Top Republicans, led by Trump, refuse to commit to accept 2024 election results

[impartialobserver]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Claims of voter fraud" mean nothing when they come from a pathological liar like Trump who FAILED to prove those claims in 60+ court cases.

Why would you believe they mean ANYTHING? You KNOW he'd been making claims of a rigged election before it was even held. Do you find that credible, too? LMAO

My point is that these claims exist... clear enough? or do I need to wrap it up in partisan rhetoric in order for you to understand simple English.

[User]

39 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No, it is clear that Trump will try another rebellion if he loses in November.  

There was never a first rebellion. No, it is not clear he will try anything like that in November if he loses again. It is the Democrats who spent the first 2 years of Bidens term setting the stage for claiming the election will be stolen. 

 

[Fluffypants]

This is the stupidest question the media loves to ask Republicans and not Democrats. Lets be honest here, if it is super close everyone will try to take whatever legal action they can to dispute the election and saying they will commit to honoring the election results no matter what is pointless because no one can see the future. Honestly the question is pointless because any who says they will commit is lying.

They just want them on record for saying it so they can hammer them on it if its close and they fight it.

That is probably why they don't ask Democrats.

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by Fluffypants

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

My point is that these claims exist... clear enough? or do I need to wrap it up in partisan rhetoric in order for you to understand simple English.

 

We all know that claims which are a dime a dozen exist. You're spreading them right here.

And you won't even say whether YOU BELIEVE THEM.

Why are you spreading claims when you can't even say they're true?

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, User said:

There was never a first rebellion. No, it is not clear he will try anything like that in November if he loses again. It is the Democrats who spent the first 2 years of Bidens term setting the stage for claiming the election will be stolen. 

There is EVIDENCE that the coming election will be challenged with VIOLENCE if Trump loses.

That EVIDENCE was provided by Trump and HIS GOONS in 2021. He STILL has NOT CONCEDED HE LOST.

And ALSO his REFUSAL to commit to accepting the RESULTS after all legitimate challenges are resolved.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

This is the stupidest question the media loves to ask Republicans and not Democrats. Lets be honest here, if it is super close everyone will try to take whatever legal action they can to dispute the election and saying they will commit to honoring the election results no matter what is pointless because no one can see the future. Honestly the question is pointless because any who says they will commit is lying.

They just want them on record for saying it so they can hammer them on it if its close and they fight it.

That is probably why they don't ask Democrats.

Democrats will and do answer they will accept the results. 

RepubliCONS won't even answer cause Trump will skewer them.

See Tim Scott on Face the Nation last Sunday.

[User]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There is EVIDENCE that the coming election will be challenged with VIOLENCE if Trump loses.

That EVIDENCE was provided by Trump and HIS GOONS in 2021. He STILL has NOT CONCEDED HE LOST.

So, you have no evidence of any plot to challenge the coming election with violence. You are speculating at best. 

You still think Gore won, so... what is your point? Gore and Clinton both still go around saying they won. 

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

And ALSO his REFUSAL to commit to accepting the RESULTS after all legitimate challenges are resolved.

And? Gore, Clinton, you, and a ton of Democrats still don't accept the results of elections. What is your point?

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, User said:

Right... just like Clinton continued to call him an illegitimate President too, went on to say the election was stolen, just like you and others still think Al Gore really won. 

Trump left office peacefully. He walked out and made a transition to the Biden team. 

You can’t even compare the two. Trump never formally conceded. He continues to push his stolen election lies to this day and is already setting the stage for 2024 election lies in case he loses. In hoth 2016 and 2020 he said out loud he would only accept the election results if he won. He launched a number of schools to steal the 2020 election amd Jan 6 wasn’t peaceful.
 

Clinton and Gore both officially conceded and didn’t push conspiracies and lies and try to steal the election. Hillary’s one-time offhand remark on a talk show THE VIEW doesn’t compare with Trump’s constant lies about the 2020 election that ha brainwashed millions of his mindless followers. Gore also never called Bush an illegitimate president.

