Image 01 Image 03

Trump Will Honor Election Results

Trump Will Honor Election Results

Evidence has shown voter fraud exists.

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump caused a stir during Wednesday night’s debate when he said he would keep everyone “in suspense” over decision.

Well, he made one today:

Yes, only if he wins:

“I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,” Trump said at his rally in Delaware, Ohio.

He added:

“Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.

He again brought up chances of voter fraud. CNN says he continues to repeat these “debunked claims of widespread voter fraud,” but how far off is Trump? Yesterday I reported that Indiana officials have started another investigation into possible voter fraud:

“We ran a report in the Statewide Voter Registration System and found thousands of dates of births and first names were changed. These records were changed on paper forms, at the BMV and online. At this time, my office is not sure why these records were changed, but we have evaluated the Statewide Voter Registration System and have found no indication it has been compromised. We believe this may be a case of voter fraud and have turned our findings over to the State Police, who are currently conducting an investigation into alleged voter fraud.”

The voters found the mistakes when they checked their information at People have to input their name and date of birth, but if either one is wrong, they cannot view their registration, which makes them think they are no longer registered.

The state officials are already investigating possible fraud in 56 countries connected to Patriot Majority US. The group claims the state is trying to eliminate the African American vote and submitted a report to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Project Veritas released a video that caught Scott Foval, the National Field Director for Americans United for Change, admitting that Democrats have rigged elections for over fifty years.

The Heritage Foundation has been tracking voter fraud in its “Does Your Vote Count” project. The foundation added 16 new cases on October 17 alone, bringing its total to “430 criminal convictions for election fraud.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


DieJustAsHappy | October 20, 2016 at 5:35 pm

Okay, okay. He’s made his position on election results clear. Now, he needs to return to that which works the best for him. Any additional questions regarding this subject need to be meet with “I’ve already made my position clear.”

2nd Ammendment Mother | October 20, 2016 at 5:43 pm

Any one else find it odd that there has been a long running effort by the media to push the mantel of defeat onto the Republican Candidates in general and Trump in particular? They were also the same to Bernie…. but I just don’t recall anyone asking Hillary what she’ll do if she loses, or if they have, that she’s answered it.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to 2nd Ammendment Mother. | October 20, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    1st of all, she was asked the same question as Trump during the debate.

    2nd, if the Democrats were going to commit fraud, why stop at the Presidency. What about the Senate, House, Governors, State Legislators. Huh?

      Fraud is easier in statewide elections. Only in certain areas is fraud doable. These are usually districts controlled by one party, and often heavily populated by minorities. The claim of disenfranchisement (racism) is used as push back. Fraud also costs money, so larger efforts are reserved for Presidential Elections.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to rayc. | October 20, 2016 at 9:01 pm

        Are you stating the above as opinion or fact? It must be republicans that are committing the fraud. They control more states.

        “he claim of disenfranchisement (racism) is used as push back” That is funny since the only disenfranchisement we know with absolute certainty to have occurred was done by southern whites to southern blacks. Sometimes the method of disenfranchisement was murder. BTW, disenfranchising citizens is fraud every bit as much as any other method of fraud.

        If the fraud in this election is large enough to beat Trump, how come ‘brilliant’ Trump didn’t know that and start fighting it from the time of his nomination or even years ago? How come he only noticed it when it finally got through his denial and he realized he was going to lose badly?

        If fraud at the Presidential level is occurring, then I suggest strongly that all the alleged Trump supporters who won’t talk to pollsters had better start proclaiming their allegiance. Because if the polling results are close to the election results, no one except a Trumpiac is going to believe there was fraud.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to rayc. | October 20, 2016 at 9:11 pm

        BTW, I am all in favor of cleaning up the voter rolls. But the most document example of doing that was in Fl in 2000. A republican governor hired a republican consulting firm. They went through counties with high concentrations of democrats and purged anyone with a name remotely similar to a felon. For good measure they purged some whose names weren’t even remotely similar to a felon.

        In this election cycle, precincts in Brooklyn were virtually denuded prior to a primary. By a strange coincidence the particular precincts had all strongly favored one candidate in a previous cycle. She lost. I believe this was so blatant or the malpractice was so serious that the names were restored and the primary held again.

        I am a computer software developer by trade. The proper analysis of a system is a thing of beauty. But I have seen plenty of botched designs. I would love to see a system that could properly vett our election rolls. But how do we accomplish that in this highly partisan era?

