Trump's Appeal to The Election of 2000 to Justify His Refusal to Commit Himself To Honor The Outcome Of The Election

   It's not a sound response, right?
   Gore did honor the outcome. There was never any doubt that he would honor the outcome. He got royally screwed over and he honored the outcome. The decision in Bush v. Gore is laughably/cryably absurdly terribly awfully not even close to being minimally plausible--and he honored the outcome. The scene of him in the Senate repeatedly bringing the gavel down on Congressmen trying to stop certification of the votes is one of the most goddamn inspiring things I've ever seen. Gore's the polar goddamn opposite of Trump on this score.
   I think this got started because of one infelicitous way that Wallace asked the question; he asked at one point something like: on the night of the election, if you lose, will you call your opponent and concede? This left Trumpo minimally plausible wiggle room to cite Gore. But, of course, all that's just because of one unfortunate way of asking the question. Gore was always committed to honoring the outcome, and did so even though it was kind of bullshit. Trump is basically saying that if he wins he should win and if he loses he should win. He's in effect saying: fuck America, fuck your democracy, fuck your democratic principles.
   Is there any doubt that he would seize power if he could?
   Anyway, no. Nobody's actually asking you, Trumpo, to say that you'll concede on election night no matter what. We're asking whether you will honor the democratic process. Anything other than an enthusiastic yes means that you are a psycho fascist. So now we know what he is. As if we didn't already.