From around the web:
- Much Praise for Chris Wallace:
- A more substantive debate
- Trump's best debate
- Focus Groups (Close, but a narrow Trump win)
- No "game changing moments"
![]() |
I believe Al Gore refused to accept election results? |
Btw... once again, the left side of the media will try to dictate the "talking points of the debate" in coordinated fashion. This time it will be to play up Trump's statement about accepting the results of the election as if it was the only thing that truly matters. I am not sure if it matters, and even if it did... I don't think it negatively effects anyone who wasn't already a Trump hater.
I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen? He could fight the results in court and be just like Al Gore? Pretty sure those of you who think this was a horrible statement, were probably pretty keen on the idea of Gore suing?
Hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism...
59 comments:
1: Hillary. Reasonable gun laws.
2: Abortion: Always difficult, but a woman's life is not under government .
3: Mexicans are rapist and drug dealers. Wall is a joke. No deporting 11 million.
4: No path to citizenship.
5: I love Putin. She's ripping him.
6: Nut case Trump.
7: The nuclear button. No way.
8: Clinton 7 Trump 0 so far.
9: Economy Clinton
10: All 9 women were hired by Clinton.
11: Put her in jail and changed the topic.
12: She is Presidential.
13: It's rigged.
14: Iran, he lied again. I would be blacked out.
15: His refusal to accept the results.
15: He lost women.
16: He got angry, and refused to accept the decision by the voters.
Trump tweeted that I won!
Much Praise for Chris Wallace-- True, though Trump seemed pissed off at him and I'd love to know what he said to him when he reluctantly shook his hand at the end
A more substantive debate-- True, and Chris was largely instrumental in keeping it that way
Trump's best debate-- True, but that's a very low bar to clear
Focus Groups (Close, but a narrow Trump win) -- No, if even the focus groups are saying that (as they did at first after the first debate), then it was clearly a Clinton win
No "game changing moments"-- Well, no knockout blows were landed by either side, but Trump did himself considerable damage in refusing to commit to recognizing the winner of the election
____________
No knockout blow from Trump means Hillary will be the next President
Trump also angered a lot of people when he said he didn’t believe U.S. intelligence reports that Russia was behind hacking intended to influence the presidential election.
You are way off base on this, Ch, as you are on so much lately.
It isn't just the left who have been upset by Trump's attempting to declare the election invalid even before it is held.
Even Trump's running mate Pence has said he will recognize the results and several prominent Republicans are saying the election is not
"rigged."
Al Gore only questioned the correctness of the vote counting in Florida. It's not the same thing.
My Reaction to the Final Presidential Debate
by Taegan Goddard
The final presidential debate was actually a debate.
The main reason was that moderator Chris Wallace was excellent. He had near total control of the room. We had more substance out of this one debate than in all the previous debates combined.
The other reason it was a debate was that Donald Trump actually prepared for one. Trump was a completely different candidate for the first half of the debate. Had he acted like this over the last several months, this might be a closer presidential race.
On the substance, however, Hillary Clinton won most exchanges. She was more prepared and far more presidential. But she was not perfect and Trump exposed several of her weaknesses. Clinton had trouble on her support of “open borders,” on the Clinton Foundation’s conflicts of interest and on her ties to Wall Street.
But the third debate was really about comparing the two people who could be the next president.
Clinton started the evening cautiously, but as it went on she methodically started poking Trump. Her first dig was saying he “choked” in his meeting with the Mexican president.
Trump didn’t address the remark, which wasn’t like him at all.
Clinton next challenged Trump on his relationship with Russia and he nearly went ballistic. “You’re the puppet,” he yelled repeatedly. It’s worth noting that Trump refused to condemn Russia or Vladimir Putin. He even said he didn’t believe U.S. intelligence reports that Russia was behind hacking intended to influence the presidential election.
Trump’s reaction should scare every American. It’s not unreasonable to suspect that we have a presidential candidate who is beholden to a foreign power.
When Clinton repeated things Trump said about women who accused him of sexual assault and unwanted advances, Trump denied saying things we all heard him say.
When Clinton said Trump mocked a disabled reporter, he blurted out, “Wrong!” Of course, we’ve all seen the video many times.
Clinton was methodical in her approach, but she showed that Trump lies very easily and has major flaws as a person. He took her bait nearly every time. He even called Clinton “such a nasty woman.” By the end of the debate, Trump had collapsed into his basket of flaws.
