It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Donald Trump Says He May Not Accept Election Results...Media Freaks Out.

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greggers

And how many cases are simply chalked up to "most likely" being clerical errors without any investigation whatsoever?


But, do you think there's enough to sway an election?



Depends.

Bush only won by 537 votes in Florida.

If voter fraud is going to be used and effective, I would think it would largely be employed in Battleground/Swing states. And states like Ohio & Florida are enough to turn a national election.


edit on 20-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
its not really a surprise.......

when you have the prove from leaks that the media are in hillarys pocket

and when you have dems on video saying themselves what crooked tactics they use to sway the election


you rly think a person wouldnt be skeptical?......



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sum to all fallacy. "Hey guys I found a singular case of voter fraud, therefore the whole country is corrupt!"


I never said the whole country is corrupt. Don't put words in my mouth.

Your fallacy is a Straw Man.

Lol. Really? So what are you trying to prove then? That voter fraud happens sometimes? No #. Of course it happens. People are dishonest and dishonest people will do what they think they can get away with to have their candidate win. It happens on both sides from time to time. But if you aren't proving that it is a problem on a national scale to de-legitmize an election then your point is useless.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sum to all fallacy. "Hey guys I found a singular case of voter fraud, therefore the whole country is corrupt!"


I never said the whole country is corrupt. Don't put words in my mouth.

Your fallacy is a Straw Man.

Lol. Really? So what are you trying to prove then? That voter fraud happens sometimes? No #. Of course it happens. People are dishonest and dishonest people will do what they think they can get away with to have their candidate win. It happens on both sides from time to time. But if you aren't proving that it is a problem on a national scale to de-legitmize an election then your point is useless.


One of the biggest reasons why it's not a large scale problem is because the penalties are very stiff, and each incremental vote helps the candidate very little, so a cheating politician would have to round up thousands of people willing to risk serious jail time by casting illegal votes.

It just doesn't happen.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

There is just so much evidence and just logical appeals to numbers and reality that make the "widespread election fraud" narrative a myth. It doesn't take my critical thought to see it, but it clearly takes much LESS critical thought to just pretend it exists anyways.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greggers

And how many cases are simply chalked up to "most likely" being clerical errors without any investigation whatsoever?


But, do you think there's enough to sway an election?



Depends.

Bush only won by 537 votes in Florida.

If voter fraud is going to be used and effective, I would think it would largely be employed in Battleground/Swing states. And states like Ohio & Florida are enough to turn a national election.


Yea too bad that Trump's terrible October is creating battleground states out of reliably Republican ones like Texas.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
And make no mistake, I'd be making the same arguments if it was Hillary claiming to have been cheated out of the election via "large scale voter fraud." I'm not a fan of either candidate, although I do have a deep personal disdain for Trump, just to be honest about my personal bias.

What I am a fan of is the truth.

And in truth, there simply is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
edit on 20-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sum to all fallacy. "Hey guys I found a singular case of voter fraud, therefore the whole country is corrupt!"


I never said the whole country is corrupt. Don't put words in my mouth.

Your fallacy is a Straw Man.

Lol. Really? So what are you trying to prove then? That voter fraud happens sometimes? No #. Of course it happens. People are dishonest and dishonest people will do what they think they can get away with to have their candidate win. It happens on both sides from time to time. But if you aren't proving that it is a problem on a national scale to de-legitmize an election then your point is useless.


The only reason anyone discovered Pia's fraudulent vote is because of the unusual circumstances of her death. So, excuse me for my skepticism that fraudulent votes go entirely unnoticed, all the time. AND if Pia's case is any indication, it is VERY easy to just dismiss them as "most likely" being clerical errors.

But then, investigating it further would have revealed a much more nefarious link to her possible killer.

Pia's Story

To summarize:

Pia Farrankopf was dead in her garage for five years. She worked for a company, Alltel/Systematics, in Little Rock, with deep ties to some major scandals involving illegal government spying. She installed core banking systems linked with a major banking spy scandal. Hillary, Vince Foster, and the Rose Law firm represented that company during the years she worked there. Her family reported she had an argument with her former boss at Alltel/Systematics, and said she seemed to be in fear of someone. Coincidentally, she worked at Alltel/Systematics for many years with Obama's great uncle, Cecil Goeldner -- AND he may have even been her boss at some point and traveled with her to install Systematics' core banking systems across the globe.

And, someone with an interest in voter fraud is the best lead in a criminal investigation.

But her fraudulent vote was merely chalked up to "most likely" be a clerical error.

