Accepting the results of the election...

[2aguy]

One of the fundamental pillars of our democratic system accepting the results of an election, and the peaceful transition of power.

This is the first election where both could be fundamentally threatened by pre-election rhetoric and inflammatory statements.

Folks are now bringing up Al Gore, in his election against Bush as if it were somehow equivalent. But is it?

The Florida vote was extremely close - close enough to demand a recount which was within a candidates legal rights. When it was finally decided, by the courts - Gore graciously and completely accepted the outcome. There was no talk about "rigged" elections from Mr. Gore.

But the fundamental difference is this: all this occurred AFTER the election and Gore accepted the court's verdict.

There was no pre-election claims (whenever the polls dropped) about rigged elections, about his crooked opponent rigging things, etc. undermining the very electoral process in this country. This is a first from a presidential candidate, and it's dangerous because he flirts with it and encourages his supporters with it. They can't possibly lose - because it's "rigged".

I hated that Bush won - not once, but twice - felt like doomsday. But we survived as a country (and for those who hate Obama - we'll still survive as a country).

I'm horrified that supporters of Trump, encouraged BY Trump's rhetoric are saying these things...

Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

And if Trump doesn’t win, some are even openly talking about violent rebellion and assassination, as fantastical and unhinged as that may seem.


“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take. . . . I would do whatever I can for my country.”

He then placed a Trump mask on his face and posed for pictures.

Trump’s campaign has taken a sharp turn toward such dark warnings in recent days. He says he is a victim of conspiracies, portrays himself as a martyr to the cause of the right wing, and is stoking anger in advance of what may be a defeat on Nov. 8.

Trump has suggested that the Secret Service protecting Clinton should be disarmed and “see what happens to her,” and that “Second Amendment people” could take matters into their own hands if she wins and appoints judges who support gun control. But his campaign disavowed some of the remarks of his supporters on Saturday after this article was posted online.​

Trump Supporters Call For Violent Coup If He Loses, Vow To Racially Profile Minority Voters

Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter, told the Globe he plans to heed Trump's call to "watch your precincts" on Election Day.


“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”​

And from: Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, said it was an incredibly important moment in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore gave a speech saying he accepted the results of the Supreme Court decision to award the majority of electoral votes and presidential victory to George W. Bush.

“Had he not done that, or done so halfheartedly, or even suggested that he’d been robbed, or otherwise tried to delegitimize the results, it would have been a huge blow to our democratic process,” Cullen said.

Cullen expects Trump’s warnings about a rigged election to get even uglier in coming weeks, and he fears they will incite violence if Trump loses.

“That’s really scary,” Cullen said, recounting the violence at Trump rallies around the country leading up to the Republican National Convention. “In this country, we’ve always had recriminations after one side loses. But we haven’t had riots. We haven’t had mobs that act out with violence against supporters of the other side.’’

“There’s no telling what his supporters would be willing to do at the slightest encouragement from their candidate,” he said.​

Hmmm.

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'

hmmm....was she running for president then? Claiming it was all rigged when her poll numbers went down ahead of the results? I don't think so.

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

 

[Coyote]

One of the fundamental pillars of our democratic system accepting the results of an election, and the peaceful transition of power.

This is the first election where both could be fundamentally threatened by pre-election rhetoric and inflammatory statements.

Folks are now bringing up Al Gore, in his election against Bush as if it were somehow equivalent. But is it?

The Florida vote was extremely close - close enough to demand a recount which was within a candidates legal rights. When it was finally decided, by the courts - Gore graciously and completely accepted the outcome. There was no talk about "rigged" elections from Mr. Gore.

But the fundamental difference is this: all this occurred AFTER the election and Gore accepted the court's verdict.

There was no pre-election claims (whenever the polls dropped) about rigged elections, about his crooked opponent rigging things, etc. undermining the very electoral process in this country. This is a first from a presidential candidate, and it's dangerous because he flirts with it and encourages his supporters with it. They can't possibly lose - because it's "rigged".

I hated that Bush won - not once, but twice - felt like doomsday. But we survived as a country (and for those who hate Obama - we'll still survive as a country).

I'm horrified that supporters of Trump, encouraged BY Trump's rhetoric are saying these things...

Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

And if Trump doesn’t win, some are even openly talking about violent rebellion and assassination, as fantastical and unhinged as that may seem.


“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take. . . . I would do whatever I can for my country.”

He then placed a Trump mask on his face and posed for pictures.

Trump’s campaign has taken a sharp turn toward such dark warnings in recent days. He says he is a victim of conspiracies, portrays himself as a martyr to the cause of the right wing, and is stoking anger in advance of what may be a defeat on Nov. 8.

