Senator Tim Scott refuses to answer whether he will accept 2024 election results

[We Never Know]

Whether you agree with the system as it stands or not, there are reasons it's not a straight FPTP vote based on a national count.
Those reasons are NOT anti-democratic.

Yes I know how it works. My point was and still is the will of the people, the popular vote, when it comes to the Pres and VP doesn't mean a win.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia​

I love this Initiative. The Constitution is unambiguous: the state determine how their electors will be awarded. Even SCROTUS has to see that!

 

[F1fan]

On Meet the Press on Sunday, Senator Tim Scott (R - SC) was asked directly: "Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line."

Scott's response was: "At the end of the day, the 47th President of the United States will be President Donald Trump."

The interviewer asked again: "Yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter who wins."

Scott's response was: "That is my statement."

This went on for several quite surreal minutes, but in the end, try as she might, the interviewer could not get Scott to agree that he would accept the results of the election -- only that he looked forward to Donald Trump winning. And there's another loose screw in your democracy, folks.

Scott went on to accuse NBC News as an extension of the democrats after he was being asked to answer the question one way or another. Oh my, what projection. Christine Welker was asking a simple question, and Scott made it complicated because it exposed his lack of character to the NBC audience. Any member of government who won't say they will accept the results of an election should be thrown out of office.

 

[F1fan]

And of course Tim Scott is not the only one to lose his soul. There are over a dozen such hopefuls, and they all must rid themselves of any integrity just to be in the running for a chance to run. Hopefully none of them will ever be Vice President.

What I will be looking for is if Trump loses will the brown nose MAGAs start acting more normally, like showing some integrity, and even ethics. Trump won't have anything to hold above them any more.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes I know how it works. My point was and still is the will of the people, the popular vote, when it comes to the Pres and VP doesn't mean a win.

Sure. That's a statement of fact. What do you think that implies though?

For comparison and context, in Australia we have a preferential system to elect the ruling party, but the ruling party determines the Prime Minister.

So, the 'popular vote' in terms of first placed votes for a given party is not very informative. And no citizen votes for the Prime Minister.

Despite that, I'd say we have a robust democracy, and far less issues around the transfer of power than the US.

 

[Bear Wild]

On Meet the Press on Sunday, Senator Tim Scott (R - SC) was asked directly: "Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line."

Scott's response was: "At the end of the day, the 47th President of the United States will be President Donald Trump."

The interviewer asked again: "Yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter who wins."

Scott's response was: "That is my statement."

This went on for several quite surreal minutes, but in the end, try as she might, the interviewer could not get Scott to agree that he would accept the results of the election -- only that he looked forward to Donald Trump winning. And there's another loose screw in your democracy, folks.

Just in case do you think Canadians will accept political refugees from the US if trump gets elected? Please do not build a wall yet just in case I need to embrace my Canadian heritage that I do not really have. I even like your flag and ice hockey teams.

 

[Bear Wild]

On Meet the Press on Sunday, Senator Tim Scott (R - SC) was asked directly: "Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line."

Scott's response was: "At the end of the day, the 47th President of the United States will be President Donald Trump."

The interviewer asked again: "Yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter who wins."

Scott's response was: "That is my statement."

This went on for several quite surreal minutes, but in the end, try as she might, the interviewer could not get Scott to agree that he would accept the results of the election -- only that he looked forward to Donald Trump winning. And there's another loose screw in your democracy, folks.

Just in case do you think Canadians will accept political refugees from the US if trump gets elected? Please do not build a wall yet just in case I need to embrace my Canadian heritage that I do not really have. I even like your flag and ice hockey teams.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes I know how it works. My point was and still is the will of the people, the popular vote, when it comes to the Pres and VP doesn't mean a win.

Sure. That's a statement of fact. What do you think that implies though?

For comparison and context, in Australia we have a preferential system to elect the ruling party, but the ruling party determines the Prime Minister.

So, the 'popular vote' in terms of first placed votes for a given party is not very informative. And no citizen votes for the Prime Minister.

Despite that, I'd say we have a robust democracy, and far less issues around the transfer of power than the US.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because that is what "democracy" is about. It's called "the peaceful transfer of power," in accord with the will of the people.

Is this a brand-new concept to you? A mystery?

No, but why would you give up your right to question the validity of an election before it happens? I would answer if there is no good evidence of fraud that could have turned the election one way or another then yes I would accept the outcome of the election.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is he a traitor, or is he just taking the party line? No one can tell for sure.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Uh, accepting the duly determined will of the people is sort of a foundational premise of democracy.

I agree but why would you give up your right to question the validity of an election before it happens? I would answer if there is no good evidence of fraud that could have turned the election one way or another then yes I would accept the outcome of the election.

Did you miss that lesson in grade school?

Not necessary. A more mature response would have been why do you think this or something along those lines.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Accept the election results??
Of course they should!!

"Mary, of course I'll accept the election results. The will of the people is the bedrock upon which our great country has been built. I have faith those people will see the strength and commitment of the GOP to building a better America."

