Do you consider voter disenfranchisement to be "rigging"? Alot of poor people, college students, and minorities do...

The reference to voter if as DISENFRANCHISING proves the democrats mortal aversion to transparency and ensuring dead people don't vote.

---

The dems during Lincoln were modern day republicans. I love it when you buffoons either are willfully ignorant or pretend to be. You wouldn't support the republicans stood for during that time and you know it. The parties switched platforms over time and you know that also but hey if you want to support the leftwing policies of the party of Lincoln by all means do so. Either way the comment is dumb and illustrates ignorance. Congratulations!

That's a lie. The dems were pro slavery and pro segregation until MLK x and the like forced the country to let blacks vote (which dems like Kennedy gore johnson Byrd etc. All opposed.) after that point, they had to market to them. They folded them into the POOR or permanent underclass basement progressive ideology. The income tax social security Medicaid Medicare and the like (staples of modern progressivism)

All were passed by democrats before this mythical conversion.

---

And when it wasn't in 1860 it resulted in a civil war.... Is this what trump and his supporters are going for? Maybe that's why he and his supporters are rightfully being vilified for even suggesting they would not accept election results. It's dangerous and the example a trump supporter gave of not accepting election results is a perfect reason why. 

 

This is so beneath me... 

 

1.) If you are stupid enough to think that if OH NC FL or any other state was hanging in the balance by less than 1000 votes and costing the dems the presidency that they wouldn't have another thousand lawyers trying to invalidate ballots then you are insane.  The most public contest to a presidential election result was HER HUSBAND and his VICE PRESIDENT.  And they didn't contest based on voter fraud, or anything untoward.  We had thousands of people trying to figure out what a voter INTEDED!!!! 

 

2.) Donald Trump is reacting to the news that broke 48 hours earlier that the Democratic party RISKED PEOPLES LIVES to violently shut down his rally, have been systematically causing violence as subversive propaganda and have people on tape BRAGGING about... wait for it...  RIGGING THE ELECTION.  We have an illegal migrant lawyer on TAPE talking about massive voter fraud and bussing in people.  We have people on tape talking about how to skirt voter registration.  We know that there are roughly 4 million dead people still on voter roles, but somehow a significant portion of them vote every year.  There is a court decision citing the fact that the LOW NUMBER of voter fraud convictions is based on the fact that the crime itself is virtually untraceable in the absence of... wait for it...  voter id.  If someone shows up and claims to be dean smtih if you don't have a voter id card then whos to say that person is NOT dean smith.  That's how James Okefe demonstrated just after the fast and furious scandal that he could just walk into a polling place and assume to be the Attorney General of the United states with no one being the wiser.  Given all this Trump is supposed to unilaterally forgo a potential legal challenge because Wolf Blitzer says so?

 

3.) Not only did the dems quit the country, when they got their rear ends handed to them in the bloodiest war in our nations history a Hollywood dem just up and shot the republican president who in a symbol of unity had a democrat as his vice president.  The democratic party conveniently ignored the duelly passed 14th amendment for a century as a result setting back the enfranchisement of black people exponentially. 

 

4.) A lot of historians do believe that Nixxon was probably robbed in 1960.  He was given credible evidence of voter fraud in three states, including Illinois where the Daly machine was up and running.  He didn't mount a challenge even though Kennedy essentially cheated in the debate with his answer about Cuban rebels because he knew nixxon couldn't violate national security.  Where was the compassion for the loveable looser During Watergate.  Where was the media urging the congress to "take impeachement of the table"  "for the spirit of the country" like they do with Obama and most certainly will do with Clinton?  Where were the college professors out shouting to the students "elections have consequences" when they were marching on the capital to undermine his foreign policy authority?  In Minnesota with Al Frankin, dems just keep suing and disqualifying until they win.  The house of representatives under democratic leadership has asked for ballots to be sent to the house for their own recount and just declared dems the winner. 

 

5.) Any fair minded person knows exactly what Trump was saying, especially given the extraordinary circumstance and evidence presented in the days prior to the debate.  In Washington speak accept election results means republicans should loose gracefully.  Compromise means republicans should cave to whatever the democrat wants.  Bipartisanship means admitting that democrats are right.  being prepared to govern means republicans should know their place. 

---

What's your point have to do with what I was suggesting?  I am responding to a very specific criticism: That the media can't be both for Trump and against him.  My quoting of that information was to show that it is not an indefensible position.  I didn't call Hillary corrupt for having a strategy.  There are far more condemning emails if I wanted to put Hillary on trial.  

