• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump not ready to commit to election results if he loses

Mail-in ballots will ensure that there is.

I don't know if it ensures fraud, but we don't know what we don't know. Are we going to be able to do a new kind of election in the middle of a pandemic?

I wish we could do a practice election first to work out the kinks.
 
Democrats are not trying to prevent children from attending school. We are going on a what if...he refuses to leave if he loses in November...
In fact White Democrats, then as now, are still trying to prevent Black children from attending schools of their parent's choice. The racism has never left the Democratic Party and the evidence is everywhere.

Obama, against the wishes and protests of Black parents, shut down the very successful Charter Schools in DC. Trump changed that as soon as he became President. Democrats’ views on charters diverge by race as 2020 elections loom
 
We'll all see in November but my bet is on him losing and going bonkers about it.
I could be wrong but I hope I'm not because it'll be comedy gold watching him moan like a spoiled 6-year-old.

Losing an election isn't an "eviction"...lol
 
Now, that's funny. Well played.
You think it's funny that any President, but in this case Donald Trump, can get away with anything? Why is that? What did he get away with?

I'm guessing that you now want to run away from your claim, right?
 
Democrats are not trying to prevent children from attending school. We are going on a what if...he refuses to leave if he loses in November...

Regarding Democrats preventing children from attending school - He's referring to when the army was used to enforce school integration.

The question here is whether Trump would accept the results or contest them. That's something no politician will commit to. Shennanigans will occur. If they are enough to potentially tip the balance (say, a few thousand votes in Florida with a close electoral count), the loser (Trump or Biden) will contest the results.

Trump is going to leave office if he loses. There's no question of that. Suggestions otherwise need to go to the Conspiracy theory section.
 
You think it's funny that any President, but in this case Donald Trump, can get away with anything? Why is that? What did he get away with?

I'm guessing that you now want to run away from your claim, right?

That's a good question. Trump is arguably the most scrutinized president in History. Certainly, Obama got away with far more.
 
That's a good question. Trump is arguably the most scrutinized president in History. Certainly, Obama got away with far more.

:rofl

"Obama got away with far more" is so laugh worthy, I spilled my drink.

Trump may be the "most scrutinized president" simply because he is an attention hound, making truly stupid remarks every day, so of course the media is all over him. Funny, how the man continues his fight to hide his financial shenanigans from the public eye.
 
That's a good question. Trump is arguably the most scrutinized president in History. Certainly, Obama got away with far more.
And that's gradually becoming more exposed. A great deal more may be learned before the election but an investigation of his financial history should be undertaken, as well as his political corruption.
 
:rofl

"Obama got away with far more" is so laugh worthy, I spilled my drink.

Trump may be the "most scrutinized president" simply because he is an attention hound, making truly stupid remarks every day, so of course the media is all over him. Funny, how the man continues his fight to hide his financial shenanigans from the public eye.
Trump has been publicly 'scrutinized' since his 20's. He was a celebrity long before he became President.
 
Trump not ready to commit to election results if he loses



How many times have I said he won't leave until the military evicts him? I'll say it again - in 2021 or even 2025, he won't leave willingly.

Wrong. Trump is a positive person who believes he will win and there is no need to even address losing. Trump sees the glass as half full. If you ask him about a glass half empty he doesn't even acknowledge such loser mentality.
 
:rofl

"Obama got away with far more" is so laugh worthy, I spilled my drink.

Trump may be the "most scrutinized president" simply because he is an attention hound, making truly stupid remarks every day, so of course the media is all over him. Funny, how the man continues his fight to hide his financial shenanigans from the public eye.

Reality can be amusing, I suppose.
 
You think it's funny that any President, but in this case Donald Trump, can get away with anything? Why is that? What did he get away with?

I'm guessing that you now want to run away from your claim, right?

Have you been under a rock for the last 4 years?
Trump has got away with loads of things that would normally see him face consequences.
If you doubt that then there's no point in me saying anything as you're obviously blind to Trumps wrongdoings.
 
Wrong. Trump is a positive person who believes he will win and there is no need to even address losing. Trump sees the glass as half full. If you ask him about a glass half empty he doesn't even acknowledge such loser mentality.

In a 2 horse race only a completely delusional person would not contemplate the possibility of defeat.
 
In a 2 horse race only a completely delusional person would not contemplate the possibility of defeat.

Well, there you have it.
 
Should your dream and paranoia come to fruition, that Trump loses the election and then refuses to vacate the WH, respectively, that would be a law enforcement issue and of no concern of the armed services.

