McConnell, other Republicans split with Trump on peaceful transfer of power

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

The experts say there is no voter fraud, so can we put the Russian Interference to rest. Next, all this talk of Trump not stepping down if he loses is all talk. Just something to feed the frenzy. All the "what might happen" hype is just a way to sensationalize the news, so the talking heads can talk about "what might happen"

 

Have the election and let the chips fall as they may.

russian interference was confirmed by a repub committee.

 

A repub committee also found no meaningful voter fraud so was disbanded.

[Cod Face]

45 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

1 hour ago, Cod Face said:

Amazing that some voters think that there will need to be a transition of power.  Naïvety on steroids tinged with illusions of adequacy.

Have you heard of free and fair transparent elections

Yes, I have.  

 

Have you heard of the incumbent President winning a second term and, therefore, there would be no transition of power?

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Cod Face said:

Yes, I have.  

 

Have you heard of the incumbent President winning a second term and, therefore, there would be no transition of power?

 

There was no question of Trump refusing to accept election results if he won. He practically said exactly that in one of his recent rallies. If Trump wins, the point is irrelevant. The question was, obviously, raised with regard to the possibility he loses.

[RocketDog]

On 9/25/2020 at 7:58 AM, Antonymous said:

Yep, on record.

 

"We've got to have a massive legal operation," she said. "And I know the Biden campaign is working on that."

 

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,” Clinton said. “Because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win, if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

 

Clinton made these remarks during an interview on Showtime’s “The Circus”.

What exactly is so disturbing about these statements? If you think it is likely to rain you take an umbrella. 

 

Understanding and predicting your opponent's likely behavior is the essence of strategy. 

It is also the entire basis of all types of insurance. 

 

You act as if you've made some cogent and enlightening revelation that exposes nefarious actions. And thanks for providing the source of your information. I certainly view Showtime as a reliable and authoritative news source right along with FauxNews. 

 

In this case Trump has made it clear that he will employ every branch of the government that he can command/coerce into supporting his attempt to stay in office for as long as possible. He has intentionally set the game into play. 

 

Why is it bizarre to prepare for such an eventuality? 

[bendejo]

3 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

It certainly hasn't been "peaceful" since the 2016 election thanks to the Democrats who still have not accepted Trump's being legitimately voted in, I agree with at least one commenter (Masterton, HERE ) that this article is an example of poor journalism by Reuters. So what is the definition of "peaceful" w/r to an election anyway?

Hogwash.  The Dems don't say this.  But Fox News does.  Repeatedly.  And people like yourself.

Speak truth or shut up.

 

 

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, Cod Face said:

Yes, I have.  

 

Have you heard of the incumbent President winning a second term and, therefore, there would be no transition of power?

I am unsure how you came to your conclusion about the second term, the results are awaiting voting and counting, so you may be premature in you speculation, unless you have results in a vault somewhere already.  There is a possibility he may win a second term, he has as yet to win.

That would not be free , fair and transparent, now would it?

Perhaps you are counting your votes before they have been cast?

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by RJRS1301

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Another day, another Trump devotee having to interpret what comes out of his beloved leaders mouth; he didn't mean that; he's only stirring the pot; he's been misquoted.

When asked if he would committ to a peacful transistion of power, Trump uttered the immortal words, '“We’re going to have to see what happens,”

This unprecidented refusal to accept defeat and expressing less than complete confidence in the US democratic electoral process is of such concern that even his own Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans have had to reassure the public with a  'There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792," 

Just let that sink in. The Senate Majority Leader, Trumps Senate Majority Leader has had to publicly come out and assure the American people that the current POTUS will leave office if voted out. Because the POTUS himself refuses to do that.

But yeah, it's just 'something to feed the frenzy' another 'nothing burger'.....nothing to see here, just move along.

Just ask me this, at what exact stage will you guys stop trying to forgive the unforgivable, stop excusing the inexcusable, stop defending the indefensable? I mean , you must be exhausted.

"Just let that sink in. The Senate Majority Leader, Trumps Senate Majority Leader has had to publicly come out and assure the American people that the current POTUS will leave office if voted out."

 

Here's another disturbing thought:  We have to take Mitch McConnell's word that he won't accept Trump staying put if he loses the election.  We all know what McConnell's word is worth.

[scorecard]

On 9/25/2020 at 12:20 PM, TKDfella said:

According to Kayleigh McEnany (some 8 hours ago) when asked the question she replied that Pres. Trump will accept the results of a free and fair election. So I guess we will have to wait and see who considers the election free and fair and who doesn't. As an outsider I have no politics here...just stating what was said. 

