Let's look at the question
"MISTER PRESIDENT, REAL QUICKLY, IN THIS ELECTION WILL YOU COMMIT THERE TODAY, FOR A PEACEFUL TRANSFERAL OF POWER AFTER THE ELECTION? 1/

(cont'd) "THERE HAS BEEN RIOTING A LITTLE, WRITING IN MANY CITIES ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, YOUR SO-CALLED RED AND BLUE STATES. WILL YOU COMMIT TO MAKING SURE THERE IS A PEACEFUL TRANSFERAL OF POWER AFTER THE ELECTION?"

Where are the words "IF YOU LOSE?"

Let's continue...2/

Reporter brings in rioting to the question, why?
Then asks if he will commit to "making sure there is a peaceful transfer," which all of YOU people interpret as "Will you go quietly on Jan 21st if you lose," but that's NOT what was asked, was it?

What was asked. 3/

He is the incumbent. Why would he NOW talk about "transferring" peacefully or otherwise?
No, the implication was obvious: "Will you do what Nixon did and concede to stop rioting, to 'make sure' things are peaceful."

He responded accordingly.4/

POTUS: "WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THE BALLOTS. AND THE BALLOTS ARE A DISASTER."

He's obviously talking about what happens between Nov. 3 and the latest deadline to receive ballots, TWO WEEKS later. 5/

The question makes no mention of the possibility media trumpeted two weeks ago, that he could *appear* to be the WINNER before the ballots are counted, so why in the hell would he "transfer" power unless he's clearly not?

Why would he forfeit his right to challenge NOW?6/

Let's keep going...
"BUT PEOPLE ARE RIOTING. DO YOU COMMIT TO MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A PEACEFUL TRANSFERAL OF POWER?"

Again, WTAF does the rioting have to do with this question? If you are asking if the man will leave if he loses, rioting is IRRELEVANT. 7/

His response, visibly annoyed at the questioner who has STILL failed to acknowledge two things:
1. He might WIN (odd, that)
2. People don't PRE-concede, least of all b/c "riots"
3. He and Biden and their voters have a right to recount if it's close or ballots are questionable. /8

"IF YOU GET RID OF THE BALLOTS, YOU'LL HAVE A VERY PEACEFUL TRANS -- THERE WON'T BE A TRANSFER FRANKLY. THERE WILL BE A CONTINUATION, THE BALLOTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL. YOU KNOW IT AND NO ONE KNOWS IT WHO BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE, THE DEMOCRATS."

He's talking about unsolicited. /9

Now first: I am no "sycophant," not even a "fan" really, just a voter who's pissed off at the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the press who pretend to care about election integrity, even while ignoring or providing cover for voter fraud, unless a Republican does it. /10

Second: POTUS is on record repeatedly saying absentee ballots are FINE, generally speaking, and when the usual rules are followed, nothing wrong with them. "BALLOTS" as he refers to them are NOT THOSE.

Unsolicited mail-in and rule-changes to absentee ballots are the issue. /11

He has repeatedly complained about these issues, this is not the first time. Changing due dates, not requiring signatures, allowing ballot harvesting (which Dems shriek about when it's GOP doing it), and pre-hiring attorneys to challenge results, call "BALLOTS" into question. /12

"BALLOTS" could just as easily be used by Republican voters btw, but if you have two weeks to count them, and you do away with verification for absentee, but KEEP the discretion to reject for ANY reason, you call into question the integrity of the whole process. /13

This is not rocket science. In battleground states that are changing rules left and right and that have Democrat SoSs, and election board officials who'll be counting and certifying results, you have a MESS. That mess could disenfranchise millions of people, from both R&D /14

There is no REASON to do all the rule changes. No, "virus" isn't a reason. If you can riot, you can vote in person, OR you can fill out an absentee ballot properly, in advance, and mail it. Removing the signature requirement, and using harvesters helps voters how? /15

Signing your name doesn't give you Covid, nor does putting it in the mailbox yourself, or asking a relative who does it for you to sign that they did so. So why remove these requirements? To what end? /16

If the press covered the ballot issues/rules/rule changes for each state as they should, and were appropriately skeptical, or critical of them, they'd understand his mini-rant about "ballots." /17

And if they press had ANY self-awareness, they'd hear how rude it is, no matter how much you personally hate the guy, to ask if he will concede without challenge, because RIOTS. Would you want the POTUS who would do that, cave to the mob? Is that even a "peaceful" transfer? /18

As always with POTUS, do I wish he'd thought about it, and challenged the twit on his question with something like "Well, if you're asking IF I lose?" Because I'm sorry, based on the wording of that question, "YES" is not an appropriate answer. He is the *incumbent.*