It's Constitutional law enforcement issue.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And it's not mindless paranoia. People in his own family don't put it past him to pull such a stunt. In fact his Russian handlers at Wikileaks had emailed Don Jr the day of the election in 2016 as polls were opening across the country pitching to him that if his father loses the election they believe that it would be very interesting if his father were to challenge the results. And Trump had been setting up to do just that by repeatedly claimed process was rigged and if he loses it would be because it was rigged. Bur strangely not a word fixing so called 'rigged system' since he was elected. Now if his refusal to step down inspires his half-cocked supporters to rush to defend his and violence and bloodshed ensues you can bet your sweet bippy that the military can and will likely will be called upon to enforce constitutional law and restore order. Now I don't expect things to get that far because when you get right down to it Cadet Bone Spurs is a sniveling coward, and I'm sure it would wind up with him coming out with his head bowed and his tail between his legs.



And if there is electoral fraud, or that famous word 'inconsistencies' in a particular states voting, the damage is contained to that state. Without the EC, its a nationwide problem. Should Trump pick up an extra 500,000 votes in CA, it probably won't be enough to sway that state's electoral vote. But if there is a problem with the vote in Pennsylvania... It all gets recounted nationwide.

First of there has never been any problem whatsoever with voter fraud in any election in this country. But strategic mischief, corruption and interference has been a problem. From poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, gerrymandering, voting rights suppression, vote suppression via intimidation, the closing of polling stations in districts deemed not be favorable to your party, the purging of voter rolls, disinformation and foreign interference. The EC is a system encourages these types of malpractice and malfeasance, and it's one that relegates the vast majority of states to spectator roles in national election resulting in lower voter turnout and increased political polarization.

Did the Russian interference campaign swing the election in favor of Trump by changing the minds of enough voters? It's impossible to fully know one way or the other. It can't be proved, and nor can it be disproved. But it however well within the range of being wholly probable. The 2016 Election turned entirely on the outcome of the vote in just 3 states. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The total differential of votes in those 3 states between the winner and loser came down to less than 80,000 votes. So just 80,000 votes, split among 3 states, of the nearly 63 million popular votes cast in 2016 determined the outcome of our election. That's just 0.00126 percent of all the votes. A minuscule amount. And the 'loser' had 3 million more popular votes than the 'winner'. The losing candidate having a substantial number of more popular votes than the winning candidate has happened at least 5 times in our nation's history. And in 2 of the last 4 national elections. It's time this relic of the past and American slavery to be retired as it is no longer reflective of the will of the people.
 
It's Constitutional law enforcement issue.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests

So what are you saying here? That Trump can deploy the military to combat violence in the streets?
Or is the military to be deployed against Americans as approved by Democrats?



And it's not mindless paranoia.

Its mindless paranoia.

People in his own family don't put it past him to pull such a stunt.

We have heard this kind of stuff for four years now. Meanwhile, Trump complies with every court order.

In fact his Russian handlers at Wikileaks had emailed Don Jr the day of the election in 2016 as polls were opening across the country pitching to him that if his father loses the election they believe that it would be very interesting if his father were to challenge the results.

We already know there were no "Russian handlers" at Wikileaks or anywhere else. Mueller couldnt even prove Stone conspired with Wikileaks, much less that Trump had done so with Russia. Moreover, the Senate committee release of Strzok saying the FBI had no evidence of a conspiracy dovetails with what folks like Clapper, Rice, Yates and McCabe had testified to-- they too saw no evidence of a conspiracy.

And Trump had been setting up to do just that by repeatedly claimed process was rigged and if he loses it would be because it was rigged
.

Mr. Krugman of the NY TIMES has said that if Trump WINS it will be because of a rigged election.
So there we are.

Now if his refusal to step down inspires his half-cocked supporters to rush to defend his and violence and bloodshed ensues you can bet your sweet bippy that the military can and will likely will be called upon to enforce constitutional law and restore order. Now I don't expect things to get that far because when you get right down to it Cadet Bone Spurs is a sniveling coward, and I'm sure it would wind up with him coming out with his head bowed and his tail between his legs.

You guys are creating monsters in your own head. Not only that, they are damned if he do and damned if he dont monsters.
You guys need to chill a bit.


First of there has never been any problem whatsoever with voter fraud in any election in this country. But strategic mischief, corruption and interference has been a problem. From poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, gerrymandering, voting rights suppression, vote suppression via intimidation, the closing of polling stations in districts deemed not be favorable to your party, the purging of voter rolls, disinformation and foreign interference. The EC is a system encourages these types of malpractice and malfeasance, and it's one that relegates the vast majority of states to spectator roles in national election resulting in lower voter turnout and increased political polarization.