 

Even then, I can defend why this, in and of itself, is not ideal for a democracy.  The media should be watchdogs, not kingmakers.  Her camp should never be able to tell the media to take certain candidates seriously.  The media, ideally, would be above taking instructions from a political candidate, and be equally critical of all candidates (in that they apply equal scrutiny... all candidates are not equal in deserving criticism).  This is just not the case in our current political system.  The media will run with a narrative of Trump threatening our democracy, while allowing their own bias to influence their fair reporting.  Even my hardcore lefty friends can agree that there has been an unusually overt slant this election cycle.  

 

before, the left in the media had to hide their bias.  The NYT basically came out with an article giving the media itself permission to abandon objectivity because Trump was deamed to be too dangerous to the globalist order democracy.  24 to one in campaign contributions.  About the same in coverage.  The idea that he hasn't been forced to drop out yet is a small miracle, but it's still October yet.

---

If the republicans had a semi-decent candidate running against the hill-dog, they would have taken this election by a landslide. And this is coming from someone who doesn't affiliate with one party or another.

---

What's your point have to do with what I was suggesting?  I am responding to a very specific criticism: That the media can't be both for Trump and against him.  My quoting of that information was to show that it is not an indefensible position.  I didn't call Hillary corrupt for having a strategy.  There are far more condemning emails if I wanted to put Hillary on trial.  

 

Even then, I can defend why this, in and of itself, is not ideal for a democracy.  The media should be watchdogs, not kingmakers.  Her camp should never be able to tell the media to take certain candidates seriously.  The media, ideally, would be above taking instructions from a political candidate, and be equally critical of all candidates (in that they apply equal scrutiny... all candidates are not equal in deserving criticism).  This is just not the case in our current political system.  The media will run with a narrative of Trump threatening our democracy, while allowing their own bias to influence their fair reporting.  Even my hardcore lefty friends can agree that there has been an unusually overt slant this election cycle.  

 

Well, trump is an overtly different type of candidate.  Obviously the media shouldn't be king makers.  The media is responsible for actually getting trump to the GOP nominee for the most part.  They gave him billions of dollars of free and POSITIVE press for the entirety of the primary season.  It was out-right disgusting how much the media was in love with trump and the ratings push that his train-wreck of a campaign was.  Remember that he paid people to be there for his announcement speech.  That was not covered.  The media didn't give any push back to the racism of trump, or to the fact that his slogan "Mexico will pay for the Wall" made any sense.  They just went with it.  All the way till about March.  Then in april, they realized, "Uh-Oh, this madman may be the next president!".  And started doing thier jobs.

 

Of course, the GOP failed too.  They never came out against trump as a whole.  They just saw this as the culmination of the astro-turfed tea party push that begin under Obama.  They sowed the seeds for the racists and bigots to take over the party if a highly nationalistic person could consolidate them into 1 person.  trump's policies don't even line up with GOP traditional policies.  He said Planned Parenthood did good things.  He hates free trade, which if you can remember, is something that the GOP loves.  He said he's raise taxes on rich people...  That has changed of course.  He's a RHINO in every sense of the word, and yet because of his nationalistic and racist bent, his base loves him and will not waiver.  

 

The rise of donald is partly on the media and partly on the republican party.  They own this animal.

---

If the republicans had a semi-decent candidate running against the hill-dog, they would have taken this election by a landslide. And this is coming from someone who doesn't affiliate with one party or another.

 

exactly.  If you want to blame the media.  Blame them for everything.  trump would never have even been the nominee if the media didn't give him a HUGE boost from June of 2015 through March of 2016.  

 

You can't have it both ways. 

---

exactly.  If you want to blame the media.  Blame them for everything.  trump would never have even been the nominee if the media didn't give him a HUGE boost from June of 2015 through March of 2016.  

 

You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can do exactly that. The media collluded with the democrats and the Clinton campaign to assure the republicans nominated the most beatable candidate to go up against Clinton. That's why they gave him as much free coverage as possible while simultaneously taking out any viable republicans who might threaten her coronation. Once they completed their mandate and Trump was the nominee, the machine shifted gears and went about the business of taking Trump out.


They didn't give him all that free press because they liked him. It was a complete setup from the start.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Actually, you can do exactly that. The media collluded with the democrats and the Clinton campaign to assure the republicans nominated the most beatable candidate to go up against Clinton. That's why they gave him as much free coverage as possible while simultaneously taking out any viable republicans who might threaten her coronation. Once they completed their mandate and Trump was the nominee, the machine shifted gears and went about the business of taking Trump out.


They didn't give him all that free press because they liked him. It was a complete setup from the start.

Welcome to American politics since 1776.


It's ridiculous for him to take the stance because the race isn't even going to be that close. I'll give you this, if it comes down to 500 votes as it did in 2000, he has every right to not concede.


