Donald Trump: 'I will totally accept' election results 'if I win'

[Jack Hays]

Then you are explicitly refusing to take responsibly for your statements and citations.

Not at all. I simply did not make the claim you imagine.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then you are explicitly refusing to take responsibly for your statements and citations.

The link in my #6 never mentions Gore.

 

[JasperL]

I never compared Gore & Trump. I pointed out that Dems were willing to question valid democratic outcomes just as Trump does.

LOL aka 'I never compared them, except for this comparison!' :lamo

And that's an apples and dump trucks "comparison" which isn't a comparison - random "Dems" versus the POTUS nominee, and "questioning valid democratic outcomes" (itself a phrase with no meaning) in completely different situations.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL aka 'I never compared them, except for this comparison!' :lamo

And that's an apples and dump trucks "comparison" which isn't a comparison - random "Dems" versus the POTUS nominee, and "questioning valid democratic outcomes" (itself a phrase with no meaning) in completely different situations.

Gore was never mentioned among the eight examples cited in the link I provided. Have a nice meal eating your words.

 

[Phys251]

 

[tres borrachos]

Apparently you think there is only one way to cheat

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

And apparently you don't know that the election hasn't been held yet. Neither does Donald Trump. His behavior is as stupid as people who are screaming already that Chicago is going to lose the World Series because Cleveland is cheating. They haven't played a game yet.

 

[buck]

And apparently you don't know that the election hasn't been held yet. Neither does Donald Trump. His behavior is as stupid as people who are screaming already that Chicago is going to lose the World Series because Cleveland is cheating. They haven't played a game yet.

Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
You can't see evidence of cheating in something that hasn't even happened yet.

I don't believe the rigged claims, but your argument is ridiculous. Honestly.

 

[trouble13]

People choose what media to listen to and make their decisions on.

Media can not manipulate the decisions of people who choose to make their own judgement.

Thats a naive belief to hold

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

Gore was never mentioned among the eight examples cited in the link I provided. Have a nice meal eating your words.

You should have used the 'find' function. From your link, example #7:

In recent years several factors — 1) crazily hackable voting machines, 2) generally heightened partisanship, 3) very close races, and 4) a real, honest-to-goodness purloined race (see Bush v. Gore)

What's that about eating words? :lol:

 

[Jack Hays]

You should have used the 'find' function. From your link, example #7:



What's that about eating words? :lol:

You should have actually read what you found. Bush v Gore was cited as one of several reasons for paranoia on the left (against Hillary, btw), not as an analogous case. Enjoy your meal.

[h=2]7. Salon’s Farhad Manjoo[/h]“Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?” Manjoo asked of the 2008 New Hampshire primary Clinton unexpectedly won.

In recent years several factors — 1) crazily hackable voting machines, 2) generally heightened partisanship, 3) very close races, and 4) a real, honest-to-goodness purloined race (see Bush v. Gore) — have raised the paranoid in all of us. Wondering if any election outcome is honest has become a standard post-election emotion; not wondering, now that’s just crazy.
​

Manjoo concluded his piece by saying that even if we fixed our voting machines, it still wouldn’t make elections fair.

 

[JasperL]

You should have actually read what you found. Bush v Gore was cited as one of several reasons for paranoia on the left (against Hillary, btw), not as an analogous case. Enjoy your meal.

[h=2]7. Salon’s Farhad Manjoo[/h]“Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?” Manjoo asked of the 2008 New Hampshire primary Clinton unexpectedly won.

In recent years several factors — 1) crazily hackable voting machines, 2) generally heightened partisanship, 3) very close races, and 4) a real, honest-to-goodness purloined race (see Bush v. Gore) — have raised the paranoid in all of us. Wondering if any election outcome is honest has become a standard post-election emotion; not wondering, now that’s just crazy.
​

Manjoo concluded his piece by saying that even if we fixed our voting machines, it still wouldn’t make elections fair.

