If the election is close, I think the loser has a duty to contest the loss. Trump contesting the election would be every bit as right as Gore contesting the election.
What is so bad about this? The reaction people are having is strange. It's as if people are purposely misinterpreting Trump's words as implying that he will march on Washington D.C. with a militia. The realistic assumption is a Gore-style lawsuit, and there is nothing wrong with that.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
"Ok Donald, are you really going to claim to the nation that the elections are rigged, and that you won't accept their results?"
And his, answer was, "We'll see." Which means, yes! He's standing by the claim. So don't equivocate Trump's position. It's not media sensationalism.
> Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders.
Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party.
> We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs
All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it.
> She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her
Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.