Gore first accepted, conceded.
Then FL didnt certify their results and Gore "un-conceded".
When Florida finally determined "dangling shads"
weren't going to be counted (mere 100s would have changed results), FL certified, supreme Court confirmed, Gore conceded.
Difference?
Trump won't accept certified results if he loses.
Mere hundreds would not have changed the result if all the votes in FLA had been counted. The 100s, or 1000s, of added votes would have statistically been split about the same as the votes previously counted. The only way to change the prior result would have been to force a recount in only Republican controlled districts, which Repubs tried to do, or in only Democrat controlled districts, which the Dems tried to do. As others explained previously, that is why the Supreme Court threw the recount out.
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/788941447357751297It 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.
Faux outrage at the Faux outrage. Rojo getting Meta.
bin there wrote:
You're either a Rojo sock or someone just as big of a moron as he is.
Lmao. I've posted three time and ya'll have run out of arguements.
Man Overboard wrote:
John in PDX wrote:Seriously, if you guys can't understand why preemptively, gratuitously, and groundlessly rejecting election results in the world's greatest democracy is dangerous and vile--why it's a gesture full of contempt for this country and its citizens, and why it's practically tantamount to terrorism in its destabilizing effect--there's no hope for you.lol
Explain it to us again.
How does not committing to conceding on election night endanger our democracy and way of life?
Sheesh..people get trolled SO easily!
This, I believe is one of the greatest mistakes of the left.
Yes, they will win the presidency. No, they will not have control of congress.
This is because they have fallen down the black hole of virtue signaling. EVERYTHING the GOP does is decried by the left as an assault on democracy, human rights, decency etc. They have diluted these words down to nothing.
When a man like Trump comes along and says things way out of line with traditional discourse, there are no more superlatives to use! They already called Mitt Romney a danger to this country!!
As good as outrage feels, ya'll should read the boy who cried wolf sometime...
Aunty American wrote:
You have no clue about the 2000 election situation. Stop posting and making yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I was planning to stop posting, but not because of how I appear to you. And certainly not because I'm overwhelmed by the force of your detailed argument. Let's see: unfounded allegation, command, groundless derisive slight.
Harambe wrote:
bin there wrote:You're either a Rojo sock or someone just as big of a moron as he is.
Lmao. I've posted three time and ya'll have run out of arguements.
The only laughing being done is by us at you.
not American wrote:
Conundrum wrote:Trump is threatening not to accept the results without any specific reason
Was he indeed 'threatening'? Or was he refusing to get cornered into making foolish promises?
Granted it's tiring to hear him talk about unfairness all being on the democratic side.
Big difference. Gore believed in the basic system.
One can support and abide by the rule of law and at the same time criticise its flaws using the legal means available.
Rojo has taken a lot of heat. But why?
He certainly has a point, which all the blustering and all the ad hominem arguments can't make disappear: in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with contesting election results. (Gore did it.) To try to make someone promise not to use appropriate means to do so is to require more of him than of their own people. Of course Trump should not agree.
The smell of the air in the room is that Trump would not confine himself to appropriate means, and that is the real reason his answer is deplorable. Obviously there's a lot of assuming behind that. But aside from that, note the subtlety of the question put to him: it excluded appropriate as well as inappropriate contesting of results. In other words, it was a setup. You can be sure that if Trump had said he would abide by the result huand then later contested a 20 vote loss on which the election hung, the Democrats would be holding to his 'promise'. No matter how he answers he loses.
But he especially loses if in a televised debate he starts addressing how he is planning to handle HRC's victory. Clearly the idea was to hear Trump start speaking from a posture of defeat and loss. That is a direction it was not right to take the debate. If the Democrats were behind it, it was smart; but still, it was not right. And no one seems to be concerned about the bias and the assumptions that underlay the question. (Shades of 'are you still beating your wife?') Instead the news is all about the response of one who tried to get out of the corner he was being painted into.
('Smart but not right' applies to both parties in spades, for what it's worth. Sadly it is a reflection of political landscapes of every sort.)
