In 2000 both Bush and Gore challenged the election results.

Because he's been SAYING IT FOR WEEKS. Because Wallace MADE SURE TO ASK HIM TWICE.

I am absolutely not putting words in his mouth, and this is not some media fabrication. Are you trying to say that your guy couldn't comprehend what Wallace was asking him?

"I will look at it at it at the time".

Translation: He will look at it at after the election lol.

So, is Trump a special case of candidate in so far as he's supposed signal ahead of time he won't challenge the election results? Suppose it does end up close---like in 2000 when Gore challenged. But hey, he said he was going to concede no matter what.

He's kind of screwed isn't he? It's bullshit.
 
What is ambiguous about this exchange?

Wallace: "Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely accept the results of this election?"

Trump: "I will look at it at the time. What I've seen is so bad..."

Wallace: "There is a tradition in this country...is the peaceful transition of power, and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner...and that the country comes together."

Trump: "I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense."
 
"I will look at it at the time," Trump said. "I’ll keep you in suspense.”

It was 100% clear what he was saying given Wallace's question - and Wallace asked him TWICE. Why are you playing games on this one? It's not even disputable what he was saying & what he was implying - particularly in the context of spending the past few days telling anyone who will listen that the entire election is rigged.

Why would he give up any of his legal recourses to challenge the results of this clearly rigged election? I would go one step further and call for armed revolution against the Media Academic Governmental Complex ruling this country through fraud and subversion.
 
"I will look at it at it at the time".

Translation: He will look at it at after the election lol.

So, is Trump a special case of candidate in so far as he's supposed signal ahead of time he won't challenge the election results? Suppose it does end up close---like in 2000 when Gore challenged. But hey, he said he was going to concede no matter what.

He's kind of screwed isn't he? It's bullshit.

This is a simple yes or no question, Darth:

Did Al Gore concede in the 2000 election?
 
Why would he give up any of his legal recourses to challenge the results of this clearly rigged election? I would go one step further and call for armed revolution against the Media Academic Governmental Complex ruling this country through fraud and subversion.

you have no evidence you idiot dupe
 
there is no reason a corporate media would be on the democratic partys side idiots

Lol except they are and wikileaks proved it, not only to 97% of this countries journalists donate to the DNC but we have incontrovertible evidence that they gave Clinton the questions before TownHall debates and ran stories past her campaign for approval. Clinton is a shill for wallstreet, the bankers, and the globalists, she sold them her loyalty through the Clinton slush fund you dumb cunt.
 
Lol except they are and wikileaks proved it, not only to 97% of this countries journalists donate to the DNC but we have incontrovertible evidence that they gave Clinton the questions before TownHall debates and ran stories past her campaign for approval. Clinton is a shill for wallstreet, the bankers, and the globalists, she sold them her loyalty through the Clinton slush fund you dumb cunt.

no they didn't you fucking braidead asshole
 
you have no evidence you idiot dupe

Wikileaks has already provided the evidence in spades of the election being rigged for Hillary since the DNC you dumb cunt, and while we're at it explain why the Washington Post reports that 14% of illegals are registered to vote?
 
no they didn't you fucking braidead asshole




"In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump," the Center for Public Integrity said in a new report.

"Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton," the organization concluded. "$382,000


http://www.usnews.com/news/national...s-from-the-media-than-donald-trump-study-says

Now go stick more nigger cock in your mouth and stfu.
 
Not until after he lost the SCOTUS decision barring him from recounting in the 4 selected counties where he wanted a recount.

And the federal courts had no business getting involved in the issue. They should have told the truth and said "we have no jurisdiction".
 
Back
Top