SOTT Exclusive: Newsflash! Candidates Should Not Concede Stolen Elections

Sott.net
Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:23 UTC

It's un-American to contest rigged elections. Unless you're a Democrat.

Killary and her media shills are horrified that Trump suggested he may not accept the election results on November 8. In response to the question as to whether he would accept the election results, Trump responded:

"I will tell you at the time," said Trump, who has frequently discussed voter fraud and a "rigged" system.

"I'll keep you in suspense, okay?" Trump told moderator Chris Wallace.

Hillary Clinton responded, "That's horrifying."

Their arguments:

1. every previous presidential loser accepted the final decision
2. conceding assures a peaceful transition between administrations
3. not conceding suggests you don't respect American democracy, therefore you are a commie traitor

All of these are bogus reasons.

Courtesy of the ever entertaining Drudge Report, here's a list of relevant stories:

• FLASHBACK: Gore explains why he won't concede election... (There goes argument #1. Bush stole the election, plain and simple. Gore shouldn't have backed down.)
• Last week Hillary agreed he 'won' 2000... (Well, that's embarrassing...)
• Hillary 2002: Bush 'Selected, Not Elected'... (True.)
• 8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen... (But! Stammer! Impossible!)
• Kerry Thinks Bush Rigged 2004! (11 years after the election... And RFK Jr. agreed.)
• Scarborough Lashes Out At Media Hypocrisy... (He makes a simple point: Trump's response is reasonable. If there are signs of vote rigging, it's perfectly natural to contest the results.)
• POLL: 72% have concerns over voting security... (A reasonable concern.)
• Texas fraud prompts hotline offering $5,000 reward... (Remind us: why exactly should Americans trust and respect their democratic election process?)
• FL Dem Party wants ballots allowed -- before registration verified... (Sounds legit...)
• PA old voting machines could be problem if outcome in doubt... (There's a reason many countries have banned voting machines: they are easily hacked, and don't leave a forensic paper trail.)
• PODESTA: OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver's License... (Arguably, this could benefit any candidate, but is more likely to benefit Clinton.)

The hysterics in the media and the Democratic Party essentially say this: "It is a long-standing American tradition to concede elections, whether or not they are legitimate." Of course, they don't explicitly say that - that would just make too much sense and expose the ridiculousness of their position. So instead they spin it as if Trump is saying this: "I will not accept the results of a free and fair election." And, of course, he is not saying that.

What is more democratic? To steal an election and get away with it? Or to contest a rigged vote? Obviously, the latter. This should apply equally to Trump and Clinton. But despite MSM polls, Trump seems to have more popular support, which suggests that if the election is rigged, it will be done in order to benefit the Clinton campaign.

Ironically, the Clinton campaign is the one harping on about how the Russians are tampering with the American presidential election. Never mind that they don't have any evidence, only bald assertions from the same intelligence community responsible for such classics as "Iraq as WMDs" and "Gaddafi is killing his own people". Clinton is essentially saying that if Trump wins, it will have been because of foreign interference. (Sidebar: Note how Clinton never mentions that it is a longstanding American tradition to do just that in foreign countries...)

If Trump wins, it will not have been because of any Russian support, despite the fanatical imaginings of Democrats. If Clinton wins, there's a good chance it will be because she stole the election.