She tells just as many lies and twists as her predecessor and her boss.

 

Wouldn't believe her if she indicated the pope is catholic.

[Sujo]

17 minutes ago, scorecard said:

She tells just as many lies and twists as her predecessor and her boss.

 

Wouldn't believe her if she indicated the pope is catholic.

The latest is she says trump never downplayed the virus, when he is recorded that he did.

[CorpusChristie]

6 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Another day, another Trump devotee having to interpret what comes out of his beloved leaders mouth; he didn't mean that; he's only stirring the pot; he's been misquoted.

When asked if he would committ to a peacful transistion of power, Trump uttered the immortal words, '“We’re going to have to see what happens,”

This unprecidented refusal to accept defeat and expressing less than complete confidence in the US democratic electoral process is of such concern that even his own Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans have had to reassure the public with a  'There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792," 

Just let that sink in. The Senate Majority Leader, Trumps Senate Majority Leader has had to publicly come out and assure the American people that the current POTUS will leave office if voted out. Because the POTUS himself refuses to do that.

But yeah, it's just 'something to feed the frenzy' another 'nothing burger'.....nothing to see here, just move along.

Just ask me this, at what exact stage will you guys stop trying to forgive the unforgivable, stop excusing the inexcusable, stop defending the indefensable? I mean , you must be exhausted.

If there was votes fraud , fraudulent votes , then that issue would have to be investigated before a President is sworn in .

[candide]

1 hour ago, Masterton said:

 

This is false. Biden started hiring lawyers months ago, it had nothing to with Trump wanting to fight election results. You have it totally backwards. And they are also trying to change election laws in various states, in some cases successfully, to benefit them. It is the Democrats who are trying to steal the election and they are peddling an advance narrative that if Trump wins it is because of "chicanery" (Biden's words which I see you deliberately used above). They have also wheeled out their favourite dead horse, Russian collusion, on numerous occasions already. They also plan on doing what they did in 2000 when they tried to steal the election through the courts in Florida, except this time it will be on a much larger scale.

 

I realize it is pointless trying to explain these things to the select group of TDS sufferers on this forum, but the problem is twofold. Firstly the mainstream media lie and make up stories to attack Trump every day, as well as spin and twist what he says, (as evident in the OP), because they are carrying water for the Democrat party and their articles are nothing but opinion hit pieces, they are not news. The USA no longer has a free press and hasn't for some time. This is not even up for debate. Then people repeat the garbage they see on "the news" as if it is fact, and when challenged, link to the original fake story as a credible source to back up what they think is their opinion. Any information that opposes or challenges the narrative is immediately discredited or attacked, and in some cases deleted. So what we are left with is an echo chamber of confirmation biased clapping seals who are united in their ignorance and misinformation and bizarrely willing to unconditionally believe absolutely ridiculous things that sane rational people would otherwise question. It really is quite astonishing and as someone who is not American and has no skin in the game, it fascinates me to no end.

Sorry but it's not the Dems who have:

- been bragging for month that there will be massive rigging (despite contradicting evidence),

- asked people to vote twice,

- said that "the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged,”

- etc...

 

As Morch nicely expressed it, when you expect rain it makes sense to bring an umbrella.

 

[MaxYakov]

5 hours ago, bendejo said:

9 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

It certainly hasn't been "peaceful" since the 2016 election thanks to the Democrats who still have not accepted Trump's being legitimately voted in, I agree with at least one commenter (Masterton, HERE ) that this article is an example of poor journalism by Reuters. So what is the definition of "peaceful" w/r to an election anyway?

Hogwash.  The Dems don't say this.  But Fox News does.  Repeatedly.  And people like yourself.

Speak truth or shut up.

So those are my only options, eh? Agree with you and others of your ilk or automatically I'm a "Trump supporter" and I watch Fox News. This is true "Hogwash"!

 

I don't watch Fox News. I get my "truth" directly from watching what Democrats say and from their body language as I require for ultimate sourcing from the actual people (and not "out of context") or from multiple, reliable non-MSM sources (I have at least 20-30 of these and I'm always critical of what they say because they are not direct sources. Nancy "I was set up" Pelosi, Joe "You ain't black if you don't vote Democrat" Biden, Cackling Kamala "Yes or no? Yes or no?" Harris, and the misinformed protesters who riot when they refuse to accept the Grand Jury judgment in the Breonna Taylor shooting. And it goes on and on...