Some good points in the above posts but I disagree with them. Let's start with the first core question. Was Trump threatening or just refusing to get cornered into making foolish promises? Trump was ambiguous on us and it probably depends on the perspective of the person listening to some extent. If Trump didn't have the history of being very clear about stating that the whole process was rigged (without evidence of anything meaningful) it might be easier to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also if trump didn't want to get cornered if something clearly was questionable came up he could have been more articulate about his intentions.
Trump brought the question about whether he would accept the results on himself with all the elections are rigged Bluster.
Trump's response in the context of his previous comments put him in a further negative light.
Harambe wrote:
Man Overboard wrote:lol
Explain it to us again.
How does not committing to conceding on election night endanger our democracy and way of life?
Sheesh..people get trolled SO easily!
This, I believe is one of the greatest mistakes of the left.
Yes, they will win the presidency. No, they will not have control of congress.
This is because they have fallen down the black hole of virtue signaling. EVERYTHING the GOP does is decried by the left as an assault on democracy, human rights, decency etc. They have diluted these words down to nothing.
When a man like Trump comes along and says things way out of line with traditional discourse, there are no more superlatives to use! They already called Mitt Romney a danger to this country!!
As good as outrage feels, ya'll should read the boy who cried wolf sometime...
This is franking hilarious.
Both sides are just as guilty of this.
Take a quick peek at Scott Baio's video and come back and tell me Trump supporters aren't crying wolf.
The US electoral system needs to be completely overhauled. There is no other democracy where parties control the voter registration process. It is franking bizarre.
Start with a proper voter roll the recognizes that voting is a right - as well as a priviledge. Have an arms-length government body administer it (and hell yes, showing ID should be required).
But of course this will never happen - because both parties love the existing system, where they are guaranteed no worse than second.
Sheesh.
not American wrote:
Aunty American wrote:You have no clue about the 2000 election situation. Stop posting and making yourself look more foolish than you already have.
I was planning to stop posting, but not because of how I appear to you. And certainly not because I'm overwhelmed by the force of your detailed argument. Let's see: unfounded allegation, command, groundless derisive slight.
You fail to understand how America works. A civil war started by Trump because he lost. With Trump trying to take over the White House. The legal end result is Trump in jail for treason.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Thanks for the links. I'll respond to each.
Felons voting was a big part at a lawsuit surrounding the 2004 Gubernatorial election in Washington.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004On June 6, 2005, Judge John E. Bridges ruled that the Republican party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible. So it was evaluated by the legal process and not proven. So another unproven allegation.
Let's stick to facts and use sources:
"In all, the judge identified 1,678 illegal votes: 745 from felons on the GOP list, 647 from felons on the Democrats' list, 175 mishandled provisional ballots in King County and 77 in Pierce County, six double votes and 19 ballots cast in the name of dead people."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Judge-upholds-Gregoire-s-election-Rossi-won-t-1175262.phpDo you really not think ANY illegal votes are cast in an election? It's all about minimizing the number of them.
(and i don't know the specifics above but there is a chance that illegal votes could cancel each other out. However, I still don't want people not eligible to vote voting).
Illegals voting in Philly:http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/illegal-voters-uncovered-philly-just-tip-iceberg/and Virginia:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bombshell-1000-illegal-votes-cast-eight-virginia-localities/Illegals are not eligible to get driver's licenses in Virgina, so the mechanism they propose is not possible.
I sort of had to laugh at that one. Illegals also aren't allowed to get social security numbers, live or work in this country, and they do. That doesn't mean they necessarily vote illegally but you saying they aren't allowed to get drivers licenses doesn't mean they can't get them.
And as for the lifezette link I looked into it more. Noncitizens (not necessarily illegals) definitely voted in Virginia. How did they find these people? Because when they renewed their licenses, some checked that they weren't citizens yet they had voted. They subsequently were removed from the voting rolls.
Full study:
https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Report_Alien-Invasion-in-Virginia.pdf1,046 people were removed from the rolls and they have voted I think 180+ times.
You also didn't respond to Philly. Do you really think no illegals or felons not allowed to vote vote in all of the US?
run with the wom wrote:
The president of the organization that is the source of the "Lifegazette" information is not credible:
http://mediamatters.org/people/j-christian-adams
As I said I knew nothing of lifezette, I just googled and found it and you have to be suspect of some of these partisan sources. But the report above details the 1,046 people by name.
http://wjla.com/news/local/va-voters-alliance-concerned-about-voter-fraud-ahead-of-november-presidential-electionLifezette may be a terrible source (I have no idea), but the study looks legit.
