Agreed. But they are confronting Trump. Haven’t you been paying attention?
I wonder if that’s what Melania said… 
Kellyanne and Keith Richards: Perfect Together…!
"Oh, Anti-Emmy! Anti-Emmy! Where No Pate’s Over-Combed… no pate’s over-combed… no pate’s over-combed… "
I’m thinking this song must have been good for a giggle… 
And… for everyone who DID watch the debates… a Song picked Just for You…!
A song for Drumpfelstiltskin…
…and… a Song for HRC…!
No, his family changed it many years ago to “Trump”…
Trump didn’t seem quite so orange. New make-up person? He talked at times like Vito Corleone. He was quite repetitive at times and wholly incoherent at others. His grasp of the issues was obviously weak, to be charitable. He needed a knockout punch and he delivered it, unfortunately it was to his own chin. Between the refusal to accept defeat should it come and muttering “what a nasty woman”, he managed to somehow nail the coffin shut while lying inside it.
Hillary was sharp and presidential. I wish she had said something like “I was not a dictator of the US for 30 years, I was ONE SENATOR for six years and Secretary of State for 4 years. Maybe you use the same math to think 6+4=30 as you do in claiming you’re a billionaire. I didn’t have the power to make you buy American steel, not doing so was your choice.”
I still say the true test of who won the debate is watching it with the sound turned off. Trump was fidgety, sweaty, thirsty, and snorty. He looked like a kid waiting outside the principal’s office. Hillary was calm, attentive, and looked like she was having a good time. After the debate, she strode right to Wallace and shook his hand, then went to the crowd high-fiving them, taking selfies, and smiling and laughing. Trump stood at the podium stone-faced before hustling to his limo to get the hell out of Dodge.
I’m not sure the voters care as much about the refusal to accept the results as the pundits do, but it doesn’t matter. He isn’t going to win, it isn’t going to be close. He’s going to play the Washington Generals to Hillary’s Harlem Globetrotters. We know the result, we don’t yet know the score.
Have these mechanisms already declared the election to be fair?
A candidate can do whatever the hell he wants that is legal. Some people will like it and may vote for him, and some may not, and not vote for him.
No, discussion of uncomfortable topics does not threaten a strong democracy.
I didn’t say he was correct. I will refer you to my post where I said that a person who accepts the results of something that hasn’t occurred is a chump. Clinton would be a chump if she accepted Trump’s claim that the election was rigged.
This is a strange thing to say. When did I say it was an even money situation that the election will be rigged vs not rigged. I simply said that you don’t accept something that hasn’t happened yet.
I believe his pre-refusal to accept the election results is characteristic of a skeptical society. Calling them rigged, i would suspect is merely a prediction or gut instinct.
There are no facts yet. What evidence do you have that the election that takes place in the future was not rigged? You can provide evidence that it will not be rigged but that doesn’t address my claim in the slightest.
I’m less interested in Trump’s motivations than I am in the reaction to his refusal among people who consider themselves a part of a “skeptical and healthy” society. When it comes to government they flock to belief.
There is no evidence that the election will be rigged, or even *can" be rigged, therefore Trump’s claim is asinine.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
WillFarnaby - If Trump said that he thought Putin’s election was rigged, I bet you’d be hitting the roof with how outrageous such a statement is.
What people really have a problem with is that he’s attempting to undermine the democratic process in the absence of evidence that it is being threatened. Given how suggestible and vitriolic many of his supporters are, this is a dangerous position to take. Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to be sticking. I read an article recently indicating that even in battleground states there was no evidence of increased registration for poll watchers.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Yes, Cuautemoc Cardenas was robbed of the Mexican presidency, in 1988, for example.
You make an excellent point.
Not.
I don’t think anyone pronounced it “Bayg” (as in bagel).
“It’s going to rain tomorrow.”
“No, I don’t think so.”
“You want to bet?”
“Sure. If skies are clear tomorrow, will you admit that you lost?”
“I can’t tell you until it happens. What am I, some kind of chump?”
What the hell does this set of bleedin’ obvious statements have to do with people criticizing him for acting like a giant douchebag? Nobody here is saying he is acting illegally. People are saying he’s acting outrageously. Are you under the misapprehension that all outgrageous acts are illegal or something, so if he’s acting legally, the criticism is misplaced?