 

It' all out there on video, this is something people forget - that their ridiculous statements and actions are being recorded for posterity. So I can judge for myself who the kooks are directly from (you guessed it) the kooks themselves. I neither need nor desire Fox News or any other MSM news media to lie and spin the news before it gets to me. I believe this is called "critical thinking". Maybe you should try it sometime or you should UFTS.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by MaxYakov

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

So those are my only options, eh? Agree with you or automatically I'm a "Trump supporter" and I watch Fox News. This is true "Hogwash"!

 

I don't watch Fox News. I get my "truth" directly from watching what Democrats say and from their body language as I require for ultimate sourcing from the actual people (and not "out of context") or from multiple, reliable non-MSM sources (I have at least 20-30 of these and I'm always critical of what they say because they are not direct sources. Nancy "I was set up" Pelosi, Joe "You ain't black if you don't vote Democrat" Biden, Cackling Kamala "Yes or no? Yes or know" Harris, and the misinformed protesters who riot when they refuse to accept the Grand Jury judgment in the Breonna Taylor shooting. And it goes on and on...

 

It' all out there on video, this is something people forget - that their ridiculous statements and actions are being recorded for posterity. So I can judge for myself who the kooks are directly from (you guessed it) the kooks themselves. I neither need nor desire Fox News or any other MSM news media to lie and spin the news before it gets to me. I believe this is called "critical thinking". Maybe you should try it sometime or you should UFTS.

 

 

 

And for all that, you seem totally oblivious to Trump's words, gaffs, abuse and whatnot. Or, perhaps, very forgiving as far as he's concerned. Citing nameless media sources and alleging they are reliable required your word be taken for it. See the previous comment as to why that could be a problem.

[MaxYakov]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And for all that, you seem totally oblivious to Trump's words, gaffs, abuse and whatnot. Or, perhaps, very forgiving as far as he's concerned. Citing nameless media sources and alleging they are reliable required your word be taken for it. See the previous comment as to why that could be a problem.

Trump's statements and body language get the same critical treatment from me as anyone else's would. As one of my (to remain unidentified) critical news commentators has stated: There's good Trump and bad Trump. I'm only a critical observer of these political events. I've never donated o a political cause, for example.

 

I didn't cite "nameless media sources"? Go find your own (I can see where this may be problematic for you). Mine are well-respected authors and commentators such as Victor Davis Hanson, for example, and a lot of others (often with multiple NY Times best sellers) who use logic over emotion and who I'm sure you would summarily reject. But pursuit of this is off-topic and I'm terminating this discussion (as usual) NOW.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by MaxYakov

[plentyofnuttin]

1 hour ago, MaxYakov said:

So those are my only options, eh? Agree with you and others of your ilk or automatically I'm a "Trump supporter" and I watch Fox News. This is true "Hogwash"!

 

I don't watch Fox News. I get my "truth" directly from watching what Democrats say and from their body language as I require for ultimate sourcing from the actual people (and not "out of context") or from multiple, reliable non-MSM sources (I have at least 20-30 of these and I'm always critical of what they say because they are not direct sources. Nancy "I was set up" Pelosi, Joe "You ain't black if you don't vote Democrat" Biden, Cackling Kamala "Yes or no? Yes or no?" Harris, and the misinformed protesters who riot when they refuse to accept the Grand Jury judgment in the Breonna Taylor shooting. And it goes on and on...

 

It' all out there on video, this is something people forget - that their ridiculous statements and actions are being recorded for posterity. So I can judge for myself who the kooks are directly from (you guessed it) the kooks themselves. I neither need nor desire Fox News or any other MSM news media to lie and spin the news before it gets to me. I believe this is called "critical thinking". Maybe you should try it sometime or you should UFTS.

At first I was sceptical of your sources but you had me at the "body language" bit. 

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

Trump's statements and body language get the same critical treatment from me as anyone else's would. As one of my (to remain unidentified) critical news commentators has stated: There's good Trump and bad Trump. I'm only a critical observer of these political events. I've never donated o a political cause, for example.

 

I didn't cite "nameless media sources"? Go find your own (I can see where this may be problematic for you). Mine are well-respected authors and commentators such as Victor David Hanson, for example, and a lot of others (often with multiple NY Times best sellers) who use logic over emotion and who I'm sure you would summarily reject. But pursuit of this is off-topic and I'm terminating this discussion (as usual) NOW.