Trump has suggested that the Secret Service protecting Clinton should be disarmed and “see what happens to her,” and that “Second Amendment people” could take matters into their own hands if she wins and appoints judges who support gun control. But his campaign disavowed some of the remarks of his supporters on Saturday after this article was posted online.​

Trump Supporters Call For Violent Coup If He Loses, Vow To Racially Profile Minority Voters

Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter, told the Globe he plans to heed Trump's call to "watch your precincts" on Election Day.


“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”​

And from: Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, said it was an incredibly important moment in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore gave a speech saying he accepted the results of the Supreme Court decision to award the majority of electoral votes and presidential victory to George W. Bush.

“Had he not done that, or done so halfheartedly, or even suggested that he’d been robbed, or otherwise tried to delegitimize the results, it would have been a huge blow to our democratic process,” Cullen said.

Cullen expects Trump’s warnings about a rigged election to get even uglier in coming weeks, and he fears they will incite violence if Trump loses.

“That’s really scary,” Cullen said, recounting the violence at Trump rallies around the country leading up to the Republican National Convention. “In this country, we’ve always had recriminations after one side loses. But we haven’t had riots. We haven’t had mobs that act out with violence against supporters of the other side.’’

“There’s no telling what his supporters would be willing to do at the slightest encouragement from their candidate,” he said.​

Hmmm.

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'

hmmm....was she running for president then? Claiming it was all rigged when her poll numbers went down ahead of the results? I don't think so.

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's meant to demonstrate the importance of context and circumstance over "content".

So why does context and circumstance suddenly matter now? To me, they both criticized the electoral process. Hillary, in addition to criticizing the electoral process, went even further by criticizing the Supreme Court's decision, hence "selected, not elected."

I don't have much experience with this, but when people and their arguments are put into a corner, they oftentimes attempt to contextualize the discussion instead of addressing the matter at hand.

I could be wrong though.

 

[2aguy]

One of the fundamental pillars of our democratic system accepting the results of an election, and the peaceful transition of power.

This is the first election where both could be fundamentally threatened by pre-election rhetoric and inflammatory statements.

Folks are now bringing up Al Gore, in his election against Bush as if it were somehow equivalent. But is it?

The Florida vote was extremely close - close enough to demand a recount which was within a candidates legal rights. When it was finally decided, by the courts - Gore graciously and completely accepted the outcome. There was no talk about "rigged" elections from Mr. Gore.

But the fundamental difference is this: all this occurred AFTER the election and Gore accepted the court's verdict.

There was no pre-election claims (whenever the polls dropped) about rigged elections, about his crooked opponent rigging things, etc. undermining the very electoral process in this country. This is a first from a presidential candidate, and it's dangerous because he flirts with it and encourages his supporters with it. They can't possibly lose - because it's "rigged".

I hated that Bush won - not once, but twice - felt like doomsday. But we survived as a country (and for those who hate Obama - we'll still survive as a country).

I'm horrified that supporters of Trump, encouraged BY Trump's rhetoric are saying these things...

Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

And if Trump doesn’t win, some are even openly talking about violent rebellion and assassination, as fantastical and unhinged as that may seem.


“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take. . . . I would do whatever I can for my country.”

He then placed a Trump mask on his face and posed for pictures.

Trump’s campaign has taken a sharp turn toward such dark warnings in recent days. He says he is a victim of conspiracies, portrays himself as a martyr to the cause of the right wing, and is stoking anger in advance of what may be a defeat on Nov. 8.

Trump has suggested that the Secret Service protecting Clinton should be disarmed and “see what happens to her,” and that “Second Amendment people” could take matters into their own hands if she wins and appoints judges who support gun control. But his campaign disavowed some of the remarks of his supporters on Saturday after this article was posted online.​

Trump Supporters Call For Violent Coup If He Loses, Vow To Racially Profile Minority Voters

Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter, told the Globe he plans to heed Trump's call to "watch your precincts" on Election Day.


“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”​

And from: Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, said it was an incredibly important moment in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore gave a speech saying he accepted the results of the Supreme Court decision to award the majority of electoral votes and presidential victory to George W. Bush.

“Had he not done that, or done so halfheartedly, or even suggested that he’d been robbed, or otherwise tried to delegitimize the results, it would have been a huge blow to our democratic process,” Cullen said.

Cullen expects Trump’s warnings about a rigged election to get even uglier in coming weeks, and he fears they will incite violence if Trump loses.

“That’s really scary,” Cullen said, recounting the violence at Trump rallies around the country leading up to the Republican National Convention. “In this country, we’ve always had recriminations after one side loses. But we haven’t had riots. We haven’t had mobs that act out with violence against supporters of the other side.’’