I'm fine with the argument, illegal voting is only a big deal in a super, super tight election and Trump is irresponsible for saying he won't concede the election beforehand. I'm not fine with people pretending it doesn't exist.
rojo
I am an oldtimer, white male LIBERAL, but honesty and integrity are, I pray, non-partisan values. Rojo's initial post really disappointed me since his equating Gore's behavior in 2000 seems, frankly, close to dishonest. After all he is intelligent and well-educated - and surely not trolling his own site.
I get that. Robert should be more thoughtful with his words at times but I understood the point. The WSJ wrote an editorial with similar thoughts to Robert but less inflammatory.
Online Headline:
The Media Do Scarlett
Trump’s election threat is dumb, but the outrage is over the top.
It's probabbly behind a paywall so here's where they start talking about Gore.
"In fact, Mr. Bush won the original count and the mandatory mini-recount. Virtually all serious attempts to finalize the Florida vote came to the same conclusion. Mr. Bush won. It was Al Gore who pushed the result into the courts of Florida in an effort to have the initial result overturned. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enough was enough.
The Florida recount fight made for great melodrama, but it was a media circus, and a destructive one. The partisan divide created by that sensational event is responsible in part for the divisions that endure to this day.
Four years later, Democrats again argued extensively that George Bush stole the election from John Kerry because the President’s campaign surrogates engineered the vote in Ohio against John Kerry. Mr. Kerry conceded the election, and it must be noted that he kept his own qualms private for many years.
Both parties have since created a cottage industry dedicated to bird-dogging future election results in precincts around the country. And that’s fine. Keep the politicians honest.
Now comes Donald Trump, with his usual rank amateur flair, suggesting that if he loses it will be because the entire U.S. electoral system—presumably encompassing all 50 states—was fixed against him. As always, it fell to post-debate surrogates to make the distinctions he himself is incapable of making between discrete events—Illinois in 1960, Florida in 2000—and the legitimacy of the entire system."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-media-do-scarlett-1477006199?mod=wsj_review_&_outlookCoffee and a donut wrote:
Harambe wrote:This, I believe is one of the greatest mistakes of the left.
Yes, they will win the presidency. No, they will not have control of congress.
This is because they have fallen down the black hole of virtue signaling. EVERYTHING the GOP does is decried by the left as an assault on democracy, human rights, decency etc. They have diluted these words down to nothing.
When a man like Trump comes along and says things way out of line with traditional discourse, there are no more superlatives to use! They already called Mitt Romney a danger to this country!!
As good as outrage feels, ya'll should read the boy who cried wolf sometime...
This is franking hilarious.
Both sides are just as guilty of this.
Take a quick peek at Scott Baio's video and come back and tell me Trump supporters aren't crying wolf.
The US electoral system needs to be completely overhauled. There is no other democracy where parties control the voter registration process. It is franking bizarre.
Start with a proper voter roll the recognizes that voting is a right - as well as a priviledge. Have an arms-length government body administer it (and hell yes, showing ID should be required).
But of course this will never happen - because both parties love the existing system, where they are guaranteed no worse than second.
Sheesh.
Oh, both sides are absolutely guilt of it. Never said the right was innocent.
The left is running into the issue now, though, of trying to convince people that Trump is a SERIOUS threat -- when they said the same things about Romney. Their main line of attack is how disastrously unfit Trump is for office, not a dismantling of his policy positions. This doesn't work when you have leveled the same accusations at candidates no matter what.
Maybe I'm young and most of the media I consume is leftist, but a vast majority of these diatribes seem to be coming from the left.
Add in a mathematical method for drawing congressional districts and youll get a system Washingtonians would rather die than implement.
wejo wrote:
I sort of had to laugh at that one. Illegals also aren't allowed to get social security numbers, live or work in this country, and they do. That doesn't mean they necessarily vote illegally but you saying they aren't allowed to get drivers licenses doesn't mean they can't get them.
