Here is Chris Wallace’s follow-up to his question to Trump at the debate about accepting the election:
“But, sir, there is a tradition in this country — in fact, one of the prides of this country — is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?”
THE KEY WORD THAT POINTS TO BIAS HERE IS PEACEFUL. When did Trump ever say he was going to enlist the military and come with guns and violence to take over the country if he loses? When did Trump say he was going to author a revolution? If the election is corrupted by crooked Hillary why must he accept it before the votes are counted and the results analyzed? Did Al Gore give up his right to challenge the 2000 election and all those hanging chads?
The loser concedes to the winner in A FAIR FIGHT. But when the victory is tarnished by illegal tactics and voter fraud why is it incumbent on Trump to accept the verdict beforehand giving up his right to contest the election? The election has not been completed yet. Trump cannot point to voter fraud and a rigged election until all the votes are in and the election can be analyzed. At the time of the debate, he doesn’t have any proof of a rigged election because the voters have not voted yet (at least most of them). All he is saying is let’s wait and see. The track record of the Clintons is to cheat their way to victory. But it still has to be seen to be proven.
So let’s wait and make that judgment when all the votes are in. That’s all Trump is saying. He is not saying he won’t concede – providing everything is on the up and up.
Jonathan F. Keiler writing for the American Thinker puts it this way:
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. It cannot by any objective standard be conclusively refuted.
What does “rigged” mean? Does it mean active voter fraud operations? Yes. Those are relatively rare, but they do occur, and there is proof that voter fraud is occurring right now. The scale is unknown, but to say as the left is wont to do that Trump’s allegations are myth is absolutely mendacious.
But Trump’s die-hard supporters, and many other Americans who like the man much less, will be justifiably incensed by the fact that regardless of whether the Democrats engage in active meaningful vote fraud, a sitting president [Obama], in contravention of everything George Washington stood for, ignored the law and the Constitution to secure his own designated successor despite her blatant corruption and criminality. He did this by abusing his executive power to absolve Hillary of criminal wrongdoing through the misuse and dishonest exploitation of the Justice Department and the FBI. The truly horrifying talking down of democracy was James Comey’s July 5 statement that established a double standard of justice in this country – one for Hillary Clinton, President Obama’s chosen successor, and another for everyone else.
If that is not rigging an election, I don’t know what is. And there is no reason for Trump or any other citizen to “accept” a result in November that puts Obama’s corrupt and criminal successor in power.
