4 Comments

1. Far too many people find who says something is more important than what they say.

   Reply to this comment

2. The “stupid” is strong in these ones! ~ Darth Vader

   Reply to this comment

3. More of those who base morality and judgement on the political party involved:

   [The shorthand term is “hypocrisy”]

   Hillary Didn’t Accept The Results Of The 2000 Election
   hannity.com | 10/20/16

   With talk of a “rigged” system as a centerpiece of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, many have begun to ask whether or not he’ll accept the election results on November 8th. While some on the left are complaining that questioning the legitimacy of a presidential election is unprecedented, [emphasis added — Oppo] it wasn’t long ago that many of them were doing just that — including Hillary Clinton herself!

   In October of 2002, during a heated midterm election, then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton declared that President George W. Bush had been “selected” and not “elected” in 2000.

   .

   Al Gore contests 2000 election

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34cB9jpTEKc

   .

   GOP Slams Trump: Not Accepting Election Results Would Be ‘Beyond the Pale’
   nbcnews / 10/20/2016

   Donald Trump’s stunning [emphasis added — Oppo] refusal to say whether he will accept the outcome of the presidential election has created chasms in an already fractured Republican Party.

   When asked during Wednesday’s final presidential debate whether he would accept the results of an election that he has repeatedly claimed is “rigged,” Trump replied that he would “keep you in suspense.”

   “I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now. I’ll look at it at the time,” Trump told moderator Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

   Related: Election Officials Say ‘Rigged’ Election Unlikely

   If Trump loses and doesn’t concede, it would break from an American tradition dating back to the Civil War — and some Republicans have been swift to condemn him for it.

   Trump “saying that he might not accept election results is beyond the pale,” Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted Wednesday.

   .@realDonaldTrump saying that he might not accept election results is beyond the pale — Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) October 20, 2016 South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement that he, like most Americans, has “confidence in our democracy and election system.”

   “During this debate Mr. Trump is doing the party and country a great disservice by continuing to suggest the outcome of this election is out of his hands and ‘rigged’ against him. If he loses, it will not be because the system is “rigged” but because he failed as a candidate.” Graham said.

   .

   What Does Refusing to Accept Election Results Look Like?
   pjmedia.com / Walter Hudson / October 20, 2016

   Let’s stop beating around the bush, shall we? Are we ready to start a violent revolution? Shall we drag government officials from their offices by the hair? Are we going to start killing people? If the answers to those questions are “no,” and they damn well should be, then we need to stow this nonsense about refusing to accept election results.

   . . .

   At face value, an unqualified refusal to concede threatens a peaceful transfer of power. Without clarification of his intent, Trump’s comment suggests some form of violent revolution. PJ Media founder Roger L. Simon shared a provocative take on that:

   “Put briefly: If Donald Trump believes—as many of us do—that the FBI is corrupt, the Justice Department is corrupt, the other party is hiring violent paid thugs to disrupt his campaign rallies, that no one knows who is really registered to vote, that the press is stratospherically biased, and that his opponent, backed up by all those corrupt entities, should have been indicted, why would a patriot, or for that matter someone who is even routinely honest, necessarily accept the results of the election of that opponent?

   “Ben Franklin wouldn’t. Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t. James Madison wouldn’t. Sam Adams wouldn’t. Of course, those guys were revolutionaries. These days we’re just, you know, “good citizens” who obey the rules and move on. With that kind of behavior in the past, our country wouldn’t even be here…”

   .

   Hurrah for Roger Simon! Because we all remember how constitutionally Hillary’s team tried to win — and conceded — the election.

   Reply to this comment

4. And almost a year after the election . . .

   Delusional Mrs. Clinton Considers Contesting the Election — Or Does She?
   Rush Limbaugh.com | September 20, 2017 | Rush Limbaugh

   Hillary was on NPR Fresh Air yesterday afternoon and the host was Terry Gross. She said that she might contest the election. I mean, it’s lunatic, but here’s what she said.

   GROSS: Would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?

   HILLARY: No. I would not. I would say —

   GROSS: You’re not gonna rule it out?

   HILLARY: No, I wouldn’t rule it out.

   . . .

   So that was yesterday during the day. Last night she went on Colbert’s show, and [he asked], “What do you mean questioning the legitimacy of the election? There’s no constitutional mechanism to question the election. What are you talking about?”

   HILLARY: So as I say in the book, nobody’s talking about contesting the election, including me. But I do think — no, because there is no mechanism.

   Reply to this comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.