4 hours ago, User said:

And no, Gore would not have won. The Ballots were already recounted, what he wanted was to interpret the intent of voters when they did not clearly mark their ballots. Only if you hand recount the problem ballots and give Gore the 100% most favorable "interpretation" of presuming someone voted for him, even though they didn't clearly mark their ballots, would he have maybe have won, and that was not even what Gore was asking for in his recount challenge. 

Analysis of Florida Ballots Proves Favorable to Bush

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/us/analysis-of-florida-ballots-proves-favorable-to-bush.html

.No, you don’t understand the recount issue.  Both sides disagreed on exactly which districts and polling stations should be recounted with Jeb Bush and republicans only wanting to recount districts that would likely be favourable to Bush and Gore wanting those favourable to Dems. In the end the Court ruled that Jeb as governor can count any way he pleases. 
 

What a STATE-WIDE review revealed afterwards was that Gore likely would NOT have won if the districts he requested had been recounted HOWEVER if the entire state had been recounted (which he didn’t request) he would have won. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, User said:

So, you have no evidence of any plot to challenge the coming election with violence. You are speculating at best. 

I told you about the evidence. Let us know when Trump commits to accepting the results of the election.

1 hour ago, User said:

You still think Gore won, so... what is your point? Gore and Clinton both still go around saying they won. 

I never said Gore won. In fact it is UNKNOWN since the SCOTUS STOPPED THE COUNT. AKA you're LYING.

1 hour ago, User said:

And? Gore, Clinton, you, and a ton of Democrats still don't accept the results of elections. What is your point?

Both CONCEDED. Trump HAS NOT, and keeps spreading the "stolen" LIE. Duh

[User]

28 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You can’t even compare the two. Trump never formally conceded. He continues to push his stolen election lies to this day and is already setting the stage for 2024 election lies in case he loses. In hoth 2016 and 2020 he said out loud he would only accept the election results if he won. He launched a number of schools to steal the 2020 election amd Jan 6 wasn’t peaceful.
 

Clinton and Gore both officially conceded and didn’t push conspiracies and lies and try to steal the election. Hillary’s one-time offhand remark on a talk show THE VIEW doesn’t compare with Trump’s constant lies about the 2020 election that ha brainwashed millions of his mindless followers. Gore also never called Bush an illegitimate president.

Of course, I can compare the two. I just did. You just don't like to acknowledge the facts here, that both Clinton and Gore engaged in the same petty game Trump did and does. All you can do is try to downplay it. So, they didn't do it as much as Trump... LOL, that is your big sticking point? OK. And those were just the comments from them, nevermind many Democrats all still push the same crap. Democrats spent most of the Trump presidency trying to destroy him with the bogus Russia collusion nonsense, with good ol Adam Schiff coming out like every week lying to the media saying this was the big week where all the evidence he had was coming to light. 

There is no "formal" concession process that any of them did that Trump did not. What, you think calling someone from the Hotel room in the middle of the night after they counted most of the votes to say you "concede" is a "formality?"

Again, for all practical purposes of concession to the Presidency, Trump left. Trump left peacefully. He walked right out the door, got on the helicopter, and flew away. He publically announced his administration was transferring over to Bidens. Here you go again, don't believe me, believe the media who reported it:

"President Trump concedes, condemns supporters who rioted"

This was reported on by several major media organizations like CNN, all calling it a concession. Don't believe me, believe them. 

No, January 6th was not peaceful, but Trumps inauguration was not peaceful either. Should I blame all the Democrats for that? Trump did not call for violence on the 6th. 

40 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No, you don’t understand the recount issue.  Both sides disagreed on exactly which districts and polling stations should be recounted with Jeb Bush and republicans only wanting to recount districts that would likely be favourable to Bush and Gore wanting those favourable to Dems. In the end the Court ruled that Jeb as governor can count any way he pleases. 
 

What a STATE-WIDE review revealed afterwards was that Gore likely would NOT have won if the districts he requested had been recounted HOWEVER if the entire state had been recounted (which he didn’t request) he would have won. 

I understand just fine. I explained it to you. They already had recounts, what Gore wanted was to hand recount certain ballots a certain way that most favored him. 

I noticed you ignored that he also tried to have his lawyers throw out votes from the Military as well. It was all an orchestrated scheme to push any legal theory they could that would benefit them the most, to steal the election. 

The Suprme Court ruling was not that Jeb can count anyway he pleases. It was not even Jeb... the sitting Governor doesn't control the elections. That is the Secretary of State. Florida law was followed on Machine recounts, not just however Jeb wanted. Where do you even get this nonsense?

This was the primary holding:

"Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/

I already pointed this out before:

The only way Gore wins is if they hand recount under the most favorable conditions for him in "interpreting" how someone meant to vote because they were too stupid to check their ballots to see that they fully pushed out the chad or they were too stupid to only make one choice for President. 

You know what works and doesn't rely on biased human "interpretations?"

The machines. They counted the ballots how they were designed to be counted. You punched the hole or you didn't. 

 

[User]

55 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I told you about the evidence. Let us know when Trump commits to accepting the results of the election.

No you didn't. There is no evidence that there will be violence if Trump loses. You are speculating. Which is why you have no evidence. 

56 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I never said Gore won. In fact it is UNKNOWN since the SCOTUS STOPPED THE COUNT. AKA you're LYING.

Nope, you never said Gore won... you just went along with the nonsense that it was not a legitimate election. There were multiple machine recounts. Bush won. You choose to continue to spread this nonsense instead of accepting the election results. 

 

58 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Both CONCEDED. Trump HAS NOT, and keeps spreading the "stolen" LIE. Duh

Yes, he did. As reported on by many major media outlets. See my response above. 

[robosmith]

Rubio, a Trump V.P. Contender, Won’t Commit to Certifying 2024 Results

Quote

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has been floated as a possible running mate for Donald Trump, refused to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 presidential election and repeated conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

He deflected follow-up questions by falsely claiming that Hillary Clinton had denied her loss in 2016. 

Add Rubio to the list which already includes Vance and Scott, cause they know Trump will dump if they do. 🤮
 

[Fluffypants]

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Rubio, a Trump V.P. Contender, Won’t Commit to Certifying 2024 Results

Add Rubio to the list which already includes Vance and Scott, cause they know Trump will dump if they do. 🤮
 

If Biden lose by one percent in one swing state that loses him the election do you honestly think he will just accept the election results no matter what?

[robosmith]

On 5/17/2024 at 12:59 PM, User said:

You know what works and doesn't rely on biased human "interpretations?"

The machines. They counted the ballots how they were designed to be counted. You punched the hole or you didn't. 

You don't understand what happened in FL. For instance, there were numerous reports of vote counting machines which were not cleaned of vote chads and that made it difficult to impossible to punch the cards in the locations which were "full" of previously punched chads.

And that was just one of the deficiencies of voting with punch cards. Another was the infamous "hanging chads" which were only PARTIALLY punched. AKA human error was involved.

[robosmith]

13 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

If Biden lose by one percent in one swing state that loses him the election do you honestly think he will just accept the election results no matter what?

Depends. He will ask for a recount and accept the results if there is no EVIDENCE of FRAUD.

Trump challenged and LOST the vote count in 60+ court cases, but still would not concede. He's STILL saying he WON.

[User]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

You don't understand what happened in FL. For instance, there were numerous reports of vote counting machines which were not cleaned of vote chads and that made it difficult to impossible to punch the cards in the locations which were "full" of previously punched chads.

And that was just one of the deficiencies of voting with punch cards. Another was the infamous "hanging chads" which were only PARTIALLY punched. AKA human error was involved.

Nothing you said contradicts me or explains how I didn't understand. 

The fact that people turned in ballots that were not complete or accurately marked is still their either punching a hole or not punching a hole. 

And if they failed to punch the hole to the point the machines couldn't tell... then it was humans trying to "interpret" their intent. The machines recounted the votes. Gore lost. 

 

[CdnFox]

On 5/16/2024 at 9:40 AM, robosmith said:

The article is not about "some politician trying to win a race," it is about ALL the SYCOPHANTS who face PRESSURE to deny the election results WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

More precisely, they deny acceptance of the RESULTS (post legitimate disputes/recounts) solely to please the LIAR Trump.

Wow sounds pretty bad. I guess you better vote for trump to avoid all that huh?

[robosmith]

58 minutes ago, User said:

Nothing you said contradicts me or explains how I didn't understand. 

The fact that people turned in ballots that were not complete or accurately marked is still their either punching a hole or not punching a hole. 

Nope. The deficiencies of the punching MACHINES played a huge role and as a result there were many PARTIALLY PUNCHED votes. AKA not the BINARY RESULT YOU CLAIMED. Duh

 

[User]

34 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nope. The deficiencies of the punching MACHINES played a huge role and as a result there were many PARTIALLY PUNCHED votes. AKA not the BINARY RESULT YOU CLAIMED. Duh

What in the world are you even talking about?

Its like you talk past me, not even bothering to read anything I say. What binary result did I claim that anything you are saying here contradicts?

Gore lost. You are here peddling the same kind of garbage you feign outrage over. 

 

Edited May 23, 2024 by User

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, User said:

Nothing you said contradicts me or explains how I didn't understand. 

The fact that people turned in ballots that were not complete or accurately marked is still their either punching a hole or not punching a hole. 

1 hour ago, User said:

What in the world are you even talking about?

I'm talking about you stating that "not complete or accurately marked" is a binary result. IT'S NOT.

The punch cards were ONLY "marked" with punches. It was the voting machine which CONTROLLED the punches.

1 hour ago, User said:

Its like you talk past me, not even bothering to read anything I say. What binary result did I claim that anything you are saying here contradicts?

I read what you wrote, MORE THAN TWICE. It's WRONG.

1 hour ago, User said:

Gore lost. You are here peddling the same kind of garbage you feign outrage over. 

 

You're not making any sense. If a punch card is fully punched (chad gone), that is one result. If a chad has NO SIGN of a punch, that is another result (chad fully intact with no deformation).

But IN REALITY some chads had ONLY dimples (PARTIAL PUNCH) and others had "hanging chads" also partial punch.

It was the machine's design which produced non-binary results (AKA AMBIGUOUS) results, and THAT is what made the recount arduous and very time consuming.

The SCOTUS cancelled the full state recount, so no one knows who actually won.

So you see, what should be a machine that gives a clear BINARY result, in REALITY gives AMBIGUOUS RESULTS. AKA NOT the BINARY RESULT THAT YOU CLAIM.

Do you understand now? I doubt it.

 

[Fluffypants]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

Depends. He will ask for a recount and accept the results if there is no EVIDENCE of FRAUD.

Trump challenged and LOST the vote count in 60+ court cases, but still would not concede. He's STILL saying he WON.

That is not accepting the election no matter what, that is what the media is asking of Republicans. No matter what means you can't challenge the results at all that is what "no matter what" means.

Hilary still thinks the election was stolen and tells every new station that will listen. Gore still think the election was stolen.

[User]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

I'm talking about you stating that "not complete or accurately marked" is a binary result. IT'S NOT.

The punch cards were ONLY "marked" with punches. It was the voting machine which CONTROLLED the punches.

No, it was not. They were given punch cards and the voting "machine" was a manual punch tool they were provided attached to the "machine"

https://www.si.edu/object/voting-machine-used-2000-presidential-election%3Anmaahc_2013.181.1a-h

"To the right of the plastic cover is red type. In the top right corner of the voting surface is a metal chain connected to a metal point meant to be held by the voter. "

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

I read what you wrote, MORE THAN TWICE. It's WRONG.

What is wrong? I asked you to tell me, not make the same assertion again. 

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're not making any sense. If a punch card is fully punched (chad gone), that is one result. If a chad has NO SIGN of a punch, that is another result (chad fully intact with no deformation).

But IN REALITY some chads had ONLY dimples (PARTIAL PUNCH) and others had "hanging chads" also partial punch.

It was the machine's design which produced non-binary results (AKA AMBIGUOUS) results, and THAT is what made the recount arduous and very time consuming.

The SCOTUS cancelled the full state recount, so no one knows who actually won.

So you see, what should be a machine that gives a clear BINARY result, in REALITY gives AMBIGUOUS RESULTS. AKA NOT the BINARY RESULT THAT YOU CLAIM.

Do you understand now? I doubt it.

I am making perfect sense. Once voters punched their ballots, they were taken to a machine to be scanned (counted). It is their fault that they failed to check their ballots to ensure they were properly marked. When these were counted at the end of the night, Gore lost. 

The recounts used machines to scan the ballots for proper markings again. Gore Lost. 

What Gore wanted to do was to manually review those ballots that were not properly marked to try to interpret voter intent. He only wanted to do this in the districts that most favored him. They wanted to presume in the most favorable instances to them. Gore also tried to get Military ballots thrown out. Gore was trying to steal the election. 

The SCOTUS ruled:

"Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies."

There had already been a recount with the scanning machines. Gore Lost. 

Instead of accepting these basic facts, you are no better than what you think of Trump for not accepting his loss. 

 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

That is not accepting the election no matter what, that is what the media is asking of Republicans. No matter what means you can't challenge the results at all that is what "no matter what" means.

No one said Trump could not challenge the results LEGITIMATELY IN COURT. He did that, AND LOST. That is THE END.

But Trump didn't STOP THERE, he INCITED VIOLENCE and TRIED to intimidate Pence into an ILLEGAL CHALLENGE.

4 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Hilary still thinks the election was stolen and tells every new station that will listen.

You're LYING.

4 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Gore still think the election was stolen.

What Gore probably believes is that the SCOTUS decision was CORRUPT. And a strong indicator of that is they said it SET NO PRECEDENT.

Both CONCEDED. They NEVER said they won the elections like Trump STILL DOES all the time.

Seems you've joined the MAGA CULT to push their FALSE EQUIVALENCES. 🤮

[impartialobserver]

Recently mail in ballots were sent out in NV. There were errors? Immediately the conspiracy theories started coming in. Guess what? It was all wrong. Simple logistical error. They printed on 3 instances and one was in error. The third job, the one that contained the errors was sent out inadvertently. This is how the Internet and discussion forums are not helpful. Simple, garden variety human error was to blame.. nothing nearly as grand or exciting as certain types would like it to be. This small time case exemplifies the sore loser act that everybody in politics seems to portray. Nobody can simply lose.. it was rigged. 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, User said:

No, it was not. They were given punch cards and the voting "machine" was a manual punch tool they were provided attached to the "machine"

https://www.si.edu/object/voting-machine-used-2000-presidential-election%3Anmaahc_2013.181.1a-h

"To the right of the plastic cover is red type. In the top right corner of the voting surface is a metal chain connected to a metal point meant to be held by the voter. "

The machine controlled how the punch tool interacted with the card, NOT THE VOTER.

3 hours ago, User said:

What is wrong? I asked you to tell me, not make the same assertion again. 

I explained it to you AGAIN, cause you STILL FAILED to understand due to cognitive dissonance.

3 hours ago, User said:

I am making perfect sense. Once voters punched their ballots, they were taken to a machine to be scanned (counted). It is their fault that they failed to check their ballots to ensure they were properly marked. When these were counted at the end of the night, Gore lost. 

Prove it. Where are the instructions telling the voter to check the scan and flag errors?

Thanks for admitting that the machines were SO UNRELIABLE they produced AMBIGUOUS RESULTS.

That is why those machines were discarded.

3 hours ago, User said:

The recounts used machines to scan the ballots for proper markings again. Gore Lost. 

The machines were defective because they produced UNINTENDED RESULTS.

3 hours ago, User said:

What Gore wanted to do was to manually review those ballots that were not properly marked to try to interpret voter intent. He only wanted to do this in the districts that most favored him. They wanted to presume in the most favorable instances to them. Gore also tried to get Military ballots thrown out. Gore was trying to steal the election. 

The SCOTUS ruled:

"Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies."

There had already been a recount with the scanning machines. Gore Lost. 

You've already admitted the machines were defective, because they produced AMBIGUOUS RESULTS.

3 hours ago, User said:

Instead of accepting these basic facts, you are no better than what you think of Trump for not accepting his loss. 

You are FULL OF SHIT. Trump incited violence in an ILLEGAL ATTEMPT to overturn the election and intimidated elections officials to change the count.

I HAVE DONE NOTHING to change ANY ELECTION DECISION. 

Thanks for proving just how UNHINGED YOU ARE. 👋