October 20, 2016

Here’s why media’s “un-American” charge against Trump is the ultimate hypocrisy

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

There was one particular line in the final Presidential debate that sent the mainstream media running for the smelling salts when Donald Trump refused to say definitively that he would accept the results of the election.

It’s no secret Trump has concerns about a rigged election so is it really such a horrible thing for him to say?

Time and again we heard in post-debate analysis that this was “un-American” of Trump, but does this judgment meet the media’s own standards?

Is that what they said back in 2000 when Al Gore conceded to Bush but then took his concession back and proceeded to fight in court for weeks on end?

Is that what they said in 2002 when Hillary Clinton said George W. Bush was “Selected, not elected”?

Is that what they said in 2004 when then Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said the election was stolen from him?

Of course not. The media didn’t even make such accusations the many times Democrats hurled rigged election accusations within their own party.

It’s the ultimate hypocrisy from the media.

Donald Trump will have to concede defeat if he loses but if there’s any question, he’s well within his rights to fight it out in court.

That’s the American way, as even the biased media would agree if the candidate challenging the results was a Democrat.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-10-22 19:22:56 -0400
Terry Gain you’re completely clueless. Trump is America’s last chance to turn the tide. It boils down to this:

If Clinton gets in, she will grant amnesty to ~30 million illegal aliens, which will guarantee democratic rule for decades (since polls show >80% of them favor the democrats, I can only imagine this would push higher should she give them executive amnesty).

Furthermore, she will keep the borders open and expand legal immigration (again, 3/4 immigrants vote democrat), and expand the refugee program (99% of whom will vote democrat).

Here’s an interesting fact: the Republicans would have won EVERY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION since JFK if the electorate hadn’t been changed by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. As of today, 1/3 Americans is an immigrant (and 75% of them vote democrat, do the math). So, if you ever want to see a remotely conservative POTUS again, Trump MUST WIN.

If Trump loses, conservatism dies on the Supreme Court, and liberalism will be judicially entrenched for the next 20 years at least.

That’s all you need to know about it. Who cares if Trump’s not a perfect conservative? If Clinton wins America dies at the hands of the globalists.
commented 2016-10-21 19:25:15 -0400
Terry Gain that is utter BS , the party is more of the broken system , that is the problem. Not Trump. America is not in the mess it is because of Trump, you are placing that on him for some reason.
commented 2016-10-21 18:03:55 -0400
Jack Palance

Trump and Clonton are horrible human beings. Preventing Trump from destroying the Republican Party – which is America’s only hope – is imperative. Romney, Goldberg Krauthammer and Ben Shapiro are all right. I probably spend a lot more time on this issue than you. Trump is an unmitigated disaster. As bad as Clinton on policy and worse on temperament. He does not deserve the support of any conservative.
commented 2016-10-21 17:19:09 -0400
Mitt Romney is a LOSER from 2012, remember? And Goldberg is a sell out. It’s time to get behind the candidate. If not, it is the end of the Republic. Do you not get the stakes, Terry?
commented 2016-10-21 16:58:41 -0400
Peter Karelse
Have you ever worked for a political party? No one gets rich doing so. There are a lot of volunteers who are involved because they want to to see their agenda adopted. The Clintons are not average members of the Establishment. They are the elite. They went to Washington to do good and they, like all elites, did well.

I don’t know why you are asking me to defend Hillary Clinton. Do you assume that I support her? I’ve noticed that Trump supporters make a lot of assumptions – the principle one being that if you don’t support Trump you support Clinton or are a liberal. One of the reasons I oppose Trump is because I oppose most of Clinton’s agenda and did not want to see her elected. I knew she would beat Trump handily.

Trump is not doing pretty good. He is losing to a hated harridan who should be facing prosecution. Cruz or Rubio would be beating her by 10 points. Even Jeb Bush would be beating her.

Running a corporation does not give you a knowledge of politics. You have to read or become involved. Trump says he doesn’t read. This is obvious listening to his speeches, which are at about a 12 year old level of intellect and knowledge.

You ask me to defend the election of Trudeau, again assuming I support him. What did I say from which you could reasonably conclude that I support Trudeau?
You assume I support Trudeau and then say you are demonstrating the weakness in my argument. I think you should examine your own argument. Good arguments are based on facts, not assumptions. I have been a conservative and contributor to conservative parties for 35 years.
commented 2016-10-21 14:41:17 -0400
The media should have been sent running when Hillary said she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who would best “represent” the will of the people.

In a democracy it is the role of the elected Congress to represent the people not the appointed Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the intent of laws passed by the Congress with respect to the Constitution.

