Well, watching post-debate coverage on CNN, all these people have talked about is Trump's statement about not accepting the election results. They have discussed ONLY that.
3rd Debate
- Thread starter UNC71-00
- Start date
Eh, I'd prefer the latter. As I've stated before, whoever wins this election will be a botch of epic proportions (but for different reasons). If it's Trump, he spooks people from voting anti-establishment for awhile. If it's Clinton, she convinces people to vote anti-establishment for the foreseeable future.
Only thing they could focus on that makes Trump look worse than Clinton in this one. Makes perfect sense to me. Well played.
I would love to vote for an anti-establishment candidate that was worth a damn. I just don't think Trump is. Like I said, I'm not voting for either him or Hillary though.
Also, I thought his 'nasty woman' comment was actually pretty playful.
Oh, that... and when he spoke over her and said "What a nasty woman." But, 99% of what I am seeing is the part about the election results.
It's a shame that they won't talk more about details of the issues. I wanted to hear more about the alleged Russian/espionage factor. Also about her accepting money from Saudi Arabian interests.
On the plus side, I think Chris Wallace did a good job. There was more discussion on policy in this debate by a wide margin.
Not even true. I think we are losing no matter what. The only reason I'd like to see Donald win it is so I can say I told you so.
He can manage the business end, no doubt, but the rest of it, forget it unless he is allowed to hire those jobs out.
He's not taking it for granted.
Unlike Hillary and all the polls that take for granted the same numbers and levels of support from AA voters.
How soon the media forgets Al Gore challenging the 2000 election all the way to the supreme court. Liberals are such hypocrites.
Trump has every right to challenge the election through the court system, and if that is what he means he needs to say so.
She ducked questions all night. So we should dismiss wiki emails because Russia stole them? So if I still had kids and needed a babysitter but I illegally found out my regular babysitter was a meth head I should hire them anyway? Great logic Hildabeast.
IIRC, it was Bush that filed the appeal to the US Supreme Court over a Florida Supreme Court's decision.
Bush was certified as winner in Florida on November 18 and Gore began litigation immediately afterwards.
Which also came after Gore demanded a manual recount.
I had no problem with Gore or Bush in that election. Both had an obligation to the American voters to have that settled through the court system.
All of that was done in the state of Florida.
November 21, 2000
• The Florida Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rules that that manual recounts may continue and that the totals must be included in the final results. Court sets as deadline for certifying the election Nov. 26, a Sunday, or early Nov. 27.
November 22, 2000
• Bush files petition for certiorari in United States Supreme Court, asking for review of Florida Supreme Court ruling.
Bush was the first to approach the US Supreme Court.
Sure. Bush was the first to approach the Supremes. He did not initiate any litigation- it only went to the SCOTUS after Gore filed suits in Florida. If Gore had accepted the results of the election (just like you would want Donald to do), then there would have been no litigation.
But you knew all that already.
What is not relevant? That Democrats only want Republicans to accept results at face value while reserving the right to contest if the need arises?
I would imagine that sort of thing wouldn't be relevant to the average Hillary supporter, but pardon the rest of the world for thinking otherwise.
If, its that close come November 9th then I would have no problem with anyone pursuing a legitimate and certified election. (Not that this upcoming election has really any chance of that happening though.)
How many uncounted votes were there in FLA in 2000 . . ?
Because it's yet another thing that news outlets can harp on to take the attention away from policies.
Because he's not a Democrat.
Obviously both of you don't think it's a big deal. I was hoping to hear from someone that does think it's a big deal and have them tell me why they think it's a big deal.
Pocahontas may be dumbest person in Washington. I hope Curt Schilling hands her, her ass.
I thought it was very considerate of Hillary last night to let our enemies know that it takes 4 minutes once the POTUS gives the order to launch our nukes.
All a bunch of deplorables, right?
Just out of curiosity, why are you backing Hillary other than she's a Democrat?
I don't personally have any issue with him saying right now that he can accept something and have no knowledge of the variables that may occur then.
