Trump refuses to commit to election results... BUT

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Mar 30, 2013
51,306
14,404
2,190
The Land of Sanctuary
Al Gore didn't accept the results of the 2000 election either. He sued the State of Florida to force a recount in largely Democratic counties. So Trump wasn't alone. What he said is nothing close to a headline, there is actual precedent involved here.

So what's the big deal?
 
Al Gore didn't accept the results of the 2000 election either. He sued the State of Florida to force a recount in largely Democratic counties. So Trump wasn't alone. What he said is nothing close to a headline, there is actual precedent involved here.

So what's the big deal?

Go for it and realize it will end as badly for Trump as it did for Gore!

Just realize in 2020 the GOP should be able to win big... well if you do not run Alec Baldwin!!!
 
He accepted the sup ct decision.

The fact it got that far was because he sued the State of Florida. Bush countered by appealing to the Supreme Court. And since the Supreme Court has the final word on such matters, the matter was settled when they ruled the recounts there unconstitutional.
 
Al Gore didn't accept the results of the 2000 election either. He sued the State of Florida to force a recount in largely Democratic counties. So Trump wasn't alone. What he said is nothing close to a headline, there is actual precedent involved here.

So what's the big deal?

Al Gore waited until after the election and the vote was very close, so close that he asked for a recount. In the end he lost his court battles and conceded. He never said the system was rigged. Big huge difference.
 
He never said the system was rigged. Big huge difference.

Sorry, I know you're trying to twist it. But the fact of the matter is that Gore had the chance to concede on election night, but he instead chose to sue for a recount. Actions speak louder than words Joy. That's the difference.

EDIT: And what else could Gore do after the Supreme Court ruled against him? He would have risked his political career had he continued to challenge.
 
Al Gore didn't accept the results of the 2000 election either. He sued the State of Florida to force a recount in largely Democratic counties. So Trump wasn't alone. What he said is nothing close to a headline, there is actual precedent involved here.

So what's the big deal?

Gore accepted the results. The initial count was not the result.
 
Al Gore didn't accept the results of the 2000 election either. He sued the State of Florida to force a recount in largely Democratic counties. So Trump wasn't alone. What he said is nothing close to a headline, there is actual precedent involved here.

So what's the big deal?

Al Gore waited until after the election and the vote was very close, so close that he asked for a recount. In the end he lost his court battles and conceded. He never said the system was rigged. Big huge difference.
Actually, the closeness of the Fl. results triggered an automatic recount.
 
He never said the system was rigged. Big huge difference.

Sorry, I know you're trying to twist it. But the fact of the matter is that Gore had the chance to concede on election night, but he instead chose to sue for a recount. Actions speak louder than words Joy. That's the difference.

EDIT: And what else could Gore do after the Supreme Court ruled against him? He would have risked his political career had he continued to challenge.

So if Trump loses by 100 electoral votes and then refuses to accept it,

you'll be back here trying to make a Gore/Trump analogy? I think you're mentally retarded.
 
He never said the system was rigged. Big huge difference.

Sorry, I know you're trying to twist it. But the fact of the matter is that Gore had the chance to concede on election night, but he instead chose to sue for a recount. Actions speak louder than words Joy. That's the difference.

EDIT: And what else could Gore do after the Supreme Court ruled against him? He would have risked his political career had he continued to challenge.

Gore did concede. However the results were very close, he didn't claim our system of democracy was a sham, he fought to have the votes recounted, big difference. What Trump is saying and what happened in 2000 have nothing to do with each other.
 
Al Gore didn't accept the results of the 2000 election either. He sued the State of Florida to force a recount in largely Democratic counties. So Trump wasn't alone. What he said is nothing close to a headline, there is actual precedent involved here.

So what's the big deal?

That was my first thought as well. Gore refused to accept defeat. Chris Wallace was wrong on that one. This is why Trump will make better President.
 
Trump's current position is, unequivocally and emphatically, that the system is rigged. That is a declaration that he will not accept ANY result, except of course one where he's the winner.
 
He never said the system was rigged. Big huge difference.

Sorry, I know you're trying to twist it. But the fact of the matter is that Gore had the chance to concede on election night, but he instead chose to sue for a recount. Actions speak louder than words Joy. That's the difference.

EDIT: And what else could Gore do after the Supreme Court ruled against him? He would have risked his political career had he continued to challenge.
Horrified the country tonight. Recount was automatic. The SC were GOP a-holes and Gore stopped real problems, like Nixon and Chicago...
 
Al Gore didn't accept the results of the 2000 election either. He sued the State of Florida to force a recount in largely Democratic counties. So Trump wasn't alone. What he said is nothing close to a headline, there is actual precedent involved here.

So what's the big deal?
An ignorant, desperate, and lame thread premise.
 

Forum List

Back
Top