 

You keep bringing up body language, wasn't aware you're an expert. Don't recall you sharing insights based on that. Similarly, can't off-hand recall much criticism directed at Trump from your corner - maybe you see his actions, policies and words as not meriting such. If so, we'll have to disagree.

 

Yes. each can find his own sources, but for discussion to be possible, there needs to be some common ground, some translation of meaning and ideas. Otherwise it's (as seen here all too often) just people shouting at each other.

 

I wouldn't necessarily reject Hanson's scholarly work - but yes, I see his political views as misguided. The bit that put me off, really, wasn't so much him turning out to be a Trump fan, as the free pass he gave to Trump with regard to style of delivery. A while back he had some major complaints about the very same style directed at himself as criticism.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

If there was votes fraud , fraudulent votes , then that issue would have to be investigated before a President is sworn in .

If there are credible suspicions of voter fraud they need to be investigated regardless of the election outcome.

 

However if the number of questionable votes, late arriving and uncounted absentee votes are smaller than one candidate's margin of victory, the election results should stand independent of any investigation.  If there are enough questionable votes to conceivably change the outcome of an election they need to be investigated and resolved before a winner is declared if possible.

 

Regardless, the Constitution mandates a new President be sworn in on January 20, 2021.

[jcsmith]

On 9/25/2020 at 5:31 AM, Puchaiyank said:

Yes, but, but, but...HRC is on record telling Joe Biden to not acknowledge defeat...hang tough until the numbers are in his favor...however long it may take!  In your face corruption!

 

Trump is doing a tit for tat routine...

What does Hillary have to do with this election? She said on TV that he shouldn't concede the election if he's behind until it goes through the court process. Why? Because they know that Trump is on a war with mail in voting. They know that the election results won't be determined on election night. And we know that Trump is not above claiming victory falsely. So she advised that if there is a close election loss that he allows it to play out rather than conceding. 

Even if she had actually suggesting something nefarious though, she has absolutely nothing to do with this election though. Trump is not only a participant, but he is in a position where he can try to influence the election. For example, there is a $300 million ad campaign that his administration is putting out soon which will try to change the perception that Trump has handled the pandemic horribly... $300 million of TAXPAYER MONEY!

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/25/trump-hhs-ads-coronavirus-421957 

You have the mail sorting machines and the mail crisis that was artificially created just before the election. You have Trump trying to undermine confidence in the election. And you have Trump refusing to say that he would accept the results of the election. So her advice wasn't misguided. 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, jcsmith said:

What does Hillary have to do with this election? She said on TV that he shouldn't concede the election if he's behind until it goes through the court process. Why? Because they know that Trump is on a war with mail in voting. They know that the election results won't be determined on election night. And we know that Trump is not above claiming victory falsely. So she advised that if there is a close election loss that he allows it to play out rather than conceding. 

Even if she had actually suggesting something nefarious though, she has absolutely nothing to do with this election though. Trump is not only a participant, but he is in a position where he can try to influence the election. For example, there is a $300 million ad campaign that his administration is putting out soon which will try to change the perception that Trump has handled the pandemic horribly... $300 million of TAXPAYER MONEY!

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/25/trump-hhs-ads-coronavirus-421957 

You have the mail sorting machines and the mail crisis that was artificially created just before the election. You have Trump trying to undermine confidence in the election. And you have Trump refusing to say that he would accept the results of the election. So her advice wasn't misguided. 

From your source:

 

"The health department is moving quickly on a highly unusual advertising campaign to "defeat despair" about the coronavirus, a $300 million-plus effort that was shaped by a political appointee close to President Donald Trump and executed in part by close allies of the official, using taxpayer funds."

 

"But 10 current and former health officials told POLITICO that they have concerns about the campaign's scope, goals and even how it has been funded — by pulling money out of health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control that are in the midst of fighting the pandemic, rather than working with lawmakers to set up a brand-new advertising effort with congressional oversight, or drawing on substantial internal resources and expertise in running health-related public service campaigns. "

 

So the Trump administration has appointed a political appointee to take money from the CDC, where it could be used to fight the Covid 19 epidemic, and is using it for a feel-good don't worry be happy ad about the administrations ineffective handling of the pandemic.

 

The ad campaign will be lite on expertise, but will feature some pro-Trump celebrities.  After all, who would you rather trust for medical advice; medical experts or Dennis Quaid?

