The dems plan is to wait for the Trump landslide and then "contest the outcome" -- i.e., start a revolution. Basically.

So prepare yourself accordingly. Don't plan on going to the grocery store the day after the election -- just in case. Know what I mean?

No, the big flood of Biden votes will come from the mail-in ballots, many of which will be fraudulent.

They’ve already telegraphed their plans.

Trump wins on Election Day.

Mail-in votes flood in and reverse the results.

Well, according to the guy in the video, he says that mail-in voting can only make up the difference if the polls + early voting shows that Biden was leading and that most of his supporters voted by mail.  Video guy says that, especially in the battle ground states, if the facts show the early voting is not overwhelmingly Biden, then the narrative of high mail-in votes won't make sense.  Because early voting and mail-in voting comes from the same population of Biden supporters, I assume.  So if they are not consistent, then fraud is involved.  That's his take, at least.

No, the big flood of Biden votes will come from the mail-in ballots, many of which will be fraudulent.

They’ve already telegraphed their plans.

Trump wins on Election Day.

Mail-in votes flood in and reverse the results.

Court challenges with Barrett’s vote being decisive for Trump.

Left refuse to accept Trump.

Much rioting ... and looting of Nike stores ... as an expression of outrage.

These riots will make the Floyd riots actually seem like “peaceful protests” by comparison.

This could lead to cινιℓ ωαr if the government is also left divided.  That in turn might embolden China to attack the U.S.

Terrifying.
I wonder if this is the consensus of most forum members.

The dems plan is to wait for the Trump landslide and then "contest the outcome" -- i.e., start a revolution. Basically.

So prepare yourself accordingly. Don't plan on going to the grocery store the day after the election -- just in case. Know what I mean?

Maybe not for two weeks after the election.

Worry less about consensus and more about the facts. I think Lad has stated what is obvious to the well-informed.

 I am not "worried" about consensus.  And your statement is a subjective one ("what is obvious to the well-informed").  This is not about objective fact but about legitimate subjective opinion.  I do care about what others on the forum think, whether that's 100% in agreement with him or 1% agreement.  

And it was completely gratuitous and uncharitable of you to imply that my merely raising a question about consensus is some kind of sign that I am not "well-informed."  God alone is "informed" about what will happen after November 3, not any posters on CI, no matter how well-read (which I am) any poster is.

Predicting the future is an inexact activity, even when people state their intentions.  Publicized intentions are often a form of extortion which may or may not be bluffs.