Donald Trump’s defiance of election results could hurt the United State’s image

[EverCurious]

For democracy to work, everyone must agree to accept the results of freely held elections. The people and parties who have lost power, or those who failed to gain it, must be willing to accept defeat. If the loser refuses to accept the winner, the election's legitimacy is diminished and the political system may be marked by conflict and instability. A key test for a democracy is the successful and peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. Indeed, this is a continuous test for any democracy, even established ones, as the United States witnessed during the 2000 presidential elections.

[...]

Additionally, in the United States, a common abuse of power is gerrymandering, which is when sitting legislators alter electoral district boundaries to benefit their own reelection. In most countries, it is possible to discover a rich history of electoral abuse, including ballot stuffing, fraud, and voter intimidation. The potential for abuse shows that the integrity of democracy is not an inevitable outcome of elections and must be ensured by a country's citizens.

[...]

The Insufficiency and Abuse of Elections

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government.

Elections are the sine qua non of democracy. But dictatorships make evident the notion that elections alone cannot establish or sustain democracy. Without democracy's other essential elements—consent of the governed, constitutional limits, the protection of human and minority rights, accountability and transparency, a multiple party system, economic freedom, and the rule of law (Sections 1 and 3–12)—elections cannot guarantee that freedom will be achieved.

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government. During the 1930s in Germany, for instance, Adolf Hitler rose to power in the Weimar government through elections and then assumed complete control through intimidation and thuggery. Today, in the context of political instability, elections have validated the militant Islamist group Hamas, which has won control of the Palestinian legislature but has yet to recognize the state of Israel and abandon violence as a weapon of resistance. Neither result fulfills democratic principles to any degree. In these cases, elections were carried out in conditions where democracy was either being undermined or did not exist.

"Can elections ever legitimate a dictatorship or revolutionary violence? The terrible consequences of the Nazi regime alone make clear that the answer must be no. Dictatorships claiming to hold genuine elections manipulate and distort them instead, which imposes fraudulent results that create fictitious consent. Democracy is a liberal political system based on freedom; its main vehicle cannot legitimately be used to impose tyranny or foment violence (as in Palestine and Iraq). In such instances, elections are not signs of democracy, but rather serve as a facade to mask authoritarian political structures."

Free, Fair, & Regular Elections: Essential Principles | Democracy Web

It doesn't matter so much if /Trump/ accepts it, it is the people who support him and question the unquestionable influence of the biased media upon the results that actually matters. IF the people believe the vote is rigged then there will be problems -- and instead of addressing the issues that are /RIGHTFULLY/ being questioned, the left says "Fuck you and your concerns" -- This will /never/ make for a unified and /free/ democracy. Those days are officially gone. This country is done no matter what happens in this election because a large portion of the country does /not/ believe the vote will be fair, and the other side says you have to like it even if there is clear evidence that we stacked the deck HAHAHAHA

 

[S.J.]

When we have (on video) Clinton campaign operatives admitting they are committing voter fraud, and fighting against ALL efforts to prevent it, why wouldn't Trump be concerned? He has good reason to be. And so do the American people.

 

[owebo]

For democracy to work, everyone must agree to accept the results of freely held elections. The people and parties who have lost power, or those who failed to gain it, must be willing to accept defeat. If the loser refuses to accept the winner, the election's legitimacy is diminished and the political system may be marked by conflict and instability. A key test for a democracy is the successful and peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. Indeed, this is a continuous test for any democracy, even established ones, as the United States witnessed during the 2000 presidential elections.

[...]

Additionally, in the United States, a common abuse of power is gerrymandering, which is when sitting legislators alter electoral district boundaries to benefit their own reelection. In most countries, it is possible to discover a rich history of electoral abuse, including ballot stuffing, fraud, and voter intimidation. The potential for abuse shows that the integrity of democracy is not an inevitable outcome of elections and must be ensured by a country's citizens.

[...]

The Insufficiency and Abuse of Elections

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government.

Elections are the sine qua non of democracy. But dictatorships make evident the notion that elections alone cannot establish or sustain democracy. Without democracy's other essential elements—consent of the governed, constitutional limits, the protection of human and minority rights, accountability and transparency, a multiple party system, economic freedom, and the rule of law (Sections 1 and 3–12)—elections cannot guarantee that freedom will be achieved.

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government. During the 1930s in Germany, for instance, Adolf Hitler rose to power in the Weimar government through elections and then assumed complete control through intimidation and thuggery. Today, in the context of political instability, elections have validated the militant Islamist group Hamas, which has won control of the Palestinian legislature but has yet to recognize the state of Israel and abandon violence as a weapon of resistance. Neither result fulfills democratic principles to any degree. In these cases, elections were carried out in conditions where democracy was either being undermined or did not exist.

"Can elections ever legitimate a dictatorship or revolutionary violence? The terrible consequences of the Nazi regime alone make clear that the answer must be no. Dictatorships claiming to hold genuine elections manipulate and distort them instead, which imposes fraudulent results that create fictitious consent. Democracy is a liberal political system based on freedom; its main vehicle cannot legitimately be used to impose tyranny or foment violence (as in Palestine and Iraq). In such instances, elections are not signs of democracy, but rather serve as a facade to mask authoritarian political structures."

Free, Fair, & Regular Elections: Essential Principles | Democracy Web

It doesn't matter so much if /Trump/ accepts it, it is the people who support him and question the unquestionable influence of the biased media upon the results that actually matters. IF the people believe the vote is rigged then there will be problems -- and instead of addressing the issues that are /RIGHTFULLY/ being questioned, the left says "Fuck you and your concerns" -- This will /never/ make for a unified and /free/ democracy. Those days are officially gone. This country is done no matter what happens in this election because a large portion of the country does /not/ believe the vote will be fair, and the other side says you have to like it even if there is clear evidence that we stacked the deck HAHAHAHA

Good thing we are a republic....

 

[nicoleivy5]

For democracy to work, everyone must agree to accept the results of freely held elections. The people and parties who have lost power, or those who failed to gain it, must be willing to accept defeat. If the loser refuses to accept the winner, the election's legitimacy is diminished and the political system may be marked by conflict and instability. A key test for a democracy is the successful and peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. Indeed, this is a continuous test for any democracy, even established ones, as the United States witnessed during the 2000 presidential elections.

[...]

Additionally, in the United States, a common abuse of power is gerrymandering, which is when sitting legislators alter electoral district boundaries to benefit their own reelection. In most countries, it is possible to discover a rich history of electoral abuse, including ballot stuffing, fraud, and voter intimidation. The potential for abuse shows that the integrity of democracy is not an inevitable outcome of elections and must be ensured by a country's citizens.

[...]

The Insufficiency and Abuse of Elections

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government.

Elections are the sine qua non of democracy. But dictatorships make evident the notion that elections alone cannot establish or sustain democracy. Without democracy's other essential elements—consent of the governed, constitutional limits, the protection of human and minority rights, accountability and transparency, a multiple party system, economic freedom, and the rule of law (Sections 1 and 3–12)—elections cannot guarantee that freedom will be achieved.

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government. During the 1930s in Germany, for instance, Adolf Hitler rose to power in the Weimar government through elections and then assumed complete control through intimidation and thuggery. Today, in the context of political instability, elections have validated the militant Islamist group Hamas, which has won control of the Palestinian legislature but has yet to recognize the state of Israel and abandon violence as a weapon of resistance. Neither result fulfills democratic principles to any degree. In these cases, elections were carried out in conditions where democracy was either being undermined or did not exist.

"Can elections ever legitimate a dictatorship or revolutionary violence? The terrible consequences of the Nazi regime alone make clear that the answer must be no. Dictatorships claiming to hold genuine elections manipulate and distort them instead, which imposes fraudulent results that create fictitious consent. Democracy is a liberal political system based on freedom; its main vehicle cannot legitimately be used to impose tyranny or foment violence (as in Palestine and Iraq). In such instances, elections are not signs of democracy, but rather serve as a facade to mask authoritarian political structures."

Free, Fair, & Regular Elections: Essential Principles | Democracy Web

It doesn't matter so much if /Trump/ accepts it, it is the people who support him and question the unquestionable influence of the biased media upon the results that actually matters. IF the people believe the vote is rigged then there will be problems -- and instead of addressing the issues that are /RIGHTFULLY/ being questioned, the left says "Fuck you and your concerns" -- This will /never/ make for a unified and /free/ democracy. Those days are officially gone. This country is done no matter what happens in this election because a large portion of the country does /not/ believe the vote will be fair, and the other side says you have to like it even if there is clear evidence that we stacked the deck HAHAHAHA

Good thing we are a republic....

we are not a republic for long

 

[nicoleivy5]

Donald Trump’s defiance of election results could hurt the United State’s image - Full article

"With his assault on the legitimacy of the presidential election, Donald J. Trump threatens to touch off a humiliating spectacle unseen in the United States since the country became a global power.

Diplomats and elected officials in both parties fear that Mr. Trump, if he loses, will inflict grave trauma on the electorate and severely undermine the international reputation of an American political system known for revering the peaceful transfer of power."

Thoughts? Donald Trump says he will only accept the election results if he wins. If he publicly refuses to accept defeat, could this negatively impact America's reputation?

Even Barack Obama said he has never seen anything like that before (a Presidential candidate who refuses to accept the results)

its worse if he actually wins. Imagine the reactions from other countries if Trump is President, They will think America is a joke

and i love trump

 

[kevinleejackson]

Remember AL GORE?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Bush92]

Donald Trump’s defiance of election results could hurt the United State’s image - Full article

"With his assault on the legitimacy of the presidential election, Donald J. Trump threatens to touch off a humiliating spectacle unseen in the United States since the country became a global power.

Diplomats and elected officials in both parties fear that Mr. Trump, if he loses, will inflict grave trauma on the electorate and severely undermine the international reputation of an American political system known for revering the peaceful transfer of power."

Thoughts? Donald Trump says he will only accept the election results if he wins. If he publicly refuses to accept defeat, could this negatively impact America's reputation?

Even Barack Obama said he has never seen anything like that before (a Presidential candidate who refuses to accept the results)

We have had Obama as POTUS for 8 years...we have no image.

 

[nicoleivy5]

Donald Trump’s defiance of election results could hurt the United State’s image - Full article

"With his assault on the legitimacy of the presidential election, Donald J. Trump threatens to touch off a humiliating spectacle unseen in the United States since the country became a global power.

Diplomats and elected officials in both parties fear that Mr. Trump, if he loses, will inflict grave trauma on the electorate and severely undermine the international reputation of an American political system known for revering the peaceful transfer of power."

Thoughts? Donald Trump says he will only accept the election results if he wins. If he publicly refuses to accept defeat, could this negatively impact America's reputation?

Even Barack Obama said he has never seen anything like that before (a Presidential candidate who refuses to accept the results)

We have had Obama as POTUS for 8 years...we have no image.

lol true no image indeed

 

[Carl in Michigan]

How many threads do we need from Hillary supporters whining about accepting election results?

 

[nicoleivy5]

How many threads do we need from Hillary supporters whining about accepting election results?

im a trump supporter

 

[nicoleivy5]

For democracy to work, everyone must agree to accept the results of freely held elections. The people and parties who have lost power, or those who failed to gain it, must be willing to accept defeat. If the loser refuses to accept the winner, the election's legitimacy is diminished and the political system may be marked by conflict and instability. A key test for a democracy is the successful and peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. Indeed, this is a continuous test for any democracy, even established ones, as the United States witnessed during the 2000 presidential elections.

[...]

Additionally, in the United States, a common abuse of power is gerrymandering, which is when sitting legislators alter electoral district boundaries to benefit their own reelection. In most countries, it is possible to discover a rich history of electoral abuse, including ballot stuffing, fraud, and voter intimidation. The potential for abuse shows that the integrity of democracy is not an inevitable outcome of elections and must be ensured by a country's citizens.

[...]

The Insufficiency and Abuse of Elections

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government.

Elections are the sine qua non of democracy. But dictatorships make evident the notion that elections alone cannot establish or sustain democracy. Without democracy's other essential elements—consent of the governed, constitutional limits, the protection of human and minority rights, accountability and transparency, a multiple party system, economic freedom, and the rule of law (Sections 1 and 3–12)—elections cannot guarantee that freedom will be achieved.

Where democratic institutions are weak, elections are easily used by violent and dictatorial political groups to manipulate the will of the people and seize control of the government. During the 1930s in Germany, for instance, Adolf Hitler rose to power in the Weimar government through elections and then assumed complete control through intimidation and thuggery. Today, in the context of political instability, elections have validated the militant Islamist group Hamas, which has won control of the Palestinian legislature but has yet to recognize the state of Israel and abandon violence as a weapon of resistance. Neither result fulfills democratic principles to any degree. In these cases, elections were carried out in conditions where democracy was either being undermined or did not exist.

