a vote is cast is poor sportsmanship through and through.

Secondly, you make it seems as if Gore only challenged one state and it wasn't a big deal. yet that state cost him the election, so yes he was challenging the results of the election.

It was a gamble that didn't pay off for him.

Had gore been asked befor the election will you accept the reults of the election, I am sure he would have said yes. Then he would have been a liar, as he would have then said, but wait we found evidence of shadiness.

No he would be someone who was ready to accept the results of the election until he saw possible evidence of fraud after the election, presented a case, and let the courts decide if he was right or not.

So Trump says I will wait and see if there is any shadiness, and he is horrible.

Yes. He is horrible

This is a joke. I have heard everyone that has criticized Trump for saying this admit yes there is voter fraud, but it is not large scale.

Instead of being horrified that this fraud exists and demanding something be done about it, they are more horrified that someone is bringing it to peoples attention.

*eyeroll* The fraud that exists but hasn't happened yet because only early voting has taken place.

Trump is correct in withholding a blind faith in the supposed fair-&-honest election vote counting

it is guaranteed that any democrat fraud or vote engineering will be glossed over by the legal oversight institutions that are in lockstep with the progressive-fascist socialist-democrat party apparatus (Justice/FBI/etc.)

Trump should only accept the proven-&-true election results, if HRC should be installed as CIChief (chick-in-charge)
with the needed/required vote count is indeed certified as true & fair...
he can't support false elections as a matter of course--- that behavior is being part of the establishment & Trump is an outsider hell-bent on erasing the last 8 years of taking down the American System and Stature on the world stage...

a reply to: kosmicjack

The only thing undermining our democracy is the massive, proven collusion with media that the DNC and Hillary's campaign were shown to be a part of via their own emails, and the resulting polarized two party establishment system that makes politicians rich and divides us as a country.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

No. Youre making fair points but then expounding on them with irrationality.

What Im saying is... And honestly.... This could save our democracy.

Even if Hillary wins( yes Im reluctantly voting for her as a moderate liberal myself).. Im ready to vote for someone new in 2020. Just give me someone who isnt unhinged. I think there is A LOT of common ground between Trump supporters and reluctant Hillary voters. If Trump loses, and his most ardent dont try and burn DC to the ground, I could see the populace coming together and rising as one.

Im in. Just dont give me someone that has the temperament of a 6th grader, thats all Im asking. Im begging.....

What irrationality?

I agree with you that people on all sides are fed up.

You think Hillary is safer than Trump. Ok thats fine, I disagree but respect your opinion. I would rather have a sixth grader than someone who is pushing us towards world war 3 with Russia, and admits in private speeches that she wants totally open borders and will help the wealthy elite.

But who do you think would have been a rational candidate to put up.

Did you think Obama was a good candidate?

It seems to me that every time we get someone who goes against the establishment line on both sides, the establishment doesn't give them a fair shot. My favorite candidate was Ron Paul. How did that work out for him. Oh thats right, the deck was stacked against him. Why would next time be any different?

I don't want to see anyone burn anything to the ground. In fact, I would condemn anyone who would suggest otherwise.

But I am tired of relying on the establishment to allow there to be a fair process. Every year we here the same crap "Well you may not be happy with this candidate, but the other sides person is even worse, so vote this time and next time we will get someone who cares about the people". This has been going on for years.

And its because the system is rigged. And then when someone like Trump points out that rigged system, everyone shouts him down.

4 years from now, will you be saying "Honestly this time if we vote for Hillary, it will bring us even more together, and then next time we can have a good candidate that will save our democracy."

a reply to: kosmicjack

Just a hint. Their demographic s politically irrelavent. Their ideas are irrelevant. And after Hilary wins, they will be stripped of some of their constituional rights as they had known them. They would be better off voting with their feet.

a reply to: TonyS

LOL! No one is going to get stripped of their rights.

a reply to: TonyS

Equivalent to = Obama will take all our guns..



Gun sales higher than ever... Yawn at "theyre gonnna take away all our rights"

originally posted by: St Udio
Trump should only accept the proven-&-true election results...

There are too many digital voting machines to "prove" the vote. It would take a recount to actually prove it and that requires paper ballots.

That's what people should be advocating for if they've lost their trust in our election systems: paper ballots.