But the scariest part of the night was Trump refusing to say he would abide by the election results, saying, “I will look at it at the time.”
Trump refused to commit to the peaceful transfer of power following an election. It was appalling and a massive political mistake.
Dear Bill,
When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that, too.
I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.
There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.
You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.
Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.
Good luck – George
Letter to Bill Clinton from George H W Bush.
Trump, I'll get get back to you.
It would be a delicious irony to see if Hillary Clinton and her supporters would accept the results of the election if Trump won.
Judging from pass history, I expect they won't.
“Like most Americans, I have confidence in our democracy and election system. During this debate Mr. Trump is doing the party and the country a great disservice by continuing to suggest the outcome of this election is out of his hands and ‘rigged’ against him. If he loses, it will not be because the system is ‘rigged,’ but because he failed as a candidate,” Graham said in a statement.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/graham-flake-trump-election-results-230060#ixzz4NbUBalNM
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
N
1: Trump is not going to win the election.
2: If somehow. I'm more likely to be President, and he wins, Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and move on.
3: His opponents will accept the the results, and pray to God that he doesn't lead us into a nuclear holocaust.
None of the bs roger is posting changes the fact that al gore did not accept the results and tried to overturn them.
And Hillary doesn't do anything gracefully. She won't or wouldn't concede gracefully either.
The real danger to the country is putting someone as corrupt and dishonest as Hillary into the seat of power.
Any candidate has the right to request a recount in a close vote involving a state. That's a far cry from losing largely and declaring the whole thing rigged.
"Trump's staffers ... are probably wishing that what happened in Vegas would stay in Vegas."
--comment made by Christopher Bates
You can read his excellent analysis here, and I will put the whole thing up on Roger's thread.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct20.html#item-1
Bates also said The Donald has now let his last chance slip through his fingers.
I have just put up on Roger's thread three wonderful observations made by Andrew Tannenbaum.
Warning to Troothers: Put away sharp objects before reading.
James and HB spamming both blogs, they know Trump won this debate.
I thought this second blog was to remove all the spamming. I don't want to have to wade through 6-7 james spams to see a real post.
One of the takeaways from last night is the stubborn ' creepy grandma' smile that was pasted on Hillary's face all night.
Poor Ballsy. My brief little referrals inviting people to look at something ON ANOTHER THREAD have him real upset.
You see, that's what gets me.
Neither he nor Ch want even to allow me here to invite people to look at something on another thread.
Is that freedom of speech? Is it, Ch?
This was one of Hillary's best moments:
____________
TRUMP: Now, John Podesta said you have terrible instincts. Bernie Sanders said you have bad judgment. I agree with both.
CLINTON: Well, you should ask Bernie Sanders who he's supporting for president. And he has said...
TRUMP: Which is a big mistake.
CLINTON: ... he has said as he has campaigned for me around the country, that you are the most dangerous person to run for president in the modern history of America. I think he's right.
' creepy grandma' smile
Thru wikilinks we found out she was told to smile and when, she looked like a creepy weird clown.
She failed to answer so many questions, it was like she was a rookie at this kind of thing.
Btw... once again, the left side of the media will try to dictate the "talking points of the debate" in coordinated fashion.
IT'S a vast left wing conspiracy out to steal from the donald. I guess when you have nothing to add, just blame everyone but the candidate who is more interested in a new TV network than the country. Keep defending him CH, he did not change a single voters mind last night and probably pissed off more women than he converted with the nasty women remark. Maybe someday you will see the fallacy of your man and realize what a dangerous precedent he has made. But, that's what you want. Really going to suck being an R on Nov. 9. LOL
"James and HB spamming"
Hopefully they'll be stopped in April.
Only six months away. In the meantime, we have two trash blogs.
Anonymous Myballs said...
None of the bs roger is posting changes the fact that al gore did not accept the results and tried to overturn them.
LOL...there was no results in floriduh at the end of the day.... There was a 600 vote difference which in the scheme of things is not a result. Sorry, gore demanded a recount which resulted in a SCOTUS decision which he accepted.
Loretta Russo said...
"James and HB spamming"
Hopefully they'll be stopped in April.
Hopefully you'll go away with trump when his ass is kicked to the hell and back. LOL.
