Sometimes Trump's opinions evolve in the course of a sentence, lol. You are overselling him. It means nothing when you say it's "absolutely clear" because Trump has nothing to back it up. Worse yet he weakens this country with his talk about rigged polls and elections if the polling is down and he thinks he's going to lose. That is not anybody you would really want as the most powerful office in the world.
Worse yet he weakens this country with his talk about rigged polls and elections...That is not anybody you would really want as the most powerful office in the world.
Then I guess it's a damn good thing that Al Gore lost.
ACTUAL government corruption (the reluctance to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her e-mail server and treasonous exposure to the Russians and Chinese, that FBI director Comey said were "almost certainly" hacked into, the meetings between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, etc.) and the ACTUAL bias of the news media (who are now unashamed zealots for destroying Trump and propping up Hillary, despite her incredible corruption, where the liberal media give multiple times the coverage to far lesser scandals involving Republicans, or outright manufacture non-existent scandals). THESE are what "weakens the country".
I might be more convinced you were right about Trump being exceptionally unqualified, if you and the rest of the Left had not made the same slanderous accusations at every Republican running since Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. You're crying wolf... again.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Worse yet he weakens this country with his talk about rigged polls and elections...That is not anybody you would really want as the most powerful office in the world.
Then I guess it's a damn good thing that Al Gore lost.
Gore also caused a 2-month crash in the stock market that hurt the savings of a lot of middle class Americans, during the instability and re-counts after the election.
In the same situation, Nixon could have similarly challenged the 1960 election (and in retrospect) we now know for certain that the Kennedy family did rig the election with their Mafia ties, and Nixon had every justification to challenge the election. But for the good of the nation, to not create chaos and division, Nixon declined to challenge it and create the meltdown that Gore did in 2000.
A very partisan look at history in an attempt for a "the other side does it too" argument. You are still left with a piece of shit Trump claiming months before an election that if he loses it was rigged.
And by "partisan" you mean I cited hard facts that are inconvenient to your overzealous Media-Matters shaped political views. I didn't say that Republicans do the same as Democrats. I said the evidence is not there that Republicans are guilty of what you say, while the record is undeniable that the Democrats are clearly guilty of rigging elections. History clearly shows this, there is no denying that the Kennedys rigged the 1960 election, or RFK's election to the Senate. Or that Gore tried to rig the 2000 election by selectively omitting military overseas ballots (which vote heavily Republican) and certain Florida counties from the recount (the ones that vote heavily Republican) to stack the vote.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, the liberal media falsely called Florida for Gore BEFORE THE POLLS EVEN CLOSED, which (comparing the turnout to the previous 1996 and 1992 elections) suppressed Republican voter turnout by between 10,000 and 37,000 votes. That even at the lowest 10,000, would have given George W. Bush a victory margin way beyond any need for a re-count. The error was not corrected by the (liberal) networks until long after the polls had closed in Florida.
To hide their own deceit, the Democrats rather than defend themselves, just relentlessly attack Republicans. To quote Ann Coulter, you can often tell what Democrats are up to by what they accuse Republicans of doing. It's a slander offensive launched to hide Democrats' own Saul Alinsky-brand deceit.
Nixon may have behaved himself for that election but the republican party very much bitterly contested it with recounts. Nixon could afford to be above it all. Gore on the other hand won the popular vote and didn't go as far as the republican party did with Nixon. Gore also gave a very nice concession speech when it was time. Anybody see Trump even coming close to having that type of character?
I would also point out that many of your posts consists of you "relentlessly attacking" democrats. I know you have strong feelings but that doesn't make Trump a good person. No, he's somebody that has so little character that he's already saying if he doesn't win he'll go down crying it was rigged.
Nixon may have behaved himself for that election but the republican party very much bitterly contested it with recounts. Nixon could afford to be above it all.
I don't see anything to back that up. The fact is, Nixon didn't challenge the result, and history (even as written overwhelmingly by liberals) doesn't back up what you say.
Originally Posted By: M E M
] Gore on the other hand won the popular vote and didn't go as far as the republican party did with Nixon. Gore also gave a very nice concession speech when it was time.
Was that before or after Gore (in black dialect pantomime) stoked black fears and anger saying "don't tell me we leve in a colorless society"? Among many other divisions Gore provoked.
Originally Posted By: M E M
Anybody see Trump even coming close to having that type of character?
I'll let Newt Gingrich answer that one, in the below Sept 6th interview with Hannity. Trump has spent a lifetime overcoming huge obstacles to get things done, and expressing his interest in improving the country, and in the absence of anyone else stepping up, he is running for president. He has been called racist and bigoted for using the exact same campaign slogans ("Make America great again") as both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, was among the first to hire women and minorities to high-level executive positions in the real estate and construction industry, and (as quoted below) has received praise from even the likes of Jesse Jackson for his efforts to improve the lives of blacks and other minorities. Yeah... what a lack of character.
Originally Posted By: M E M
I would also point out that many of your posts consists of you "relentlessly attacking" democrats.
If simply countering lies with the sourced facts could be mischaracterized as "relentlessly attacking".
Originally Posted By: M E M
I know you have strong feelings but that doesn't make Trump a good person. No, he's somebody that has so little character that he's already saying if he doesn't win he'll go down crying it was rigged.
I think Trump's addressing of the real issues that both the Democrats and Republicans have ignored for at least 2 decades makes Trump a net gain for the country. He vows, beyond partisanship, to clean up the mess both parties have made.
And given that you and other Democrat partisans are sliming Trump with the same words you've used to describe Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney, your attacks on Trump as out of touch, a warmonger, unworthy of the presidency, etc., etc., ring rather hollow. ESPECIALLY when the alternative you advocate is Bill and Hillary Clinton, the most scandal and corruption-laden candidates of my lifetime.
Many people believed that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where Kennedy's running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine.[42] These two states were important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have earned 270 electoral votes, one more than the 269 needed to win the majority in the Electoral College and the presidency. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election,[41] and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time—as well as in nine other states.[47] Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy's victory in Illinois.[47]
Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory in several states, especially in Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election.[41] However, Nixon gave a speech three days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.[41] The Republican National Chairman, Senator Thruston Ballard Morton of Kentucky, visited Key Biscayne, Florida, where Nixon had taken his family for a vacation, and pushed for a recount.[41] Morton did challenge the results in 11 states,[42] keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961. However, the only result of these challenges was the loss of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount.
That doesn't quite gel with "Gore on the other hand won the popular vote and didn't go as far as the republican party did with Nixon", as you allege. I fail to see the damage of a legal inquiry. There were re-counts financed by several major papers in the U.S. that went about as many months into 2001.
Quote:
Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of 0.2%.[42] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties, and Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million,[48] although Cook County also includes many suburbs outside of Chicago's borders—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.[42]
In Texas, Kennedy defeated Nixon by a narrow 51% to 49% margin, or 46,000 votes.[42] Some Republicans argued that Johnson's formidable political machine had stolen enough votes in counties along the Mexican border to give Kennedy the victory. Kennedy's defenders, such as his speechwriter and special assistant Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., have argued that Kennedy's margin in Texas (46,000 votes) was simply too large for vote fraud to have been a decisive factor. Russell D. Renka, a former political science professor at Southeastern Missouri State University,[49] acknowledged that it was more than likely that Johnson's political machine in the state's lower Rio Grande Valley counties, including the notorious Duval County, could have managed to produce a significant number of forged votes for Kennedy.[50] However, Renka also acknowledged that Kennedy's margin in the state's initial tally made it far too difficult to prove that voter fraud had determined who won Texas and that any recount would also have been hard to conduct.[50]
Cases of voter fraud were discovered in Texas. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.[41] In an Angelina County precinct, Kennedy received 187 votes to Nixon's 24, though there were only a total of 86 registered voters in the precinct.[41] When Republicans demanded a statewide recount, they learned that the state Board of Elections, whose members were all Democrats, had already certified Kennedy as the official winner in Texas.[41]
In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precincts—40% in Nixon's case—showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either candidate. While a Daley-connected circuit judge, Thomas Kluczynski (who would later be appointed a federal judge by Kennedy, at Daley's recommendation), threw out a federal lawsuit filed to contend the voting totals,[41] the Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results. Furthermore, there were signs of possible irregularities in downstate areas controlled by Republicans, which Democrats never seriously pressed, since the Republican challenges went nowhere.[51] More than a month after the election, the Republican National Committee abandoned its Illinois voter fraud claims.[42]
However, a special prosecutor assigned to the case brought charges against 650 people, which did not result in convictions.[41] Three Chicago election workers were convicted of voter fraud in 1962 and served short terms in jail.[41] Mazo, the Herald-Tribune reporter, later said that he found names of the dead who had voted in Chicago, along with 56 people from one house.[41] He found cases of Republican voter fraud in southern Illinois, but said that the totals did not match the Chicago fraud he found.[41] After Mazo had published four parts of an intended 12-part voter fraud series documenting his findings which was re-published nationally, he says Nixon requested his publisher stop the rest of the series so as to prevent a constitutional crisis.[41] Nevertheless, the Chicago Tribune (which routinely endorsed GOP presidential candidates, including Nixon in 1960, 1968 and 1972) wrote that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory."[41] Had Nixon won both states, he would have ended up with exactly 270 electoral votes and the presidency, with or without a victory in the popular vote.
So... I see a greater legitimacy for challenging the election by Nixon (vs Gore), and yet Nixon chose not to. Nixon can't be held responsible for the re-count his party pushed for without him. But regardless, I didn't see that it caused, say, the same decline in 401-K savings of average Americans in the stock market as Al Gore's actions did. Republicans pushed for a straignt re-count, whereas Gore pushed repeatedly for various re-counts that would exclude strong Republican voter sectors, that would rig the election for the Democrats.
It's still not quite 2 years ago that Trump just came out of nowhere and announced his candidacy for president. Trump just today announced he would donate his annual salary as president to the Veterans Administration.