“There’s no telling what his supporters would be willing to do at the slightest encouragement from their candidate,” he said.​

Hmmm.

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'

hmmm....was she running for president then? Claiming it was all rigged when her poll numbers went down ahead of the results? I don't think so.

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

It was in a speech...

 

[TemplarKormac]

When I look back on what he said, Trump was noncommittal. Being noncommittal isn't the same as openly questioning the legitimacy of an election.

 

[Tilly]

Nonsense. Context and circumstances are always relevant. Clinton's comments are not equivalent to a current Presidential candidate claiming that he won't accept losing .

Really? That's very hard to believe. Two people essentially make the same comments questioning the legitimacy of an American election, but one of them is more egregious than the other?

Suddenly circumstances and context come into play. But the comments remain the same. Past, present, nominee, senator--all of that is irrelevant. The content or meaning of the commentary doesn't suddenly change just because of who you are or where you are in the space-time continuum.

I agree. But regardless, Hillary has been doing the same as a presidential candidate. But she's blaming it on the Russians and 'Pooten'. That's probably way more dangerous and irresponsible.

 

[2aguy]

One of the fundamental pillars of our democratic system accepting the results of an election, and the peaceful transition of power.

This is the first election where both could be fundamentally threatened by pre-election rhetoric and inflammatory statements.

Folks are now bringing up Al Gore, in his election against Bush as if it were somehow equivalent. But is it?

The Florida vote was extremely close - close enough to demand a recount which was within a candidates legal rights. When it was finally decided, by the courts - Gore graciously and completely accepted the outcome. There was no talk about "rigged" elections from Mr. Gore.

But the fundamental difference is this: all this occurred AFTER the election and Gore accepted the court's verdict.

There was no pre-election claims (whenever the polls dropped) about rigged elections, about his crooked opponent rigging things, etc. undermining the very electoral process in this country. This is a first from a presidential candidate, and it's dangerous because he flirts with it and encourages his supporters with it. They can't possibly lose - because it's "rigged".

I hated that Bush won - not once, but twice - felt like doomsday. But we survived as a country (and for those who hate Obama - we'll still survive as a country).

I'm horrified that supporters of Trump, encouraged BY Trump's rhetoric are saying these things...

Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

And if Trump doesn’t win, some are even openly talking about violent rebellion and assassination, as fantastical and unhinged as that may seem.


“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take. . . . I would do whatever I can for my country.”

He then placed a Trump mask on his face and posed for pictures.

Trump’s campaign has taken a sharp turn toward such dark warnings in recent days. He says he is a victim of conspiracies, portrays himself as a martyr to the cause of the right wing, and is stoking anger in advance of what may be a defeat on Nov. 8.

Trump has suggested that the Secret Service protecting Clinton should be disarmed and “see what happens to her,” and that “Second Amendment people” could take matters into their own hands if she wins and appoints judges who support gun control. But his campaign disavowed some of the remarks of his supporters on Saturday after this article was posted online.​

Trump Supporters Call For Violent Coup If He Loses, Vow To Racially Profile Minority Voters

Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter, told the Globe he plans to heed Trump's call to "watch your precincts" on Election Day.


“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”​

And from: Trump’s supporters talk rebellion, assassination at his rallies - The Boston Globe

Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, said it was an incredibly important moment in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore gave a speech saying he accepted the results of the Supreme Court decision to award the majority of electoral votes and presidential victory to George W. Bush.

“Had he not done that, or done so halfheartedly, or even suggested that he’d been robbed, or otherwise tried to delegitimize the results, it would have been a huge blow to our democratic process,” Cullen said.

Cullen expects Trump’s warnings about a rigged election to get even uglier in coming weeks, and he fears they will incite violence if Trump loses.

“That’s really scary,” Cullen said, recounting the violence at Trump rallies around the country leading up to the Republican National Convention. “In this country, we’ve always had recriminations after one side loses. But we haven’t had riots. We haven’t had mobs that act out with violence against supporters of the other side.’’

“There’s no telling what his supporters would be willing to do at the slightest encouragement from their candidate,” he said.​

Hmmm.

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'

hmmm....was she running for president then? Claiming it was all rigged when her poll numbers went down ahead of the results? I don't think so.

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

This is what she said, as the Secretary of State of the United States, in a foreign country in a state function.....

Town Hall with Civil Society Representatives On Good Governance And Transparency

Now, our democracy is still evolving. We had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so I mean, we have our problems too. But we have been moving to try to remedy those problems as we see them.

 

[Coyote]

Nonsense. Context and circumstances are always relevant. Clinton's comments are not equivalent to a current Presidential candidate claiming that he won't accept losing .

