Voter Fraud - Please Explain

There you go again.

 

No - you missed my point.

 

Not really apparently the footballs have been too heavy for him if he's got to let air out of them

 

Pretty detailed account by John Fund about how voter fraud happens, where it happens, how the Democrats suppress any attempt to stop it. https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-Elections-Voter-Threatens-Democracy/dp/1594030618

BTW, Democrats yell "voter suppression". Have you ever seen any proof that such a thing exists, how many people it effects, who was suppressed?

Here is some suppression going on of white people that Eric Holder demanded the Justice Department not prosecute.

[video=youtube;qX4dcvIYk9A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A[/video]

 

Is English your second language? I said

And then you start talking randomly about balls. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

 

John Fund has long been known as a far right kook --

That's bull ****.

Nearly ten years later, and some cons are still pushing that stupid lie about those two dudes..

One of whom was a certified poll watcher, and not one voter complained of intimidation.

Not one.

That voting location was a teeny precinct in Philly, with something like less than two hundred voters, and was 99% black.

Stop lying.

 

The only ones who claimed intimidation were GOP operatives who were there to shake up ****, blow a great big dog-whistle and were not voters in that district.

This all came out when it was investigated. That's why the GW Bush admin. dropped it.

Then the two people who pushed this the hardest after, the GOP DOJ guy Adams, and Roman - went on to work for



....alt-right Brietbart.

Surprise!

 

You should check the tag line at the bottom your post

 

Cling to your fraudulent, hyper-partisan myth if you need to, but Republican secretaries of state throughout the nation regard your evidence-free conspiracy notion as consummate pifflepoop.

 

If that is what you are claiming so be it. I have made no such claim.

In fact, the extent to which the KGB thug was instrumental in getting Trump the requisite electoral vote has not been determined, and may never be determined, even after an extensive investigation.

 

I don't think so, I think I was just going a different route with it.

 

Or to buy tobacco or alcohol or get in an R rated movie

 

I find these two posts, one after the other, taken together, to be quite ironic. You won't accept another person's suggestion that there is voter fraud because you lack convincing evidence of it, but you insist that "the KBG thug" was instrumental in getting Trump elected, despite a lack of evidence and an open admittance that an investigation may never turn up sufficient evidence. You're basically calling out a voter fraud theory as a conspiracy without evidence, while at the same time maintaining your own voter fraud conspiracy theory, absent of evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

right, but I figured go straight for the constitutional rights, the big ones.

 

Wrong. I readily accept the rare instances of voter fraud for which their is credible evidence. I deny the alleged vast conspiracy for which there is none.

Wrong. Quite to the contrary, I clearly stated that "the extent to which the KGB thug was instrumental in getting Trump the requisite electoral vote has not been determined, and may never be determined, even after an extensive investigation."

I'd prefer that you ask if you are uncertain, rather than mischaracterize what I have said.

 

If someone says, "the extent to which x has been instrumental in y has not been determined," there is an obvious implication that x has been instrumental in y. For example when someone says, "the extent to which CO2 emissions have been instrumental in increasing global temperature has not yet been determined," there is an obvious implication that CO2 emissions have been instrumental, but that the degree to which they have been is not certain. When someone says that, they aren't saying, "hey, CO2 might not even have a role in increasing global temperatures", they're asserting that CO2 does have a role in increasing global temperatures.

It seems that what you said mischaracterized what you meant.

 

It is apparent that believing in voter fraud is a keystone attribute of your standard Trump voter. It forms a foundational premise post election that assuages the shame they feel at being out voted nationally. Trump won because of 77,000 truly misguided people in OH, PA and WI. That is how he won. 77,000 people out of 130 million votes cast. Not exactly a mandate is it?

 

Squirm as you must. Telling me that what I said mischaracterized what I meant is quite laughable.

The CIA, FBI and NSA, not I, have agreed in a declassified report that Putin ordered Russia's cyber-campaign against Clinton and pro Trump.

I said that "the extent to which the KGB thug was instrumental in getting Trump the requisite electoral vote has not been determined, and may never be determined, even after an extensive investigation."

You falsely claimed, "you insist that 'the KBG thug' was instrumental in getting Trump elected."

Have the integrity to allow me to say what I have actually said without insisting that I meant something else that you would prefer to criticize.

 

lol, pointing out implications of sentence structure is now squirming? I love how some people on the internet get this idea in their head that they actually make other people squirm in their seat, it's pretty funny. The meaning of what you said was plain, and I explained clearly how the structure of what you said led to that implication - and then I suggested that what you said was merely poorly phrased - it's only you that has impugned motive here.

Hey, if you don't like how the English language works then your beef isn't with me. I clearly pointed out how what you said carried the implication I read out of it, and suggested that it was poorly phrased. My claim was only about what you said, not what you meant - I'm not the one impugning motives here.

This just smacks of Sargon's Law. What you said, the way you said it, clearly implies that "the KGB thug" was instrumental in getting Trump elected - and since you've said that's not what you meant, I stated that "it seems that what you said mischaracterized what you meant", because what you said carries the implication that "the KGB thug" was instrumental in getting Trump elected. I'm not the one impugning motives, I'm not the one setting up straw men, I'm not the one making suggestions about another poster's character...

 

What year is it? How do people not know that the national popular vote doesn't count? We went over this in grade school, and after the 2000 election - because so many people apparently had selective amnesia about it then. Do we really need to go over the rules again? 270 wins:

 

I've corrected you and I have pointed out what I actually said. If you cannot accept the correction, I can do nothing about it.

 

looks like a red country to me

 

Yeah, it's red all right, Russian red.

 

My signature that's on every post? If you want to discuss my signature, send me a PM. Don't just respond to my post (that you quoted) and say something random.

 

If you think anyone that voted for Hillary is not aware of the implications and results of the Electoral College then think again. We are intimately aware that small underpopulated states are awarded by giving their few voters more power per person than those in more populous and prosperous states. The problem is that more Americans wanted Hillary. Trump does not represent America's choice, he represents a minority view. There is nothing you can say that will ever refute that fact. >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

there's something I can say to refute that.
Elections have consequences, and in your case that consequence is that you get to whine until you cry yourself to sleep.

The consequence for me, is I have to watch you whine until you cry yourself to sleep.
And could we get on with it already, you're making ME tired.