Why Should Trump Accept the Election Results? What a ridiculous suggestion)

American Thinker ^ | October 22, 2016 | Jonathan F. Keiler

[Kaslin]

The headline on the October 20 edition of the Washington Post blared, "Trump won't vow to honor results," referring to the election that the Post devoutly hopes will go to his opponent, the corrupt and criminal Hillary Clinton. The Post's exaggerated headline is only symptomatic of the hyperventilating on both sides of the aisle over Trump's refusal to commit to personally accepting a negative election result. The fact is, Trump's position is both quite logical and constitutionally inconsequential.

Most obviously, Trump believes, with some good reason, that the election process as a whole is "rigged" against him (and by extension any Republican candidate). In light of Trump's having stated that position, and supported it at least in part, it actually is rather absurd to expect him to have answered Chris Wallace's question during the debate other than how he did. Would it have been better for Trump to have said something like "Well, sure, Chris – even though I believe that Hillary belongs in jail, the Democrats are engaged in voting fraud, and the mainstream media has abandoned any hint of objectivity in order to see an utterly corrupt candidate elected, I'll accept the results of the election, no matter how egregious, unethical, immoral, unfair and criminal they may be"? That would have been an illogical statement

Politically, perhaps, it would have been advisable – a debatable point, given Trump's appeal as someone who tells it like it is – for Trump to have simply said, "Yes, I'll accept the result." That he did not was not only rational, but ethical.

Trump is not delusional, though the Democrats and the mainstream media do all they can to make it seem that way. Trump says the election is "rigged," and that is a not unreasonable position.

[broken_arrow1]

They have to chose a statement Trump gave at the debate to attack him. If he hadn’t said that, they would have chosen another for headline...

[Doogle]

....thought Trumps tweekin the MSM during the week was great....” I’ll accept the results......if I win”....Tantrums all across the nation in newsrooms...LOL

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[equaviator]

Trump supporters and Hillary’s opposition should all consider voter-election fraud to be an obstruction of justice. This is real disenfranchisement of the worst kind and it’s one of those things in the world that is far worse than racism.

[Kaslin]

I agree.

[C210N]

"Well, sure, Chris – even though I believe that Hillary belongs in jail, the Democrats are engaged in voting fraud, and the mainstream media has abandoned any hint of objectivity in order to see an utterly corrupt candidate elected, I'll accept the results of the election, no matter how egregious, unethical, immoral, unfair and criminal they may be"

Actually, that would have been a fine answer too. As long as he said it in a dripping sarcastic tone, of course. It would be the Alinsky-like answer to the Alinsky-like sycophantic left.

[Robert DeLong]

Does it mean active voter fraud operations? Yes. Those are relatively rare,

That statement is pure BS. Too often it is not even investigated to fully grasp the degree to which corruption plays a part in our elections. That fact that we have any, means that we have only uncovered a small percentage of the cheating that has occurred.

[5by5]

Short simple answer “I’ll accept the results of this election when you accept rhe results of 2000.”

[Ouderkirk]

Chris Wallace’s question was intended as a “kill shot” to Trump. If he accepted the premise, it was a license to steal the election, and then lord it over him if he decides to challenge the results if they look fishy.