        I do not doubt that there are irregularities in our system. I do doubt the motives of those who claim that their hands are clean and they only want integrity. Why are they always old white guys?

From his speech today:

But I ask you, why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton resign from the race? She was given the questions, used the questions, and never said that she did something that was totally inappropriate.

Years ago there was a show called the $64,000 question – a contestant got the questions in advance, his life was ruined.

This is even bigger, because we are playing for the presidency of the United States.

Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the office of the Presidency.

So it’s in that context I was asked a question about whether I would agree, in advance, to concede the results on election night.

This is an unprecedented question.

If Al Gore or George Bush had agreed 3 weeks before the election to concede the results and waive their right to a legal challenge or a recount, then there would be no Supreme Court case and no Bush V. Gore — and there have been numerous other cases.

In effect, I’m being asked to waive centuries of legal precedent designed to protect the voters.

According to Pew, there are 24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.

1.8 million dead people are registered to vote (some of whom vote even though they are dead – which is a hard thing to do, but easy if fraud is involved).

2.8 million people are registered in more than one state.

And 14% of non-citizens are registered to vote.

America is a Constitutional Republic with a system of laws.

These laws are triggered in the case of fraud, or in the event a recount is needed.

Of course I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.

I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all the many candidates who have come before me.

But, none of this will matter, since we are going to win big on November 8th.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Wisewerds. | October 20, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    Nobody asked him to “waive their right to a legal challenge or a recount”. The question implicitly asked what he would do if he exhausted his legal challenges.

    As for the rest, Trump is a liar and grifter. Believe anything he says at the nations peril. Sorry guys, you bought a pig in a poke and the rest of us are going to watch him and his brand go down.

    I love his biggest lie: “But, none of this will matter, since we are going to win big on November 8th.” Despite all of the pseudo facts he claims are working against him, he is still going to win. How could he possibly? It would be impossible. So he has done what he often does. Contradict himself in the same statement. You never noticed that?

      “The question implicitly asked what he would do if he exhausted his legal challenges.” Bovine excrement. The whole point of the question was to get him to disavow legal challenges in advance. Thus enabling the democrats to engage in all kinds of election fraud with impunity.

      “As for the rest, Trump is a liar and grifter.” Spoken like a true democrat. Thanks for exposing your stripes.

      “I love his biggest lie: “But, none of this will matter, since we are going to win big on November 8th.” Since it involves a future, not yet determined event, that is not in any sense a lie.

      As I commented previously, polls are not science, they are only guesses as good as the pollster’s estimate of what the voting electorate will actually look like. For a variety of reasons, I think this go around it is harder for pollsters to accurately guess what the electorate will be like than normal My own personal guess is that Trump and Hillary are running neck and neck right now.

      IMHO, it takes 3 qualities to be a good president. A proper vision of where to take the country. The ability to choose good subordinates, delegate to them, and manage them. And the ability to speak directly to the electorate over the heads of the media.

      Trump was not my first choice; I didn’t support him in the primaries. But, he does seem to have those three qualities. As long as he doesn’t let himself slide into liberalism (and I think the ordeal he is going through may tend to prevent that), he should be a reasonably good president. Perhaps better than anyone since Reagan.

      In any event, he clearly would be a much better president than Hillary. And it will be very enjoyable to see people’s heads explode if he is elected. Especially yours!

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Wisewerds. | October 20, 2016 at 9:46 pm

        ” The whole point of the question was to get him to disavow legal challenges in advance. Thus enabling the democrats to engage in all kinds of election fraud with impunity.” That would have been a pointless question. Trump could have answered it by saying that he was not waiving his legal options, but that if they were exhausted, he would accept the result. When has any candidate been asked to forgo their right to a recount? In most elections, if the difference is less than a set percentage, there is an automatic recount. Beyond that, the candidate has the right to pay for a recount. Were you born yesterday? Was Trump?

        My stripes are well known around here. But my allegiance to facts and logic supersede any ideology or party.

        “But, none of this will matter, since we are going to win big on November 8th.” He says that at the end of a long litany of specious or irrelevant claims of what is stacked up against him. Couldn’t the alleged fraud cause Hillary to lose? He offered no proof that Hillary was leading the fraud. That doesn’t even show up in WikiLeaks.

        What do you wish to call a statement that ‘I will win or I will have been cheated’? If he is not lying then he is certainly calling someone else a liar.

        BTW, if he loses by fraud, he is still a loser. His brand is still shot. Who wants to buy a steak from someone who says: ‘these steaks are the best unless the guy I got them from cheated me’?

        Assuming there is enough fraud in the election process to cause a winner like Trump to lose, how come he didn’t know that? He always hires the ‘best’. He is smarter than anyone. He always wins. How come he didn’t know? Why is he whining, now? How come Trump wasn’t prepared to win at all costs? Isn’t that what he promised to do for all of us? Did he think our enemies were going to play by Marquess of Queensberry Rules?

        Is it possible he didn’t know that “Politics ain’t beanbag?” Maybe he isn’t so smart after all?

          1. That’s obviously not how the extremely hostile mainstream media would have construed any affirmative answer by Trump to that question.

          2. Based on my experience reading your posts, your “allegiance to facts and logic” exists only in your own mind.

          3. Trump’s claims about vote fraud are neither specious nor irrelevant. Your mere assertion to the contrary is absurd.

          Democrats are clearly responsible for and the beneficiaries of the overwhelming majority of voter fraud. For example, the whole purpose of Obama’s decision to ignore the laws regarding the border and keeping illegals out of the country is to drive as many dependent immigrants as he can into this country, and then encourage them to fraudulently vote, knowing full well they will overwhelmingly vote democrat. Republicans, being natural law abiders, by and large just don’t commit that kind of fraud.

          4. Your remaining “arguments” are just too stupid to bother responding to.

          5. I don’t know about Trump. But it’s clear to me that “you aren’t so smart after all.”

          6. You aren’t worth arguing with further.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | October 20, 2016 at 10:57 pm

          @Wisewerds Another reason to ‘stop arguing with me’ is that you can’t. Once you get past the unsubstantiated assertions, unjustified opinions and insults, you have nothing. Perfect profile of a Trumpian.

          You were never worth arguing with. It is just amusing to reduce a Trumpian to a blithering idiot who answers with 6 numbered points that do not contain 1 FACT.

          For instance, YOU KNOW “the whole purpose of Obama’s decision to ignore the laws regarding the border and keeping illegals out of the country” HOW DO YOU KNOW? BTW, FACT – Obama deported more illegals than Bush. FACT – there was a net outflow of immigrants to Mexico during Obama’s administration. Facts. Pesky little things and even more powerful then alleged fraud.

the other rob | October 20, 2016 at 6:41 pm

“And 14% of non-citizens are registered to vote.”

This grips my shit (an old, Anglo Saxon, expression).

I was born a Brit and became a US citizen late in life. This meant that I spent several years with no franchise: legally so in the case of the USA, while I was serving out my Green Card time until I was eligible for citizenship and morally so in the case of the UK, because it didn’t feel right to be voting in their elections once I’d thrown in my lot with the USA.

And yet 14% of non-citizens are voting? That should be grounds for instant deportation and a lifetime ban on reentry.

    I guarantee you the vast majority of those registered illegal aliens are democrat voters.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to the other rob. | October 20, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    I would be sickened, too, if it was true. Where is the proof?

    Just one: “24 million voter registrations in the United States that are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.” or “14% of non-citizens are registered to vote.”

    BTW, Gail Collins suggested that instead of a drug test before last debate, they both should have been asked to take the citizenship test you took. You have heard Trump. Do you think he could pass it. He doesn’t seem to understand large parts of the constitution or the roles of the President, Congress and the Courts. He seems to think that if he was President he could put Hillary in jail. That is not a power of the Presidency. Duh!

    I have a bridge to sell you, but you can’t have my country!

legacyrepublican | October 20, 2016 at 6:56 pm

Oh no! Trump is showing early signs of turning into a lawyer!


I had to laugh when I read the condition of acceptance.

Reddit seems excited.

Rigging the Election Part I 10:59-11:04 Zulema Rodriguez says “I just had a call with the campaign and the DNC. Everyday at one o’clock.”

“…Everyday at o’clock.”

Wikileaks email id 12012 RE: Reminder — Trump Rapid Response/Bracketing Call — Today – Tues – May17 – 1PM Eastern (Thread was started by Bob Creamer and look at the others copied on it)


This email also undercuts the lie by Donna Brazile told tonight in an interview to Megyn Kelly.
Brazile tried to act as if Creamer was a temp hire contracted in June, which was clearly a lie.

