(10-19-2016 11:45 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 11:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:55 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:50 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 10:31 PM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  The Democrats who decry this behavior seem to conveniently forget the stink raised by Al Gore in 2000. If the results do manage to be surprisingly close, why not make every effort to ensure everything is on the up-and-up?

The anarchist in me is going to come out a bit, but the more the ruling class tells me to blindly embrace something, it only makes me more skeptical.

What I recall is Al Gore's graceful concession speech. A quick google confirms that. So I have no idea what you are referring to. Both sides worked pretty hard on the recount but when the Supreme Court ruled Gore accepted it. Will Trump accept a loss or continue his mantra of a "rigged" election? We are in suspense....

Gore did accept it, eventually. I just don't think Trump was doing anything here other than reserving the right to get the same diligence.

If you believe that, then I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you.

I think if that was truly what Trump was talking about, about doing due diligence like Gore and going through a thorough count of votes in a state where results are very close, in a general election where he wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, then he could have easily said, I will accept the final outcome of the election. That right there wouldn't keep him from holding a recount.

However, he stuck with the line of thinking that suggests there is a massive conspiracy in place to keep him from taking the White House, and his followers eat it up, hook, line, and sinker. People already don't think government officials care about them, and he is just egging on a delusional theory that massive voter fraud is going to keep the will of the American people from being carried out UNLESS he wins.

Do you actually think he is that nuanced in his political addresses that he was leaving the door open for legitimate due diligence?

That's honestly what I thought. But I try not to assume the worst motives every time someone who I disagree with opens their mouth. I don't do it at work, I honestly haven't done it with President Obama, who I didn't vote for, and I don't do it for Hillary or Trump, neither of whom I will vote for. (except when they're openly attacking each other, then there's little reason to doubt bad motives).

You actually thought he said that and meant it to be nuanced? No way, because nuance isn't his thing. He said it for two reasons. To fire up his base because they eat it up, because he doesn't like losing. I don't think he explicitly is stoking the fires of mistrust in the election process to try create a call to arms to contest the election, but he doesn't like losing (he has to win and be right about everything - if you read up on his family history you can see the influence of his father Fred jnnthat) and he wants to start the excuses of why he is going to lose.

I haven't seen anything from Trump yet that indicates his motivation to say, we'll wait and see, was due to him wanting to avoid a contradiction with his actions in the future.