 

This is corruption of a nature such that only the completely blind--the Trump supporters--can't see it for what it is.  Trump is truly the Swamp Creature extraordinaire!

 

 

[J Town]

23 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine is the dems are sensationalizing something Mr Trump has said.

No, NOT just the Democrats. Plenty of Republicans including Mitch and Lyndsey realize the dangerous words spewing from 45's gob.

[Henryford]

It's a sad state of affairs that a great democratic country like America is even talking about not accepting election results. They will end up like the EUSSR.

[Cod Face]

19 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

21 hours ago, Cod Face said:

Yes, I have.  

 

Have you heard of the incumbent President winning a second term and, therefore, there would be no transition of power?

I am unsure how you came to your conclusion about the second term, the results are awaiting voting and counting, so you may be premature in you speculation, unless you have results in a vault somewhere already.  There is a possibility he may win a second term, he has as yet to win.

That would not be free , fair and transparent, now would it?

Perhaps you are counting your votes before they have been cast?

And I am unsure as to how you came to your conclusion that I had a crystal ball, I used the word "would" (a conditional word meaning there is some doubt or uncertainty) not "will", in my comment...

"...and, therefore, there would be no transition of power?"

 

I won't be voting as I'm not a US citizen or an illegal immigrant who are the only ones allowed to vote, apparently.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Cod Face

[EVENKEEL]

18 minutes ago, Cod Face said:

And I am unsure as to how you came to your conclusion that I had a crystal ball, I used the word "would" (a conditional word meaning there is some doubt or uncertainty) not "will", in my comment...

"...and, therefore, there would be no transition of power?"

 

I won't be voting as I'm not a US citizen or an illegal immigrant who are the only ones allowed to vote, apparently.

If they're illegal they're not immigrants but aliens. Illegal alien.

[Mavideol]

On 9/25/2020 at 4:26 AM, webfact said:

"The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792," McConnell wrote in a tweet.

sorry man but can't believe one word out of your mouth, reminds me of your Rep colleague Lindsay Graham  comments in 2016

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-lindsey-graham-trump-supreme-court-20200919-ap4tfhe47jff3kwn4jwpxx6lre-story.html

 

"" Lindsey Graham reverses 2016 declaration that Supreme Court justices shouldn’t be pushed through in an election year: ‘Use my words against me''''

 

“I want you to use my words against me,” Graham said on the Senate floor four years ago. "If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”

[jcsmith]

46 minutes ago, Cod Face said:

I won't be voting as I'm not a US citizen or an illegal immigrant who are the only ones allowed to vote, apparently.

Those are the kind of statements that Trump will say, and Fox will parrot... When of course there is zero evidence of it actually happening.

[johnnybangkok]

17 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

If there was votes fraud , fraudulent votes , then that issue would have to be investigated before a President is sworn in .

OMG what are you not getting? There is absolutely no proof there is any meaningful voter fraud going on or has ever gone on that would make any substantial difference to a countrywide election. This is established knowledge for anyone other than Trump and his devotees. 
Trump is VERY obviously using this as his pre-established excuse to not go with the results and why all you are hearing now is Trump will honor the results only in a “free and fair election”. What you are not hearing is he will honor the results, come what may. 
It’s his fall back plan and as usual, Trump fans are falling for the spin. 

[MaxYakov]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

18 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

If there was votes fraud , fraudulent votes , then that issue would have to be investigated before a President is sworn in .

OMG what are you not getting? There is absolutely no proof there is any meaningful voter fraud going on or has ever gone on that would make any substantial difference to a countrywide election. This is established knowledge for anyone other than Trump and his devotees. 
Trump is VERY obviously using this as his pre-established excuse to not go with the results and why all you are hearing now is Trump will honor the results only in a “free and fair election”. What you are not hearing is he will honor the results, come what may. 
It’s his fall back plan and as usual, Trump fans are falling for the spin. 

No, voter fraud isn't a myth: 10 cases where it is all too real [link] - Washington Times article dated Oct 17, 2016

 

Do I think there is the possibility of fraudulent voting with mail-in votes via the U.S.P.S? I've had or friends of mine have had three bad experiences with the U.S.P.S. I had a vehicle license renewal sticker stolen right out of the DMV-mailed envelope. My ex lost an entire large shipment of Christmas presents that were stolen. A GF's father worked for U.S.P.S and, instead of delivering the mail, he was hoarding it in his garage. He was found out and fired. The stories of mail being discarded instead of being delivered is not uncommon.