OK, so you moved the goal posts on me from "Gore was never mentioned" (he was) to "analogous case." :roll:

Besides, the whole article is an exercise in false equivalence on several levels as I've pointed out several times already, starting with comparing comments by random "Dems" or "liberals" to a POTUS nominee.

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, so you moved the goal posts on me from "Gore was never mentioned" (he was) to "analogous case." :roll:

Besides, the whole article is an exercise in false equivalence on several levels as I've pointed out several times already, starting with comparing comments by random "Dems" or "liberals" to a POTUS nominee.

The entire discussion context was whether Gore was an analog to Trump -- not a claim I ever made. My point was, and remains, that Dems have no standing to protest Trump's accusation.

 

[JasperL]

The entire discussion context was whether Gore was an analog to Trump -- not a claim I ever made. My point was, and remains, that Dems have no standing to protest Trump's accusation.

And it's an absurd point. It boils down to because Ezra Klein and some other random liberals/"Dems" said something 8 years ago about totally different fact situations involving voting results that "Dems" can't complain when a POTUS nominee makes baseless assertions about rigged voting results for an election that hasn't happened yet.

By the same "logic" if Ezra Klein is caught having sex with a dead male hooker, that's the new standard for Dems having "standing" to criticize Trump's sexual activities - so long as Trump does no worse than having sex with dead hookers, then "Dems" in the "media" are ALL obligated to keep their mouth shut! It's absurd and you know better.

 

[Jack Hays]

And it's an absurd point. It boils down to because Ezra Klein and some other random liberals/"Dems" said something 8 years ago about totally different fact situations involving voting results that "Dems" can't complain when a POTUS nominee makes baseless assertions about rigged voting results for an election that hasn't happened yet.

By the same "logic" if Ezra Klein is caught having sex with a dead male hooker, that's the new standard for Dems having "standing" to criticize Trump's sexual activities - so long as Trump does no worse than having sex with dead hookers, then "Dems" in the "media" are ALL obligated to keep their mouth shut! It's absurd and you know better.

Actually, it would depend on whether Dems defended Ezra Klein having sex with a dead male hooker.:shock:

 

[JoeTrumps]

"No pearl went unclutched when Trump refused to agree in advance to validate the giant scam that is this election"

Trump’s Right – The System Is Rigged And We Don’t Owe It Our Default Acceptance - Kurt Schlichter

great line

 

[JasperL]

Actually, it would depend on whether Dems defended Ezra Klein having sex with a dead male hooker.:shock:

Well, see, actually it wouldn't. Klein/unknown "Dems" don't speak for me, they speak for themselves. Does the fact that "Repub" Rush called someone a "slut" mean you AND ALL OTHER "REPUBS" can't say a word if Trump on national TV calls Hillary and Michelle Obama two of the biggest whores ever to occupy the WH, so that Rush sets the bar on all issues for all "Repub" commentators and POTUS nominees? That would, of course, be an idiotic conclusion.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, see, actually it wouldn't. Klein/unknown "Dems" don't speak for me, they speak for themselves. Does the fact that "Repub" Rush called someone a "slut" mean you AND ALL OTHER "REPUBS" can't say a word if Trump on national TV calls Hillary and Michelle Obama two of the biggest whores ever to occupy the WH, so that Rush sets the bar on all issues for all "Repub" commentators and POTUS nominees? That would, of course, be an idiotic conclusion.

Since I belong to no party I'm unconcerned by the problem. But for party members, yes, they are associated with the public words of those who claim to speak in their name.

 

[JasperL]

Since I belong to no party I'm unconcerned by the problem. But for party members, yes, they are associated with the public words of those who claim to speak in their name.

Well, obviously you're an "independent" which just means any "independent" speaks for you and sets the bar for what you can complain about.

After all, you are treating all members of a party as a homogeneous group who speak with one voice, so it's fair for me to assert that all non-members of any party are similarly homogeneous. It's as true that 'independents' are homogeneous in their beliefs as it is democrats and republicans are. I mean, it's obvious, right, that Jeb! and Trump are just alike on all the issues and whoever speaks for Trump obviously speaks for the Jeb! wing of the party!

