Election Fraud

vibise said:
I object to your "bothsidesism".
Click to expand...
Agree. It kinda sorta (presupposes) equalizes the two when there is no equalization.
vibise said:
Trump had been saying for years that any election he lost had to have been rigged, and he said this well in advance of elections. And so when he lost, why was it surprising he claimed fraud?
Click to expand...
The vote count for one and the fact Biden pulled ahead in the dead of the night in Dem controlled districts. Unguarded vote containers where ballots could be stuffed. There is plenty of reason to suspect vote fraud on account of the Dems who do not care about morals and where ends justify the means.
vibise said:
You said in your OP



The simple explanation for this is that Trump had ample opportunity to present evidence of fraud. There were 60+ courtcases and multiple recounts and audits in key states. Nothing remotely was found.
Click to expand...
They really did not look and there is the D'Souza video 2000 mules. Authorities do not have to do their job and that is what happened here and if yuou do not know that then you have your head where the sun does not shine.
vibise said:
All of Trump's advisors and even Bill Barr said there was no fraud on a significant scale.
Click to expand...
I do not know what Barr said. I do know none of them will debate and are expressing opinion. They are not detached. They are partisans against Trump.
vibise said:
A few people (maybe 6) were prosecuted for voting illegally.
Click to expand...
Right authorities did not do their jobs and that is why Repubs will win in Nov. Too much corruption and malfeasance.
vibise said:
So despite the great opportunity your side had to find evidence and present a case, you failed. So why is it hard to acknowledge that there was no there there?
Click to expand...
 
christ_undivided said:
The majority vote in 4 states made that difference. There was significant "ballot harvesting" in those states.

You're demanding evidence that can not be collected without verifying all named votes. I'm for verifying all named votes.

I bet you're not. Cheaters like yourself hide behind bad verification processes.
Click to expand...
You claim there was "significant "ballot harvesting" in those states", and yet you claim that evidence for that cannot be collected!
So you are saying there is no evidence for your claim!
OK.
 
glenlogie said:
The left loudly objects to measures that would ensure reducing possibilities of voter fraud. Voter ID is an example. Only about 7% of the people in this country do not have ID. Instead of funding measures to make sure everyone has an ID, they prefer to keep the issue alive as a talking point and an opportunity for fraud.
Click to expand...
I would most definitely support measures to make sure everyone has a cost-free ID, but that would mean that there should be no cost or serious inconvenience to get any necessary supporting documentation. I have yet to see a Republican agree to that.
 
vibise said:
I would most definitely support measures to make sure everyone has a cost-free ID, but that would mean that there should be no cost or serious inconvenience to get any necessary supporting documentation. I have yet to see a Republican agree to that.
Click to expand...
If you are such a magnanimous liberal, you could get your rich liberal friends to donate money for that. If you really wanted it done.
 
vibise said:
You claim there was "significant "ballot harvesting" in those states", and yet you claim that evidence for that cannot be collected!
So you are saying there is no evidence for your claim!
OK.
Click to expand...

No. It can't be collected because those states have not taken the measures necessary to collect it.

It CAN be collected. All you would need to do is take a sample of voters that could be easily coerced. You just ask them who they voted for and how did they vote for their candidate of choice.

Tell you what. Let me be a part of that "official process" and I'll find it.

You wouldn't. Democrats don't want any verification whatsoever.
 
christ_undivided said:
No. It can't be collected because those states have not taken the measures necessary to collect it.

It CAN be collected. All you would need to do is take a sample of voters that could be easily coerced. You just ask them who they voted for and how did they vote for their candidate of choice.

Tell you what. Let me be a part of that "official process" and I'll find it.

You wouldn't. Democrats don't want any verification whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So you admit there is no evidence for your claim of ballot harvesting.
OK.
 
christ_undivided said:
There is evidence but it is incomplete evidence. Are you really that dense?
Click to expand...
What is "incomplete" evidence?
Evidence that fails to convince anyone?
Evidence that only the previously convinced would believe?

What is "dense" about asking for actual evidence to support your claims?
You clearly have none.
 
vibise said:
What is "incomplete" evidence?
Evidence that fails to convince anyone?
Evidence that only the previously convinced would believe?
Click to expand...

Yes. Dense indeed. Incomplete evidence has nothing to do with failing to convince. There is more information that is required and that can be collected.

vibise said:
What is "dense" about asking for actual evidence to support your claims?
You clearly have none.
Click to expand...

There is evidence enough to continue collecting evidence. There is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime has been committed. Further evidence gathering is required.

I'll use a synonym for "dense" that you might understand better. "obtuse". You're being obtuse.

The only question is, are you pretending or are really that way.
 
vibise said:
The whole point of science is discovery and the adaptation of new discoveries for new, useful technologies. In my lifetime those new technologies produced microwaves, digital cameras, men on the moon, cell phones, new pharmaceuticals, mRNA vaccines.

Are you saying all scientific exploration and progress should be shut down?
Click to expand...
This is really pure nonsense.
 
christ_undivided said:
Yes. Dense indeed. Incomplete evidence has nothing to do with failing to convince. There is more information that is required and that can be collected.



There is evidence enough to continue collecting evidence. There is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime has been committed. Further evidence gathering is required.

I'll use a synonym for "dense" that you might understand better. "obtuse". You're being obtuse.

The only question is, are you pretending or are really that way.
Click to expand...
You have yet to link to any evidence that supports your claims. If there is "evidence enough" you should be able to link to that. Unsupported claims are meaningless.
 
vibise said:
You have yet to link to any evidence that supports your claims. If there is "evidence enough" you should be able to link to that. Unsupported claims are meaningless.
Click to expand...

Like the boxes that Trump took from the Whitehouse "might" have something they shouldn't?

There is evidence that boxes of votes were "dropped" when needed. At the very minimum, this meets the same articulable suspicion used to RAID Trump's home.
 
vibise said:
what is nonsensical about that ?
Click to expand...
To answer directly whenever you say, "Are you saying...." you absolutely NEVER get it right. Therefore if you can't follow a simple.conversation I have no confidence that anything you conclude from science is accurate either. I suspect right now you haven't got the first idea what I'm talking about do you?
 
vibise said:
You have yet to link to any evidence that supports your claims. If there is "evidence enough" you should be able to link to that. Unsupported claims are meaningless.
Click to expand...
Again I ask, why do you consider yourself to be the arbiter of what we should believe?
 
Last edited:
christ_undivided said:
Like the boxes that Trump took from the Whitehouse "might" have something they shouldn't?

There is evidence that boxes of votes were "dropped" when needed. At the very minimum, this meets the same articulable suspicion used to RAID Trump's home.
Click to expand...
Garland has requested that the search warrant be made public so that we all know what they were looking for, where they thought it would be, and how they knew about the stuff they were looking for.

Trump can block that release, and would likely do that, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top