But his supporters are not completely ignorant and they know exactly what he meant. He wasn't talking about a close election. He was upping by ante on his ridiculous and stupid claims that the United States national election is somehow rigged. Personally I think you should be locked up for trying to incite a riot.


and to compare Abraham Lincoln in 1860 election shows that most people don't know history. Either Hillary or Donald Trump both would win with a larger popular vote percentage.

---

The media coverage of Trump during the primaries was indeed to help him win the nomination. That is only because the MSM is liberal as hell and they perceived Trump to be the least likely to defeat the scum that is shrillary. Once he won the primary of course they come at him all guns blazing and anything anti Trump is blown out of proportion. Their one and only goal is a lefty no matter what. Even if it is the murdering, treasonous ,spineless, sham of a marriage living lesbian with a penchant for illegal mail servers. Yep, politics as usual right?

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

The media coverage of Trump during the primaries was indeed to help him win the nomination. That is only because the MSM is liberal as hell and they perceived Trump to be the least likely to defeat the scum that is shrillary. Once he won the primary of course they come at him all guns blazing and anything anti Trump is blown out of proportion. Their one and only goal is a lefty no matter what. Even if it is the murdering, treasonous ,spineless, sham of a marriage living lesbian with a penchant for illegal mail servers. Yep, politics as usual right?

 

BUT THINK OF WOMENS HEALTH RIGHTS. WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT LATE TERM ABORTIONS

 

IF WE CANT CUT UP LITTLE BABIES IN THE WOMB WITH SCISSORS, WE ARE NO LONGER FREE COUNTRY

---

BUT THINK OF WOMENS HEALTH RIGHTS. WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT LATE TERM ABORTIONS


IF WE CANT CUT UP LITTLE BABIES IN THE WOMB WITH SCISSORS, WE ARE NO LONGER FREE COUNTRY

Says the guy whose life will never be in danger due to a medical condition from said child bearing.

---

During debate #3, Trump refused to say he would accept the results of the election. 

 

For the entire history of this country, the losing candidate has accepted the result and supported the winner, and we've had a peaceful transfer of power.  That is the foundation of American democracy.  We accept the results of our elections.  

 

Imagine for a moment that Trump actually wins this election, and he's President and running for re-election in 2020.   And suppose he loses that election, and refuses to accept the result.  Only now, he's President of the United States, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, head of the executive branch which includes the FBI and the CIA, and he refuses to step down because he thinks the election was rigged.  

 

Now, in 2020, he's had 4 years to promote generals who support him, appoint a new Director of the FBI who supports him, appoint people up and down the Executive Branch who support him.  And he refuses to accept the results of the election of 2020 and refuses to step down. 

 

This is why we cannot allow him to become President.   Any candidate for any office in this country who says he may not accept the results of an election should be completely disqualified from any public office. 

 

Because accepting the results of elections is the basic foundation of American democracy.  

 

 

Really? Really?


 

This is not just the least important question brought up at the debate, it's a total non-issue. Whether or not a losing candidate accepts the result, the result still stands. Trump could jump up and down and scream like Al Gore and John Kerry did, but that changes nothing.


 

But you seem to have bought into the left-wing narrative hook, line, and sinker.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Says the guy whose life will never be in danger due to a medical condition from said child bearing.

 

do you know how often abortions are performed for medical reasons?

 

id die for my children you piece of [BLEEP]

---

http://www.dublindeclaration.com

---

do you know how often abortions are performed for medical reasons?


id die for my children you piece of [BAD WORD REMOVED]

Again says the guy who won't ever need an abortion. Pretty hardcore on something that doesn't affect you aren't you tough guy?

---

Again says the guy who won't ever need an abortion. Pretty hardcore on something that doesn't affect you aren't you tough guy?

 

HOW MANY ABORTIONS ARE FOR MEDICAL REASONS?

 

standing up for the rights of a innocent baby doesn't make me a tough guy. that makes me human. you on the other hand are nothing but a brainwashed idiot zombie dog trained to love death. jump off a bridge.

---

It's just Donald making sure it will be all about him Nov. 9.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Again says the guy who won't ever need an abortion. Pretty hardcore on something that doesn't affect you aren't you tough guy?

Yeh, the holocaust was on the other side of the planet, nothing to see here.

---

HOW MANY ABORTIONS ARE FOR MEDICAL REASONS?


standing up for the rights of a innocent baby doesn't make me a tough guy. that makes me human. you on the other hand are nothing but a brainwashed idiot zombie dog trained to love death. jump off a bridge.

Not at All do support abortions. But I can't get pregnant so really at the end of the day it will never be a decision I have to make.


But I also don't support the government being involved in the decision-making of women's lives. I do love how the old white men like Pence feel they need to tell women what they can or cannot do.

Yeh, the holocaust was on the other side of the planet, nothing to see here.

Did you really just equate the stealing women's rights to their Holocaust?


I don't think I can respond to you with anymore than a WOW!

---