He stirred it up again. Surprise, surprise.

He knew the question would be asked, and gave a vague, controversial answer.

Simply, he could have used the Bush/ Gore example, and if it were close, he wouldn't be so quick to hand the victory over. If it were quite decisive, of course he would be gracious and step aside. I think, most would understand that.

Problem? Graciousness. Not used to losing, not having his way.

Just wording it differently would have kept him from sounding like a whiny, sore loser.

Maybe give him his Emmy that he deserves in that rigged system.... for the debates,and he'll shut the piss up and move on if he loses.


Few more weeks. The end is near.

For some...literally.

---

Blakes Life Matters

And then there is Sean Hannity.

Sean Hannity isn't a news anchor, he's a political commentator.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

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.  

 

The first part in bold will never happen and has nothing to do with the question from the debate.

 

The second part in bold is flat out wrong.  The President does not promote military members.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

What happened when the dems didn't like Lincoln's election?

---

What happened when the dems didn't like Lincoln's election?

I, sir, am appalled that you should bring such fact into all this projecting.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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!

---

No one caught republican consultants BRAGGING ABOUT RIGGING THE ELECTION!


I was a den at the time. He was called illegitimate and people were talking about abolishing the electoral college. This sanctimonious high minded "insult to our democracy" lol.

 

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

---

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!

 

Quoted for Truth.

---

Pointing it out isn't condoning it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Pointing it out isn't condoning it.

And that democratic party isn't the same as the one today and it's not even close. So either they have nothing to do with each other and pointing it out is completely irrelevant or they do, in which case what the dems did then is what republicans would do now.

---

He's a Blue Falcon who couldn't go 30 minutes without getting baited into a conflict. He discounts or rejects anyone who doesn't tell him what he wants to hear. He alienates us from our allies who view him as the very worst of what Americans are stereotyped as.


That combination is toxic. Do you see where I am going with this?

 

This is absolutely the best argument against Trump.  I can't fault anyone who has fears about this part of Trump's character.  I think Hillary is just as bad (if not worst), but this is not an unreasonable position in opposition to Trump.  I could understand someone choosing the status quo over a potential loose cannon.  A lot of the more common complaints about Trump (racist, sexist, etc) is not much more than rhetoric useful for political assassination.  Critical thinkers should be able to spot when words or sentences have been omitted to create a different context, and dismiss those who would use that to manipulate emotions.  

 

For example, I saw a video the other day that tried to make it seem like Robert Di Nero supported Trump.  It didn't take long to realize the words could be out of context, so I did a google search. When I found the actual video, it was anything but praise for Donald Trump.  Yet, people were posting "A surprising star endorses Trump" on Facebook without even trying to verify the truth of it.  Likewise, when Trump is speaking of a particular group of people (illegal immigrants) and the articles the next day leave out the word "illegal," you should realize you are being manipulated. 

 

You need to get your story straight. I know it gets confusing.

 

Either Trump is losing because the mean old media is being unfair (I.e., people are being influenced by the mean old media) or no one (90%, right?) believes the media, so they aren't influencing anyone anyway.

 

Right?

 

Sometimes things like this aren't mutually exclusive.  The Wikileaks shows the DNC wanting to legitimize Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Cruz to ensure a Hillary victory.  They encouraged the press to legitimize them as candidates.  Specifically Donald Trump.  This was due to the fear that almost any other candidate would beat her.  At the very least, this shows that you could legitimately argue that biased press coverage could be both favorable during the primaries (even while being critical of Trump) and unfavorable during the generals for the same reason: To help Hillary win the presidency.  

 



 

Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump…she has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify…..even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell out of me….. -Brent Budowsky (Huff Po Journalist in an email to Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair)

 

"I am one of the people with credibility to suggest Bernie people support her in November." -Budowsky

---

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!

I'm thinking the point was that elections results havent always been so graciously accepted like it's being portrayed, and not so much about which political party did what.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

This is absolutely the best argument against Trump.  I can't fault anyone who has fears about this part of Trump's character.  I think Hillary is just as bad (if not worst), but this is not an unreasonable position in opposition to Trump.  I could understand someone choosing the status quo over a potential loose cannon.  A lot of the more common complaints about Trump (racist, sexist, etc) is not much more than rhetoric useful for political assassination.  Critical thinkers should be able to spot when words or sentences have been omitted to create a different context, and dismiss those who would use that to manipulate emotions.  