 

Imagine if enough money to bribe postal workers to fiddle with these mail-in ballots is provided as incentive AND the method of fraud is perfected. Isn't it common knowledge that Democrat-run administrations in several states are scrambling to change the ballot rules or am I imagining these reports.

 

If that's not enough here's another source of voter fraud reports (an entire database):

 

A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States [link] - The Heritage Foundation

 

"The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted. It is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed. In addition to diluting the votes of legitimate voters, fraud can have an impact in close elections, and we have many close elections in this country. Preventing, deterring, and prosecuting election fraud is essential to protecting the integrity of our voting process. Reforms intended to ensure such integrity do not disenfranchise voters and, in fact, protect their right to vote. Winning elections leads to political power and the incentives to take advantage of security vulnerabilities are great, so it is important that we take reasonable steps to make it hard to cheat, while making it easy for legitimate voters to vote."

 

To me it's not a matter of "if" there is election fraud; it's a matter of how much "is/will" be going on for this important election. Enough to throw key/critical states' electoral votes to one candidate or the other? I know the Democrats and the MSM will go to extreme lengths [these are well-documented] to unseat him or forbid Trump a second term. They've already demonstrated this over the past four years of ridiculous activity to attempt to knock him out of office. They've demonstrated to me and any Americans that aren't sound asleep at the switch that they will stop at nothing.

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by MaxYakov

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

No, voter fraud isn't a myth: 10 cases where it is all too real [link] - Washington Times article dated Oct 17, 2016

 

Do I think there is the possibility of fraudulent voting with mail-in votes via the U.S.P.S? I've had or friends of mine have had three bad experiences with the U.S.P.S. I had a vehicle license renewal sticker stolen right out of the DMV-mailed envelope. My ex lost an entire large shipment of Christmas presents that were stolen. A GF's father worked for U.S.P.S and, instead of delivering the mail, he was hoarding it in his garage. He was found out and fired. The stories of mail being discarded instead of being delivered is not uncommon.

 

Imagine if enough money to bribe postal workers to fiddle with these mail-in ballots is provided as incentive AND the method of fraud is perfected. Isn't it common knowledge that Democrat-run administrations in several states are scrambling to change the ballot rules or am I imagining these reports.

 

If that's not enough here's another source of voter fraud reports (an entire database):

 

A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States [link] - The Heritage Foundation

 

"The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted. It is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed. In addition to diluting the votes of legitimate voters, fraud can have an impact in close elections, and we have many close elections in this country. Preventing, deterring, and prosecuting election fraud is essential to protecting the integrity of our voting process. Reforms intended to ensure such integrity do not disenfranchise voters and, in fact, protect their right to vote. Winning elections leads to political power and the incentives to take advantage of security vulnerabilities are great, so it is important that we take reasonable steps to make it hard to cheat, while making it easy for legitimate voters to vote."

 

To me it's not a matter of "if" there is election fraud; it's a matter of how much "is/will" be going on for this important election. Enough to throw critical states and their electoral votes to one candidate or the other? I know the Democrats and the MSM will go to extreme lengths [these are well-documented] to forbid Trump a second term. They've already demonstrated this over the past four years of ridiculous activity to attempt to knock him out of office. They've demonstrated to me and any Americans that aren't sound asleep at the switch that they will stop at nothing.

 

Trump set up a committee to investigate voter fraud. They found nothing.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Henryford said:

It's a sad state of affairs that a great democratic country like America is even talking about not accepting election results. They will end up like the EUSSR.

 

There is no EUSSR. That's just a trolling meme used by Euro-skeptics and Brexiters. As things stand now, the USA could take lessons from most EU countries.

[MaxYakov]

34 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Trump set up a committee to investigate voter fraud. They found nothing.

I hate to waste time with nonsense like this. The commission disbanded over two years ago and it was investigating the 2016 election. One member of the commission formally complained of bias within the commission so that Trump's winning could not be discounted.

 

Read all about the letter from Matthew Dunlop (D) a former member of the commission HERE - An NBC News Article.

 

Hello! This is 2020 election and as I said the Democrats are scrambling in certain states they control to change the election laws at this late date. Trump and others have indicated potential fraud with the mail-in votes which was the subject of my comment, not the 2016 election and a potentially biased commission. Get with the program and try to pay attention and follow the links I provided. How gullible are you anyway? (or maybe I should be asking what your "narrative" is?).

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by MaxYakov