Really? That's very hard to believe. Two people essentially make the same comments questioning the legitimacy of an American election, but one of them is more egregious than the other?

Suddenly circumstances and context come into play. But the comments remain the same. Past, present, nominee, senator--all of that is irrelevant. The content or meaning of the commentary doesn't suddenly change just because of who you are or where you are in the space-time continuum.

Hillary has been doing the same. But she's blaming it on the Russians and 'Pooten'. That's probably way more dangerous and irresponsible.

Right. Putin is such a rightwing hero and there are no Russian hackers.

 

[2aguy]

Nonsense. Context and circumstances are always relevant. Clinton's comments are not equivalent to a current Presidential candidate claiming that he won't accept losing .

Really? That's very hard to believe. Two people essentially make the same comments questioning the legitimacy of an American election, but one of them is more egregious than the other?

Suddenly circumstances and context come into play. But the comments remain the same. Past, present, nominee, senator--all of that is irrelevant. The content or meaning of the commentary doesn't suddenly change just because of who you are or where you are in the space-time continuum.

Hillary has been doing the same. But she's blaming it on the Russians and 'Pooten'. That's probably way more dangerous and irresponsible.

Right. Putin is such a rightwing hero and there are no Russian hackers.

hilary is on putins payroll, she gave them 20% of our Uranium...for huge donations to the clinton foundation......she is doing the same thing democrats always do....they accuse the other people around them of doing the very thing they are doing in order to deflect scrutiny from what they are doing....

 

[healthmyths]

If Trump wins, few on the Left will accept it. In fact, some think the Left will take extreme measures to invalidate a Trump win.

You must remember this age old truism. Whatever the Left accuses their opponents of, they are guilty of.

If Trump wins, always possible - I would accept it. I would be utterly disgusted at the electorate, I would truly fear for our country's future and pray that Congress can keep him in check (since Trump doesn't seem to realize that the POTUS is not synominous with CEO) and I would count down the years, months and days to the next election.

I would NOT say it was rigged. I would NOT encourage violence. What's more - I haven't seen Clinton encouraging violence if she doesn't win.

You should fear a Cankles win far more than a Trump win, but this would require you to think.

We obviousy differ on that. However the issue is not WHO wins - it's accepting the results of an election - not undermining the very process itself and calling for violence.

Please were you NOT around in 2000 for the Gore/Bush election WHERE!!!
FLASHBACK: GORE REFUSES TO CONCEDE ELECTION, DEMANDS RECOUNT ‘TO ENSURE ALL THE VOTES ARE COUNTED’
‘I am very troubled by a lot of the stories that have been reported’ about blacks being discouraged from voting
Flashback: Gore Refuses to Concede Election, Demands Recount ‘to Ensure All the Votes Are Counted’
Last week Hillary agreed that Gore ‘won’ 2000 election
Last week Hillary agreed that Gore ‘won’ 2000 election - Hot Air
8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged
Everyone has taken to dismissing Donald Trump's claims that the election is rigged. Here are eight times liberals claimed an election had been or would be stolen.

8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'
Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'

A profile of Secretary of State John Kerry published Sunday in The New Yorker reveals that, 11 years after his election loss to George W. Bush in 2004, Kerry still believes he was robbed via systematic fraud.
John Kerry Thinks Bush Rigged The 2004 Election

NOW YOU WERE SAYING???

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's meant to demonstrate the importance of context and circumstance over "content".

So why does context and circumstance suddenly matter now? To me, they both criticized the electoral process. Hillary, in addition to criticizing the electoral process, went even further by criticizing the Supreme Court's decision, hence "selected, not elected."

I don't have much experience with this, but when people and their arguments are put into a corner, they oftentimes attempt to contextualize the discussion instead of addressing the matter at hand.

I could be wrong though.

Context and circumstance have always mattered. The context and circumstances of a statement are as much part of "the matter at hand" as the content of the statement. "Contextualizing" a statement is in fact "addressing the matter at hand".

We've even had this exact conversation before. My position has not changed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hmmm.

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'

hmmm....was she running for president then? Claiming it was all rigged when her poll numbers went down ahead of the results? I don't think so.

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

This is what she said, as the Secretary of State of the United States, in a foreign country in a state function.....

Town Hall with Civil Society Representatives On Good Governance And Transparency

Now, our democracy is still evolving. We had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so I mean, we have our problems too. But we have been moving to try to remedy those problems as we see them.

Ahh, you beat me to it.

 

[Coyote]

Hmmm.