 

For example, I saw a video the other day that tried to make it seem like Robert Di Nero supported Trump.  It didn't take long to realize the words could be out of context, so I did a google search. When I found the actual video, it was anything but praise for Donald Trump.  Yet, people were posting "A surprising star endorses Trump" on Facebook without even trying to verify the truth of it.  Likewise, when Trump is speaking of a particular group of people (illegal immigrants) and the articles the next day leave out the word "illegal," you should realize you are being manipulated. 

 

 

Sometimes things like this aren't mutually exclusive.  The Wikileaks shows the DNC wanting to legitimize Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Cruz to ensure a Hillary victory.  They encouraged the press to legitimize them as candidates.  Specifically Donald Trump.  This was due to the fear that almost any other candidate would beat her.  At the very least, this shows that you could legitimately argue that biased press coverage could be both favorable during the primaries (even while being critical of Trump) and unfavorable during the generals for the same reason: To help Hillary win the presidency.  

 



 

Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump…she has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify…..even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell out of me….. -Brent Budowsky (Huff Po Journalist in an email to Podesta, Hillary's campaign chair)

 

"I am one of the people with credibility to suggest Bernie people support her in November." -Budowsky

 

OK...  But so what?

 

You don't think that republicans had similar discussions about Bernie versus Hillary?  Or how thankful they were that Warren or Biden didn't jump into the race?

 

I mean, come on.  These wiki-leaks are so lame.  They just show how politics works.  But it's something that anyone that has been paying attention already knew. 

 

Rubio, to his credit, at least realizes this and points out that these wiki leaks are not some silver bullet to anything.  They are damning to the extent that people hate politics.  Well yeah.  Politics is ugly, and it's unbearable at times.  But there's nothing here that's treasonous or devastating to anyone.  It's just how the game goes.

---

Policy under a Republican like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush would have been very similar to a Hillary Presidency.  Think Bill Clinton vs Bush vs Obama.  What's the difference really?  Not much.

 

So I reject this idea that Trump ruined paradise for Republicans... like that is what they would have gotten under another globalist shill candidate such as Jeb or Cruz.

---

Policy under a Republican like Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush would have been very similar to a Hillary Presidency.  Think Bill Clinton vs Bush vs Obama.  What's the difference really?  Not much.

 

So I reject this idea that Trump ruined paradise for Republicans... like that is what they would have gotten under another globalist shill candidate such as Jeb or Cruz.

 

You're consistent.  So that's nice. 

 

I think there are other factors you ignore.  But yeah, at the end of the day, the status quo is maintained by real politicians.  Whereas a trump presidency destroys the status quo.

 

Not sure that's a great thing though.  You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.  That's the trump presidency in a nutshell, in my mind.

---

I'm thinking the point was that elections results havent always been so graciously accepted like it's being portrayed, and not so much about which political party did what.

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. 

---

You're consistent.  So that's nice. 

 

I think there are other factors you ignore.  But yeah, at the end of the day, the status quo is maintained by real politicians.  Whereas a trump presidency destroys the status quo.

 

Not sure that's a great thing though.  You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.  That's the trump presidency in a nutshell, in my mind.

Social policy would absolutely not be the same. LGBT and women's health rights policywould certainly not be the same.

---

Social policy would absolutely not be the same. LGBT and women's health rights policywould certainly not be the same.

 

Same could be said about our overseas allies and our NATO policy.  The scorched earth presidency of trump would be a disaster for not just the USA, but for the citizens of the world.

---

Same could be said about our overseas allies and our NATO policy.  The scorched earth presidency of trump would be a disaster for not just the USA, but for the citizens of the world.

Sure but he's kind of an outlier in that regard. Most of the other GOP hopefuls were not with him on that. 

---

OK...  But so what?

 

You don't think that republicans had similar discussions about Bernie versus Hillary?  Or how thankful they were that Warren or Biden didn't jump into the race?

 

I mean, come on.  These wiki-leaks are so lame.  They just show how politics works.  But it's something that anyone that has been paying attention already knew. 

 

Rubio, to his credit, at least realizes this and points out that these wiki leaks are not some silver bullet to anything.  They are damning to the extent that people hate politics.  Well yeah.  Politics is ugly, and it's unbearable at times.  But there's nothing here that's treasonous or devastating to anyone.  It's just how the game goes.

 

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.  

---