Brazile makes the comment at 1m14s

People have to wake up. Trump does not control his supporters. Many of them are not particularly fond of him and all of them are voting AGAINST the establishment candidate, HRC. They will continue to support Trump ONLY as long as he represents THEIR interests. If Trump’s supporters feel that the election was “stolen”, through fraud, it is entirely possible that they will not accept HRC as the legitimate President. If this happens, then anything could happen. This is what terrifies the Establishment. I mentioned earlier that the same conditions which resulted in the French Revolution are alive and well in America today. It would be a very good idea for vote fraud to be absent from this years Presidential elections.

This NOT about Trump, it is all about the vast number of ordinary citizens who are essentially screaming, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Mac45. | October 20, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    “the same conditions which resulted in the French Revolution are alive and well in America today” Really? We have a very large starving peasantry? We have an hereditary aristocracy?

    We do have a large parasitic clerical hierarchy, but I wouldn’t guess you oppose them.

    We do have a large number of people whose principles are based on the ‘Enlightenment’, but they don’t favor Trump.

    I think a better analogy is the civil rights era. A bunch of people thought they would stop it. But it turned out the people with the serious weapons and organization were not on their side. The FBI went after the renegades. The Birmingham Chief of Police is African-American. Hows that for rising up?

    Let’s see what happens in the Malheur Occupation Trial. I heard the locals didn’t like their ‘saviors’ at all.

    Byron De La Beckwith wasn’t put in jail for 30 years. But he went down. This country of ours has weathered worse than you threaten.

      Which US parasitic clergy would you be speaking of? In France in the late 18th century, you had a state religion. This religion was unarguably party of the French “Establishment”. This is not the case in the US, however. So, exactly what is your point here?

      The Trump phenomenon is nothing like the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950-1970s. The Civil Rights Movement was a demand for the end of institutional racial discrimination in a limited regional area. There was no institutional racial discrimination outside of the Southeastern United States. It is interesting that the most of the riots, including the worst of them, actually occurred in the industrialized North, Midwest and the Far West. All areas where institutional racial discrimination did not exist. And most of these riots occurred AFTER the passage of the Civil Rights Act enacted on July 2, 1964 [NYC-July 18, 1964, Watts-1965, Newark and Detroit-1967] And, the leadership of the United States listened to the people and enacted legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made racial discrimination illegal.

      The Trump phenomenon is much more akin to the complaints held by the French citizenry in the late 1700s regarding economic depression, lack of personal freedom, class inequities, persecution and the failure of the ruling class to address the concerns of the citizenry, to name a few. And, the ruling class of that time failed to heed the warnings of the citizenry and ended up losing their heads.

      The Bundy Group is an infinitesimal piece of this country. And, they are attacking the federal government largely because the government took away THEIR free stuff, paid for by the rest of the citizenry by the way, not because of any systemic discrimination. Now, if they were a significant portion of the population, say 45-60% of the voting population, then it would be an entirely different story, wouldn’t it. Just an aside, a significant portion of the population of the original 13 colonies was opposed to war with England. Look how that turned out.

      This is potentially a very scary situation. And, the Establishment realizes this. But, they are invested totally in the status quo, much like the Fr5ench aristocracy.

Voter fraud by Democrats has been going on for dozens of years and anyone saying otherwise is willfully ignorant of the facts. How is it that military ballots never seem to make it back in time to be counted, or planes carrying them have untimely accidents or the wrong ballots are sent out. We were able to set up elections in Iraq that were above board but the Democrats won’t allow their citizens to cast their own votes. If they’re the party of the people what are they afraid of if they have to vote the graveyard, get illegals to vote, felons and tear up ballots cast for the opposition?

Time to vote for an outsider someone who knows how to make a payroll. After all that was one of the positives the Republicans put forth for Romney.

Disenfranchisement is not just racial, the military vote has been disenfranchised for years. A larger percentage of the military identifies as Republican, and now with the draw downs, cut backs and reduction of troops in combat that 18% of registered voters can finally be counted.

@Only right, did you seriously ask this or was it sarcasm? “We have an hereditary aristocracy?” Political families ring a bell? Kennedy, Bush to name two..

The Networks are only reporting the first part of statement on air:

“I’ll “accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win.”

But they are still censoring the second part on TV:

“Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.