"Can elections ever legitimate a dictatorship or revolutionary violence? The terrible consequences of the Nazi regime alone make clear that the answer must be no. Dictatorships claiming to hold genuine elections manipulate and distort them instead, which imposes fraudulent results that create fictitious consent. Democracy is a liberal political system based on freedom; its main vehicle cannot legitimately be used to impose tyranny or foment violence (as in Palestine and Iraq). In such instances, elections are not signs of democracy, but rather serve as a facade to mask authoritarian political structures."

Free, Fair, & Regular Elections: Essential Principles | Democracy Web

It doesn't matter so much if /Trump/ accepts it, it is the people who support him and question the unquestionable influence of the biased media upon the results that actually matters. IF the people believe the vote is rigged then there will be problems -- and instead of addressing the issues that are /RIGHTFULLY/ being questioned, the left says "Fuck you and your concerns" -- This will /never/ make for a unified and /free/ democracy. Those days are officially gone. This country is done no matter what happens in this election because a large portion of the country does /not/ believe the vote will be fair, and the other side says you have to like it even if there is clear evidence that we stacked the deck HAHAHAHA

agreed. Democracy wont work unless that occurs

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Donald Trump’s defiance of election results could hurt the United State’s image - Full article

"With his assault on the legitimacy of the presidential election, Donald J. Trump threatens to touch off a humiliating spectacle unseen in the United States since the country became a global power.

Diplomats and elected officials in both parties fear that Mr. Trump, if he loses, will inflict grave trauma on the electorate and severely undermine the international reputation of an American political system known for revering the peaceful transfer of power."

Thoughts? Donald Trump says he will only accept the election results if he wins. If he publicly refuses to accept defeat, could this negatively impact America's reputation?

Even Barack Obama said he has never seen anything like that before (a Presidential candidate who refuses to accept the results)

Obuthole has done more to hurt America's image.

 

[EverCurious]

Good thing we are a republic....

The principles of voting still apply.

That article was an opinion piece based on the values of Article 21, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from 1948. It was adopted by the UN (to include the US) which reads as follows:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

[nicoleivy5]

Good thing we are a republic....

The principles of voting still apply.

That article was an opinion piece based on the values of Article 21, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from 1948. It was adopted by the UN (to include the US) which reads as follows:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

agreed, the principles apply to everyone across all states

 

[cnelsen]

unseen since the country became a global power, or since 2004, anyway.

If Trump loses, I already consider this a coup d' etat executed by the media--in particular, Jews in the media--against the American people.

What is it with you nazis and the jews?

Are you Jewish?

you going to kill my family if I am?

What is it with you Jews an

Are you Jewish?

you going to kill my family if I am?

Ok, I'll take that as a "yes". What is it with you Jews and the absolute fanatical zeal to see North America and Europe flooded with third world masses, but, for Israel, you put up the very wall you condemn us for wanting, and deport--even secretly sterilize--the same third world masses?

mexico is in north america...

Was that supposed to be a statement of somekind?

Answer me. What is it with you Jews and mass immigration into any country dominated by Europeans?

Jews fought the restrictive 1920s legislation that had brought an end to the immigration epoch, something any reasonable country should understand is necessary AT SOME POINT. Jews used the civil rights "come-to-meetin'--feel-goodism of the 1960s to open the gates back up. They hung the 1965 act around the neck of the drunk freshman senator from Massachusetts (who promised the legislation would not increase immigration, nor alter the demographics of the nation). But the 1965 immigration act was celebrated on the night of its passage by Jews as a Jewish victory over Christianity--your ancient enemy.

And truly, it was. It was the decisive battle. (The triumphal march into the capital city occurred a few years later--what we've come to call "Watergate").

Ever since, it is Jews and Jewish media and Jewish founded (or co-opted, like the Ford Foundation) groups, like the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that have maintained the constant flood of non-European immigrants into the United States.

Now, through email hacks, we learn that the machinations of Jews are responsible for the flood of "migrants" into Europe itself--a coup de grace that will require another Hitler if Europe is to survive.

So will you, Jew, admit that mass immigration has been a weapon of mass destruction consciously wielded by Jews against Europeans and their descendants all along?