The Pravda press has asked former President Donald Trump over and over again whether he’ll accept the results of the election if his Democrat opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, wins. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, has heard the question ad nauseam as well. 

CBS News political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns peppered the former president with the question in late August, as the Democratic National Committee was installing Harris as the party’s nominee following President Joe Biden’s forced exit from his reelection campaign. 

“Will you accept the results of this election?” the reporter asked. 

“Absolutely. I assume it’s going to be a fair election. If it’s going to be a fair and free election the answer is absolutely I will,” Trump said.

Burns pressed with this ridiculous question. “What does fair mean to you?”

“It means the votes are counted. It means that votes are fair,” Trump said. “It means they don’t cheat on the election, they don’t drop ballots, install new rules and regulations that they don’t have the power to do.”

In other words, if leftist activists and Trump-hating elections officials don’t rig this election like they did the last one.  

“They don’t use 51 intelligence agents to give phony reports, which had an affect on the election. They don’t do many of the things that they did in the last election,” he added, referring to the former intelligence officials who signed a letter insisting the Hunter Biden laptop story reported by the New York Post days

Doctors who “transition” gender-confused children like to claim their work is “evidence-based” and “life-saving.” But as one of their leaders just admitted to The New York Times, they are rigging the evidence.

As the Times recently reported, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy has refused to publish the results of a study (begun in 2015 and funded by millions of taxpayer dollars) on the use of puberty blockers for children who identify as transgender. She says this suppression is because “I do not want our work to be weaponized.” So she has been stalling, for obviously self-serving reasons.

Olson-Kennedy is, as the Times explains, “one of the country’s most vocal advocates of adolescent gender treatments and has served as an expert witness in many legal challenges to the state bans. She said she was concerned the study’s results could be used in court to argue that ‘we shouldn’t use blockers.’” 

Well, yes, because, as she admitted here, her research found that giving kids puberty blockers did not result in improvements to their mental health. Olson-Kennedy tried to spin this by claiming of her patients: “They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years.” But as the Times notes, “That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.”

The problem for Olson-Kennedy is that her null results mean she is stuck either way. If puberty blockers

Unquestionably, Democrats have this century’s most inarticulate ticket. Harris’ NBC interview word salad on so-called “gender-affirming care” and Walz’s profanity regarding Elon Musk are recent examples of their challenges in communication. This is not simply a problem for Harris and Walz but for a party dependent on veiling their extreme policies beneath moderate words. 

Just look at Harris’ answer to NBC’s very simple question: “Do you believe that transgender Americans should have access to gender-affirming care in this country?” Harris responded, “I think we should follow the law,” before attempting to escape by deflecting to Donald Trump. When forced back to the question, she said: “I believe that people, as the law states, even on this issue about federal law, that that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I’m not going to put myself in a position of a doctor.”

Harris’ poor showing with the press — of which she has a long history — is bad for any party. It is particularly dangerous for Democrats. That’s because, for decades, the Democrat Party has only succeeded when its presidential candidates have sounded like the moderates they were not. Once successful, they veer left, but before they can veer, they must first get there. To get there, they must sound moderate. And to sound moderate they must effectively communicate.

Barack Obama is a good example. His most common compliment remains his “charisma.” “No drama Obama” always seemed cool under pressure and passed that along to his audience. Even Biden in