"I thought this second blog was to remove all the spamming. I don't want to have to wade through 6-7 james spams to see a real post."
Yeah, like I told you....
James will still spam.
Roger will still approve, and still spam himself.
OPIE will still troll.
I guess when you have nothing to say you can always revert to talking about spamming.
My posts contain CONTENT. Content that could be commented on.
COULD be.
Message to Loretta the spammer. Your attempt at running a blog is most amusing. No one really cares about you or your opinion and the above just proves that. Thanx for once again proving your immaturity. LOL
The initial election results showed Bush won by 1784 votes. Because it was within 0.5% there was an automatic machine recount. This brought the margin to 327.
Al Gore protested the initial results of the election by asking for manual recounts in four heavy Democratic states. Perfectly legal election procedure. However, he was still behind after those recounts had been completed. Gore gained less than 200 of the 327 votes he needed to overtake Bush.
Those extra votes, as well as some absentee ballots from overseas military personnel were added to the total, and Bush was still ahead (in fact the overseas military ballots helped him more than Al Gore's recounts did and the lead went up to over 500 votes).
The election was then "certified" by the Secretary of State as mandated by Florida law.
Gore then filed a "Contest of the election" offering that illegal votes were counted (overseas military ballots) and that the rejection of legal votes (hanging chads) were not counted. The Circuit court denied his petition, as did a District appeals court.
It was the Florida Supreme Court that ordered a statewide manual counting (a rare 4-3 split in a very liberal Court known for 7-0 decisions). The chief Justice and the two older Justices dissented (making the same argument eventually used by the USSC to overturn the 4-3 decision).
During the course of this, Al Gore also filed other lawsuits attempting to throw out the votes from the overseas military members, and attempting to force Counties to change their existing policies for how they did their recounts.
____
So the reality here is that Al Gore did not accept the initial results. He did not accept the certified results. He did not accept the two court decisions rejecting his "contest" of the election. He also used the courts multiple ways to "change" how Florida election law worked at the time.
Ultimately he lost all of those legal battles (with the exception of the 4-3 FSSC which was effectively overturned by the USSC).
All of that legal manuring by Al Gore, and the left still will tell you that it was George W Bush who "stole" the election.
"After April (my wedding) I will likely be switching to Disqus - I can approve a set of members who are not required to be moderated, while leaving others (and guests) to be moderated.
That way, those who want to leave comments and engage in conversation, can. While those who simply choose to spam, insult, and generally leave comments that only amuse themselves can do it elsewhere." CH
CH SAID:
"After April (my wedding) I will likely be switching to Disqus - I can approve a set of members who are not required to be moderated, while leaving others (and guests) to be moderated.
That way, those who want to leave comments and engage in conversation, can. While those who simply choose to spam, insult, and generally leave comments that only amuse themselves can do it elsewhere." CH
_________
JAMES SAYS:
Assuming that "elsewhere" means on Roger's thread, I see nothing wrong with that, UNLESS it means you would not allow on your own thread the kind of very short post I did above at 5:13AM this morning, stating something while also inviting readers to look at it in full by clicking on a link or by going to Roger's thread.
If you rule that out, I would have to accept it, of course, but I would vehemently point out that such a position blatantly suppresses the very free speech you claim to support.
James - this is not a public forum. This is a blog. Comments can be disabled, moderated, or left open. There is nothing anywhere that suggests that anyone is "entitled" to simply leave whatever they want in the comments.
I have offered a set of rules that the vast majority of people I ask (including those who read but do not participate) deem to be in the best interest of decorum and in the best interest of reasonable discussion.
People, like yourself, show no willingness to follow any rules. People, like Roger, have an almost uncontrollable impulsive need to break these rules any chance they get.
The stats are showing an increase in traffic as the election nears. In fact unique traffic visits is over double since I last talked about them. Almost all of the increase in traffic is coming "directly" to coldheartedtruth 2.0. October will hit over 5000 unique visits and may approach 6000. The site has been hovering between 2000-2500 for the past year.
Of those 5000-6000 unique visits, the only people wanting to read your crap is you, Roger, and Opie. Actually I am not even sure "they" follow your links to ElectoralIdiots.com.
I don't owe anything to you, when your goal is clearly to disrupt, incite, and spam. That isn't free speech. That's being disrespectful of the forum and the vast majority of people on it.
My original site (which was hosted on a Virtual Personal Server at significant cost) required you to be a member of the site to contribute. There was levels of membership that allowed anything from being able to comment, to being able to post on private blog pages, to being given access to a blog page that "rolled" up into the main blog.
I had over 900 members, including many prominent bloggers (like Sean Trende and Jerry Dales). Amazingly, we were able to carry on conversations between people on the comment threads without spam, cut and pasting, and the like. We would have robust debates with people who had legitimate positions and legitimate disagreements.
If your robust debate would be endangered by a post as innocent and brief as mine above at 5:13AM this morning, then it is very fragile indeed.
James - I believe you are actually "capable" of providing your own thoughts. In fact you have shown yourself to be capable of it.
But we both know that nobody actually follows your links, or wants to read your spam. You do it simply to be purposely annoying. You are the person who talks during the movie at the theater, just because you know it bugs people... and you get off on it.
No, Ch. I happen to think there is some really excellent journalism at electoral-vote.com and politicalwire.com, my two favorite sources for news and commentary.
In the recent past, I followed your rule on your thread for quite some time, knowing your would not delete me when I commented in my own words. You would not even allow me to provide a link to anything, and I put up with that.
But not to allow a brief citation with link, as at 5:13 above, is in my opinion a bridge too far. It seems to me a form of cowardice, a form of suppression of free speech.
You can decide not to allow it, and I will have to comply, but I can at least tell you what I think of it. I just did.
Speaking of Al Gore's Acceptance of the decision by The Supreme Court of The United States.
I posted it on the legacy blog. My kindle won't c/p here.
Roger...
Al Gore accepted the decision of the USSC...
But he did not accept the election results. The election certification. The district court decision. Or the appeals court decision.
He "only" accepted his own loss when there were no other options left available to him...
Then post the link to electoral-vote.com. We'll go look when we choose to. Stop pushing it into our faces.
James -
My opinion, and the opinion of most everyone who has contacted me regarding this is that you are simply instigating and inciting. That you are simply that sort of person who thrives on irritating other people.
The fact that the second moderation was turned off, you went right back to cutting and pasting and spamming and ultimately irritating everyone else... showed me that your interest in following basic decorum is nonexistent.
People who talk out loud at a movie theater. People who bump into other people in crowds. People who generally have no respect for common decorum are either simply creatures of a self absorbed existence, or someone does it on purpose.
There is no "good reason" why someone would refuse to follow the decorum that is expected and followed by those they interact with. There are only "bad reasons".
I happen to believe that yours is on purpose. Perhaps I am wrong, and you are just too self absorbed and immature to see that nobody much cares which other bloggers you read... and if they really did care to read them, they can always go there on their own.
Es scheint, dass die Meinungen, die sich mit dem Inhaber seines Blogs unterscheiden, nicht akzeptabel sind. Da ich glaube, dass die Zensur auf die Meinung des Autors basiert, ist dies ein nicht so guter Abschied. Die Auswahl der Sprache der Nation, die den tödlichsten Krieg in der Geschichte der Menschheit begonnen hat, ist angemessen.
Roger -
If my choice is to appease the vast majority of readers here (and I do hear from more than just the regulars here) by maintaining a certain decorum on the comment thread...
and thus have to put up with the cries from two or three of you that requiring a minimal decorum is deemed as "censorship"...
then I will gladly appease the majority, maintain the desired level of decorum, and live with your opinion that doing so is censorship.
Ch, when you abandoned your previous practice, not only I but others as well started cutting and pasting again on your thread.
I am willing to follow a rule of keeping that to a minimum and emphasizing my own commentary, but to rule out any reference to the two sources I consider among the best answers to so much of what you stand for strikes me as a form of free speech suppression.
As for irritations, I have seen ample evidence that both sides, including you, delight in posting what they perceive will irritate the other side. But often it is far more than that: A sincere conviction that a position taken is undeniably CORRECT.
I feel that you and I could come to an understanding acceptable to us both.
Asked to defend allegations of “pay-to-play” arrangements between Clinton Foundation donors and the State Department while she served as Secretary of State.
This was the best moment for me, she swallowed hard and had that "OH Shit" look on her face.
The problem is she never answered the question, she is so scripted it is a real shame.
Changing the subject (in a way):
I've noticed that often here Obama has been criticized for his narcissism.
