Even to Donalds final day it is amazing that he still takes her crap. Hillary will be the next POTUS, why is he entertaining this?
Are you wondering why he doesn't drop out of the race? If so, I figure it's just because his ego won't allow it. And maybe because it would be an even worse shit show than he's already got going. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? That he should just tell her to shut the fuck up and walk outt of the room? (I am genuinely asking without an attitude, lol)
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Interesting how the pundits are making such a big deal out of Trump's refusal to say he'd accept the election results. I didn't find that surprising at all. That he wouldn't say it is a big deal because it shows us how ridiculous he is, but I didn't think for a second that he'd concede that during the debate. The "rigged election" thing is the only thing keeping him going at this point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Interesting how the pundits are making such a big deal out of Trump's refusal to say he'd accept the election results. I didn't find that surprising at all. That he wouldn't say it is a big deal because it shows us how ridiculous he is, but I didn't think for a second that he'd concede that during the debate. The "rigged election" thing is the only thing keeping him going at this point.
The fact that Conway and Pence both this week said he would makes it even more of a story. He could have qualified it with Florida 2000 and he could have got away with it.
One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
A cyber war is already happening. It won't be a military war.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?
Ask an absolute question and expect a qualified answer. Makes perfect sense to me now.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
He asked him twice lol
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
He asked him twice lol
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.
It's not a stupid question. Considering his rambling all week, it would have been malpractice to not ask.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
He asked him twice lol
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
He asked him twice lol
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.
Your taking about the answer I'm taking about the question.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
He asked him twice lol
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
He asked him twice lol
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.
Your taking about the answer I'm taking about the question.
That is his fault for not qualifying. Shows lack of thoughtfulness.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
Well Wallace was very unfair to him. What do you expect from the liberal media?
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
He asked him twice lol
It's a stupid question both times. It's like asking a coach weeks before the super bowl, will you forfeit your coaches challenges and just accept the rulings on the field.
And that's a terrible analogy. What he is saying is... if we lose next week, it's because X was holding on the decisive score. I just know it.
You have a better analogy for the question?
No, because it's a fair question.
BTW, here's the AP lead. Does anyone think this kind of headline will garner him new votes?
DEBATE STUNNER: TRUMP WON'T SAY HE'LL ACCEPT ELECTION RESULT
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Threatening to upend a fundamental pillar of American democracy, Donald Trump refused to say Wednesday night that he will accept the results of next month's election if he loses to Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nominee declared Trump's resistance "horrifying." Trump had spent the days leading up to the third and final presidential debate warning voters that the election would be "rigged." Asked whether he would accept the outcome if Clinton emerges victorious, he said, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense." Trump's assertions raise the prospect that millions of his supporters may not accept the results on Nov.
One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
I have the same concern (re your first point). Scary situation I think.... that said, I have absolutely no faith that Trump could handle it any better in the long run. He doesn't seem to understand how many moving pieces there are when it comes to this issue, and that scares me even more.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
A cyber war is already happening. It won't be a military war.
Invading Ukraine isn't Cold War-ish? I have no problem with a hard posture toward Russia right now. They're not to be trusted.
Oh, Hillary very deliberately didn't shake Trump's hand after. I don't like that. It's just rude.
I didn't see that. She walked towards Wallace while he stayed back and waited. He didn't put himself in the position to shake hands.
I felt like he stood there waiting for her to shake Wallace's hand before she went and shook his. I even though his expression suggested that he was waiting for that. Could be wrong obviously, but that's just what it seemed like to me. In other words, I think he left the door open and she wouldn't walk through. Not that I can really blame her, but still, would have been polite. I think a debate should ALWAYS end in a handshake, and she ultimately made sure it didn't happen. Anyway, hardly the biggest deal in the debate, haha.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
I have the same concern (re your first point). Scary situation I think.... that said, I have absolutely no faith that Trump could handle it any better in the long run. He doesn't seem to understand how many moving pieces there are when it comes to this issue, and that scares me even more.
I agree with you, the only reason Trump's ahead of Clinton on Russia (for me, obviously, lol) is because he hasn't been saying nasty things about Putin and his government. That said, Trump's and the Republicans' emails aren't the ones being published on Wilileaks, so they've got it easy in this regard. Be nice if Wikileaks didn't just publish what they have, and actually got the other side as well (I'm guessing the Republicans have some interesting emails about their candidate, some in the wake of tonight's debate).
Edit: Wilileaks is a whole other thread though, lol.
Post edited by DarthMaeglin on
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
One of my fears coming out of these debates is that Clinton may well plunge us (ok, I'm Canadian, so you Americans, really) into another Cold War with Russia, given her rhetoric against Putin and his hackers. At least we'll have to pray it stays cold.
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
A cyber war is already happening. It won't be a military war.
Invading Ukraine isn't Cold War-ish? I have no problem with a hard posture toward Russia right now. They're not to be trusted.
Of course. I'm not saying there won't be proxy wars. Just saying I don't think it will be a direct military conflict.
Why would anyone commit to accepting election results 3 weeks prior? I'd question anyone's judgement that would commit without knowing the circumstances.
C'mon... are you just trying to be a contrarian here?
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah I guess but maybe the distinction should have been in the question.
It wouldn't have been a question at all if Trump wasn't now pretty much basing his entire campaign on the idea that the election is rigged. He has basically already predicted that the results would be bogus. Despite the lack of surprise that he balked, this is pretty fucked up.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
If so, I figure it's just because his ego won't allow it. And maybe because it would be an even worse shit show than he's already got going.
If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? That he should just tell her to shut the fuck up and walk outt of the room? (I am genuinely asking without an attitude, lol)
One other point of interest was how often it's being said "nowhere in history" has such-and-such happened, when some things could only have been possible in the last couple decades (such as Russians hacking Clinton's email, or Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results-how often was that a question in previous debates, especially since Al Gore?).
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The peaceful xfer of power is the rock on which our republic stands. If he would have said.."Of course I will concede if I lose, barring something extraordinary like the situation in Florida in 2000 where it takes some time to work out the rightful winner". Had he said that, this wouldn't be a problem.
BTW, here's the AP lead. Does anyone think this kind of headline will garner him new votes?
DEBATE STUNNER: TRUMP WON'T SAY HE'LL ACCEPT ELECTION RESULT
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Threatening to upend a fundamental pillar of American democracy, Donald Trump refused to say Wednesday night that he will accept the results of next month's election if he loses to Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nominee declared Trump's resistance "horrifying." Trump had spent the days leading up to the third and final presidential debate warning voters that the election would be "rigged." Asked whether he would accept the outcome if Clinton emerges victorious, he said, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense." Trump's assertions raise the prospect that millions of his supporters may not accept the results on Nov.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-19-23-39-59
Edit: Wilileaks is a whole other thread though, lol.
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022