Will you accept the election results?

[Seth]

The usefulness of bringing up the point which you find to be so obvious is that people are declaring the election as a "should have been Hillary's win" because the popular vote went her way under the electoral college rules. The point I raises it that the outcome could reasonably have been different had the rules been different going in. We don't know. And, it's really not relevant to say that the popular vote went to Hillary this time, since that wasn't the operative figure.

Frankly, I am not impressed by people who say "should have been Hillary's win". They can say is: "If the election was determined directly by popular vote, i.e. without the intermediate step of the electoral college, Hillary would have won." And they can say: "The electoral college makes the election by the people unfair and therefore it should not exist." Contracting those two statements to "It should have been Hillary's win" is a step too far, for as you pointed out, all candidates were aware of the rules before they entered. Not only that, but neither the existence of the electoral college nor how the whole electoral system currently works were secrets kept from the voters. I bet they'd complain about it as much as Trump voters currently do, had the boot been on the other foot.

Still, I don't see any use pointing out that the vote count may or may not have been different under a different system. The whingers will just make a minor adjustment to their complaint. "Clinton would have won with the votes she got, had it not been for the electoral college." Your point would have been safe to ignore as far as they concerned because you have no way of saying if Clinton would have been better off, worse off, or if there would have been any difference at all. That inability would have made your suggestion something not a million miles removed in appearance from a null hypothesis.

The usefulness of bringing up the point which you find to be so obvious

Actually, I didn't, and I obviously still don't.

Worse, the potential is extremely high that the "popular vote" argument is based on a fraud and that Trump did in fact win the popular vote. True the Vote is embarking on a project to review votes nationwide for illegal voting by illegal aliens and other vote irregularities. Its intention is not to dispute or confirm this election, but to reveal possible systemic voter fraud and reveal who perpetrated it in hopes of stimulating debate and legislative action to prevent such a thing from happening again.

So, to the "Hillary won the popular vote" ideologists: We'll see down the road whether that remains true after all the votes have been verified for eligibility of the voter.

[Hermit]

the potential is extremely high that the "popular vote" argument is based on a fraud and that Trump did in fact win the popular vote.

[Seth]

the potential is extremely high that the "popular vote" argument is based on a fraud and that Trump did in fact win the popular vote.

That's not a rebuttal, it's a confirmation of my Alinsky-tactics claim.

[Hermit]

the potential is extremely high that the "popular vote" argument is based on a fraud and that Trump did in fact win the popular vote.

That's not a rebuttal...

It couldn't possibly be a rebuttal. The only thing that can be done with bald assertions proffered without commensurate factual backup is to laugh at them.

[Scot Dutchy]

Where is the evidence?
This is exactly how the post-truth era works. Tell a lie as there are always idiots that will believe it.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Which Autocrat was the Constitution supposed to protect us against? Trump of Hillary? How about Bush? Gore would have been the wimp that the Constitution likes.

Had Gore been President, we would have had an Iraq War with a Republican opposition. Remember, Clinton/Gore were in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein, and were listening to the same intelligence briefings and information that the Bush government was listening to. They would have made the same move, because it was governed by geopolitical and strategic interests that went well beyond 9/11/01.

Probably, but they may have handled it better, and not let the whole post-war internal chaos happen.

We'll never know. But, I don't know why you believe that to be likely. Do Democrats have a better invasion record or something?

[pErvinalia]

What a ridiculous segment. Trump's reason for refusing to accept the outcome was empty rhetoric about vote rigging. He had zero evidence for any rigging. There is evidence now to question the legitimacy of the electronic votes in those three states.

[Tero]

We now have data. Of the 2 million Hillary votes, 19 were dead people.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-3 ... e-virginia

[Forty Two]

What a ridiculous segment. Trump's reason for refusing to accept the outcome was empty rhetoric about vote rigging. He had zero evidence for any rigging. There is evidence now to question the legitimacy of the electronic votes in those three states.

LOL - what evidence?

And, if you watched the segment, they played Trump's comments on why he would not simply go on record as saying he would not just say he would accept the results of the election. He explained that he would reserve his right to make appropriate challenges if questionable things happened.

For that the chicken littles screamed and yelled about the threat to the foundations of democracy.

And, who gives a shit about people saying the system is rigged? Hillary said it. Obama said it. Democrats said it all the time.

[pErvinalia]

What a ridiculous segment. Trump's reason for refusing to accept the outcome was empty rhetoric about vote rigging. He had zero evidence for any rigging. There is evidence now to question the legitimacy of the electronic votes in those three states.

LOL - what evidence?

LOL - there's a considerable discrepancy between paper votes and electronic votes regarding relative proportions between Trump and Clinton.

And, if you watched the segment, they played Trump's comments on why he would not simply go on record as saying he would not just say he would accept the results of the election. He explained that he would reserve his right to make appropriate challenges if questionable things happened.

For that the chicken littles screamed and yelled about the threat to the foundations of democracy.

He was spouting empty rhetoric for the purposes of ramping up the fear about a "crooked" elite. He had zero evidence of any vote fraud. He wasn't making an intelligent rejoinder. He was peddling fear, like he did for the majority of his campaign.

And, who gives a shit about people saying the system is rigged? Hillary said it. Obama said it. Democrats said it all the time.

Trump had zero evidence it was rigged against him.

[Forty Two]

What a ridiculous segment. Trump's reason for refusing to accept the outcome was empty rhetoric about vote rigging. He had zero evidence for any rigging. There is evidence now to question the legitimacy of the electronic votes in those three states.

LOL - what evidence?

LOL - there's a considerable discrepancy between paper votes and electronic votes regarding relative proportions between Trump and Clinton.

Link?

And, if you watched the segment, they played Trump's comments on why he would not simply go on record as saying he would not just say he would accept the results of the election. He explained that he would reserve his right to make appropriate challenges if questionable things happened.

For that the chicken littles screamed and yelled about the threat to the foundations of democracy.

He was spouting empty rhetoric for the purposes of ramping up the fear about a "crooked" elite. He had zero evidence of any vote fraud. He wasn't making an intelligent rejoinder. He was peddling fear, like he did for the majority of his campaign.

Oh, god. Peddling fear. LOL. You mean like the crying nabobs who have been pretending to shake and vomit in fear over Trump being President? The people who have gone around suggesting that people are in legitimate fear for their safety because the other candidate won? That kind of fear mongering?

Look - Hillary never said she'd unconditionally accept the election results, and that's because people weren't asking her. The media participated in a political ploy. Ask Donald to commit to accepting the results whatever the are, and when he doesn't we can scream and yell about how he is threatening the foundations of democracy. It was all an orchestrated political ploy. Nonsense.

And, who gives a shit about people saying the system is rigged? Hillary said it. Obama said it. Democrats said it all the time.

Trump had zero evidence it was rigged against him.

Nobody has evidence that the system is rigged against them. But, Trump had hard evidence that almost every establishment politician was working against him. He had his own party doing everything in its power to keep him from being elected. He was talking about the system being rigged against the common person - the persons to whom he was appealing for votes. And, they know the system is rigged - it's rigged in the same way the Occupy folks originally said it was rigged - by crony capitalists and the lobbyist class, and the entrenched establishment in government. Trump said he knew it was rigged, because he was paying out millions into that system for decades - donating to the Clintons and other politicians and he said what everyone knows - he paid for access, so they'd pick up the phone and do what he wants them to do when he needs something done.

[Seth]

Where is the evidence?
This is exactly how the post-truth era works. Tell a lie as there are always idiots that will believe it.

Do you know who developed that tactic? Liberals.

[Seth]

Which Autocrat was the Constitution supposed to protect us against? Trump of Hillary? How about Bush? Gore would have been the wimp that the Constitution likes.

Had Gore been President, we would have had an Iraq War with a Republican opposition. Remember, Clinton/Gore were in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein, and were listening to the same intelligence briefings and information that the Bush government was listening to. They would have made the same move, because it was governed by geopolitical and strategic interests that went well beyond 9/11/01.

Probably, but they may have handled it better, and not let the whole post-war internal chaos happen.

We'll never know. But, I don't know why you believe that to be likely. Do Democrats have a better invasion record or something?

No. He's just carping because he didn't like the fact that it was Bush in office in the first place. He'd have been behind the war wholeheartedly if it had been initiated by Gore.

[Seth]

He was spouting empty rhetoric for the purposes of ramping up the fear about a "crooked" elite. He had zero evidence of any vote fraud. He wasn't making an intelligent rejoinder. He was peddling fear, like he did for the majority of his campaign.

And it worked. Hee hee. Suck it up, buttercup, liberal fascism lost.