2016 Postmortem

noamnety

(20,234 posts)

51. Here's what was said:

Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:48 PM

Dec 2016

Trump: “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,” Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump told a rally in Newark, Ohio on Thursday.
“Of course I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result,” he continued."

My note: that's a pretty standard position for a candidate to take, that they don't challenge results if they win, but they reserve the right to file a challenge if the results are questionable.

Hillary's response (at a New Hampshire rally shortly afterwards): "He became the first person, Republican or Democrat, who refused to say that he would respect the results of this election. Now, that is a direct threat to our democracy."

My note: Along with her statement being frankly bizarre (many candidates throughout our history have requested recounts), requesting an audit or recount of a questionable result or a close election is not a "direct threat to democracy." It's the exact opposite of that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Post removed [View all] Post removed Dec 2016 OP

Love the transparency. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #1

I defended Clinton throughout and got many, many hides for it. I AGREE WITH THIS. KittyWampus Dec 2016 #30

More transparency. Thanks. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #31

whatever the f*ck that means. You want to tell me what your comment means? KittyWampus Dec 2016 #36

I added a bit to it. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #39

LOL. this whole election fraud is as dumb on the left as it is on the right. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #2

The agenda: Identify and reduce/eliminate election fraud. noamnety Dec 2016 #4

just because you dont like the results doesn't mean there was fraud. nt La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #5

I don't like voter suppression, that is fraud on its face... to dismiss it as a factor is a non star uponit7771 Dec 2016 #11

yes, voter suppression is fraud. but not the type of fraud that the left seems particularly engaged La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #15

What difference does it make? tia uponit7771 Dec 2016 #17

not sure what you mean here. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #21

What difference does it make what kind of election fraud dems think it is, voter suppression is ... uponit7771 Dec 2016 #25

right but by focusing on the theft narrative, we don't see what is happen in the open La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #27

I agree with you on that. noamnety Dec 2016 #12

Yes, so much... focusing on Shitlers tweets and crap isn't going to change anything but making sure uponit7771 Dec 2016 #26

And just because you and I both supported Clinton doesn't mean we can't criticize the FAIL KittyWampus Dec 2016 #32

this is not one of her fails. one of her fails was to go to states that we could never win La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #38

THERE IS NO FRAUD! There is suppression, gerrymandering, and other problems, but... TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #20

yup La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #22

Can you understand that this issue noamnety Dec 2016 #28

I never said fraud is impossible... TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #41

People have been arrested for election fraud noamnety Dec 2016 #48

Those are FORMS of election fraud... PERIOD... END OF STORY uponit7771 Dec 2016 #29

And not dealt with by recounting that "fraudulent" vote... TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #42

Irrelevant on how they're dealt with post election, no one is talking about that. Getting to agree uponit7771 Dec 2016 #44

Voter suppression is a real stretch on "fraud"... TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #49

In your example eligble citizens are promised the right to vote no? PREVENTING people from voting or uponit7771 Dec 2016 #50

Well, since recounts aren't happening and can not happen due to systems that are inexcusably KittyWampus Dec 2016 #34

I don't have to prove there is no fraud... TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #45

Cause voter suppression was aimed at the right? REALLY?! Factually this is not true, I like reality uponit7771 Dec 2016 #10

i didn't say that. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #14

You intimated such by saying election fraud is dumb, voter suppression is a form of election fraud.. uponit7771 Dec 2016 #16

i have created a few thread now about voter suppresssion La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #24

How to guarantee that fraud doesn't occur and that every vote counts? Sometimes simpler jonno99 Dec 2016 #13

Recounts aren't up to the candidates. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #3

Recounts can be requested by the candidates. noamnety Dec 2016 #7

depends on the state dsc Dec 2016 #8

At least they have random audits in NC. noamnety Dec 2016 #23

And we see how well that went in MI. TwilightZone Dec 2016 #18

If hillary had requested it in Michigan noamnety Dec 2016 #33

YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!%(#)%*@@!! nt JTFrog Dec 2016 #6

Those are words, he "strong position" doesn't mean crap legally... she can still chalenge the result uponit7771 Dec 2016 #9

What? HRC said she would accept election results; she never took stand against verifying them. Justice Dec 2016 #19

I recall her saying a little more than that. noamnety Dec 2016 #35

Yes. I'm a pragmatist too underthematrix Dec 2016 #40

We expected to win. HassleCat Dec 2016 #37

All that is true, but it doesn't change my point. noamnety Dec 2016 #43

Is there a link to what she said? HassleCat Dec 2016 #46

Here's what was said: noamnety Dec 2016 #51

yes, she was too busy being outraged by groupthink and should have nuanced it Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #47

I am going to say it again randr Dec 2016 #52

One of the pervasive myths in this country is that there are free and fair elections. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #53