U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, an ally of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, will not accept the results of the Nov. 5 election if they are “unfair,” he said on Sunday.
“Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, senator?” NBC News’ “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker asked Rubio, a Florida Republican, in an interview.
“No matter what happens? No,” Rubio answered. “If it’s an unfair election, I think it’s going to be contested by either side.”
Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to contest a potential loss in November, stoking doubts about the election’s legitimacy even as polls show the former president leading in battleground states, Reuters reported on Thursday.
unfairdifferent than what I want.FTFY
These assholes are acting like toddlers and should be treated as such.
These assholes are acting like
toddlerstreasonous criminals and should be treated as such.FTFY
Agreed, infantilizing fascists is dangerous. Are most of their supporters just dumb/misinformed? Probably. But we mustn’t pretend that the movement isn’t orchestrated by very smart people manipulating the masses in order to consolidate power in the hands of them and their rich friends.
Why is there never a simple follow-up question: “Mr. Rubio, how will you personally determine the fairness of the election?”
“I can’t say for sure, but I’ll know it when I see it”
Or “What if you win?”
It is really simple, US Senator Rubio says he won’t accept election results if
unfairtheir orange mobster guy doesn’t win.Sedition.
Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to contest a potential loss
While that’s probably true, Rubio kinda gave a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question. Of course there are possible circumstances that any reasonable person would not honour the results of an election.
Of all the ridiculous shit these guys say, maybe don’t pick the one time they’re actually in the right. Like they tell on themselves all the time, you generally don’t have to twist their words.
Fact is that democracy depends on people believing in fairness in order for the electoral process to be fair. When it starts to be questioned is when the system starts tearing at the seams.
I agree, it’s best to not pull at the fraying threads of democracy, but it’s not like there’s never been a controversial election before. Take the 2000 Gore v. Bush election, for example.
If Reuters wants to expose the laying of groundwork, then they have to do more than baiting a fairly mundane statement out of a single R. They have to collect evidence of republicans doing it themselves. This is just lazy reporting that plays to peoples fears.
deleted by creator
The article clearly states that you are wrong.
Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to contest a potential loss in November, stoking doubts about the election’s legitimacy even as polls show the former president leading in battleground states, Reuters reported on Thursday.
Where does it provide evidence to support that statement?
The entire system is being challenged from top to bottom, with supreme Court justices and Judges all over being called into question.
Democracy relies on elections actually being fair. Questioning the process is the only way to make things fair, and the process being robust in the face of questions demonstrates it.
This idea that elections are unquestionabe is genuinely dangerous.
Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to contest a potential loss
He did that in the run up to the 2016 (and 2020) election as well.
Trump has always claimed that if he doesn’t win it must be because someone (other than him) was cheating.
Cry more bitch
It is not treason to question the results of an election. It is not sedition to contest an election. If there is evidence that an election not handled correctly in a way that is sufficient to change the outcome, those with a stake in the outcome should not accept it.
This idea that it is a high crime to question an election is genuinely dangerous. And it is especially bad coming from democrats, because tactics like voter suppression disproportionately benefit republicans.
No one should accept an unrepresentative election.
In principle yes, of course, but I think we all can be reasonably suspicious that Rubio is using this exact justification as a smoke screen to lay the groundwork of sowing doubt to manufacture a false “controversy” come election time. He’s also being just vague enough that he can play both sides, too, depending on which option he finds most politically beneficial. I’m glad to have people scrutinize our electoral process, but not when they start from a predetermined conclusion. Which I know I’m also doing by assuming Rubio’s intent, but it’s not like we haven’t been here before.
He answered the question without a pre-determined conclusion. He answered with a conditional statement. That is how you answer the question without a pre-determined conclusion.
“If it’s unfair, we are going to do the same thing Democrats do,” Rubio said. “We’re going to use lawyers to go to court and point out the fact that states are not following their own election laws.”
That is the most reasonable way to answer that question. If an election is unfair, you should take reasonable actions to mitigate things, and accept the result otherwise, which is what he said. If anyone is trying to create a narrative its NBC for choosing to ask the question.
It is a crime to fabricate evidence and questioning the results of an election without at least a hint of evidence really should be a crime so that there’s not an incentive for incredibly well funded questioners to bombard the public and courts with questions about elections they don’t like.
So what part, precisely, of marco’s answer was fabricating evidence?
I’m not sure if these people are propagandists or just dumb. It seems like a very obvious non story if you actually read what happened.
The 2020 election was questioned by republicans for months after it concluded. Many investigations were made and found ZERO evidence of interference. If anything, some republicans were charged in a handful of states for election interference crimes.
Questioning an election is one thing, but outright denying the results even after all the evidence suggests that no interference/meddling occurred sets a precedence for future candidates that they can cause chaos in the system by just constantly claiming elections are rigged, eventually causing distrust of the entire system by voters who will just assume that their votes don’t matter because the decision has already been set.
I believe if you are attempting to discredit an election, not because of the potential for foul play, but because you are just upset that you or your candidate of choice lost, and you attempt to destabilize the democratic system in order to achieve your goal, that is treason/sedition and should be a crime that is delt with a severe penalty.
Have you already forgotten the shit show that was the last presidential election? Despite no evidence of any foul play, MAGAts still refuse to accept the results. Are you so obtuse you can’t see that this is just another attempt to sow division and mistrust of an election system that by all accounts is very secure and fair?
Sounds like you’re helping them, so I say to you, fuck off and suck a bag of molton dicks.
Did you forget the 2016 election when democrats accused the trump campaign of colluding with russia despite zero evidence? Accusing the opposition of undermining an election in every possible venue where there’s no risk of perjury is not a uniquely republican strategy.
Elections should be robust in the face of criticism. If the process cannot even stand up to disingenuous scrutiny, there are far bigger problems.
There’s plenty of evidence that Russia interfered in the past few elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections?wprov=sfla1
The charges were about collusion, and not about whether or not the Russians tried to interfere.
