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.
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.