Also, too, by simply BEING a "Repub" you consent to agree with everything Trump says cause he's the head of the GOP ticket and therefore a GOPer cannot disagree with or criticize Trump!

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, obviously you're an "independent" which just means any "independent" speaks for you and sets the bar for what you can complain about.

After all, you are treating all members of a party as a homogeneous group who speak with one voice, so it's fair for me to assert that all non-members of any party are similarly homogeneous. It's as true that 'independents' are homogeneous in their beliefs as it is democrats and republicans are. I mean, it's obvious, right, that Jeb! and Trump are just alike on all the issues and whoever speaks for Trump obviously speaks for the Jeb! wing of the party!

Party members who disagree with other party members must publicly disassociate themselves, otherwise their agreement can be fairly assumed. Jeb has publicly disassociated himself. Independents, by definition, have no such association.

 

[JasperL]

Party members who disagree with other party members must publicly disassociate themselves, otherwise their agreement can be fairly assumed. Jeb has publicly disassociated himself. Independents, by definition, have no such association.

So if Rush says something offensive on the radio, it's incumbent for every Repub to 1) recognize what he said, and 2) disassociate themselves from Rush's comments? :roll:

BS. Rush speaks for Rush, and no one else, and silence about what some random asshole says on the radio isn't endorsement. You endorse what he says by....endorsing what he says. Otherwise, it's nonsense to attribute Rush's standards to even ONE other "Repub."

Your standard is nonsense, but this is getting boring so I'll bow out here. If you want to use random "Dems" as standard bearers for ALL "Dems" that is fine. eace

 

[Jack Hays]

So if Rush says something offensive on the radio, it's incumbent for every Repub to 1) recognize what he said, and 2) disassociate themselves from Rush's comments? :roll:

BS. Rush speaks for Rush, and no one else, and silence about what some random asshole says on the radio isn't endorsement. You endorse what he says by....endorsing what he says. Otherwise, it's nonsense to attribute Rush's standards to even ONE other "Repub."

Your standard is nonsense, but this is getting boring so I'll bow out here. If you want to use random "Dems" as standard bearers for ALL "Dems" that is fine. eace

My point is reinforced by every Dem television ad that ties a Repub candidate to Trump.

 

[JasperL]

My point is reinforced by every Dem television ad that ties a Repub candidate to Trump.

Great!eace

 

[tres borrachos]

I don't believe the rigged claims, but your argument is ridiculous. Honestly.

Yes, buck. It's ridiculous to say that something that hasn't happened yet can't happen because it hasn't happened yet. You Trump supporters are so wise.

 

[buck]

Yes, buck. It's ridiculous to say that something that hasn't happened yet can't happen because it hasn't happened yet. You Trump supporters are so wise.

Rigging (an election) would have to occur prior to the actual event. Whether through the media biased reporting or the soros (tenuously) linked voting machines or whatever else has been claimed, it all has to occur and be in place prior. So, yes. You can definitely see evidence of the cheating prior.

Since you brought up the baseball analogy, they could have seen evidence of the Black Sox before the games were actually played too. Shocking, I am sure.

And btw, I am only a Trump supporter in the sense that Hillary is so horrible. I dislike Trump probably as much as you.. I just dislike Hillary far-far more.

 

[tres borrachos]

Rigging (an election) would have to occur prior to the actual event. Whether through the media biased reporting or the soros (tenuously) linked voting machines or whatever else has been claimed, it all has to occur and be in place prior. So, yes. You can definitely see evidence of the cheating prior.

Since you brought up the baseball analogy, they could have seen evidence of the Black Sox before the games were actually played too. Shocking, I am sure.

And btw, I am only a Trump supporter in the sense that Hillary is so horrible. I dislike Trump probably as much as you.. I just dislike Hillary far-far more.

The election hasn't happened. You have no evidence of any kind of rigging.