It's not hard. This is their profession for goodness sake.

Why would you give up your right to question the validity of an election before it happens? I would answer if there is no good evidence of fraud that could have turned the election one way or another then yes I would accept the outcome of the election.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, but why would you give up your right to question the validity of an election before it happens? I would answer if there is no good evidence of fraud that could have turned the election one way or another then yes I would accept the outcome of the election.

And while all courts that have weighed in on the matter have declared the 2020 election free and fair, Donald Trump still has not accepted that it was not stolen from him. Or should I say Him?

This is what America is now being set up for -- the relentless, never-ending claim that if Donald Trump does not win the 2024 election, then it must, not by evidence but by definition, have been fraudulent. That will be the beginning of the end of American faith in their institutions, and your democracy will be lost.

I'm assuming you won't mind.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And while all courts that have weighed in on the matter have declared the 2020 election free and fair, Donald Trump still has not accepted that it was not stolen from him. Or should I say Him?

This is what America is now being set up for -- the relentless, never-ending claim that if Donald Trump does not win the 2024 election, then it must, not by evidence but by definition, have been fraudulent. That will be the beginning of the end of American faith in their institutions, and your democracy will be lost.

I'm assuming you won't mind.

No, just no politician on either side should say they will accept the election results no matter what happens. What is wrong with saying "I will accept the results if there is no good evidence of fraud that could change the outcome. The fact is no election is without fraud, it is just a matter of is it enough to change the results.

Also, Have you talked to Hillary Clinton on this matter as well? or Al Gore on this matter? Or the news media in 2016? All claimed the election was stolen. Were they ending faith in our institutions by claiming these things or is it only when republicans say these things?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, just no politician on either side should say they will accept the election results no matter what happens. What is wrong with saying "I will accept the results if there is no good evidence of fraud that could change the outcome. The fact is no election is without fraud, it is just a matter of is it enough to change the results.

Then you don't, in fact, have faith in your institutions. You think that elections can be stolen, and want proof they were not before you'll accept the results. That means that you suppose that Americans are, in general, corrupt. How sad for you. But of course, you've already said as much about the judicial system in some of your comments about Trump's trials.

Also, Have you talked to Hillary Clinton on this matter as well? or Al Gore on this matter? Or the news media in 2016? All claimed the election was stolen. Were they ending faith in our institutions by claiming these things or is it only when republicans say these things?

The fact is that Hillary Clinton won 48.18% of the popular vote to Trump's 46.09, lost 5 "faithless electors," and an investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton. The media did report on that, because it was news, and that's their job. But Mueller could not find proof that the interference actually changed the results. That is a much harder thing to prove. And by the way, I rather suspect the endless chanting -- goaded on by Trump -- of "lock her up" most definitely had an adverse effect on her campaign.

Now, if you are saying that in fact the 2016 election was stolen because that's what "the news media," then that means you do NOT consider Trump to be a legitimate President -- it means he walked away with stolen goods.

As to Al Gore, the 2000 election was actually "awarded" to Bush by 537 when the Supreme Court stopped a recount that had been initiated by a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court. In other words, SCOTUS interefered in a valid recount.

 

[Kathryn]

If SCOTUS interfered with a valid recount, then is that evidence of fraud?

 

[Brickjectivity]

If the reps are serious about election fraud then let them suggest that all voting booths offer a paper record for each voter or some kind of receipt they can immediately and thereafter verify how they voted and can keep checking for a long time. Instead many red states have electronic machines which give no receipts, and to find out how your vote has been counted you must apply and wait for weeks for a reply.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then you don't, in fact, have faith in your institutions. You think that elections can be stolen, and want proof they were not before you'll accept the results. That means that you suppose that Americans are, in general, corrupt. How sad for you. But of course, you've already said as much about the judicial system in some of your comments about Trump's trials.

No, that is not what I said. I said you trust the results unless there is good evidence there is fraud that could have change the results. Just like anything else.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton won 48.1% of the popular vote, lost 5 "faithless electors," and an investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton. The media did report on that, because it was news, and that's their job. But Mueller could not find proof that the interference actually changed the results. That is a much harder thing to prove. And by the way, I rather suspect the endless chanting -- goaded on by Trump -- of "lock her up" most definitely had an adverse effect on her campaign.

So your candidate's election loss was tarnished but no way Trumps could have been. ok

Now, if you are saying that in fact the 2016 election was stolen because that's what "the news media," then that means you do NOT consider Trump to be a legitimate President -- it means he walked away with stolen goods.

I never said it was.

As to Al Gore, the 2000 election was actually "awarded" to Bush by 537 when the Supreme Court stopped a recount that had been initiated by a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court. In other words, SCOTUS interefered in a valid recount.

Ok, only dems get screwed right?

 

[Kathryn]

If SCOTUS stopped a recount that had been initiated by a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court in 2000, is that evidence of fraud?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If SCOTUS stopped a recount that had been initiated by a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court in 2000, is that evidence of fraud?

No, not as such.