On the ballot - preemptive election deniers

@wildgrass said
Sure I'm not trying to reduce entrenched political systems.

This rule would limit the losers from continuing to proclaim victory after losing. Election integrity would be maintained. Less ink would be wasted on absurd claims of fraud, rigging and general denialism.

@techsouth said
Could we also discuss making it illegal to call your political opponent a white supremicist when you are a candidate?

@techsouth said
Here is what I said: But it does seem like Democrats are creeping slowly in that direction.

Sorry if I lack precision, but the OP in this thread has 7 likes. And social media as well is the press is full of left leaning pundits supporting this idea. You asked if someone in power was supporting this idea. I did a 5 second google search and found that the idea h ...[text shortened]... hink this idea is defendable because it's so bad that no prominent Democrats agree with it? Really?

@wildgrass said
They agree to rules before the election. There are legally defined channels for contesting election results. In a close election with the possibility for error, by all means use these. All politicians are aware of the rules before they decide to play. Play within the rules. Whining that the rules were unfair after the elections been decided should be grounds for a permanent ban.

@metal-brain said
Hillary Clinton should be permanently banned then.

https://rumble.com/v1sf6ru-democrats-caught-denying-election-results-over-and-over-and-over.html

Why the double standard?

@wildgrass
https://rumble.com/v1sf6ru-democrats-caught-denying-election-results-over-and-over-and-over.html

Watch the video before replying. Democrats are guilty of the same thing.

@metal-brain said
@wildgrass
https://rumble.com/v1sf6ru-democrats-caught-denying-election-results-over-and-over-and-over.html

Watch the video before replying. Democrats are guilty of the same thing.

@wildgrass said
At best youre off topic. What is the purpose of you posting this?

@metal-brain said
Stop lying.
It is as far from being off topic as possible. I just proved this thread is based on blatant hypocrisy. Those that watched the video know that. You are embarrassing yourself.

https://rumble.com/v1sf6ru-democrats-caught-denying-election-results-over-and-over-and-over.html

@wildgrass said
Maybe read the thread first and/or explain why this is relevant. Declaring the existence of hypocrisy is not new information. Do you think politicians should agree to election rules and publicly accept outcomes following legally allowable challenges?

@metal-brain said
Dude, I just proved that Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to run based on your own criteria. If you had watched the video you would know that.

@AverageJoe1
Your use of 'define democracy is just a dodge. It seems clear you would be happy to have the US lose its democracy and an authoritarian installed instead using legal fake electors.

Do you deny states are writing laws to allow such monstrosities as LEGAL fake electors doing the bosses bidding and not the vote of the people?

@wildgrass said
She's not running. And she shouldn't be allowed to run. Problem solved.

Sheeeeeeesh.

@techsouth said
Could we also discuss making it illegal to call your political opponent a white supremicist when you are a candidate?

@metal-brain said
You still have not watched the video. She is not the only democrat that did that.
Do you need a list?