THE GOLD STANDARD

Public hand counting of voter marked paper ballots is the only system that allows for full citizen oversight of elections—the foundation of democratic self-governance.

The Bedrock of Verifiable Elections:

Paper ballots must be established as the national standard for democratic elections in the United States.

However, seventeen states use some form of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Touchscreen voting machines that provide no paper ballot.

In most states where there are paper ballots, they are counted by privately owned, and secretly programmed Optical Scan computers, which are proven prone to error and lost votes, and can be manipulated and rigged to count fraudulently.

In some states, counting the ballots by hand in public has been made illegal to facilitate the takeover of private computerized vote counting.

While using paper records may sound antiquated to some, the consensus among election defenders and international technology experts is that nothing else provides the needed reliability, security, and transparency.

The Gold Standard of election process is paper ballots cast in see-through plastic or otherwise untamperable boxes, with all ballots counted by hand in public at the location where they are cast, before they are moved to a central location or stored.

This process alone provides full public oversight and transparency, and produces a vote count verified by all stakeholders.

Link

It's just that important.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right losing is losing,..whomever is claiming it under whatever pretenses and contrary evidence.

Trust but Verify

Kind of ironic that it comes from the Russians

What are you talking about? Trump is making it clear that he won't trust the elections. He's not even planning on verifying this distrust.

originally posted by: kosmicjack

originally posted by: Grambler

Exactly you are proving my point. Had the people voted for an establishment republican, he could have easily won. Heck the press would have been far more fair to that person even.

This is the whole point. People are tired of these establishment types.

I dunno. People had a chance to vote for Rand Paul in the primaries and it didn't fly - he's less than establishment and far more stable and sane than Trump.

I think Trump caught on not simply because he is anti-establishment but because of the very fact that he is unhinged and reckless. Not trying to troll but he is the very manifestation of white male angst. As if there is some subconscious level acceptance that their demographic will soon be politically irrelevant and they are going out with a loud bang. I'm not saying that's fair, just trying to understand it. It's nihilistic to the core.

I did vote for Rand Paul, even though I don't think he was as good as his dad. The problem is, he never had a chance either. The media did not cover him fairly, and both sides were against his foriegn policy (you know of not being a war monger).

I do think you are right about Trump representing the anger in people. I am not sure about the white male thing though. I know plenty of people of color or women that agree with Trump and feel their voices aren't heard.

So what do you do if you feel your voice isn't heard then. Many people on the left who wanted Bernie wanted him because they finally found someone that expressed their anger at the economic system. And how did that work out for them. They were told to shut up a take their medicine and vote for HIllary, even as more and more evidence comes out that Hillary doesn't like Bernie or his supporters.

Keep in mind, I there are a lot of things I don't like about Trump, and he wasn't my first choice. But what are people supposed to do? Every year they have politicians lying to them saying they will stand up for them, only to be let down again.

So they took a chance with Trump. And who knows, Trump may have been awful and let people down. But I do know this, the establishment hates him and is pulling out all of the stops to beat him.

And on the biggest issue of all, the fact that the political system and media are rigged to favor the establishment, he is universally attacked.

How would have someone like Rand Paul been any different. Ha he won the primary, it would have been impossibel for him to complain about this corruption, because people in his own party would have attacked him just like they are doing with Trump.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right losing is losing,..whomever is claiming it under whatever pretenses and contrary evidence.

Trust but Verify

Kind of ironic that it comes from the Russians

What are you talking about? Trump is making it clear that he doesn't even trust the elections. He's not even planning on verifying this distrust.

Then please explain to me the quote "wait and see?"

Are you sure your paying attention?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do any of us trust the election process? Remember Diebold? 2000? 2004?

And all he made clear was that he would wait and see what happens, and that he was sick of Matthews drilling him on the question for more detail. Maybe he wants to hide that detail...or maybe no further detail exists, and he just didn't want to give an answer that would make him a liar? Who knows?

But if he made it clear he doesn't trust the election system....good. Neither do I. Haven't since I saw the way Perot was treated (another lunatic that I hate feeling empathy for).

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Are you going to lecture me about not believing ridiculous conspiracy theories again if I answer you here? Because everything you said here doesn't convince me that the the entire national elections should be completely distrusted, especially for the predicted landslide that Trump is about to experience.

Why is it so hard for people to accept this report?