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.
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.
Sure, but that’s taking the guy’s statement at face value when you know he’s speaking in doublespeak and bad faith. He and his team are absolutely going to cry ‘unfair’ if they don’t win, like they did before.
So, the writing and the interview questions should have used this statement or answer and tied it into a broader statement about how they’re already actively attempting to disrupt the electoral process so that they can then claim ‘unfair’ and build toward a second J6 event/coup.
The problem is if you ask the question “will you accept the results of an election, no matter what happens?” to any reasonable person they’d consider it, and likely say something along the lines of “No, there are probably some circumstances that could make me not accept the results of an election.”
As a reporter, you can’t read malfeasance into a response that you’ve requested yourself when it is a completely reasonable response. It’s a loaded question that assumes bad faith to attempt to show bad faith, which is nonsensical. If anything, asking that sort of question gives the opportunity to lay groundwork with plausible deniability.
You have to give these guys enough rope to hang themselves with.
The article clearly states that you are wrong.
Where does it provide evidence to support that statement?
Edit: Lol, I’m seeing downvotes, but nobody brave enough to show where the article provides evidence to support their assertion. Despite what republicans want you to believe, we do not live in a post-truth world, so supporting evidence is required.
We’d all be going to town if this were a right-wing media piece this poorly sourced. Don’t allow yourself the hypocrisy of double standards when you have the moral high ground.
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.
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.
I fully agree, and I’m in no way denying that.
All I’m saying is the article doesn’t do a very good job of providing evidence of that, which if they’re going to say, they need to support. This is like reporting 101.