Actually, some of the best politicians have had narcissistic streaks-- Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Churchill, even Gandhi.
However, their narcissism was tempered by realism and even by streaks of humility.
Here are two commentators who feel that it was Trump's unbridled narcissism that did him in:
https://politicalwire.com/2016/10/20/trumps-self-absorption-killed-chances/
Trump Claims Fox News’s Chris Wallace Rigged The Debate For Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump is claiming that the third presidential debate was fixed as he believes that Fox News's Chris Wallace gave Hillary Clinton the questions in advance.
The woman at Hillary's podium was actually a mannequin. She was in her Scooby van sleeping.
Trump Claims Fox News’s Chris Wallace Rigged The Debate For Hillary Clinton
Something tells me that this is just another person with comprehension problems. Probably tweedledumb or tweedledumber over at electoraldummies.com?
There was an exchange last night between Donna Brazile and Megyn Kelly about some leaked emails that showed Clinton got the questions before the CNN debate... something Trump put up on Twitter and provided the following response:
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions - she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
He never mentioned Chris Wallace or the third debate. Especially considering Chris Wallace gave EVERYONE the debate subjects ahead of time.
Ahem...
Ahem. There is a difference between debate subjects and debate questions. Ahem.
Donald Trump is claiming that the third presidential debate was fixed as he believes that Fox News's Chris Wallace gave Hillary Clinton the questions in advance.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/20/trump-claims-fox-newss-chris-wallace-rigged-debate-hillary-clinton.html
tell lil jason that trump was referring to bo bo brazil feeding hillary questions.
geezus, liberals are so fucking stupid i'm surprised they've mastered the art of walking upright.
"I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election -- if I win."
--Trump, at his rally in Delaware, Ohio.
____________
Er... Donald, the primaries are over and you're supposed
to be appealing to ALL the people of America now.
Er... Donald, the primaries are over and you're supposed
to be appealing to ALL the people of America now.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
he's only appealing to his BASKET OF DEPLORABLES.
fuck the hillary supporters.
geezus, liberals are so fucking stupid i'm surprised they've mastered the art of walking upright.
They certainly have not mastered the art of thinking for themselves. C&P C&P C&P
he's only appealing to his BASKET OF DEPLORABLES.
______________
You said it, I didn't.
i did, proving that hillary has made it clear that she doesn't represent them, nor all of america.
she only represents her supporters.
OCTOBER 20, 2016
JAMES TARANTO: Trump vs. Gore: The question nobody asked the 2000 loser.
Let’s try a thought experiment. Suppose that during one of the October 2000 presidential debates, Vice President Al Gore had been asked the following question: “Do you make the . . . commitment that you’ll absolutely accept the result of the election?” Moderator Chris Wallace put that query to Donald Trump last night.
Now for the experimental part: Imagine Gore giving a completely truthful answer—that is, an answer that not only reflected his honest intent but accurately anticipated how he would respond to various scenarios, including the one that actually obtained.
It seems to us that Gore’s hypothetical answer would be similar to Trump’s actual one—not the long back-and-forth in which Trump enumerated complaints including media bias, FBI corruption and poorly maintained voter roles, but the prospective bottom line, to wit: “I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I’ll look at it at the time. . . . What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?”
Gore probably wouldn’t have said “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?”—that’s a distinctly Trumpian bit of showmanship—but if he were being completely truthful, he would say, as Trump did, that he would keep his options open and respond to circumstances as they arose. And did they ever arise. True, Gore delivered a gracious concession speech, but not until Dec. 13, more than a month after Election Day.
It isn’t hard to imagine a counterfactual scenario in which Gore would have conceded on the normal schedule. If George W. Bush’s initial margin in Florida had been, say, 60,000 votes (just over 1% of the total) instead of around 2,000, there would have been nothing to contest. But the narrow margin in a decisive state led to weeks of lawsuits and selective recounts—and, even after Gore’s concession, to years of bitter claims that he wuz robbed.
Among those bitterly clinging to the myth of the stolen election—or at least propagating it for political purposes—was Hillary Clinton.
As I say, Trump’s real sin is campaigning like a Democrat while running as a Republican.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/246904/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pjmedia%2Finstapundit+%28Instapundit%29
***she only represents her supporters.***
Which, as this election will make clear, constitute a majority of the voters.
James - you believe she will garner 50.1% of the vote?
Post a Comment