On the ballot - preemptive election deniers

This time it is CNN’s own report on its own exit polls that indicates a stolen election.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/another-stolen-election/5798597

@metal-brain said
This time it is CNN’s own report on its own exit polls that indicates a stolen election.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/another-stolen-election/5798597

Lol did you read this? It's a madman's scree.

Here was a chance for voters to register their dissent, and according to the vote results they failed to do so. If the vote count is honest, then the conclusion is that we must write off the American people as beings too stupid to survive as a free people. This is why I much prefer to believe that the election was again stolen.

@metal-brain said
Stop lying.

The reason I won the bet is because I found a website with all cases of voter fraud. The number is in the hundreds. Still a small percentage relatively speaking, but much more than sonhouse claimed.

Care to make another bet?

Not evidence of stealing or rigging. That's my point. You spent all that time researching the issue and found a handful of trump-tards trying to prove that fraud was possible and getting caught.

@wildgrass said
Not evidence of stealing or rigging. That's my point. You spent all that time researching the issue and found a handful of trump-tards trying to prove that fraud was possible and getting caught.

There was vote fraud. How much vote fraud was not caught? Can you answer that question? When people get away with it of course there is no evidence of "widespread" voting fraud.

Was any evidence of election rigging found in Iraq when Saddam was in power?
Not evidence of stealing or rigging. That's my point.

@wildgrass said
Lol did you read this? It's a madman's scree.

Here was a chance for voters to register their dissent, and according to the vote results they failed to do so. If the vote count is honest, then the conclusion is that we must write off the American people as beings too stupid to survive as a free people. This is why I much prefer to believe that the election was again stolen.

Do you know who Paul Craig Roberts is?

He was the United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan and – after leaving government – held the William E. Simon chair in economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies for ten years.

Do you care to expand on that quote you pasted that is out of context?

@metal-brain said
Do you know who Paul Craig Roberts is?

He was the United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan and – after leaving government – held the William E. Simon chair in economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies for ten years.

Do you care to expand on that quote you pasted that is out of context?

You didn’t read it did you son, no dad I didn’t read it and I look really silly now.
There you go MB

@metal-brain said
Do you know who Paul Craig Roberts is?

He was the United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan and – after leaving government – held the William E. Simon chair in economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies for ten years.

Do you care to expand on that quote you pasted that is out of context?

He is saying in the article that Republicans lost several races because the election was rigged, and it was rigged because they lost.

Does that math add up? If not, it was rigged.

@metal-brain said
There was vote fraud. How much vote fraud was not caught? Can you answer that question? When people get away with it of course there is no evidence of "widespread" voting fraud.

Was any evidence of election rigging found in Iraq when Saddam was in power?
Not evidence of stealing or rigging. That's my point.

Stop with the "fraud". Stealing and rigging. That's what we're talking about with the election deniers.

@wildgrass said
He is saying in the article that Republicans lost several races because the election was rigged, and it was rigged because they lost.

Does that math add up? If not, it was rigged.

LOL!
He did not say it was rigged because they lost.
Did you even read the article?

@wildgrass said
Stop with the "fraud". Stealing and rigging. That's what we're talking about with the election deniers.

Republicans didn't start that, it was Hillary Clinton that started that.
I don't recall you complaining about her election denying.

Admit it, this thread is all about keeping Trump from running again. You cannot do that without repealing the 1st constitutional amendment. If you have a problem with the bill of rights, just say so.

@metal-brain said
Republicans didn't start that, it was Hillary Clinton that started that.
I don't recall you complaining about her election denying.

Admit it, this thread is all about keeping Trump from running again. You cannot do that without repealing the 1st constitutional amendment. If you have a problem with the bill of rights, just say so.

There are current eligibility requirements to running for office. I am suggesting to add a requirement that candidates check a "I will accept the outcome" box. I know it's a low bar to set, but the legitimacy of electing our leaders to public office depends on losers acknowledging defeat.

I don't know what Hillary or the 1st amendment have to do with that. She conceded the race.

@wildgrass said
There are current eligibility requirements to running for office. I am suggesting to add a requirement that candidates check a "I will accept the outcome" box. I know it's a low bar to set, but the legitimacy of electing our leaders to public office depends on losers acknowledging defeat.

I don't know what Hillary or the 1st amendment have to do with that. She conceded the race.

Because real election fraud claims would become illegal. Allegations of election fraud are protected by the 1st constitutional amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You cannot accomplish your objective without repealing the 1st amendment of the US constitution. The bill of rights prohibits your objective. Do you disagree?

@Metal-Brain
Seems to me no matter how the election rules are changed, say get rid of the electoral college, you would bitch about that.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Seems to me no matter how the election rules are changed, say get rid of the electoral college, you would bitch about that.

Would you be willing to get rid of the super delegates?

@metal-brain said
Because real election fraud claims would become illegal. Allegations of election fraud are protected by the 1st constitutional amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition th ...[text shortened]... 1st amendment of the US constitution. The bill of rights prohibits your objective. Do you disagree?

I do not agree. We have a legal system to deal with disputes. If you lose those disputes, then you lose. Admit defeat.