Yeah. Pia's story speaks volumes to me about how bad it could actually be and I am not willing to give any benefit of the doubt.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Probably true. You know I am not a Trump supporter.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How are you still failing to understand that I could care less about individual anecdotes? Here. Let me spell some things out for you.
Does voting fraud happen? Yes.
Do people get away with it? Yes.
Is it widespread? No.
Is is a big enough of a concern to question any election? No.
Is it a big enough concern to question THIS election? DEFINITELY no.
edit on 20-10-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
It's like you people actually want a civil war.

Given the current level of idiocracy in the US, can you not see that such rhetoric could lead to wide scale civil disobedience, riots and potentially people getting killed? - especially given Trumps often violent rhetoric.

That's real people, in the USA, potentially getting killed because someone's ego can't accept a result, after one of the presidential candidates has preempted the election with accusations of rigging because he has a fairly good idea he may lose.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greggers

And how many cases are simply chalked up to "most likely" being clerical errors without any investigation whatsoever?


But, do you think there's enough to sway an election?



Depends.

Bush only won by 537 votes in Florida.

If voter fraud is going to be used and effective, I would think it would largely be employed in Battleground/Swing states. And states like Ohio & Florida are enough to turn a national election.



Oh, I followed that election carefully. I was in a political discussion forum in 1999.

The Diebold fiasco was a major fraud case. The stuff I learned.

I don't think that opportunity exists anymore.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

EXACTLY! This is why I find the defending of Trump's words here to be abhorrent and have been labeling that activity un-American.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




Donald Trump said in the final debate tonight that (if he loses) he might not accept the November 8th election results



no politician has ever NOT ACCEPTED the results of a Presidential election.



I don't understand the shock and awe over his statement.
troll, mentally ill or just stupid?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care two squats about how you feel about anecdotes.

You asked why people don't accept the Brennan Center's report and I answered you why I don't: It's Soros-funded, and I see evidence to dispute the position of the report with regard to voter fraud.

I have zero interest in changing YOUR mind.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly. You dispute it with flimsy evidence, anecdotes and stupid red herrings about who is funding the organization like having Soros' name attached to it automatically makes it corrupt or something. your reasoning is sub-par and by now I'm not even sure what point you are trying to prove. You don't seem to think this election will be rigged. You don't seem to believe that Trump deserves to win despite obvious polling saying otherwise. You don't seem to think that election fraud is widespread. So what are we talking about? Are you just voicing your biases against Soros or something?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
It's like you people actually want a civil war.

Given the current level of idiocracy in the US, can you not see that such rhetoric could lead to wide scale civil disobedience, riots and potentially people getting killed? - especially given Trumps often violent rhetoric.

That's real people, in the USA, potentially getting killed because someone's ego can't accept a result, after one of the presidential candidates has preempted the election with accusations of rigging because he has a fairly good idea he may lose.





I agree with you. And what people don't realize is that such acts of violence would create a political climate in which vast numbers of people might decide "freedom of the press" and "internet freedom" were less important than controlling rampant ignorance.

We have so many media outlets spewing so many different points of view, much of it completely erroneous, and way too many people are losing the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

What happens when the country decides that significant swathes of the population are too stupid to be allowed access to information?

It's a scary thought.

If there is going to be a revolution in this country, it ought to be based on something REAL, not some imaginary bogeyman like "voter fraud."
edit on 20-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Yep, even if this moron loses he will try to cause trouble and take as many down with him.
The day after is going to be interesting..I figured it might settle down here at ATS after but now, not so sure.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
man going off because of trump words....



" burn in"....hades!!!
lol. I am finding him quite humorous.

here's a question....

did gore accept the election results?
I know that in the end he did, but it seems he really didn't upon the first vote count, and there's many who still don't.

and we all have survived!!!



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
man going off because of trump words....



" burn in"....hades!!!
lol. I am finding him quite humorous.

here's a question....

did gore accept the election results?
I know that in the end he did, but it seems he really didn't upon the first vote count, and there's many who still don't.

and we all have survived!!!


The Gore situation was VERY different. He was all set to give his concession speech, but then news came in that Florida was too close to call (margin of victory less than margin of error) so an automatic recount was started.

At that point, the courts got involved. At no point was the election 'decided' until the Supreme Court weighed in. At that point, yes, he accepted defeat.

The man lost fair and square. When the margin of victory is less than the margin of error, that's what happens.

On the other hand, Trump is saying there is widespread voter fraud (which there's not) and is calling into question the legitimacy of the process before it's even started.

Again, big difference.




top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join