An Oligarchy is a unelected and unaccountable body of elites who make the rules for and govern a country, like the EU. Hillary either misunderstands her own system of government or has let slip that she prefers oligarchy to democracy. Given the parasitic elitist she is I believe it is the later. An objective media would have been in uproar over such a comment.
commented 2016-10-21 13:45:18 -0400
Terry;
“devoted to the party” , you are naive.They are devoted to themselves. To wit , the Clintons claimed they were broke after leaving the White-house ( stolen furniture not with standing) and 4 years later had amassed $200 million without having any form of employment other than the foundation they run. And they are just symptomatic of the corruption that is rampant on both sides of the house. That’s what all of the concern is. Your argument about experience or the lack thereof is nonsensical. For running an inept campaign as you say Trump is doing pretty good. Not bad for an amateur right? I have seen and listened to some of these so-called experts that have devoted their lives, and I have come to the conclusion these individuals have done so because by and large they are useless to society and can’t find any employment that pays and has the perks that life as a politician offers. And I have to ask, how would Trump not know about politics having run corporations. No politics there right? So if a lack of experience was stupid in the USof A how is electing the current pack in Ottawa, with no demonstrable experience, political or otherwise there for sure, a smart thing? Am I defending Trump nope. Just illustrating the weakness in your arguments. So the US has a choice elect someone who you don’t like the way he talks, or a crook that makes Tony Soprano look like a boy scout and you get 4 more years of Obama.
commented 2016-10-21 12:26:08 -0400
Bill Elder
Anyone who would compare a narcissistic boor with no political knowledge or experience to the experienced, well read, affable Reagan – a man who did not have the gall to consider the Presidency an entry level position – knows essentially nothing about either man.

I do understand the rationale for the Trump campaign. They wanted an outsider. Well they got what they wanted. A complete amateur who has run an inept campaign. The rationale was naive. The so-called Establishment are people who have expertise after years of hard work devoted to the party. Preferring a lack of experience was plainly stupid and the results were predictable. So predictable, I predicted them.
commented 2016-10-21 11:37:31 -0400
Bill….you nailed it. Amen.
commented 2016-10-21 11:03:07 -0400
Terry Gain – since when is reporting on election fraud construed as “support” for Trump – and what difference does it make if Rebel promotes or trashes Trump – their subscribers can’t vote for him – why the obsession.

Is it just possible the Trump POTUS candidacy is an interesting political/social phenomenon for news junkies and historians to observe? I know you don’t “get it” that Trump’s popularity has nothing to do with his “suitability” – you seem to miss this critical point.

AS you state, party pokitics and washington in general are dismally corrupt and self serving – Trump is neither Republican nor Dem, he is a reformer, a populist, a nationalist and the candidate of popular will as opposed to the candidate of the political establishment – an outsider – just like Reagan
commented 2016-10-21 10:20:28 -0400
Peter
Trump is every bit the liar Clinton is. He is not leagues above Clinton. He is in fact worse because he is destroying the Republican Party by demonstrating that it has no standards. Trump is an undisciplined and uncivil jerk. Mitt Romney, Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer have all articulated the overwhelming case against Trump. There are dozens of reasons to oppose Trump and only 2 to support him. – his position on Muslim immigration (which he lacks the rhetorical skills to justify, thus undermining a sound policy) and the fact that he is not Clinton. That’s not enough.
commented 2016-10-21 09:04:47 -0400
Terry, this site is supporting Trump because there is no one else to support that opposes that lying and thieving bitch. It is either Trump or Hillary.

And regardless of how incompetent Trump is or is not, he is still leagues ahead of Hillary.

It is similar in Canada. Trudeau is an incompetent brainless idiot and the Liberals are thieves and liars. So there really is only the Conservatives to vote for no matter how crappy they are, they are still leagues ahead of the shit we now have as PM.

Only a blithering effing idiot would vote for Hillary Clinton.
Only a blithering effing idiot would vote for Justine Trudeau.

The parallel is quite striking, wouldn’t you say? And oddly enough, Hillary and Trudeau are both socialists.

Must be something about being a left / socialist that either makes people stupid or that political leaning attracts the idiots.
commented 2016-10-21 08:22:53 -0400
This site’s support for Trump is disappointing. He is a grossly incompetent candidate who is going to lose in a landslide to a corrupt and much hated harridan. Candidates who are winning do not claim the election is rigged. He is going to lose and he knows it. His claims that the election is rigged will depress Republican turnout. He is handing the Senate to Clinton.
commented 2016-10-21 03:53:55 -0400
Hey Jimmy, I can give you a tune-up. How many cylinders are you running on?
commented 2016-10-20 23:22:11 -0400
BlackBoxVoting.org quick, see before they remove
commented 2016-10-20 23:17:44 -0400
Peter Netterville,

Trump isn’t going to win, so you don’t have to worry, but certainly the deplorables and Rebel conservatives are going to have a meltdown like we have never seen in history. I can’t wait.
commented 2016-10-20 23:05:13 -0400
I would hope that Trump can find a way to rig the vote
commented 2016-10-20 22:52:02 -0400
Absolutely Peter – the fanatics who would want a crook like Clinton will never be satisfied with democratic outcomes – they want a single party state.
commented 2016-10-20 21:14:46 -0400
The people that won’t accept the results of the election are the socialists if Trump wins.

If Trump wins, I am expecting there will be riots, maybe even to the point of having to call in the military.

I also think there will be an assassination attempt on Trump should he win. But all that is just my take on the situation.
commented 2016-10-20 20:14:45 -0400
The Media Party in America are no different than the Media Party in Canada. Like a Soldier marching on one leg, Left Left, Left Left Left.
commented 2016-10-20 19:28:03 -0400
No doubt Gore and many before him were swindled out of a tight race win, both sides have played ballot magic in the past – with electronic tech voting systems and now 30 million illegals the risk of ballot fraud is a certainty
commented 2016-10-20 19:06:08 -0400
«Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry»

I use the term “Democrat” to describe the party since “democratic” is a common adjective that does not apply to that party. It’s also a little dangerous for the Legacy Media to make a big stink over this issue since undecided voters might start searching the Internet for “electoral fraud” or similar terms to see what’s going on.