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton to Crowd at Fund-Raiser in Los Angeles: Bush Was 'Selected' President, Not Elected; Says Bush's Machine Has Raised Far More Money to 'Ruin the Reputations of Our Candidates'

hmmm....was she running for president then? Claiming it was all rigged when her poll numbers went down ahead of the results? I don't think so.

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

This is what she said, as the Secretary of State of the United States, in a foreign country in a state function.....

Town Hall with Civil Society Representatives On Good Governance And Transparency

Now, our democracy is still evolving. We had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so I mean, we have our problems too. But we have been moving to try to remedy those problems as we see them.

She is not saying what you claim: "said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother".

She's stating the problem we had in the 2000 election which was exactly what it came down to - a contested vote count in Florida and the fact that the governor was the candidates brother made it more volatile.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When I look back on what he said, Trump was noncommittal. Being noncommittal isn't the same as openly questioning the legitimacy of an election.

Being "noncommittal" on the most basic tenet of our political system prior to an election that he'll almost certainly lose?

 

[2aguy]

hmmm....was she running for president then? Claiming it was all rigged when her poll numbers went down ahead of the results? I don't think so.

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

This is what she said, as the Secretary of State of the United States, in a foreign country in a state function.....

Town Hall with Civil Society Representatives On Good Governance And Transparency

Now, our democracy is still evolving. We had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so I mean, we have our problems too. But we have been moving to try to remedy those problems as we see them.

She is not saying what you claim: "said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother".

She's stating the problem we had in the 2000 election which was exactly what it came down to - a contested vote count in Florida and the fact that the governor was the candidates brother made it more volatile.

Yeah...right, you moron.......

 

[TemplarKormac]

The context and circumstances of a statement are as much part of "the matter at hand" as the content of the statement.

You'll have to forgive me if I beg to differ. In this context, both candidates made critical comments about how the election process was/is carried out.

 

[Coyote]

Nonsense. Context and circumstances are always relevant. Clinton's comments are not equivalent to a current Presidential candidate claiming that he won't accept losing .

Really? That's very hard to believe. Two people essentially make the same comments questioning the legitimacy of an American election, but one of them is more egregious than the other?

Suddenly circumstances and context come into play. But the comments remain the same. Past, present, nominee, senator--all of that is irrelevant. The content or meaning of the commentary doesn't suddenly change just because of who you are or where you are in the space-time continuum.

Hillary has been doing the same. But she's blaming it on the Russians and 'Pooten'. That's probably way more dangerous and irresponsible.

Right. Putin is such a rightwing hero and there are no Russian hackers.

hilary is on putins payroll, she gave them 20% of our Uranium...for huge donations to the clinton foundation......she is doing the same thing democrats always do....they accuse the other people around them of doing the very thing they are doing in order to deflect scrutiny from what they are doing....

Man, you guys keep trying to stretch it - now Hillary's on Putin's payroll? It's your boy who is cosey with Putin.

That uranium claim was debunked

 

[Coyote]

That's a deflection. She criticized the results of an election. It also doesn't matter if she was running or not. Now that she is, those comments are now fair game. The circumstances behind the person making the comments are irrelevant. The content was the same. I mean seriously. I can't comprehend how liberals think Trump is the only man alive who had the gall to question the legitimacy of a United States presidential election.

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

This is what she said, as the Secretary of State of the United States, in a foreign country in a state function.....

Town Hall with Civil Society Representatives On Good Governance And Transparency

Now, our democracy is still evolving. We had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so I mean, we have our problems too. But we have been moving to try to remedy those problems as we see them.

She is not saying what you claim: "said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother".

She's stating the problem we had in the 2000 election which was exactly what it came down to - a contested vote count in Florida and the fact that the governor was the candidates brother made it more volatile.

Yeah...right, you moron.......

Read it. (Moron).

 

[Luissa]

Do I think Hillary had help in the primaries? Maybe
But I don't think she has to worry about rigging the election, Trump has handed it to her wrapped in a bow.

 

[2aguy]

From Wikileaks she was in Africa and said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother....

She said this privately?

This is what she said, as the Secretary of State of the United States, in a foreign country in a state function.....

Town Hall with Civil Society Representatives On Good Governance And Transparency

Now, our democracy is still evolving. We had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so I mean, we have our problems too. But we have been moving to try to remedy those problems as we see them.

She is not saying what you claim: "said that the Florida recount was rigged by Bush's brother".

She's stating the problem we had in the 2000 election which was exactly what it came down to - a contested vote count in Florida and the fact that the governor was the candidates brother made it more volatile.

Yeah...right, you moron.......

Read it. (Moron).

Asswipe, she is stating that Bush's brother helped fix the election since he won......you left wing assholes are vile....