Remember back in the repulican primaries.

Trump refused to say he would support the nominee. He got huge boos. Everyone else pledged to suppport the future nominee. (Now I agree with Trump. Why should one pledge to support someone, when you don't know who that person will be or their views/ect)

But fast forward to Trump winning the nomination. Plenty of those very same republicans who boo'd him, and even those who pledged to support did the very thing they critiqued him about. They didn't support the nominee. Or in this case Trump.

Fast foward to election time. Trump doesn't promise to accept the results. He gets huge outcry and booing. Fast forward and those same hypocrites are now not accepting the results.

So tell me this. Who is worse. Someone who won't blindly accept an unknown outcome, or people who decry something they later end up doing?

There is more to business than just existing deals, Exxon also was being held back from pursuing future deals in Russia due to sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html?_r=0

"Exxon Mobil has various projects afoot in Russia that are allowed under American sanctions. But others have been ground to a halt by the sanctions, including a deal with the Russian state oil company to explore and pump in Siberia that could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

Russian officials have optimistically called the agreement a $500 billion deal."

So please tell me that the Exxon Mobile CEO being named to Secretary of State, who has in the past lobbied for dropping sanctions against Russia, is all just a magical coincidence. 

I'm not disputing the notion that there exists potential motive for abuse of power.

I'm arguing that's all there is. You and a few others here seem to think that potential motive = guilt.

That's a liberal fallacy that I have grown out of, one I do not subscribe to, if it benefits my beliefs or discredits them.

I think they accept the results, but not his credibility to run a country, also to put more fuel on the fire, what the CIA brought up to the senate just made the blaze higher.

The thread title, which you created was about how Russia allegedly helped Trump to get elected. That notion has been discredited having no source or validity. You then bring up the issue of Donald Trump refusing to throw away his right to contest an election if it so happens that it appears that irregularities appear. He was honest about his stance and you interpret this as "Donald Trump refuses to accept results of election if he loses".

That interpretation is based on your own bias because his words were clear and non-commital.

Semantics is just another word for refusing to explain yourself.

Not his credibility to run a country? Based on what? They are just assuming. Give him at least a chance to fail before you label him worst pres ever.

CIA brought up that Russia influenced election, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community, has not fully embraced that CIA finding.

Again what you're "calling out on" is on a your hunch, a feeling, nothing, your own emotions..

Me being bias is your own delusion. the thread is based on what the CIA said to the Senate, and it just so happens they're withholding details from the public. What we do know is that the investigation is still going on. Another fact you refuse to accept I might add.

I brought up the issue of Trump not accepting the results as a joke to someone else, because trump refuse to give a straight answer to a yes or no question, and no nominee has ever done that before. That was the point.

Having to simplifly something in so many different ways to someone who refuse to accept it begs the question. What is your agenda here?