About accepting the election results

How can anyone today (October 19th) say they will accept the election results in November when they don't know if the election will be honest and legal? We seem to forget the controversy about the hanging chads in Florida.

What if the Russians tamper with the election?

Trump gave a very practical answer to a realistic question. Hillary just finished talking about how the Russians were tampering with American politics. Do you expect anyone to say today (with a potential Russian threat) that they will automatically accept, sight unseen, future election results? Tell me (oh critics of Donald Trump) do you pay a builder 100% the costs of building a house or do you pay in stages based on acceptable performance of the construction project? Trump is a businessman, and thinks like a businessman. We need a business-thinker to run the biggest business in the world -- The United States.

Roe v Wade!!!!!!!!

I'm not into the "businessman should run the free world" perspective, but I didn't much mind the answer Trump gave to that question.

What -- everyone is supposed to, in advance, accept that the US elections couldn't possibly be tampered with? I don't know enough to touch that question. I'd have to be one of top 10 hackers in the world to even render a decent opinion.

Besides, Trump's no idiot. If his goal is to establish a bona fide third party with him at the helm, the easiest way to keep his fan base intact is to pound the idea home that the election was stolen via media bias, paid liars, and perhaps outright fraud. That's motivation for millions of supporters to amp things up and, after the smoke clears, establish a viable third party.

It's interesting that after his speech today where he specifically mentioned Gore vs Bush that the media has cooled its heals about criticizing him. Of course Trump had his advisors and time overnight to come up with a better response than what he gave in the debate, and his "short answers" have previously given him trouble. But he's not a politician. While some of us "get it," it seems that too many Americans are demanding the typical political BS every single time a candidate opens his mouth. I guess Trump needs to speak less cryptically and shovel out better answers to quell the hysteria.

yeah, I had the same exact thought as you all did.

Just my 2 cents but it seems like today the press/main street media is very lazy and instead of doing actual reporting and investigating stories, they want to "manufacture" news by making more of something than is really there. They then use social media (usually twitter) and what people are commenting there to then substantiate their story.

Alan's best experienced to give us perspective, but I agree. Money and positions have been cut for news desks and actual reporting at the major networks and newspapers. Social media becomes a poor man's eyes and ears for news outlets, and anybody generating social media can not only spin, but actually originate "stories." It's all junk with no objective expertise behind the "reporting," and no guarantee it wasn't generated for specific reasons.

It's interesting to see the change in media standards. When I first was hired at CBS News in New York as an Associate Producer in 1976, I was told "no man on the street interviews" would be allowed in news stories. The reason was that comments by "man on the street" was not news. Well, what do we have today in every newscast and even in newpaper articles? Man on the street comments used as news.

Do you think with the internet age people are forgetting that individuals are biased and should not be relied upon for accurate information without multiple sources?

Alan's point sums it all up. Everything is a "man in the street" source. Those sources can be biased, or planted, or simply lacking in any and all expertise to comment on anything.

Man in the street is kinda like statistics, you can find one to support any point. You have to dig deeper to really understand something.