The EC allows a for a presdient to have broad support throughout the country-- to ensure he or she is not a captive of a particular region.

Did the Russian interference campaign swing the election in favor of Trump by changing the minds of enough voters? It's impossible to fully know one way or the other. It can't be proved, and nor can it be disproved.

The government dropped the charges due to lack of evidence.
A couple tens of thousands of dollars versus a billion spent overall? I think its clear whatever interference existed, didn't interfere (except to the extent it has dominated American politics for the past four years).

But it however well within the range of being wholly probable. The 2016 Election turned entirely on the outcome of the vote in just 3 states. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The total differential of votes in those 3 states between the winner and loser came down to less than 80,000 votes. So just 80,000 votes, split among 3 states, of the nearly 63 million popular votes cast in 2016 determined the outcome of our election. That's just 0.00126 percent of all the votes. A minuscule amount. And the 'loser' had 3 million more popular votes than the 'winner'. The losing candidate having a substantial number of more popular votes than the winning candidate has happened at least 5 times in our nation's history. And in 2 of the last 4 national elections. It's time this relic of the past and American slavery to be retired as it is no longer reflective of the will of the people.

As Trump pointed out once, without the EC he would have campaigned differently.
As would have Clinton.
Its impossible to translate the popular vote results with what 'would have been' without the EC.
 
Yes. Did you know we've never done a 100% 50-state national mail-in ballot election?

I'm not aware of anyone asking that we do a 100% 50 state mail-in ballot election. But having the option to mail in your ballots makes total sense. Especially in the midst of a pandemic. As would increasing the number polling places so as to keep the kind of lines we saw in Texas and Arizona from forming. Especially in those communities that have been severely impacted by the virus. 5 states had already had an "automatic mail-in ballot" system in place. Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Where every registered voter receives a mail-in ballot, and the voter has the option of filling it out and mailing it, or placing it into any designated drop-off box location, or he or she can vote in person at a designated voter service center or polling location.

All-mail voting - Ballotpedia
 
Last edited:
I'm not aware of anyone asking that we do a 100% 50 state mail-in ballot election. But having the option to mail in your ballots makes total sense.

It doesn't. That's the objection.
Either apply for an absentee ballot based upon relevant state law (which BTW in a non-EC America election laws would have to be standardized nationwide) OR show up at the polls.
There should not be a choice to either mail a ballot in OR show up at the polls.
That option makes it impossible to safeguard the election, as it is impossible to verify whether a person who mailed in a ballot also showed up at the polls, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Mail-in ballots will ensure that there is.

Of course there doesn't exist a single shred of evidence for making such a mindless statement. But since when does that ever stop you?
 

That had nothing to do with mail in ballots. From your own link:

“DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear,” said U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain. “Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. If even one vote is fraudulently rung up, the integrity of that election is compromised.”
 
It doesn't. That's the objection.
Either apply for an absentee ballot based upon relevant state law (which BTW in a non-EC America election laws would have to be standardized nationwide) OR show up at the polls.
There should not be a choice to either mail a ballot in OR show up at the polls.
That option makes it impossible to safeguard the election, as it is impossible to verify whether a person who mailed in a ballot also showed up at the polls, and vice versa.

It doesn't? LOL! Like anyone here would hold you up as a paragon of common sense. And no election laws would not have be standardized. States will still be responsible for the running of their elections. There is another option that being explored. A National Popular Vote Plan where the idea to form an interstate agreement for states to appoint their Electors for the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner in each state. Very simple. Which is what the Supreme Court was probably suggesting as a viable alternative in it's faithless elector decision.

There is no reason for any concerns about absentee ballots being offered as an option as the same laws and checks and balances that have kept mail-in voting safe and secure and verifiable will still be in place.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't? LOL! Like anyone here would hold you up as a paragon of common sense. And no election laws would not have be standardized. States will still be responsible for the running of their elections. There is another option that being explored. A National Popular Vote Plan where the idea to form an interstate agreement for states to appoint their Electors for the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner in each state. Very simple. Which is what the Supreme Court was suggesting as a viable alternative in his faithless elector decision.

There is no reason for any concerns about absentee ballots being offered as an option as the same laws and checks and balances that have kept mail-in voting safe and secure and verifiable will still be in place.

Yes-- apply for an absentee ballot. That's fine.
Don't just send out ballots en masse and say there is a choice.
Problem solved.

States have different election laws. If its going to be a national vote, there needs to be standardized voting laws.
Sorry-- ain't going to work otherwise. Would probably violate the Constitution without such standardized laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom