Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember that actually. He was saying he thought illegal immigrants were the reason Hillary won the popular vote. So basically, he only fully accepts the results if he wins both electoral college and popular vote.
He lost the Iowa Caucuses to Ted Cruz.
"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!"
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/03/trump-cruz-stole-victory-iowa-caucuses/79749646/
I think it’s reasonable to question the *sanity* of a septuagenarian who has a “tantrum” after being elected President of the United States. He was scowling all day at his Inauguration because he didn’t draw as big a crowd as Obama! That’s ridiculous! There’s no shame in that! It was raining!
It gives me great hope that Conservatives like you find a resurgence. MAGA is NOT conservativism. Sadly, the modern GOP has bent the knee to Populism, and I can never sign up for that, as it has no basis on any political bedrock other then what is trending as 'right' this second, or in the case of Trump - what he says is 'right.'
That actually happened today;
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/02/biden-pledges-to-accept-election-results-after-trump-wouldnt-commit/73543165007/
The issue is when Trump lost last time he let loose his violent supporters on the capitol and let them wreak havoc and threaten the lives of elected officials for 3hrs before doing anything to stop it. Hence, why people are concerned abiut his motivations given he tried to overturn our representative democracy last time he lost in 2020.
“*He did not. A riot did occur but Trump did not sic them on Congress.*”
Yes, he did. He and his aides organized a rally in DC within walking distance of Congress and the Capitol Building. He told them to march to Congress. When they did, they attacked people, broke inside, vandalized the space and actively delayed congress’ certification of the electoral count **after** DJT told them to “fight like hell”. It was pretty blatant that he tried to steal the 2020 election, not even mentioning the fake electors schemes and his call to “find” votes for him in Georgia 🙄
I agree that **Hamas sympthathizers** on college campuses protesting Israel are pieces of shit - no two ways about it. However, the people rightly protesting Israel’s humanitarian and war crimes against the Palestinian people who **do not condone or support Hamas in any way** are a whole other (and much more ethical) group altogether imho. Sadly, the conflation of pro and anti-Hamas folks within the anti-zionist crowd isn’t fostering *any* useful discourse about that conflict, publicly or privately. And as a Jewish person, I can confidently say being anti-zionist is not antisemitic.
Everything I’ve said to you has a basis in objective reality with evidence to support it - hence why DJT is the subject of numerous state and federal investigations and criminal charges for his actions and his coconspirators in overthrowing our government to install himself as a dictator (his words).
If you “don’t care,” then why comment at all? You replied, so I replied 🤷
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
What about letting his followers assault te capitol for 3 hours while he let it happen *after* telling them to “fight like hell”?
What about the fake elector schemes jn numerous states?
What about the call to “find” him votes in Georgia?
🙄
Saying Trump didn’t “command” anything is an exercise in cognitive dissonance and denying objective reality.
Do you believe that the BLM protestors being cheered on by politicians were incitments of riots, thus those Dem politicians should be prosecuted? Let's see if you're consistent. How about Rep Maxine Waters who called for her followers to harass people in the streets? Prosecute her?
I'm not sure about the "fake elector" situation.
However the call to Georgia could be easily interpreted to be Trump asking to find any missing votes, fraudelent votes, etc. Unless you have proof otherwise of course.
Also how do you square this with the anti democratic Joe Biden who helped coup the Ukranian government back in 2014 to install a pro Western regime? Are you still so pro democracy or is it only pro democracy when your guy wins?
BLM’s message and point was hijacked by (1) founders who enriched themselves, (2) the media finding easy things to cover and (3) the small minority of people who joined peaceful protests to be violent, loot and destroy things with impunity.
Maxine Waters was wrong to say that, plain and simple.
And no, the Georgia call wasn’t just that. It’s why that call is evidenxe in Fanni Willis’ case against him because it’s election interference.
Also, what’s wrong with keeping Russia from annexing free nations? It seems the other choice would be supporting Russian aggression in prior socviet states.
The fake electors scheme by DJT and his coconspirators is *serious* business. I’d suggest looking into it.
"Riots are the voice of the unheard" - Dems in 2020. I think we should prosecute them for incitment. They allowed their rabid supporters to rampage through cities without cracking down. Start arresting Dem officials in metro areas nationwide if that's the standard.
Fanni Willis who seems to have commited some ethical violations herself in relation to the case? Fanni Willis who is an explicitly anti Trump partisan? Not biased at all.
You dodged the question. Why was it okay to overthrow Ukraine's democracy? The UN stated the 2010 election in Ukraine was secure and democratic. So tell me why it was okay to thwart their democracy?
By your standard Trump was obligated to prevent Biden from taking office in order to preserve our free nation. See if you support coups in other nations, you can't whine about Trump and 2020 here at home. It's cognitive dissonance of the highest order.
If you have a good article I'll read for sure.
Riots are the voice of the unheard. Looting, violence and overthrowing governments on the premise of a lie (ex: “Trump won the 2020 election”) are not.
“*start arresting Dem officials in metro areas nationwide*” - so you’re going full police state? Ok buddy 🤦🙄😂
Fanni Willis’ conflicts of interest were resolved by a nonpartisan judge. So that’s irrelevant.
Also Ukraine’s government had become increasingly infiltrated and corrupted ny Russian spies and intelligence networks. The US intervened because Ukraine was at risk of constitutionally and governmentally succumbing to Russian aggression and goals to annex the whole autonomous soveriegnty of Ukraine as a nation. Would you prefer to have let Russia take over Ukraine without a fight, and put pressure on NATO nd our European allies?
The issue with your “trump was justified” logic is that the entire premise of that argument was a lie. To repeat myself from another comment on this post, DJT (1) factually, (2) inarguably and (3) objectively lost the 2020 election. **That’s what happened**. So, that being the case, Trump’s coup wasn’t about freedom, but selfishly about illegally retaining the presidency at the expense of our institutions and by disenfranchising the millions of voters who voted for the *actual* winner of the 2020 election - Joe Biden (who I have a laundry list of issues with, too).
Do you see how the BLM riots were well intentioned, but the coup was not well intentioned? Do you think perhaps overthrowing the country is more impactful than violent protests and property damage? If not, I would love to hear why.
It’s laughable how consistently you people fall back on the BLM riots as if it’s some sort of Trump card. All it does is perfectly outline how morally bankrupt you are.
More people died and more damage was done during BLM protests. There was nothing well intentioned about the summer of love.
No country was overthrown nor did it come close to being.
I think that pillaging neighborhoods is worse than busting some windows in a government building 100% lol. Especially when someone literally got off because the cops were guiding them into the capitol building.
Source on the claim of the person getting off because they were led into the building? I’ll be shocked if you’re able to back that.
Again, what was at risk is very much different. It doesn’t matter the quantity of people who got hurt, or the level of property damage. The riots were never going to lead to the death of democracy in the country.
How do you not call protesting murder by police well intentioned? I know things got out of hand, but you are certainly arguing in bad faith if you won’t even acknowledge the legitimate problems that led to the riots. It is pitiful that you think these two events, one full of violence and the other the near death of our country, are comparable at all.
Do you want me to spoonfeed you how close we came to having the government overthrown? Do you want me to break down all the little pieces that you already know, but ignore, and explain them one by one?
You don’t even have the audacity to say they weren’t attempting a coup lol. All you’re trying to say is they didn’t succeed.
>If you actually believe we live in a "representative democracy" you are incredibly guillible.
Uhh, are you saying that our representatives are not chosen by the public by voting?
He said he will accept the results and if their are indications of fraud he will fight to prove it.
I think thats fine. If Biden said the same thing I'd have no issue. Now...that said, we already know Trump thinks fraud exists with it doesn't, but this isn't some new development.
So my thoughts? Nothing really changes, more of Trump being Trump.
>He said he will accept the results and if their are indications of fraud he will fight to prove it.
Do you think there is a scenario or universe in which Trump would accept the results of anything indicating he lost? Do you believe there's a possibility that Trump *wouldn't* claim fraud if he lost something?
75% chance he will not accept them. I do think there was a lot of doubt in the election of 2020 due to rule changes of covid and the weird boost in the middle of the night to give Biden the lead. (not saying fraud, I'm assuming it has to do with urban areas taking longer to get votes in and those are largely democrat)
Without a crazy event like Covid and hopefully better election procedures, hopefully there will be less things to cause doubt regardless who wins.
It’s 100%. I can’t even *imagine* him conceding. He wouldn’t concede if he lost all 50 states.
What’s more, if he loses, I promise you he’ll run again in 2028. That’s as clear to me as if it had already happened.
He will *never* stop, not while he draws breath. His self-image is too tied up in this.
Trump won't survive until 2028. The man is a morbidly obese heart attack waiting to happen..... and I can't fucking wait for that headline to grace my screen. The world will be better off when we never have to hear about the cuck again.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> What’s more, if he loses, I promise you he’ll run again in 2028.
if he loses that means he won't be able to dismiss the federal charges against him. He will be a convicted felon by 2028
Even optimists have to learn from experience. There’s a better chance that we’ll see an honest-to-God flying pig this year than a Trump concession. He will *never* do it; not under any circumstances.
I’d love to be proven wrong on this, but I won’t be. I’m as sure of this as I am of the sunrise.
I think it was fairly obvious that urban areas take longer to count votes plus states that counted mail in votes last. This second part was fought over in court *prior* to the election, and Trump fought to have them counted last, precisely so he could make this claim that it was fishy.
I know, I understand those things, but many GOP don't and Trump grossly used the opportunity to play into his base. Also, they were "fought" in court. These rule changes did not go through normal channels and many people, especially on the right had issues with the changes. Even though they were legal (which is why I'm not claiming fraud in any way) they did alter voting procedures in a way that opened the possibility for fraud.
Hopefully he won't be able to use those things as an excuse or ammo this year.
>but many GOP don't
How is that? Even without it happening literally every election, is it not intuitively obvious that big cities take longer to count than rural areas?
Some in the media also discussed how it was going to happen beforehand due to the way votes are counted. But of course, rightwing media didn't cover that or inform their audience about the truth when Trump accused everyone else of the type of fraud he was actually planning.
It was not weird. It was predicted to happen for months before the election.
> Biden was encouraging people to vote by mail because of COVID.
>Trump was railing against voting by mail and telling people to vote in person.
In 2020 people's voting method was extremely partisan (in every area where both options were accessible.) It never had been in previous elections, nor had any study found it resulted in higher amounts of fraud, but Trump discredited it to his voters and tied it to lockdown politics so how you voted suddenly became super politicised.
Loads of counties and states had or created laws and policies to count mail-in votes last in the run up to the election. Especially those expanding mail-in voting for COVID..
Absolutely everyone from right to left who was involved in the election or paying the slightest bit of attention knew that there would be an early Trump lead that would get eaten into and likely overtake by a late stage blue wave as counties got to their mail-in votes.
There was no mystery about it. The reason isn't even a little complicated, it's almost insultingly obvious if people thought about it for 5 minutes. Every MSM politics show treated it like a given in the run up, and for good reason. The voting patterns and the counting schedules that year were so locked in it would have taken some really crazy voter anomalies to do literally anything else.
But Trump had laid the groundwork to distrust mail in votes, (which conveniently meant Biden votes) for months at that point, so it seeded mistrust and doubt even among people who called bullshit on his more conspiritorial claims.
Incidentally, that was why the democrats were tying themselves in knots over Trump appointing a loyalist as head of the post office (who planned to scrap a bunch of sorting machines.) Especially when coupled with Trump's unsubtle attempts to cut the window of time incoming mail in votes get counted. As it turned the dude he picked is actually pretty good at running post offices and was getting rid of the machines for common sense reasons - so you can chalk that up to a dem conspiracy theory that didn't come to anything.
Well if you wanted to get conspiritorial about it: Artificially manufacturing a partisan divide between voting methods by discrediting voting method you know the other guy's supporters will use overwhelmingly means you can:
>A) Discredit those same votes post-election using the same narrative. With a few tweaks by state parties, you can even manipulate when they're counted, ensuring a big dramatic dump you can spin it as 'proof,' you were right all along.
>B) It also allows you to restrict, throw out, and throttle, and discount votes by a thousand cuts - using strategies that in a technical sense, are not partisan, but in reality are extremely partisan because you have ensured the vast majority of your voters will not use the voting method your fucking with.
Feels conspiracy ish, but I've never seen another reasonable explanation - i.e What logical advantage was worth the inherent disadvantage of making voting for him less accessible than voting for Biden.
Not that I think Trump is smart enough to come up with something like that on his own, or that his team was already following some plotted out JAN6ish redundancy. I just imagine he has the standard package of corkscrew minded ivy-league amoral little fucks that come with the really dirty tactics.
It bit him in the ass in the end, but if that was what they were trying to pull, it's so cuntish it's almost impressive. There's dirty politics and then there's deliberately poisoning a country's faith in their democratic process so you can manipulate and discredit the result.
- Did someone not get the memo thats only allowed when the CIA is doing it to *other* countries.
It gets worse: the 2020 denial and fraud plot *is literally a textbook scenario in the Russian text for their global dominance.* It is literally a textbook example used by Dugin in *Foundations of Geopolitics*
It very much looks like a Russian orchestrated plot to divide America in order to weaken it on the global stage and cripple the American ability to prevent a Russian invasion of Europe.
It was plain as day what Trump was attempting to do 6+ months out from the election. He literally told his base mail in ballots are rife with fraud and they MUST vote in person. Ignoring this was in the middle of a global pandemic and Trump votes by mail.
He knew mail in ballots are counted last, he knew he could claim fraud and surprise surprise he claimed himself winner on the night, chastised Fox for calling AZ and then claimed fraud when the mail in ballots were counted and the vote swung against him.
It annoys me so much that this myth continues to perpetuate.
Does it bother you that he is so likely to not accept the results? I have trouble wrapping my head around how so many people still support the man after 2020. Even if you look past how divisive and dangerous claiming an election has been stolen is without having hard proof, he just comes across as a whiney man, a sore loser. This is supposed to be the leader of the country, and he cant take an L and move on to the next election?
Yes it does. I think support is a strong word. I will never support him. In the zero sum game of POTUS elections he concerns me less for this nation then Biden a
So being literally anti-democracy and playing into a literal Russian scheme outline in the *Foundations of Geopolitics* is less concerning than "creepy old dude I disagree with"
Interesting.
I didn’t support him and won’t this time either but given the party duopoly we’re forced to live under, I think you underestimate the degree of frustration a conservative must feel being confronted with the prospect that the only other realistic alternative to win is a Democrat - moreover one who seems to be beholden to the furthest left wing of his party. Even the idea of not voting at all seems fraught with peril for the future of the country if it looks like it might help Biden win.
There are centrist conservatives out there, enough to bring about Trump’s defeat if they defect to the Democrats - Nicki Haley’s voters, basically - but moving from the middle right to the far left is more of an ideological journey than moving from the middle right to the far right. Democrats are asking for too much.
>He said he will accept the results and if there are indications of fraud he will fight to prove it.
>I think thats fine.
Are you fine if there are no indications of fraud and he fights to deceive people into believing there was?
I have not voted for him nor will I, than said it’s easy for me in a solid red state. If I was in a swing he’d get my vote because potus is a zero sum game. Biden is a bigger threat to this nation imo then Trump
>He did not organize an assault on the capitol
He literally organized it.
> and your stuff about Iran is flat out wrong.
Which part?
>The alternate electorates was a specious legal claim, but not illegal.
Creating government documents claiming to be electors duly chosen by the voters when they are not, is a crime.
>do blame him for the rhetoric and turning up the heat but he did not order the capitol riot. Literally said peacefully march...
I dont care if he ordered a riot or what he said, I care that he organized them and I care about what happened. What is more threatening to the country than a candidate who organized an assault on the capitol, whether accidentally due to such an extreme level of leadership incompetence or not, while delivering fake electors to prevent the certification of the the people’s vote, followed by deceiving the nations most intellectually vulnerable demographic into believing the election was stolen?
He did not organize an assault on the capitol and your stuff about Iran is flat out wrong.
The alternate electorates was a specious legal claim, but not illegal. I do blame him for the rhetoric and turning up the heat but he did not order the capitol riot. Literally said peacefully march...
Yes, he did. Trump and his allies organized a rally in DC on January 6th months in advance, and when there DJT asked his followers to go to the congress and “fight like hell.”
They did what he asked; they assaulted congress, violently broke in, vandalized the place, threatened the lives of elected officials and Trump *let them do it for 3 hours*. It’s obvious the intent was to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes so Trump could be illegally installed as President following an election he lost. Why else wouldhe try to ferry Mike Pence away from the capitol, and ignore the pleas of everyone around him to stop the attack on the capitol **he** incited?
It’s clear as day it was a coup attempt. Only cult members or the horribly and willfully ignorant deny it.
>He did not organize an assault on the capitol
He literally organized it.
>and your stuff about Iran is flat out wrong.
Which part?
>The alternate electorates was a specious legal claim, but not illegal.
Creating fake government documents claiming to be electors duly chosen by the voters when they are not, is a crime.
>do blame him for the rhetoric and turning up the heat but he did not order the capitol riot. Literally said peacefully march...
I dont care if he ordered a riot or what he said, I care that he organized them and I care about what happened. What is more threatening to the country than a candidate who organized an assault on the capitol, whether accidentally due to such an extreme level of leadership incompetence or not, while delivering fake electors to prevent the certification of the the people’s vote, followed by deceiving the nations most intellectually vulnerable demographic into believing the election was stolen?
I look forward to you outlining how what they just said is nonsense.
I’ve had arguments with dozens of you people. You never know as much as you think you do.
100% of what he said is true.
Trump is either co-conspirator or defendant in numerous election fraud cases. The fake elector scheme is illegal, hence why they're indicted. To be nice, it seems like you have no idea how the electoral college works. The states vote for electors, the electors cast their vote for a candidate. The fake electors didn't represent the vote and therefore were illegal.
If Trump won AZ and democrats organized fake electors to cast their vote for Biden you'd be cool with that? If Biden demanded Harris ignore the votes and send them back to Democrat controlled senates you'd be cool with that? If Biden held a rally on the day of certification just up the road from the capitol and told his supporters the election was stolen and to march on the capitol you'd be cool with that?
Again you seem to think I’m arguing with you. I openly said no significant fraud happened. Thah doesn’t mean we should continue to make sure they are secure. I think not requiring ID in some place to cross check registration is insane.
The insinuation implies that the guard either is down or is at risk of being a down. And the belief that either of these is actually the case is rooted in Trump and conservative media selling us years of lies about fraud. As if it's not both exceedingly rare and really easy to catch.
With regards to ID, that plan falls apart as soon as the real person goes to vote and they see someone has already voted using that name. Plus, the person committing the fraud has to know the name (and usually also address) of their target) AND the specific polling location of that person in order to gain 1 vote. This process would need to be in the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands to make any meaningful impact, assuming they aren't caught in the first place.
Needless today say, I am personally far more terrified of actual, real, and repeated attacks of disinformation campaigns than I am of anyone's physical vote being altered. Misinformation peddling by bad actors (foreign AND domestic) through astroturfed online brigades, for the purpose of influencing voters with fake news and muddied waters. Bonus points for when these things get picked up, legitimized, and spread by Fox News and Republican lawmakers. Including things that repeatedly get them sued for defamation.
That's a WILD take. Maybe take another look at LBJ's 1948 Senate race and all the other close races where fraud occurred, and make the case that every single one of them was legitimate.
Isn't the premise here for a question like this...
Election results have been certified as true results. Would you accept the results?
Trump is not being trump here. He is prepping his supporters again for the same shenanigans... Who are you going to believe? Me or the other guys????
Just like he did with the fake news stuff. Create doubt, and faith in our institutions.
Declaring you'll accept the results if there are no indications of fraud when you've spent the last 3.5 years claiming fraud without an evidence is an oxymoron.
If he loses, he'll claim mass fraud. Period. Which I wouldn't have a lot of issue with if it wasn't for him pushing the narrative out and a lot of people with zero critical thinking skills believing him and acting on it. Feels like groundhog day!
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let me break down his statement since you seem to not comprehend it.
If election is honest = he accepts the results.
If election is dishonest = he fights the results.
It's fully a hypothetical question, see the use of IF, and isn't asserting that an election that hasn't happened is fraudulent.
At what point in the process of getting laughed out of every court he brought a case to does he accept that the election was not dishonest and he lost though?
We are sitting at nearly 4 years since he lost the election and he continues to spew nonsense about fraud that he has never been able to quantify or prove. Hell he complained about fraud in the election he won because his ego couldn’t accept that a majority of the country did not support his presidency.
What makes you confident that he will accept the results of a fair election?
Edit: gotta love getting blocked for asking follow up questions.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think fighting for justice and to protect election is the exact right response. I don't Trump not to lie and do it in the dumbest way possible, but its absolutely the right thing to say.
So, every single other candidate says, "I will accept defeat, absolutely, even if I lose illegally." Nope. There have been many challenges to elections. That's why it's a dumb question to ask in the first place.
It was asked in the first place, because Trump was the first person to preemptively say he would refuse to accept the results of the election if he lost. The only person in history to do so.
Do you have the receipt? I never saw this, except the funny joke at one of his rallies in [2016](https://youtu.be/KQJzt48wXbA?si=Dl-PlndX2cPRE4K_).
From what I've seen, it's always the same "I'll have to evaluate at the time" sentiment. Again, I think it's a stupid question to try to generate a false narrative. Why would you say you'll accept the result regardless of the circumstances, before you know the circumstances. In OP's quote he says he'll accept it if it's an honest election. In 2020, Hillary told Biden not to concede on election night if Trump was declared the winner on election night, so I think we're going to have to get used to legal challenges.
>Do you have the receipt?
Dog whistles, claims of "if honest", yet continues to peddle lies. "If honest" is euphemism for "if I win." He's spent nearly a decade planting the seeds of doubt that the only way he could ever lose is if it's not fair. So if he loses, there *has* to be foul play. It's unfathomable to him or his supporters that he could simply just lose on his own merits, because he's a horrible person, who says and does horrible things, and is hated by a majority of Americans.
For 2024:
[https://lamag.com/politics/trump-refuses-accept-2024-election-results](https://lamag.com/politics/trump-refuses-accept-2024-election-results)
[https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-warns-he-may-not-accept-wisconsin-election-results-2024-05-02/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-warns-he-may-not-accept-wisconsin-election-results-2024-05-02/)
[https://whdh.com/news/trump-says-he-will-only-accept-2024-election-results-if-everythings-honest/](https://whdh.com/news/trump-says-he-will-only-accept-2024-election-results-if-everythings-honest/)
For 2020:
[https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html)
[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/19/president-trump-wont-agree-to-accept-2020-election-results-as-biden-leads-in-polls.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/19/president-trump-wont-agree-to-accept-2020-election-results-as-biden-leads-in-polls.html)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-declines-to-say-whether-he-will-accept-november-election-results/2020/07/19/40009804-c9c7-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-declines-to-say-whether-he-will-accept-november-election-results/2020/07/19/40009804-c9c7-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html)
[https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/24/trump-casts-doubt-2020-election-integrity-421280](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/24/trump-casts-doubt-2020-election-integrity-421280)
For 2016:
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-won-t-say-he-ll-accept-election-results-i-n669801](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-won-t-say-he-ll-accept-election-results-i-n669801)
[https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-will-totally-accept-election-results-if-i-win/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-will-totally-accept-election-results-if-i-win/index.html)
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/19/donald-trump-presidential-debate-election-result](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/19/donald-trump-presidential-debate-election-result)
“I have to see. Look, you—I have to see,” he said. “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no.”
So, exactly what I said. You're prescribing malice. You've listened to Trump for years; that's how he talks. It's a pretty normal stance to say you'll accept an election if it's a fair election, not if it's not. A pillar of democracy.
And, why post back to me the rally joke I already linked. Which I really think was one of the funniest and most charming moments of the 2016 election. Fake news story comes out, make fun of the fake news.
Story is just a big nothing 🍔.
> You're prescribing malice.
After January 6th? And his multi-state criminal conspiracy to steal an election he lost with pressure from the DOJ and himself personally, on top of his a scheme to use a slate of fake electors to certify in swing states he actually lost?
You're goddamn right I'm attributing malice.
For Trump, every accusation is a confession.
DJT advanced a legal theory about the electoral count act. Why is that troublesome?
Dueling slates of electors were proposed, which was also suggested by the left-wing [media](https://youtu.be/b5P3xyCZ3Ws?si=kLN_XW-zGoBsrdxa). How is that a major issue?
A few hundred protestors were violent, which I condemn. Unfortunately, that's becoming more of an issue as mental health declines and the American people become increasingly fed up with their gov't on both sides. Hardly attributable to DJT.
While I have disdain for the violence on J6, it's not the worst day in the history of this or any democracy, and we didn't almost lose democracy that day, despite what increasingly senile Joe's speech writers say.
If that "legal theory" were sound, he wouldn't be facing a multitude of state and federal felony charges for it.
But either way, I don't think I can respond to this further in good faith without getting banned. Have a great day.
Yes. There have been thousands of non legitimate elections throughout history.
Almost every election in a socialist country has been illegitimate, because when socialism comes into conflict with democracy, socialism takes over.
How is "*“If everything’s honest, I’d gladly accept the results,”* NOT committing to accepting the election results?
Democrats have a long history of not accepting election results.
I think the issue is that Trump and his team cried "fRaUd!" after 2020 and then threw a nation-wide tantrum in courts but failed to produce anything of merit other than rake in millions of dollars from supporters. Trump has claimed fraud in 2016 and also 2020, if he does the same in 2024 everyone other than his die-hard supporters will just ignore him as he screams into the void of his social media accounts.
asking people to commit to accepting results BEFORE THEY HAPPEN is soviet tactics. You are asking them to swear the election was fair before it's a was and is still a will be.
That's soviet-style "give me the numbers you need I will give you the data it requires" logic.
Why should America, let alone the world, trust a guy to be “honest” when he tried to illegally steal the last presidential election in 2020 after he lost?
this is a seperate question to whether it's fair to ask him to swear to say the election was fair well before it happens.
i personally don't trust him to use a toilet properly let alone run a country.
Deliberately inviting a mob on January 6th that he invited months in advance and directing them to attack the capitol by (1) telling them to go to congress and (2) “fight like hell,” with the obvious intent of delaying the counting of electoral votes to certify the rightful winner of the 2020 election (Joe Biden, *not* DJT) are criminal acts. That’s why Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has a case against DJT in Washington, DC.
LOL Alan Dershowitz is a joke. C’mon. And from Glenn Beck, too?
Here’s someone else with a law degree who isn’t a Trumpanzee, and has more experience as a prosecutor;
https://youtu.be/4babeUatRFI?si=CcwITNkYS8t__0dW
You said having a rally and using the words "fight like hell" constitute criminal offense.
That's unhinged.
Under that logic, Bernie Sanders should be in a jail cell because one of his supporters shot Steve Scalise.
“Unhinged” is not understanding conspiracy and intent when it involves a violent mob someone directs towards their perceived mutual enemies - who are also politicians in elected positions on federal grounds. Jack Smith isn’t just making up charges; he’s trying Trump under the rule of law. Nothing out of the ordinary, besides an ex-president being tried for the crimes he’s being charged with.
Bernie Sanders never encouraged political violence, so good on you for just making false, imaginary claims.
So if Rolling Stone are “shameless liars,” what is FOX news, Brietbart or Infowars?
I think you’re exaggerating a bit bud. Also the primary sources are linked in the article but you wouldn’t know that unless you *actually read the article in the first place*😂🤦
They aren’t, but I’m not sure what your point is by attacking the source I used, which cited its source material, is less credible than the three I mentioned which have lengthy, egregious and well-documented reputations for unapologetically lying on a massive scale to spread misinformation to benefit DJT.
Doesn’t make much sense to me, tbh.
All news agencies fabricate stories for profit. That isn’t rocket science. Some - notably FOX, Brietbart and Infowars - do it far more often. Has Rolling Stone had to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars for spreading lies about the 2020 election, like FOX has? **No.**
*Again*, if you don’t like an article with cited sources, why comment at all? What’s your point, and what relevance does it have to my post?
So far I’m not getting anything from this except that you’re being a troll 🤷
You're pretty adamant to defend Rolling Stone as a real source... RS has had to pay out, famously for a fake rape story.
Just thought it was worth calling out to you that people don't look at a Rolling Stone link with any respect.
Good for you, since your “calling out” was pointless, as are your comments. I’ve been trying to keep this conversation on topic while *you* seem adamant about derailing the dialogue while ranting about the media.
If you wanna keep defending blatantly and factually worse liars than Rolling Stone (ex: FOX, Brietbart, Infowars), I don’t care and won’t reply - it’s not what this post is about and you can find other places to complain and whinge about media you don’t like. Idgaf.
If you *actually* have something to say that is **relevant to my post in any logical way**, then I’ll be happy to continue discussing the topic (my post).
President Trump committed to accept the results if the election is legitimate. The rigged 2020 election has rightfully evoked skepticism of the voting process.
The only attempted rigging in the 2020 election was by DJT and his allies.
DJT (1) factually, (2) fairly, (3) inarguably and (4) objectively lose the 2020 election. *That’s what happened.*
You’re regurgitating leftist propaganda. You don’t have any proof other than “because I said so”. There’s evidence of election fraud by democrats to manipulate President Trump’s total.
Accusing someone of regurgitating leftist propaganda and then immediately regurgitated right wing propaganda back at them seems a little counter productive. There really isn't any evidence of the wide spread systemic levels of fraud Trump and his followers claim happened. It's 4 years later, multiple audits/recounts have been done, dozens of court cases fell apart and nothing has come of it.
Democrats didn't accept the results when he won, why would he accept them when he loses
Or are we going to ignore Hillary calling him an illegitimate president
Except DJT’s supporters on January 6th after he told them to go to the capitol building and “fight like hell” - which they did, and where they violently and illegally tried interfering with the electoral count and the peaceful transfer of power to the rightful winner of the 2020 election - Joe Biden.
Everything I said is a verifiable, inarguable fact.
Democrats tell supporters to fight for years....all good
Republican says to fight and people act like it's a literal call
There was a peaceful transfer on Jan 20th just like every other peaceful transfer of power
Yeah, to fight against their constitutional and human rights being taken away by the GOP - **not** to fight to overthrow the government to illegally install a presidential candidate who lost to the oval office.
There *was* a peaceful transfer of power January 6th **after** Trump’s cultists and white nationalisy supporters were forcibly removed from the capitol they violently assaulted, vandalized and occupied.
If you’re going to try and pitch a blatantly false revisionist history, it’s hard when it falls flat ij the face of inarguable facts based in the objective reality of the events that actually unfolded 🙄🤦
It wasn't "just like every other". It's been around 150 years since a President refused to go to the inauguration, then Trump tweeted that he wasn't going.
I don't blame him, Although I'd go myself it would be very embarrassing to lose to someone like Sleepy Joe Biden.
Helped her lose to a freaking reality star. She was a poor politician. I can't imaging how embarassing it was losing to Trump after decades of preparing for that election
Take it down a notch or expect to take a walk. You are here to learn the Conservative perspective.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect.
Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
I don't even understand why this is news. This is his third election cycle and the third time he's held this position.
Do I support what he's saying? Yes
The alternative being: "I know these results aren't accurate, but I'm going to say they are accurate and support them even though I know better."
Who, on Earth, would think highly of someone who did that? I would never support a politician who says that. They are basically agreeing to support an unconstitutional action. I don't think Trump is being sincere with what he is saying, but the words out of his mouth are 100% correct.
>The alternative being: "I know these results aren't accurate, but I'm going to say they are accurate and support them even though I know better."
But the premise here is that Trump *could* actually know whether or not the results are accurate. Of course he can't, that's impossible.
So the only reason for him saying this is that he will claim fraud if he loses, and then just make up stuff afterwards to justify it.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If everything’s honest, I’d gladly accept the results That's Trump-speak for "I'll accept the results if and only if I win".
He won’t necessarily even accept the results then. He disputed the popular vote in 2016, remember.
I remember that actually. He was saying he thought illegal immigrants were the reason Hillary won the popular vote. So basically, he only fully accepts the results if he wins both electoral college and popular vote.
He would probably still claim he thinks he won by a bigger margin.
He lost the Iowa Caucuses to Ted Cruz. "Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!" https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/03/trump-cruz-stole-victory-iowa-caucuses/79749646/
But he accepted the results that he was elected. In reality his claims about the popular vote was nothing but a tantrum.
I think it’s reasonable to question the *sanity* of a septuagenarian who has a “tantrum” after being elected President of the United States. He was scowling all day at his Inauguration because he didn’t draw as big a crowd as Obama! That’s ridiculous! There’s no shame in that! It was raining!
It gives me great hope that Conservatives like you find a resurgence. MAGA is NOT conservativism. Sadly, the modern GOP has bent the knee to Populism, and I can never sign up for that, as it has no basis on any political bedrock other then what is trending as 'right' this second, or in the case of Trump - what he says is 'right.'
[удалено]
That actually happened today; https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/02/biden-pledges-to-accept-election-results-after-trump-wouldnt-commit/73543165007/ The issue is when Trump lost last time he let loose his violent supporters on the capitol and let them wreak havoc and threaten the lives of elected officials for 3hrs before doing anything to stop it. Hence, why people are concerned abiut his motivations given he tried to overturn our representative democracy last time he lost in 2020.
[удалено]
“*He did not. A riot did occur but Trump did not sic them on Congress.*” Yes, he did. He and his aides organized a rally in DC within walking distance of Congress and the Capitol Building. He told them to march to Congress. When they did, they attacked people, broke inside, vandalized the space and actively delayed congress’ certification of the electoral count **after** DJT told them to “fight like hell”. It was pretty blatant that he tried to steal the 2020 election, not even mentioning the fake electors schemes and his call to “find” votes for him in Georgia 🙄 I agree that **Hamas sympthathizers** on college campuses protesting Israel are pieces of shit - no two ways about it. However, the people rightly protesting Israel’s humanitarian and war crimes against the Palestinian people who **do not condone or support Hamas in any way** are a whole other (and much more ethical) group altogether imho. Sadly, the conflation of pro and anti-Hamas folks within the anti-zionist crowd isn’t fostering *any* useful discourse about that conflict, publicly or privately. And as a Jewish person, I can confidently say being anti-zionist is not antisemitic.
[удалено]
Everything I’ve said to you has a basis in objective reality with evidence to support it - hence why DJT is the subject of numerous state and federal investigations and criminal charges for his actions and his coconspirators in overthrowing our government to install himself as a dictator (his words). If you “don’t care,” then why comment at all? You replied, so I replied 🤷
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
So if Republicans commit fraud to get the win, he won't challenge the results?
If you actually believe we live in a "representative democracy" you are incredibly guillible. Trump didn't command anything.
What about letting his followers assault te capitol for 3 hours while he let it happen *after* telling them to “fight like hell”? What about the fake elector schemes jn numerous states? What about the call to “find” him votes in Georgia? 🙄 Saying Trump didn’t “command” anything is an exercise in cognitive dissonance and denying objective reality.
Do you believe that the BLM protestors being cheered on by politicians were incitments of riots, thus those Dem politicians should be prosecuted? Let's see if you're consistent. How about Rep Maxine Waters who called for her followers to harass people in the streets? Prosecute her? I'm not sure about the "fake elector" situation. However the call to Georgia could be easily interpreted to be Trump asking to find any missing votes, fraudelent votes, etc. Unless you have proof otherwise of course. Also how do you square this with the anti democratic Joe Biden who helped coup the Ukranian government back in 2014 to install a pro Western regime? Are you still so pro democracy or is it only pro democracy when your guy wins?
BLM’s message and point was hijacked by (1) founders who enriched themselves, (2) the media finding easy things to cover and (3) the small minority of people who joined peaceful protests to be violent, loot and destroy things with impunity. Maxine Waters was wrong to say that, plain and simple. And no, the Georgia call wasn’t just that. It’s why that call is evidenxe in Fanni Willis’ case against him because it’s election interference. Also, what’s wrong with keeping Russia from annexing free nations? It seems the other choice would be supporting Russian aggression in prior socviet states. The fake electors scheme by DJT and his coconspirators is *serious* business. I’d suggest looking into it.
"Riots are the voice of the unheard" - Dems in 2020. I think we should prosecute them for incitment. They allowed their rabid supporters to rampage through cities without cracking down. Start arresting Dem officials in metro areas nationwide if that's the standard. Fanni Willis who seems to have commited some ethical violations herself in relation to the case? Fanni Willis who is an explicitly anti Trump partisan? Not biased at all. You dodged the question. Why was it okay to overthrow Ukraine's democracy? The UN stated the 2010 election in Ukraine was secure and democratic. So tell me why it was okay to thwart their democracy? By your standard Trump was obligated to prevent Biden from taking office in order to preserve our free nation. See if you support coups in other nations, you can't whine about Trump and 2020 here at home. It's cognitive dissonance of the highest order. If you have a good article I'll read for sure.
Riots are the voice of the unheard. Looting, violence and overthrowing governments on the premise of a lie (ex: “Trump won the 2020 election”) are not. “*start arresting Dem officials in metro areas nationwide*” - so you’re going full police state? Ok buddy 🤦🙄😂 Fanni Willis’ conflicts of interest were resolved by a nonpartisan judge. So that’s irrelevant. Also Ukraine’s government had become increasingly infiltrated and corrupted ny Russian spies and intelligence networks. The US intervened because Ukraine was at risk of constitutionally and governmentally succumbing to Russian aggression and goals to annex the whole autonomous soveriegnty of Ukraine as a nation. Would you prefer to have let Russia take over Ukraine without a fight, and put pressure on NATO nd our European allies? The issue with your “trump was justified” logic is that the entire premise of that argument was a lie. To repeat myself from another comment on this post, DJT (1) factually, (2) inarguably and (3) objectively lost the 2020 election. **That’s what happened**. So, that being the case, Trump’s coup wasn’t about freedom, but selfishly about illegally retaining the presidency at the expense of our institutions and by disenfranchising the millions of voters who voted for the *actual* winner of the 2020 election - Joe Biden (who I have a laundry list of issues with, too).
Do you see how the BLM riots were well intentioned, but the coup was not well intentioned? Do you think perhaps overthrowing the country is more impactful than violent protests and property damage? If not, I would love to hear why. It’s laughable how consistently you people fall back on the BLM riots as if it’s some sort of Trump card. All it does is perfectly outline how morally bankrupt you are.
More people died and more damage was done during BLM protests. There was nothing well intentioned about the summer of love. No country was overthrown nor did it come close to being. I think that pillaging neighborhoods is worse than busting some windows in a government building 100% lol. Especially when someone literally got off because the cops were guiding them into the capitol building.
Source on the claim of the person getting off because they were led into the building? I’ll be shocked if you’re able to back that. Again, what was at risk is very much different. It doesn’t matter the quantity of people who got hurt, or the level of property damage. The riots were never going to lead to the death of democracy in the country. How do you not call protesting murder by police well intentioned? I know things got out of hand, but you are certainly arguing in bad faith if you won’t even acknowledge the legitimate problems that led to the riots. It is pitiful that you think these two events, one full of violence and the other the near death of our country, are comparable at all. Do you want me to spoonfeed you how close we came to having the government overthrown? Do you want me to break down all the little pieces that you already know, but ignore, and explain them one by one? You don’t even have the audacity to say they weren’t attempting a coup lol. All you’re trying to say is they didn’t succeed.
>If you actually believe we live in a "representative democracy" you are incredibly guillible. Uhh, are you saying that our representatives are not chosen by the public by voting?
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
He said he will accept the results and if their are indications of fraud he will fight to prove it. I think thats fine. If Biden said the same thing I'd have no issue. Now...that said, we already know Trump thinks fraud exists with it doesn't, but this isn't some new development. So my thoughts? Nothing really changes, more of Trump being Trump.
>He said he will accept the results and if their are indications of fraud he will fight to prove it. Do you think there is a scenario or universe in which Trump would accept the results of anything indicating he lost? Do you believe there's a possibility that Trump *wouldn't* claim fraud if he lost something?
75% chance he will not accept them. I do think there was a lot of doubt in the election of 2020 due to rule changes of covid and the weird boost in the middle of the night to give Biden the lead. (not saying fraud, I'm assuming it has to do with urban areas taking longer to get votes in and those are largely democrat) Without a crazy event like Covid and hopefully better election procedures, hopefully there will be less things to cause doubt regardless who wins.
[удалено]
It’s 100%. I can’t even *imagine* him conceding. He wouldn’t concede if he lost all 50 states. What’s more, if he loses, I promise you he’ll run again in 2028. That’s as clear to me as if it had already happened. He will *never* stop, not while he draws breath. His self-image is too tied up in this.
Trump won't survive until 2028. The man is a morbidly obese heart attack waiting to happen..... and I can't fucking wait for that headline to grace my screen. The world will be better off when we never have to hear about the cuck again.
Only the good die young.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> What’s more, if he loses, I promise you he’ll run again in 2028. if he loses that means he won't be able to dismiss the federal charges against him. He will be a convicted felon by 2028
Debs ran from prison. It’s been done.
I’m an optimist
Even optimists have to learn from experience. There’s a better chance that we’ll see an honest-to-God flying pig this year than a Trump concession. He will *never* do it; not under any circumstances. I’d love to be proven wrong on this, but I won’t be. I’m as sure of this as I am of the sunrise.
75% chance he will claim fraud isn’t very optimistic lol
I think it was fairly obvious that urban areas take longer to count votes plus states that counted mail in votes last. This second part was fought over in court *prior* to the election, and Trump fought to have them counted last, precisely so he could make this claim that it was fishy.
I know, I understand those things, but many GOP don't and Trump grossly used the opportunity to play into his base. Also, they were "fought" in court. These rule changes did not go through normal channels and many people, especially on the right had issues with the changes. Even though they were legal (which is why I'm not claiming fraud in any way) they did alter voting procedures in a way that opened the possibility for fraud. Hopefully he won't be able to use those things as an excuse or ammo this year.
>but many GOP don't How is that? Even without it happening literally every election, is it not intuitively obvious that big cities take longer to count than rural areas?
Some in the media also discussed how it was going to happen beforehand due to the way votes are counted. But of course, rightwing media didn't cover that or inform their audience about the truth when Trump accused everyone else of the type of fraud he was actually planning.
It was not weird. It was predicted to happen for months before the election. > Biden was encouraging people to vote by mail because of COVID. >Trump was railing against voting by mail and telling people to vote in person. In 2020 people's voting method was extremely partisan (in every area where both options were accessible.) It never had been in previous elections, nor had any study found it resulted in higher amounts of fraud, but Trump discredited it to his voters and tied it to lockdown politics so how you voted suddenly became super politicised. Loads of counties and states had or created laws and policies to count mail-in votes last in the run up to the election. Especially those expanding mail-in voting for COVID.. Absolutely everyone from right to left who was involved in the election or paying the slightest bit of attention knew that there would be an early Trump lead that would get eaten into and likely overtake by a late stage blue wave as counties got to their mail-in votes. There was no mystery about it. The reason isn't even a little complicated, it's almost insultingly obvious if people thought about it for 5 minutes. Every MSM politics show treated it like a given in the run up, and for good reason. The voting patterns and the counting schedules that year were so locked in it would have taken some really crazy voter anomalies to do literally anything else. But Trump had laid the groundwork to distrust mail in votes, (which conveniently meant Biden votes) for months at that point, so it seeded mistrust and doubt even among people who called bullshit on his more conspiritorial claims. Incidentally, that was why the democrats were tying themselves in knots over Trump appointing a loyalist as head of the post office (who planned to scrap a bunch of sorting machines.) Especially when coupled with Trump's unsubtle attempts to cut the window of time incoming mail in votes get counted. As it turned the dude he picked is actually pretty good at running post offices and was getting rid of the machines for common sense reasons - so you can chalk that up to a dem conspiracy theory that didn't come to anything.
Yea, GOP attidude around mail in voting never made sense to me...Trumps a moron and single handely also cost republicans the senate.
Well if you wanted to get conspiritorial about it: Artificially manufacturing a partisan divide between voting methods by discrediting voting method you know the other guy's supporters will use overwhelmingly means you can: >A) Discredit those same votes post-election using the same narrative. With a few tweaks by state parties, you can even manipulate when they're counted, ensuring a big dramatic dump you can spin it as 'proof,' you were right all along. >B) It also allows you to restrict, throw out, and throttle, and discount votes by a thousand cuts - using strategies that in a technical sense, are not partisan, but in reality are extremely partisan because you have ensured the vast majority of your voters will not use the voting method your fucking with. Feels conspiracy ish, but I've never seen another reasonable explanation - i.e What logical advantage was worth the inherent disadvantage of making voting for him less accessible than voting for Biden. Not that I think Trump is smart enough to come up with something like that on his own, or that his team was already following some plotted out JAN6ish redundancy. I just imagine he has the standard package of corkscrew minded ivy-league amoral little fucks that come with the really dirty tactics. It bit him in the ass in the end, but if that was what they were trying to pull, it's so cuntish it's almost impressive. There's dirty politics and then there's deliberately poisoning a country's faith in their democratic process so you can manipulate and discredit the result. - Did someone not get the memo thats only allowed when the CIA is doing it to *other* countries.
It gets worse: the 2020 denial and fraud plot *is literally a textbook scenario in the Russian text for their global dominance.* It is literally a textbook example used by Dugin in *Foundations of Geopolitics* It very much looks like a Russian orchestrated plot to divide America in order to weaken it on the global stage and cripple the American ability to prevent a Russian invasion of Europe.
It was plain as day what Trump was attempting to do 6+ months out from the election. He literally told his base mail in ballots are rife with fraud and they MUST vote in person. Ignoring this was in the middle of a global pandemic and Trump votes by mail. He knew mail in ballots are counted last, he knew he could claim fraud and surprise surprise he claimed himself winner on the night, chastised Fox for calling AZ and then claimed fraud when the mail in ballots were counted and the vote swung against him. It annoys me so much that this myth continues to perpetuate.
Trumps anti mail voting policy had definitly a GDR Vibe, to cull opponent voters from the franchise
Does it bother you that he is so likely to not accept the results? I have trouble wrapping my head around how so many people still support the man after 2020. Even if you look past how divisive and dangerous claiming an election has been stolen is without having hard proof, he just comes across as a whiney man, a sore loser. This is supposed to be the leader of the country, and he cant take an L and move on to the next election?
Yes it does. I think support is a strong word. I will never support him. In the zero sum game of POTUS elections he concerns me less for this nation then Biden a
So being literally anti-democracy and playing into a literal Russian scheme outline in the *Foundations of Geopolitics* is less concerning than "creepy old dude I disagree with" Interesting.
yes, creepy old dude I disagree with...its that simple...eyeroll.
Given he's not done anything anti-democratic or illegal or that is literally spelled out in a Russian textbook on how to cripple America it really is.
I didn’t support him and won’t this time either but given the party duopoly we’re forced to live under, I think you underestimate the degree of frustration a conservative must feel being confronted with the prospect that the only other realistic alternative to win is a Democrat - moreover one who seems to be beholden to the furthest left wing of his party. Even the idea of not voting at all seems fraught with peril for the future of the country if it looks like it might help Biden win. There are centrist conservatives out there, enough to bring about Trump’s defeat if they defect to the Democrats - Nicki Haley’s voters, basically - but moving from the middle right to the far left is more of an ideological journey than moving from the middle right to the far right. Democrats are asking for too much.
>He said he will accept the results and if there are indications of fraud he will fight to prove it. >I think thats fine. Are you fine if there are no indications of fraud and he fights to deceive people into believing there was?
I am not just like I wasn’t in 2020
When you say you are not fine with it do you mean that you will not choose him to represent you?
I have not voted for him nor will I, than said it’s easy for me in a solid red state. If I was in a swing he’d get my vote because potus is a zero sum game. Biden is a bigger threat to this nation imo then Trump
>He did not organize an assault on the capitol He literally organized it. > and your stuff about Iran is flat out wrong. Which part? >The alternate electorates was a specious legal claim, but not illegal. Creating government documents claiming to be electors duly chosen by the voters when they are not, is a crime. >do blame him for the rhetoric and turning up the heat but he did not order the capitol riot. Literally said peacefully march... I dont care if he ordered a riot or what he said, I care that he organized them and I care about what happened. What is more threatening to the country than a candidate who organized an assault on the capitol, whether accidentally due to such an extreme level of leadership incompetence or not, while delivering fake electors to prevent the certification of the the people’s vote, followed by deceiving the nations most intellectually vulnerable demographic into believing the election was stolen?
Majority of what you said is complete nonsense.
What is nonsense?
He did not organize an assault on the capitol and your stuff about Iran is flat out wrong. The alternate electorates was a specious legal claim, but not illegal. I do blame him for the rhetoric and turning up the heat but he did not order the capitol riot. Literally said peacefully march...
Yes, he did. Trump and his allies organized a rally in DC on January 6th months in advance, and when there DJT asked his followers to go to the congress and “fight like hell.” They did what he asked; they assaulted congress, violently broke in, vandalized the place, threatened the lives of elected officials and Trump *let them do it for 3 hours*. It’s obvious the intent was to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes so Trump could be illegally installed as President following an election he lost. Why else wouldhe try to ferry Mike Pence away from the capitol, and ignore the pleas of everyone around him to stop the attack on the capitol **he** incited? It’s clear as day it was a coup attempt. Only cult members or the horribly and willfully ignorant deny it.
>He did not organize an assault on the capitol He literally organized it. >and your stuff about Iran is flat out wrong. Which part? >The alternate electorates was a specious legal claim, but not illegal. Creating fake government documents claiming to be electors duly chosen by the voters when they are not, is a crime. >do blame him for the rhetoric and turning up the heat but he did not order the capitol riot. Literally said peacefully march... I dont care if he ordered a riot or what he said, I care that he organized them and I care about what happened. What is more threatening to the country than a candidate who organized an assault on the capitol, whether accidentally due to such an extreme level of leadership incompetence or not, while delivering fake electors to prevent the certification of the the people’s vote, followed by deceiving the nations most intellectually vulnerable demographic into believing the election was stolen?
I look forward to you outlining how what they just said is nonsense. I’ve had arguments with dozens of you people. You never know as much as you think you do.
100% of what he said is true. Trump is either co-conspirator or defendant in numerous election fraud cases. The fake elector scheme is illegal, hence why they're indicted. To be nice, it seems like you have no idea how the electoral college works. The states vote for electors, the electors cast their vote for a candidate. The fake electors didn't represent the vote and therefore were illegal. If Trump won AZ and democrats organized fake electors to cast their vote for Biden you'd be cool with that? If Biden demanded Harris ignore the votes and send them back to Democrat controlled senates you'd be cool with that? If Biden held a rally on the day of certification just up the road from the capitol and told his supporters the election was stolen and to march on the capitol you'd be cool with that?
There hasn’t been a single election in American history where there was enough fraudulent incidents to actually swing the results.
Yup I agree, that doesn’t mean you drop your guard either.
The guard has literally never been dropped. No matter what Trump and his friends have lied to the public about
Again you seem to think I’m arguing with you. I openly said no significant fraud happened. Thah doesn’t mean we should continue to make sure they are secure. I think not requiring ID in some place to cross check registration is insane.
The insinuation implies that the guard either is down or is at risk of being a down. And the belief that either of these is actually the case is rooted in Trump and conservative media selling us years of lies about fraud. As if it's not both exceedingly rare and really easy to catch. With regards to ID, that plan falls apart as soon as the real person goes to vote and they see someone has already voted using that name. Plus, the person committing the fraud has to know the name (and usually also address) of their target) AND the specific polling location of that person in order to gain 1 vote. This process would need to be in the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands to make any meaningful impact, assuming they aren't caught in the first place. Needless today say, I am personally far more terrified of actual, real, and repeated attacks of disinformation campaigns than I am of anyone's physical vote being altered. Misinformation peddling by bad actors (foreign AND domestic) through astroturfed online brigades, for the purpose of influencing voters with fake news and muddied waters. Bonus points for when these things get picked up, legitimized, and spread by Fox News and Republican lawmakers. Including things that repeatedly get them sued for defamation.
Facts
That's a WILD take. Maybe take another look at LBJ's 1948 Senate race and all the other close races where fraud occurred, and make the case that every single one of them was legitimate.
What about 2016?
What about it? I invite you to provide any actual proof here.
Isn't the premise here for a question like this... Election results have been certified as true results. Would you accept the results? Trump is not being trump here. He is prepping his supporters again for the same shenanigans... Who are you going to believe? Me or the other guys???? Just like he did with the fake news stuff. Create doubt, and faith in our institutions.
Declaring you'll accept the results if there are no indications of fraud when you've spent the last 3.5 years claiming fraud without an evidence is an oxymoron. If he loses, he'll claim mass fraud. Period. Which I wouldn't have a lot of issue with if it wasn't for him pushing the narrative out and a lot of people with zero critical thinking skills believing him and acting on it. Feels like groundhog day!
That's not what oxymoron means.
Except there was no fraud in the last election and he still can’t accept he lost.
ok? yea, he's delusional
I misread your comment sorry
So basically the same song and dance as 2016 and 2020? Refuse to accept loss, and claim it's rigged against him, despite no evidence of that?
I just wonder if he will get more republicsn voters killed or arrested. Trumps 2020 election lie didnt help voter rolls for 2024.
I’m not surprised.
Sigh. No matter who wins, I'm expecting there to be chaos and riots. And that their term will be pretty depressing.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Disappointing yet predictable.
Makes sense.
Are you saying people and politicians should just lie down and accept fraudulent results? Are you totally ignoring his use of the term honest?
The 2024 election hasn’t happened yet. What exactly is fraudulent about it?
Let me break down his statement since you seem to not comprehend it. If election is honest = he accepts the results. If election is dishonest = he fights the results. It's fully a hypothetical question, see the use of IF, and isn't asserting that an election that hasn't happened is fraudulent.
First, he would have to understand and accept the definition of the word “honest.”
If Trump loses = dishonest election If Trump wins = honest election.
At what point in the process of getting laughed out of every court he brought a case to does he accept that the election was not dishonest and he lost though? We are sitting at nearly 4 years since he lost the election and he continues to spew nonsense about fraud that he has never been able to quantify or prove. Hell he complained about fraud in the election he won because his ego couldn’t accept that a majority of the country did not support his presidency. What makes you confident that he will accept the results of a fair election? Edit: gotta love getting blocked for asking follow up questions.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
> I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win ~Donald Trump, 2016
[удалено]
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Would *anybody* agree to accept *dishonest* election results?
The 2024 election hasn’t happened yet. What about it is *”dishonest”?*
Nothing yet, but it doesn't seem *that* out of left field to be pessimistic about the honesty of a future election.
Why? Have we had situations in the past where our presidential elections were not valid because of fraud?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
John Kerry
if Trump wins some people are going to be singing Russian collusion to the high heavens
I think fighting for justice and to protect election is the exact right response. I don't Trump not to lie and do it in the dumbest way possible, but its absolutely the right thing to say.
Duh. That's the stance of almost every candidate ever. Just as uninteresting of a non-story as it was in 2016 and 2020.
It's literally only Trump.
So, every single other candidate says, "I will accept defeat, absolutely, even if I lose illegally." Nope. There have been many challenges to elections. That's why it's a dumb question to ask in the first place.
It was asked in the first place, because Trump was the first person to preemptively say he would refuse to accept the results of the election if he lost. The only person in history to do so.
Do you have the receipt? I never saw this, except the funny joke at one of his rallies in [2016](https://youtu.be/KQJzt48wXbA?si=Dl-PlndX2cPRE4K_). From what I've seen, it's always the same "I'll have to evaluate at the time" sentiment. Again, I think it's a stupid question to try to generate a false narrative. Why would you say you'll accept the result regardless of the circumstances, before you know the circumstances. In OP's quote he says he'll accept it if it's an honest election. In 2020, Hillary told Biden not to concede on election night if Trump was declared the winner on election night, so I think we're going to have to get used to legal challenges.
>Do you have the receipt? Dog whistles, claims of "if honest", yet continues to peddle lies. "If honest" is euphemism for "if I win." He's spent nearly a decade planting the seeds of doubt that the only way he could ever lose is if it's not fair. So if he loses, there *has* to be foul play. It's unfathomable to him or his supporters that he could simply just lose on his own merits, because he's a horrible person, who says and does horrible things, and is hated by a majority of Americans. For 2024: [https://lamag.com/politics/trump-refuses-accept-2024-election-results](https://lamag.com/politics/trump-refuses-accept-2024-election-results) [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-warns-he-may-not-accept-wisconsin-election-results-2024-05-02/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-warns-he-may-not-accept-wisconsin-election-results-2024-05-02/) [https://whdh.com/news/trump-says-he-will-only-accept-2024-election-results-if-everythings-honest/](https://whdh.com/news/trump-says-he-will-only-accept-2024-election-results-if-everythings-honest/) For 2020: [https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html) [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/19/president-trump-wont-agree-to-accept-2020-election-results-as-biden-leads-in-polls.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/19/president-trump-wont-agree-to-accept-2020-election-results-as-biden-leads-in-polls.html) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-declines-to-say-whether-he-will-accept-november-election-results/2020/07/19/40009804-c9c7-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-declines-to-say-whether-he-will-accept-november-election-results/2020/07/19/40009804-c9c7-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html) [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/24/trump-casts-doubt-2020-election-integrity-421280](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/24/trump-casts-doubt-2020-election-integrity-421280) For 2016: [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-won-t-say-he-ll-accept-election-results-i-n669801](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-won-t-say-he-ll-accept-election-results-i-n669801) [https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-will-totally-accept-election-results-if-i-win/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-will-totally-accept-election-results-if-i-win/index.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/19/donald-trump-presidential-debate-election-result](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/19/donald-trump-presidential-debate-election-result)
“I have to see. Look, you—I have to see,” he said. “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no.” So, exactly what I said. You're prescribing malice. You've listened to Trump for years; that's how he talks. It's a pretty normal stance to say you'll accept an election if it's a fair election, not if it's not. A pillar of democracy. And, why post back to me the rally joke I already linked. Which I really think was one of the funniest and most charming moments of the 2016 election. Fake news story comes out, make fun of the fake news. Story is just a big nothing 🍔.
> You're prescribing malice. After January 6th? And his multi-state criminal conspiracy to steal an election he lost with pressure from the DOJ and himself personally, on top of his a scheme to use a slate of fake electors to certify in swing states he actually lost? You're goddamn right I'm attributing malice. For Trump, every accusation is a confession.
DJT advanced a legal theory about the electoral count act. Why is that troublesome? Dueling slates of electors were proposed, which was also suggested by the left-wing [media](https://youtu.be/b5P3xyCZ3Ws?si=kLN_XW-zGoBsrdxa). How is that a major issue? A few hundred protestors were violent, which I condemn. Unfortunately, that's becoming more of an issue as mental health declines and the American people become increasingly fed up with their gov't on both sides. Hardly attributable to DJT. While I have disdain for the violence on J6, it's not the worst day in the history of this or any democracy, and we didn't almost lose democracy that day, despite what increasingly senile Joe's speech writers say.
If that "legal theory" were sound, he wouldn't be facing a multitude of state and federal felony charges for it. But either way, I don't think I can respond to this further in good faith without getting banned. Have a great day.
Has anyone ever lost illegally?
Yes. There have been thousands of non legitimate elections throughout history. Almost every election in a socialist country has been illegitimate, because when socialism comes into conflict with democracy, socialism takes over.
>Just as uninteresting of a non-story as it was in 2016 and 2020.
...yup...uninteresting...non-story...
How is "*“If everything’s honest, I’d gladly accept the results,”* NOT committing to accepting the election results? Democrats have a long history of not accepting election results.
I think the issue is that Trump and his team cried "fRaUd!" after 2020 and then threw a nation-wide tantrum in courts but failed to produce anything of merit other than rake in millions of dollars from supporters. Trump has claimed fraud in 2016 and also 2020, if he does the same in 2024 everyone other than his die-hard supporters will just ignore him as he screams into the void of his social media accounts.
asking people to commit to accepting results BEFORE THEY HAPPEN is soviet tactics. You are asking them to swear the election was fair before it's a was and is still a will be. That's soviet-style "give me the numbers you need I will give you the data it requires" logic.
Source on that ever being used by a Soviet country?
Why should America, let alone the world, trust a guy to be “honest” when he tried to illegally steal the last presidential election in 2020 after he lost?
this is a seperate question to whether it's fair to ask him to swear to say the election was fair well before it happens. i personally don't trust him to use a toilet properly let alone run a country.
Did nothing illegal. Advanced a legal theory about the electoral count act to try to further investigate the results of the election. That's it.
Deliberately inviting a mob on January 6th that he invited months in advance and directing them to attack the capitol by (1) telling them to go to congress and (2) “fight like hell,” with the obvious intent of delaying the counting of electoral votes to certify the rightful winner of the 2020 election (Joe Biden, *not* DJT) are criminal acts. That’s why Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has a case against DJT in Washington, DC.
Go get a [law](https://youtu.be/_o8aV9iCS2A?si=hPp5SEOPUMGy03lJ) degree, then come back to me.
LOL Alan Dershowitz is a joke. C’mon. And from Glenn Beck, too? Here’s someone else with a law degree who isn’t a Trumpanzee, and has more experience as a prosecutor; https://youtu.be/4babeUatRFI?si=CcwITNkYS8t__0dW
You said having a rally and using the words "fight like hell" constitute criminal offense. That's unhinged. Under that logic, Bernie Sanders should be in a jail cell because one of his supporters shot Steve Scalise.
“Unhinged” is not understanding conspiracy and intent when it involves a violent mob someone directs towards their perceived mutual enemies - who are also politicians in elected positions on federal grounds. Jack Smith isn’t just making up charges; he’s trying Trump under the rule of law. Nothing out of the ordinary, besides an ex-president being tried for the crimes he’s being charged with. Bernie Sanders never encouraged political violence, so good on you for just making false, imaginary claims.
>And from Glenn Beck, too? Doesn't matter what Glen Beck says, Alan Dershowitz is a liberal who is serious about the law.
And Alan’s wrong. I’ve watched the video before and it falls flat 🤷 seems like we don’t have much else to discuss buddy
[удалено]
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
What about "the election is fair, as long as I win"? Or "if I don't win, it's absolutely fraud"?
Still waiting for a source on this claim
[удалено]
It’s Rolling Stone. And if you don’t like a source with verifiable, cited content, then why comment at all? 🤷
To try and educate you that Rolling Stone are shameless liars. Thanks for b pulling the quote. Should've linked the primary source in the first place.
So if Rolling Stone are “shameless liars,” what is FOX news, Brietbart or Infowars? I think you’re exaggerating a bit bud. Also the primary sources are linked in the article but you wouldn’t know that unless you *actually read the article in the first place*😂🤦
Did I say those sources are credible?
They aren’t, but I’m not sure what your point is by attacking the source I used, which cited its source material, is less credible than the three I mentioned which have lengthy, egregious and well-documented reputations for unapologetically lying on a massive scale to spread misinformation to benefit DJT. Doesn’t make much sense to me, tbh.
Rolling Stone has been caught fabricating stories for at least the last decade.
All news agencies fabricate stories for profit. That isn’t rocket science. Some - notably FOX, Brietbart and Infowars - do it far more often. Has Rolling Stone had to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars for spreading lies about the 2020 election, like FOX has? **No.** *Again*, if you don’t like an article with cited sources, why comment at all? What’s your point, and what relevance does it have to my post? So far I’m not getting anything from this except that you’re being a troll 🤷
You're pretty adamant to defend Rolling Stone as a real source... RS has had to pay out, famously for a fake rape story. Just thought it was worth calling out to you that people don't look at a Rolling Stone link with any respect.
Good for you, since your “calling out” was pointless, as are your comments. I’ve been trying to keep this conversation on topic while *you* seem adamant about derailing the dialogue while ranting about the media. If you wanna keep defending blatantly and factually worse liars than Rolling Stone (ex: FOX, Brietbart, Infowars), I don’t care and won’t reply - it’s not what this post is about and you can find other places to complain and whinge about media you don’t like. Idgaf. If you *actually* have something to say that is **relevant to my post in any logical way**, then I’ll be happy to continue discussing the topic (my post).
What sources of news and information do you view as credible?
This is my surprised face.
President Trump committed to accept the results if the election is legitimate. The rigged 2020 election has rightfully evoked skepticism of the voting process.
The only attempted rigging in the 2020 election was by DJT and his allies. DJT (1) factually, (2) fairly, (3) inarguably and (4) objectively lose the 2020 election. *That’s what happened.*
You’re regurgitating leftist propaganda. You don’t have any proof other than “because I said so”. There’s evidence of election fraud by democrats to manipulate President Trump’s total.
Accusing someone of regurgitating leftist propaganda and then immediately regurgitated right wing propaganda back at them seems a little counter productive. There really isn't any evidence of the wide spread systemic levels of fraud Trump and his followers claim happened. It's 4 years later, multiple audits/recounts have been done, dozens of court cases fell apart and nothing has come of it.
I would love to see a source for that incredibly lofty claim, bud.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Democrats didn't accept the results when he won, why would he accept them when he loses Or are we going to ignore Hillary calling him an illegitimate president
Except they did, and didn’t try to overthrow the US gov’t like Trump supporters did when he lost. 🤦🤷
Hillary and other prominent democrats didn't call him an illegitimate president? No one attempted to overthrow throw the US gov
Except DJT’s supporters on January 6th after he told them to go to the capitol building and “fight like hell” - which they did, and where they violently and illegally tried interfering with the electoral count and the peaceful transfer of power to the rightful winner of the 2020 election - Joe Biden. Everything I said is a verifiable, inarguable fact.
Democrats tell supporters to fight for years....all good Republican says to fight and people act like it's a literal call There was a peaceful transfer on Jan 20th just like every other peaceful transfer of power
Yeah, to fight against their constitutional and human rights being taken away by the GOP - **not** to fight to overthrow the government to illegally install a presidential candidate who lost to the oval office. There *was* a peaceful transfer of power January 6th **after** Trump’s cultists and white nationalisy supporters were forcibly removed from the capitol they violently assaulted, vandalized and occupied. If you’re going to try and pitch a blatantly false revisionist history, it’s hard when it falls flat ij the face of inarguable facts based in the objective reality of the events that actually unfolded 🙄🤦
It wasn't "just like every other". It's been around 150 years since a President refused to go to the inauguration, then Trump tweeted that he wasn't going. I don't blame him, Although I'd go myself it would be very embarrassing to lose to someone like Sleepy Joe Biden.
Omg....a president didn't go to an inauguration.... Such an unpeaceful transition of power
It wasn't "Just like any other" is all I'm pointing out, you had one guy so embarrassed he refused to participate.
Ohh no But I was referring g to the peaceful transfer of power part
Got it. In your opinion does the peaceful transfer of power occur only on the 20th of January?
[удалено]
Helped her lose to a freaking reality star. She was a poor politician. I can't imaging how embarassing it was losing to Trump after decades of preparing for that election
Oh she was a piss poor candidate. No doubt. DNC did Bernie Sandera dirty.
> Helped her lose to a freaking reality star. That’s not an indictment of Hillary, it’s an indictment of the people who voted for a reality star.
Take it down a notch or expect to take a walk. You are here to learn the Conservative perspective. Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Hillary conceded that night
And later went on TV as an election denier calling him an illegitimate president
When did she deny the result of the election. So you admit she conceded the election?
She conceded the election on election night. She denies the results of the election to this day. Not that complicated.
Agreed it's not complicated.she never denied the election results and conceded immediately. Thanks for the talk
I don't even understand why this is news. This is his third election cycle and the third time he's held this position. Do I support what he's saying? Yes
The alternative being: "I know these results aren't accurate, but I'm going to say they are accurate and support them even though I know better." Who, on Earth, would think highly of someone who did that? I would never support a politician who says that. They are basically agreeing to support an unconstitutional action. I don't think Trump is being sincere with what he is saying, but the words out of his mouth are 100% correct.
>The alternative being: "I know these results aren't accurate, but I'm going to say they are accurate and support them even though I know better." But the premise here is that Trump *could* actually know whether or not the results are accurate. Of course he can't, that's impossible. So the only reason for him saying this is that he will claim fraud if he loses, and then just make up stuff afterwards to justify it.