Jump to content

Four in ten supporters of Biden, Trump would not accept election defeat

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

If for some reson Trump were to lose the initial count of the electoral vote he would have the option of having the SCOTUS take a look at it.  The same is true for Biden.  The court would then weight the merits of the case and decide.  So it all balances out in the end.

Being a loser is not the same as questiong voter fraud. No SCOTUS will not get to look, only with valid proof. Admitting you have lost is not valid proof.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What a nonsense article. "Would not accept"?  Short of armed insurrection no-one polled has any choice but to accept.  Are they confusing the word "accept" with the word "like"?    Meanwhile

😂 This was only ever a "thing" since 2016 election results were announced. Trump won & the Dem's went into meltdown ( Hence the earned snowflake nickname)   Half of them were cr

Given that, IMO, Biden would not concede if the result was a narrow victory to Trump, till it had been settled by the courts, I hope Biden supporters can accept the same for Trump if the victory for B

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Being a loser is not the same as questiong voter fraud. No SCOTUS will not get to look, only with valid proof. Admitting you have lost is not valid proof.

Exactly, Trump can bragg as much as he wants, the SCOTUS will not care about it unless he brings proof of it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2020 at 4:58 PM, 3NUMBAS said:



Donald Trump invites Nigel Farage on stage to urge supporters to ‘vote for decency’ in US election


There are several Trump supporters on here routinely making an issue of posters who aren't US citizens commenting on the US elections. I'm sure they'll manage, but got to wonder how this will be addressed.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2020 at 10:56 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Her actual quote is


“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, 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 said in an interview with her former communications director Jennifer Palmieri for Showtime's “The Circus,” which released a clip Tuesday."



Not sure where this "on the night" comes from? But the quote above contradicts this claim as it clearly means a longer timeframe than one night.




you conveniently started your transcript just AFTER she said:


"...they have a couple scenarios that they're looking toward.  one is messing up absentee balloting, so that they get, then, maybe a narrow advantage in the electoral college, on election day."


as much as i despise her, it seems dishonest to remove the context from her quote, from the very video you linked to, and then claim you're "not sure where 'on the night' comes from."


you know very well she's referencing the postal service allegedly slowing deliveries and republican court cases to prevent states from counting legal ballots postmarked before the election but received later being counted, that votes will continue to be tallied in the following days, and that suits will be filed by both sides.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2020 at 2:42 PM, timkeen08 said:

"The survey, conducted from Oct. 13-20, shows 43% of Biden supporters would not accept a Trump victory, while 41% of Americans who want to re-elect Trump would not accept a win by Biden".


What I read from this is the inference, intentional or not, that Biden supporters are not Americans but specifically "Americans who want to re-elect Trump" are.  Made my day.  How did they let this slip by?


if it's any consolation, the wording stood out to me immediately as well.  i did not assume any bias on the part of the writer, but rather an attempt at not repeating the same phrase in one sentence.


of course following your logic, "americans who want to re-elect trump" are not necessarily trump supporters, but were like me in the last election "not her, anybody but her!" voters choosing the least despicable of the two viable offerings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:


As to the  'same old debunked argument' - debunked when and by whom? If you're referring to that Presidential Commission that couldn't find any (or any substantive) voter fraud in the 2016 election - they had no motive to since it was a Trump administration commission and it was a clear case of conflict of interest. A Democratic member of the commission wrote a letter of condemnation of the commission citing bias. The member letter is easily found with an internet search, as is all of the below, which is publicly available by a simple internet search.


As to Nation-wide voter fraud, plenty of cockroaches out there - even a database of the cockroaches.


Recent  Voter Fraud News 


1) James O'Keefe Exposes Ballot Harvesting All Over The Country-wide video evidence

2) Key Suspect in Dallas Voter Fraud Case Arrested


Voter Fraud Database - The Heritage Foundation


The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. 1,298 Proven instances of voter fraud - 1,121 Criminal convictions - 48 Civil penalties ...


Types of Voter Fraud:


IMPERSONATION FRAUD AT THE POLLS: Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered.


FALSE REGISTRATIONS: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.


DUPLICATE VOTING: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.


FRAUDULENT USE OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.


BUYING VOTES: Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.


ILLEGAL “ASSISTANCE” AT THE POLLS: Forcing or intimidating voters—particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language—to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with “assistance.”


INELIGIBLE VOTING: Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.


ALTERING THE VOTE COUNT: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.


BALLOT PETITION FRAUD: Forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot.


Of course all of the above Types of Voter Fraud and the Heritage Foundation database are based on voter fraud that does not exist or has been debunked, yes? How gullible do you think people are, anyway?


Why don't you go through The Heritage Foundation's database and personally 'debunk' the 1,298 criminal convictions - one by one and get back to us with the 'debunking' results?


Analysis: Heritage Foundation's Database Undermines Claims of Recent Voter Fraud

  The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity relies on a database produced by the Heritage Foundation to justify baseless claims — by President Trump and some of the panel’s members — of rampant voter fraud. But according to an analysis of the database by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the numbers in the database reveal exactly the opposite... 
Claims that the database contains almost 1,100 proven instances of voter fraud are grossly exaggerated and devoid of context, according to      Heritage Fraud Database: An Assessment


Edited by placeholder
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...