• 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!

Hillary Said Not Accepting Election Results Was ‘Direct Threat To Democracy’

V

volsrock

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
3,995
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hillary Clinton should probably tell her supporters and butt-hurt liberals what she said on the presidential campaign trail when she was railing against President-Elect Donald Trump.

Remember a couple months ago, Hillary attacked Trump for failing to say whether or not he would accept the election results, by claiming it was a “direct threat” to America and to democracy.

Except, now it’s Hillary’s supporters who won’t accept the election results.

Take a look:

https://americanlookout.com/jpb-fla...results-was-direct-threat-to-democracy-video/



Obviously only Donald Trump was suppose to accept results of his losing.
 
volsrock said:
Hillary Clinton should probably tell her supporters and butt-hurt liberals what she said on the presidential campaign trail when she was railing against President-Elect Donald Trump.

Remember a couple months ago, Hillary attacked Trump for failing to say whether or not he would accept the election results, by claiming it was a “direct threat” to America and to democracy.

Except, now it’s Hillary’s supporters who won’t accept the election results.

Take a look:

https://americanlookout.com/jpb-fla...results-was-direct-threat-to-democracy-video/



Obviously only Donald Trump was suppose to accept results of his losing.
Click to expand...

A recount, especially if funded outside of taxpayer money, is Part of democracy. Why are You afraid? Did the GOP cheat or something ? If not, then sit back and laugh at the money being wasted from liberal supporters for the recount.
 
The votes were within 1% of each other.

What are Republicans afraid of?
 
 
Trump would have every right to call for a recount if he lost Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by 1% or less of the vote.
 
Sietske22 said:
Trump would have every right to call for a recount if he lost Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by 1% or less of the vote.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure you would have been saying that..
 
Orly? said:
Yeah, sure you would have been saying that..
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't I?

By the way, did you condemn and mock Trump's call for "Revolution" when it looked like Obama won the Electoral College in 2012 but lost the Popular vote?

I bet you didn't.
 
volsrock said:
Hillary Clinton should probably tell her supporters and butt-hurt liberals what she said on the presidential campaign trail when she was railing against President-Elect Donald Trump.

Remember a couple months ago, Hillary attacked Trump for failing to say whether or not he would accept the election results, by claiming it was a “direct threat” to America and to democracy.

Except, now it’s Hillary’s supporters who won’t accept the election results.

Take a look:

https://americanlookout.com/jpb-fla...results-was-direct-threat-to-democracy-video/



Obviously only Donald Trump was suppose to accept results of his losing.
Click to expand...

Let's hope this is not the beginning of a power grab.
 
Sietske22 said:
Why wouldn't I?

By the way, did you condemn and mock Trump's call for "Revolution" when it looked like Obama won the Electoral College in 2012 but lost the Popular vote?

I bet you didn't.
Click to expand...

No, because we have scene that it is the liberals that forge votes and not the Republicans.. If they really go in depth and throw out all the illegal votes Trump is sure to come out stronger..
 
Orly? said:
No, because we have scene that it is the liberals that forge votes and not the Republicans.. If they really go in depth and throw out all the illegal votes Trump is sure to come out stronger..
Click to expand...

There have been only 33 cases of proven voter fraud, in the last 30 years.
 
Orly? said:
No, because we have scene that it is the liberals that forge votes and not the Republicans.. If they really go in depth and throw out all the illegal votes Trump is sure to come out stronger..
Click to expand...

The word isn't scene it's (RWNJ) meme.

The paper vote gives it to Clinton, while the electronic vote gos the other way. The vote machine makers guaranteed a win for GWB. Between them and Trump's Russian hacker buddies Clinton never stood a chance. (according to a Russian think tank.)
 
If the recount shows any difference to the post election night tallies, then few on the right will probably accept any potential changes to the outcome of the election without a thorough audit of those states that Hillary won. Especially those with open advocation of voting with no ID.

I'm personally very confident that MANY more illegal votes would be found to have been cast for Hillary. Millions. Forget the few thousand the Democrats are contesting that Trump got.

We are so divided as a nation now that the opposing sides both claim election fraud if they lose.
This is only going to get worse. The ultimate, eventual result is obvious.
 
I guess I am the only one who sees the similarities in this and the 1860 election results.
There are also HUGE differences, but also many similarities.
As the differences get more violent, and the chasm widens, I see the similarities growing closer.

...making book on when the calls for militia forming will begin.

1, 2, or 3 years from now?
 
Last edited:
volsrock said:
Hillary Clinton should probably tell her supporters and butt-hurt liberals what she said on the presidential campaign trail when she was railing against President-Elect Donald Trump.

Remember a couple months ago, Hillary attacked Trump for failing to say whether or not he would accept the election results, by claiming it was a “direct threat” to America and to democracy.

Except, now it’s Hillary’s supporters who won’t accept the election results.

Take a look:

https://americanlookout.com/jpb-fla...results-was-direct-threat-to-democracy-video/



Obviously only Donald Trump was suppose to accept results of his losing.
Click to expand...

I've pointed out that hypocrisy before.
 
Sietske22 said:
The votes were within 1% of each other.

What are Republicans afraid of?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with recounts where the results are less than one percent. In fact be the election nationally, state or local, a recount should automatically occur if the results are less than one percent. There are three such states.

Michigan where Clinton lost by 0.23%
Wisconsin where Clinton lost by 0.81%
New Hampshire where Trump lost by 0.36%

Those are the only three states where the results were less than one percent. In Michigan, I highly doubt once the recount is completed that Clinton can overcome an 11,000 vote deficiency or a 27,500 vote deficiency in Wisconsin. Trump would have a better chance of overturning New Hampshire since he lost there by just 2,700 votes. Still back in 2000 it took recounting the ballots several times to narrow a 1100 Bush advantage down to an advantage of 550 votes.

Pennsylvania doesn't fall within the one percent factor since Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.13% and 69,000 votes. There may be a hundred or even a couple of hundred vote discrepancy, but not in the thousands.
 
Sietske22 said:
The votes were within 1% of each other.

What are Republicans afraid of?
Click to expand...

A better question is what is Hillary and the DNC afraid of?

They are not the ones calling for this recount.

The only logical answer is that they know it was their own voter/election fraud that got Hillary the national popular vote and got her even close on the electoral college, and an honest recount will expose it all.
 
Imagine trump's reaction and those of his supporters if he won the popular vote by more than 2.2 million but lost the electoral college.

With that, I accept the EC tally as it now stands.

DEMs have a systemic problem with voter turnout that reappeared in the 2010 Census Remap election .
 
Clinton should throw Stein under the bus on this recount.

Since Stein threw Clinton under the bus during the election.

This makes two of the last five elections that the greens have thrown the EC to the popular vote loser .

Perotista said:
I have no problem with recounts where the results are less than one percent. In fact be the election nationally, state or local, a recount should automatically occur if the results are less than one percent. There are three such states.

Michigan where Clinton lost by 0.23%
Wisconsin where Clinton lost by 0.81%
New Hampshire where Trump lost by 0.36%

Those are the only three states where the results were less than one percent. In Michigan, I highly doubt once the recount is completed that Clinton can overcome an 11,000 vote deficiency or a 27,500 vote deficiency in Wisconsin. Trump would have a better chance of overturning New Hampshire since he lost there by just 2,700 votes. Still back in 2000 it took recounting the ballots several times to narrow a 1100 Bush advantage down to an advantage of 550 votes.

Pennsylvania doesn't fall within the one percent factor since Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.13% and 69,000 votes. There may be a hundred or even a couple of hundred vote discrepancy, but not in the thousands.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom