Okay. Why no? Let's revisit my initial rebuttal:
The Gore campaign understandably asked for a recount in a very close race, and in response to emerging information about faulty voting mechanisms.
Trump is bellowing about voter fraud and election rigging, when there is no evidence that either has ever happened on a significant scale, before the election has even happened.
If you still think it's a valid comparison to make, then provide just one concrete, specific refutation of what I said above.
I never said anything of the sort.
When you said this:
I used Gore cause he was the only candidate in recent time, that I can recall, ask for a re-count. Something Trump says he might do.
That's exactly what you're implying. If you want to reduce Trump's fearmongering to the simple act of asking for a recount, it logically follows that you think he'd be satisfied with the results of that recount. Otherwise, what's the point?
The truth is, you know that what Trump has been saying is far more incendiary than a simple recount. He's undermining, in the minds of a huge chunk of the electorate, the entire basis of our government.
That's the difference; that's why the comparison falls apart immediately.
No, you said:
She is setting up this election
That's not speculation, that's a statement of fact. For which there is no proof, nor any reasonable basis for thinking it's even possible.
Find some thicker skin? You called me a liar, and said I'm making up stories. Not everything has a link to provide.
And anything without substantiation should be viewed with skepticism.
On the question of rigging a general election, I provided an article that cited several reasons it was extremely unlikely to happen, and that contained quotes from people a lot smarter than I saying that rigging an election is impossible.
You, on the other hand, have provided nothing other than your own feeling that it could happen, but you haven't suggested one plausible scenario in which it could, you haven't cited any credible sources that think it can be done, and you haven't come up with a single instance of it happening in the past.
I provided links in our last debate. You ignored them.
Not agreeing that your links prove your claims isn't the same as ignoring them.
I'm not going to waste my time with you again, since you won't read my answers. You keep finding that one line.
What does it matter if it's one line or ten?
If you say something that's unfounded or inaccurate, it's going to be challenged.
Like you keep saying I shouldn't compare it to Gore. That's all you are worried about.
No, it's not all I'm worried about. I'm also worried about the possibility of handing our country over to a petulant egomaniac who hasn't presented even one concrete policy idea. But that's not on-topic (the topic that, again,
you brought up), so I'm not going off on tangential rants about it.
Not the actual rigging that HAS BEEN DONE TO DATE...
You're again ignoring the massive differences between the primaries and the general.
What we learned from the Democratic primary is that the Democratic party wanted Hillary to be the nominee, and they engaged in some very unethical behavior to see that it happened.
We also know that if they tried the same thing now, in the general, that it would never work. It would require that the Republicans play along and let it happen. Why on earth would they? Do you have an even slightly-plausible answer to that question?
