Posted on 10/20/2016 4:34:12 AM PDT by Zakeet
A candidate’s non-acceptance of an election doesn’t invalidate the election. What’s the big deal?
The msm again.
They’ll do quite literally anything to cast Trump in an unfavorable light.
Note they say he “refused” to say he would accept...he did not refuse anything, he said he would wait and see what the results were. He could have been clearer and made a distinction between accepting any contested results but it is what it is.
They have nothing but are going to conflate this into a new crisis. This needs be addressed pronto with ads or whatever in the next few days as early vote cheating begins in a few days in most states.
What’s the big deal?
Oh, it is. So is the "bad hombre" remark.
Oh, it is. So is the "bad hombre" remark.
What was hillary’s answer to that question? Oh, she wasn’t asked that, you say? Thanks,Chris, for your superbly unbiased moderation of the debate. /s
Ya, like Christine Gregoire accepted the first count in the Washington State governors election in 2004. No wait, she accepted the second count. Oh, wait a minute, that was the third count she accepted. My mistake.
I would expect O’Keefe to release on a daily basis. Within a few days, this feigned outrage by the MSM/Dems will be replaced with, “Project Veritas has compromised our national security!” (or other such nonsense)
Now we have all these people saying it is unheard of for someone to not accept the election results as they are first announced. So apparently we've never had anyone call for a recount before, or in the case of people like Al Franken get elected because of a recount.
I guess the Supreme Court case in 2000 where Al Gore refused to accept the results of the presidential election never happened.
The leftist press, and the RINOs have sunk to new levels of idiocy.
Regarding GA, two years ago they tried to tell us that Michelle Nunn, Sam’s niece, had a chance against David Perdue. He crushed her by almost 8%.
If you want the country to have late term abortion as the law of the land vote Clinton or stay home.
If you are pro-life and do not vote for Trump, you are pro-abortion.
Pray America wakes
Anybody who is speaking negatively about Trump because he believes in the same rights to a recount and legal challenges of an election as everybody else isn't a "conservative". They may be a RINO or a CINO, but they aren't trying to preserve our freedom if they are in effect lying to elect Hillary Clinton.
Better to know how many people are actually on the other side than to be fooled.
Good lord this article is complete BS! I am afraid this country is sliding toward Civil War II.
I agree. It’s why I said conservative media and not “conservatives”.
They are falling for the trap. They are focusing on “Trump said he will not honor the results”, which is dead wrong paraphrase of what he said.
A better paraphrase would be, “if it looks like there is a case to be made that voter fraud was in play, I will not honor the results.” Who would argue with that? That IS the “american” answer. We don’t lie down against evil. We fight it!
“If it wasn’t that line, it would be another that the media would harp on incessantly.”
When are people going to see this?
“he creamed her last night.”
That’s what I thought.
This is a little off this subject, but someone told me that at the North Carolina State Fair, which is going on now, Trump stuff was surprisingly in abundance, and no Hillary stuff.
Emails: Clinton Campaign Calls New York Times ‘Our Press’
Clinton was ‘upset’ over profile where campaign got veto approval over quotes
AP
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
October 19, 2016 9:56 am
Hillary Clinton was not happy with a profile written about her by the New York Times, even though her team got to approve what quotes made it into the piece.
The latest batch of hacked emails released by WikiLeaks revealed that Clinton confided in aides that she was “upset” by a “continued bad relationship” with what the campaign described as “our press.”
Campaign chairman John Podesta emailed members of the campaign in July 2015 to ask about the reaction to a New York Times profile on Clinton written by Mark Leibovich, entitled “Re-Re-Re-Reintroducing Hillary Clinton.”
“[W]hat’s been the reaction?” Podesta asked in an email with the subject line “Liebovitch” [sic]. “I kind of felt like he wasted the effort. Kind of a reporter’s sketch rather than interesting observation.”
Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri replied that there was “not a lot of reaction.”
http://freebeacon.com/politics/emails-hillary-campaign-calls-new-york-times-press/
This is a little off this subject, but someone told me that at the North Carolina State Fair, which is going on now, Trump stuff was surprisingly in abundance, and no Hillary stuff.
On every front, except the Polls, Trump is wiping the floor with her.
OMG Glenn Beck has pissed me off already...he’s been on for 3 minutes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.