Otherwise I have no idea why the hell you’d make such obviously true, and irrelevant, statements.
True, but there will be a fair election on November 8th.
We also haven’t had a coup, either but I don’t see Donald worrying about that or an invasion by Canada, although they both have approximately the same odds of occurring as a widespread voter fraud which would tip the election.
I don’t know. Maybe the Canadians were trying to loll us into a false sense of security with that recent video.
Yes, we do because the system is overseen by local party leaders from both parties and a massive fraud is impossible.
Voter intimidation of minorities by racist Trump supporters is much more likely to occur egged on by Trump’s direct comments.
Trump has incited violence at this rallies and continues to pour gasoline on the fire.
That’s actually OK by me, because I believe that America will survive and this will contribute to the declining share of GOP influence.
And to rashly make false charges without any evidence contributes to the breakdown of the GOP.
The elections are fair not because “someone” says so but because it has been tested by bipartisan cooperation
Actually, you have it flipped. The more America has become democratic, the fairer the elections have become.
Exactly this. Quite simply, Trump is a psychopath whose enormous ego requires him to believe that in any competition in which he is engaged, winning is the only just outcome, and if he doesn’t win, then he must have been cheated. A lifetime of being sucked up to by the sycophantic yes-men with whom he surrounds himself only reinforces that psychopathology. What should be shocking to any rational person is that this delusion has made his egotistical self-image more important to Trump than his own country and its democratic principles, all of which he’s perfectly willing to throw under the bus. If the mental deficients that are his followers start riots in the wake of his election loss, instead of condemning them he will just take it as validation of his delusions.
Lol - for anyone who doesn’t want to click on that link, his cite that “Many elections have been marked by serious fraud” is a scene from Gangs of New York . You can all draw your own conclusions about why this is relevant to Donald’s accusations of election fraud today.
Oh, shit. That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while.
Oh my god! Bad things happened in America 140 years ago! They lied to me in kindergarten!
Cite that it’s possible to commit massive enough fraud to tip a modern election, let alone a presidential election and let alone this particular one.
That’s OK. You are getting a lot of pushback on this remark, but I encourage it. There is more than just a walloping in the presidential elections at stake, the down ticket gets punished as well.
Which we are seeing. More power to him. I hope he continues because it will continue to weaken the GOP.
Exactly, this is why I refuse to save money because I won’t accept that I may need it in the future, another concept I refuse to accept. It’s a bitch trying to make appointments when you don’t believe in anything past this minute, but a small price to pay for pedantic arguments.
Which is why the 9-11 truthers are called skeptics and not conspiracist nuts. Oh, wait, they are. My bad.
Okay, I have to play devil’s advocate here, fully agreeing that there is no evidence of past systemic fraud, that Trump’s only evidence of “fraud” is that he is losing badly and will highly likely lose badly which in his mind must mean the other side cheated …
“Rigged” in terms of a systemic coordinated effort to assure one set of results, probably not possible, but systemic efforts to impact results by illegal means with some impact that could be meaningful in an otherwise close election? Not impossible.
There have been fears for example that foreign power hackers would attempt to do just that. According to a Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
But certainly not impossible to cause problems at selected sites, to delete names from voter registration rolls, and to attempt hacks at state central locations to alter how numbers are reported out, even though the latter at least would be caught fairly quickly “once local jurisdictions compared their results with the state’s tally and noticed discrepancies.”
If such Russian sponsored efforts do occur, they will fail to impact the results of the election, but the efforts even in their fail would undermine public confidence in the integrity of our system, especially in the context of Trump’s pre-emptive “I can only lose if others cheat; I am losing so others are cheating” marketing campaign.
When you mention 2nd amendment solutions and then claim the election will be rigged, you have gone beyond the pale of what is acceptable.
Of course, it is the Republicans who are rigging the election by disqualifying voters. Another tactic, used to great effect in Ohio in 2000 was simply to not have enough voting booths in black neighborhoods. Apparently there were polls that stayed open till midnight, but there must have been a lot of discouraged voters.
He actually made up an alter ego named John Barron to boost his image, just in case his real yes-men weren’t doing a good enough job.
And he named his 5th child Barron.
I know Bill Maher is a comedian, but why does Trump have to embody the phrase, “Whiny Little Bitch” heart and soul?