“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.'” ― St. Anthony the Great
"I'll keep you in suspense, OK?" Trump told debate moderator Chris Wallace.
Hillary Clinton responded, "That's horrifying."
"She's guilty of a very, very serious crime," he said of Clinton. "She should not be allowed to run. And just in that respect, I say it's rigged."
Via Drudge: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ill-suspense-accepting-election-outcome/story?id=42928015
What did Al Gore say in 2000?
Is that a choady or a hanging chad on Hillary's ass.
Of course it is rigged. Of course we don't have to accept it.How we act is of course up for grabs. It won't be guns in the street. At least not yet.But if Hillary starts to impose the Australian solution for gun control the "Second Amendment people" might have something to say about that. Just as Trump has said.
Just the way the FBI and the Justice Department handled the investigation into Hillary's criminal conduct with the emails is enough to prove that it is all rigged. Having Bill Clinton give the Attorney General her marching orders on the tarmac of the airport is enough to show how it is rigged. The lies and cover ups of the corrupt media is part and parcel of how it is rigged. The words of the establishment Republicans who parrot the Democratic talking points will be the seeds of their destruction. They are the Whigs and their time is past.
I have stayed out of politics on facebook for the most part this year, but I dipped my toe in the water this morning on a very liberal friend's post about how scary Trump was for doing this. All I said was "So, he's Al Gore," and what a trigger that turned out to be. Lefties don't like facts. Lefties don't like when you refute their lies with further facts. I didn't even correct their spelling errors and they still hate me.
Good for him.The biggest reason I finally picked Trump is this - he will not be a "gentleman" if he thinks the election has been stolen.The New Mr T.
Good. As he shouldn't. I wouldn't. Why would someone accept a premise that has no known outcome yet in front of millions of Americans. The only 'tradition' of concession is when the lose is one sided or you're Mitt Romney.
So Rush played the clip of Chris Wallace asking the question. Chris Wallace = Asshat. Tell the #NeverTrumpers about accepting the results of elections. Tell Al Gore about accepting the results of elections. Tell Hillary about accepting the results of elections. But lets not lecture anybody but Obama (I have a pen and a phone) on the peaceful transition of government. Unless by peaceful, you mean Paul Ryan rolling over to have Obama rub his belly.
Leland: Chris Wallace was fine. He asked a question. Wallace also asked Hillary tough questions, which I appreciated. Trump could have answered it anyway he wanted. It was not an unfair question and frankly it was a soft ball (and not fast pitch). All Trump has to say is, while the transition of power would certainly be peaceful, there are aspects of recent elections that are rigged. Win win. Defuse the hyperventilating of the left. Of course, then they would have picked some other issue to complain about today.
Why didn't he say WHY he might not accept it. That was the important part, the damning part against her, the winning answer. In place, he pretended he's teasing for viewers to stay tuned for an upcoming reality show. Come on people - he blew that about as bad as you can an opportunity. Didn't you want him to say all the stuff about illegals voting, dead people voting, Democrats fighting every attempt to protect legal votes? Weren't you just sitting there saying, what the hell was that? Does he know the word: "disenfranchised", because he had the opportunity set up like a T-ball to stick that on her and the Dems where it has belonged for years.
Evi, the question was fine. Wallace's follow up was not necessary. Wallace suggested that Trumps refusal at the debate was like violent rebellion. That's what is meant when Wallace talks about the tradition of peaceful transition. Trump didn't say anything about leading a violent rebellion. Al Gore didn't concede the 2000 election, and there wasn't a violent rebellion. Exactly why did Wallace go into that nonsense?Bags, Trump did say why, although I admit the why was focused on the media, but he did mention the "clips" from Project Veritas. So he did say why, and the media of course is ignoring most of what he said. In fact, an ABCNews radio brief this afternoon said Trumps comments were unsubstantiated.And as for the election being rigged; it would be nice if the media talked a bit about Austria's elections earlier this year, which is having to be redone in December because of fraud. Hey Wallace, there wasn't a peaceful transition there yet, but otherwise its been peaceful.
Well Chris, I have a question too: Who is damaging democracy more: the person who does not accept an election full of fraud, or the one who does?Answer: It depends who wins."If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat"
There is no good reason why Hillary should have been close enough to cheat her way in, let alone win outright.
bags, your 6:32 answer would have been good too.
Post a Comment