Will you accept the election results regardless of who wins?

[TemplarKormac]

All of our elections are free, fair, and safe.

No. They are free and safe.

Knowing how easy it is to influence elections anywhere in the world, we can't sit here and claim ours are perfect.

India on the other hand...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But to sit there and blindly trust a process that naturally has flaws, is naive. Very naive.

Which is why we have a huge election security apparatus. Every election is evaluated.

And, to absolutely nobody's surprise, it's nigh on impossible to commit massive ballot fraud.

The GOP knows this. They know they are lying about it. They know the only way to stealing an election is to throw out entire batches of votes. be they the votes of citizens or the electoral votes.

So that is what they attempt to do.

But yeah, nothing to see there. Let's look for some bamboo, instead!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Which is why we have a huge election security apparatus. Every election is evaluated.

If the evaluations were perfect, if our elections were flawless, neither side would feel the need to question the results every election cycle.

The left did in 16, the right in 20. They can't just be fair and secure only when your candidate wins.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Everyone should follow the call from Maxine Waters when you don’t get your way. Agreed?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the evaluations were perfect, if our elections were flawless, neither side would feel the need to question the results every election cycle.

That only typically happens in VERY close State races.

Not 10,000, 20,000 votes difference.

And every vote comes with an automatic recount. Does that mean we think the system can't be trusted? No, so your logic doesn't hold universally, really.

And every time it IS very close, the losing side will challenge. They always have. In court.

With due process. And facts, and evidence.

This all makes our system MORE trustworthy, not less so.

What sows irrational doubt in this system? Venomous lies about elections and vote counts and vote counting that pathetic, sore losers invented out of thin air.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Of course I will. But to sit there and blindly trust a process that naturally has flaws, is naive. Very naive.

If those flaws cost my candidate the election I will protest it.

You’re B.

 

[yidnar]

So you agree that Biden’s votes were legitimate, correct?

The number of votes he got was accurate, correct?

I agree that the courts didn't take up the cases so no proof of mass fraud was found .. however the election was skewed by powerful media and gov officials to sway the election in Bribens favor ..

 

[XponentialChaos]

No. They are free and safe.

Knowing how easy it is to influence elections anywhere in the world, we can't sit here and claim ours are perfect.

India on the other hand...

You won’t say shit about how unfair our elections are if your candidate wins.

B.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What sows irrational doubt in this system? Venomous lies about elections and vote counts and vote counting that pathetic, sore losers invented out of thin air.

Irrational?

This complacent attitude is why people ask questions. Arrogance, complacency, condescension.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You won’t say shit about how unfair our elections are if your candidate wins.

B.

If he is elected unfairly, I will most certainly speak out about it.

Don't speak for me, child.

 

[ChristisKing]

Can you name anything any vp has ever done?

No, but I know that most of them haven't messed up the country this badly.

What is suspicious?

That you want us to blindly accept results for an election that hasn't even happened yet.

Go to Kamala's website for her policies. It's all right there.

Alright does it also say how exactly she plans to accomplish all of this?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I agree that the courts didn't take up the cases so no proof of mass fraud was found .. however the election was skewed by powerful media and gov officials to sway the election in Bribens favor ..

Not what I asked.

Did Biden legitimately get those 81 million votes or not?

 

[yidnar]

Because everyone understands that that's not an effective tactic.

Instead, they are seeding state law and the election process in several states to try to steal it again.

if Harris loses your leftist comrades will go berzerk and be out in the streets in large mobs ....AGAIN ! you know it .. I know it .. we all know it ..

 

[XponentialChaos]

If he is elected unfairly, I will most certainly speak out about it.

Don't speak for me, child.

“Unfairly”.

You will consider it fair if your candidate wins. You will consider it unfair if your candidate loses.

B.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Follow Hillary.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/hillary-clinton-says-joe-biden-should-not-concede-on-election-night-idUSKBN25L2HB/

 

[Foxfyre]

If the evaluations were perfect, if our elections were flawless, neither side would feel the need to question the results every election cycle.

The left did in 16, the right in 20. They can't just be fair and secure only when your candidate wins.

The goal should be a registration and voting process that both sides feel is as secure as it can be so that both sides can trust the results as we once could do when both parties were ethical and demonstrated common sense.

That the Democrats are insisting the current system is just fine when most Americans do not trust it is either delusional or deliberate.

That the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail objecting to pretty much any proposal or idea or concept that would allow voters to trust the system as fair, honest and accurate suggests they want to be able to cheat. I can't come up with any other reason they are doing that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Irrational?

Absolutely. And evidence free.

Ask Team Trump about their abject failures, in the courts.

This complacent attitude is why people ask questions.

Now, what I described is why people maintain irrational doubt.

Questions have answers. Go get your questions answered. There's no there, there.

Doubting isn't skepticism. Asking theatrical and rhetorical questions isn't skepticism. It's just doubt. Mostly based on lies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You will consider it fair if your candidate wins. You will consider it unfair if your candidate loses.

You will stop speaking for me this instant. Back off.

I will consider it fair if it is proven to be fair. But all I hear are adulations about how perfect the system is. That kind of complacency belies perfection. It covers for flaws.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The goal should be a registration and voting process that both sides feel is as secure as it can be so that both sides can trust the results as we once could do when both parties were ethical and demonstrated common sense.

You won’t say shit about how insecure it is if your side wins. Not one word.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Absolutely. And evidence free.

Ask Team Trump about their abject failures, in the courts.

Now, what I described is why people maintain irrational doubt.

Questions have answers. Go get your questions answered. There's no there, there.

Doubting isn't skepticism. Asking theatrical and rhetorical questions isn't skepticism. It's just doubt. Mostly based on lies.

You're just looking down on people, you aren't answering any questions. You aren't dispelling any doubt.