If republicans believe US elections are fraudulent

[winb83]

then why are they suggesting that getting move votes is going to overcome a process they suggest is fraudulent to begin with? If their opponents have the capacity to steal an election how could they ever lose it?

Furthermore why bother competing in a contest you say will be stolen?

Lastly how come when they win like in VA the results aren't questioned anymore? Suddenly they win and no concern about voter fraud anymore.

 

[Pressure]

Republicans just amplify white angst. Nothing is actually serious.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I think both sides questions election results. Let's not forget Russiagate.

 

[winb83]

I think both sides questions election results. Let's not forget Russiagate.

That's information manipulation not voter fraud. Russia had a campaign to influence people's opinions. That's factual.

The republican party suggest democrats can invent votes out of thin air.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

That's information manipulation not voter fraud. Russia had a campaign to influence people's opinions. That's factual.

The republican party suggest democrats can invent votes out of thin air.

Dude people were saying with 0 proof Russia might have changed votes.
Forget that even, what about 2000? Dems questions Florida's results as well (rightfully so IMO but Gore was down with it so not gonna be more up in arms than he was).

 

[Consigliere]

Dude people were saying with 0 proof Russia might have changed votes.
Forget that even, what about 2000? Dems questions Florida's results as well (rightfully so IMO but Gore was down with it so not gonna be more up in arms than he was).

Multiple people were arrested and convicted in the course of the Russian investigation.

And no one threatened to overturn democracy over the Florida results, primarily Gore, since he conceded for the good of the Republic. It was business as usual.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Multiple people were arrested and convicted in the course of the Russian investigation.

And no one threatened to overturn democracy over the Florida results, primarily Gore, since he conceded for the good of the Republic. It was business as usual.

OK I didn't say they threatened to overturn democracy, I just said Dems claimed the election was stolen.

 

[winb83]

Dude people were saying with 0 proof Russia might have changed votes.
Forget that even, what about 2000? Dems questions Florida's results as well (rightfully so IMO but Gore was down with it so not gonna be more up in arms than he was).

The FBI warnings about them tracking the campaign Russia was doing counts as zero proof?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

The FBI warnings about them tracking the campaign Russia was doing counts as zero proof?

Yes, it just words from the FBI. That's not proof.

 

[winb83]

Yes, it just words from the FBI. That's not proof.

Are you really trying to equate a man inventing a conspiracy theory with no evidence to save face because he was down in the pre-election polls to a US intelligence agency warning the general public they're tracking a foreign influence campaign?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Are you really trying to equate a man inventing a conspiracy theory with no evidence to save face because he was down in the pre-election polls to a US intelligence agency warning the general public they're tracking a foreign influence campaign?

No I'm comparing what Trump did to people who made up stuff about the Russians stealing the election and that 2000 specifically Florida was stolen.

 

[winb83]

No I'm comparing what Trump did to people who made up stuff about the Russians stealing the election and that 2000 specifically Florida was stolen.

There's no comparison.

One of those three was rooted in a guy saying things like they're just going to print up ballots and make up votes. Basically that the process of American elections in and of itself isn't a trust worthy process.

The other two were rooted in actual events that happened one a foreign influence campaign and the other an attempt to decide what voter were and weren't counted selectively due to a voter process malfunction to achieve a particular desired result.

In what other civilized industrial country does the head of state come out and say our election process is untrustworthy because it might not go the way he wants? What other head of state tries to undermine his nation's process for selecting government?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

There's no comparison.

One of those three was rooted in a guy saying things like they're just going to print up ballots and make up votes. Basically that the process of American elections in and of itself isn't a trust worthy process.

The other two were rooted in actual events that happened one a foreign influence campaign and the other an attempt to decide what voter were and weren't counted selectively due to a voter process malfunction to achieve a particular desired result.

In what other civilized industrial country does the head of state come out and say our election process is untrustworthy because it might not go the way he wants? What other head of state tries to undermine his nation's process for selecting government?

Hillary 2 months before the 2016 US election.

Hillary Clinton Accuses Russia of Interfering With U.S. Election (Published 2016)

 

[winb83]

Hillary 2 months before the 2016 US election.

Hillary Clinton Accuses Russia of Interfering With U.S. Election (Published 2016)

I get that you seem to want to both sides this thing but she was never a sitting US president. Also the FBI and further investigations from congress and the AG special counsel back her on claims that Russia interfered in the election. Lastly none of that is to say that the process itself is fraudulent.

Nobody stormed the capital on her behalf because of claims that the US election process itself is fraudulent and they're taking this country from her supporters.

From hence forth before elections the republican playbook is to talk up fraud and not concede if they actually lose but drop all that in the event they win and accept victory. It's an I win or you lose scenario.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I get that you seem to want to both sides this thing but she was never a sitting US president. Also the FBI and further investigations from congress and the AG special counsel back her on claims that Russia interfered in the election. Lastly none of that is to say that the process itself is fraudulent.

Nobody stormed the capital on her behalf because of claims that the US election process itself is fraudulent and they're taking this country from her supporters.

From hence forth before elections the republican playbook is to talk up fraud and not concede if they actually lose but drop all that in the event they win and accept victory. It's an I win or you lose scenario.

They back her with what? Words? That's not good enough for me where is the proof and now her lawyer and the source of info she paid for are getting indicted for lying to the government. She was a former Secretary of State when she did that.