And as for the lifezette link I looked into it more. Noncitizens (not necessarily illegals) definitely voted in Virginia. How did they find these people? Because when they renewed their licenses, some checked that they weren't citizens yet they had voted. They subsequently were removed from the voting rolls.
Full study:
https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Report_Alien-Invasion-in-Virginia.pdf1,046 people were removed from the rolls and they have voted I think 180+ times.
This is a post worthy of Rojo. Even if the voter suppression propaganda was accurate, is it worth disenfranchising hundreds of thousands to fix 160 votes out of 2 million (less than .0001)?
Do you think the chance that 1000 ineligible votes might not be caught this time in a state likely to be won by 300,000 votes is cause for riling up angry crowds with claims that the system is rigged?
Thus far, again, nobody has given a satisfactory answer.
Here are the facts:
Gore and Bush both contested an election result knowing that there were irregularities that must be addresses.
They vast majority of people understand this and accept it.
Trump has stated that he -might- contest an election result. This comes in light of the Wikileaks reports that the HRC campaign has mulled over various schemes to encourage election 'irregularities.'
The simple facts are twofold:
1) This comparison between Gore and Trump is a fair one
2) This is blown way out of proportion. Trump is merely acknowledging the information he has received.
Lastly, maybe a Nobel Peace Prize for Wikileaks+Snowden? The stuff these guys continuously uncover has changed the way we relate to our government.
Harambe wrote:
Thus far, again, nobody has given a satisfactory answer.
Here are the facts:
Gore and Bush both contested an election result knowing that there were irregularities that must be addresses.
They vast majority of people understand this and accept it.
Trump has stated that he -might- contest an election result. This comes in light of the Wikileaks reports that the HRC campaign has mulled over various schemes to encourage election 'irregularities.'
The simple facts are twofold:
1) This comparison between Gore and Trump is a fair one
2) This is blown way out of proportion. Trump is merely acknowledging the information he has received.
Lastly, maybe a Nobel Peace Prize for Wikileaks+Snowden? The stuff these guys continuously uncover has changed the way we relate to our government.
The comparison between Gore and Trump is silly. Gore was not questioning the integrity of the voting process.
However, I do agree that this was a silly gotcha question. Any candidate should reserve the right to question illegitimacies in the election.
That said, Trump has been extremely irresponsible in trying to foment insurrection prior to the election with no evidence whatsoever.
Shut up, Harambe. Trump hasn't said anything about "contesting the election result." And he hasn't said, "he might."
He has said that the system is rigged and that he will accept the result IF HE WINS.
There's every reason to believe that when he loses, which he almost certainly will, that he will continue to encourage his angry followers believe that Clinton is not the fairly-elected President.
webby wrote:
Shut up, Harambe. Trump hasn't said anything about "contesting the election result." And he hasn't said, "he might."
He has said that the system is rigged and that he will accept the result IF HE WINS.
There's every reason to believe that when he loses, which he almost certainly will, that he will continue to encourage his angry followers believe that Clinton is not the fairly-elected President.
Read the DNC emails. The man has a point that the other side is thinking about doing flat-out-illegal things to sway the election.
There is enough evidence to convict Hillary Clinton on numerous crimes. However, many people never stand trial for their crimes, so I can't say it's a huge deal.
Still, Trump has every right to suggest that the other side is not playing fairly and that is compromises the integrity of the election. I see nothing wrong with this.
To quote him:
"Of course I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result,â€
This is exactly what Gore did. I shouldn't have to defend the Brojos anymore, but I will.
Wendell Gee wrote:
The comparison between Gore and Trump is silly. Gore was not questioning the integrity of the voting process.
However, I do agree that this was a silly gotcha question. Any candidate should reserve the right to question illegitimacies in the election.
That said, Trump has been extremely irresponsible in trying to foment insurrection prior to the election with no evidence whatsoever.
I will admit that Trump is voice his concerns at an earlier time than Gore did. However I believe they are still similar.
You could debate that the Wikileaks emails provide plenty of illegitimacies worth questioning.
Harambe wrote:
Thus far, again, nobody has given a satisfactory answer.
Take your Trump Goggles off.