Isis attack on OSU campus
Comments
-
BECAUSE YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTIONdhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
-
clearlyRaceBannon said:
BECAUSE YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTIONdhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
-
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
-
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege. -
Neither is the 2A. Gun crime isn't a big problem either. Probably a lower percentage of gun owners commit crime than voter fraud. So by your logic: No ID, no background check, no fees etc.dhdawg said:
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege. -
KOMO Tim Kaine Turd burglar!2001400ex said:
Link. Buttfucker.Sledog said:
All your lefty hero's. It was reported as a active shooter for some time and many of your Castro "bro's" were already yapping about more gun control. Not like it's gonna happen in the trump admin but they yap. Then they try and back peddle when another Swedish Lutheran goes on a religious war attack on defenseless people.2001400ex said:
No change without chaos as your hero's say. -
you have to be lying. you cannot be that stupidSledog said:
Neither is the 2A. Gun crime isn't a big problem either. Probably a lower percentage of gun owners commit crime than voter fraud. So by your logic: No ID, no background check, no fees etc.dhdawg said:
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege.
-
Wut?Sledog said:
Neither is the 2A. Gun crime isn't a big problem either. Probably a lower percentage of gun owners commit crime than voter fraud. So by your logic: No ID, no background check, no fees etc.dhdawg said:
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege.
Still waiting for evidence of the "millions" of fraudulent votes...tick...tick...tick... -
Still no link. Got it.Sledog said:
KOMO Tim Kaine Turd burglar!2001400ex said:
Link. Buttfucker.Sledog said:
All your lefty hero's. It was reported as a active shooter for some time and many of your Castro "bro's" were already yapping about more gun control. Not like it's gonna happen in the trump admin but they yap. Then they try and back peddle when another Swedish Lutheran goes on a religious war attack on defenseless people.2001400ex said:
No change without chaos as your hero's say. -
You can't be this fucking dumb. It's everywhere including CNN last night.
-
Yet no one has provided a link.doogie said:You can't be this fucking dumb. It's everywhere including CNN last night.
-
Have you not read his stupid bullshit before? He's dumber than a sack of hammers.dhdawg said:
you have to be lying. you cannot be that stupidSledog said:
Neither is the 2A. Gun crime isn't a big problem either. Probably a lower percentage of gun owners commit crime than voter fraud. So by your logic: No ID, no background check, no fees etc.dhdawg said:
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege.
And he's a huge pussy, too. -
A few voters in Washington state.ThomasFremont said:
Wut?Sledog said:
Neither is the 2A. Gun crime isn't a big problem either. Probably a lower percentage of gun owners commit crime than voter fraud. So by your logic: No ID, no background check, no fees etc.dhdawg said:
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege.
Still waiting for evidence of the "millions" of fraudulent votes...tick...tick...tick...
-
My mom died shortly before the election and I told my brother that at least Hillary would still be able to count on her vote.PurpleThrobber said:
A few voters in Washington state.ThomasFremont said:
Wut?Sledog said:
Neither is the 2A. Gun crime isn't a big problem either. Probably a lower percentage of gun owners commit crime than voter fraud. So by your logic: No ID, no background check, no fees etc.dhdawg said:
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege.
Still waiting for evidence of the "millions" of fraudulent votes...tick...tick...tick...
He glossed over that and said it was a shame she didn't live to see the first woman president. I don't think she had 8 more years in her -
Data. Care to provide it?PurpleThrobber said:
A few voters in Washington state.ThomasFremont said:
Wut?Sledog said:
Neither is the 2A. Gun crime isn't a big problem either. Probably a lower percentage of gun owners commit crime than voter fraud. So by your logic: No ID, no background check, no fees etc.dhdawg said:
1. Voter Fraud is not a huge issue in this country like what gun violence is. You and Trump can lie about it all you want, it just isn't.Sledog said:
Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.dhdawg said:
I'm fairly certain a background check in no way infringing on law abiding citizens' gun rights while keeping them away from felons and terrorists would pass strict scrutiny.RaceBannon said:BUT THE CONSTITUTION!
2. and more importantly. I don't think anyone is pro voter fraud. You want to distribute a special ID to everyone in the country for free, have at it. Ballot by mail is actually the best and cheapest system. The problem is they aren't easily accessible, and they cost. Voting isn't a privilege.
Still waiting for evidence of the "millions" of fraudulent votes...tick...tick...tick... -
No source or reason will ever allow a democrat to admit this shit goes on and they refuse to clean up voter registration roles as those illegally cast are usually for democratic candidates. Just ask Chicago.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/elections-expert-now-4-million-ineligible-dead-voters-american-voter-rolls-video/
-
There's a difference between people being on the voter rolls and actually voting.
-
And that federalist article is seriously reaching. When you have to reference a investigation that hasn't been completely you are really grasping at straws
-
But if you catch 100 people jaywalking,, doesn't mean only 100 people were jaywalking. So clearly the voter fraud is exponentially higher than the documented cases.dhdawg said:And that federalist article is seriously reaching. When you have to reference a investigation that hasn't been completely you are really grasping at straws
-
2001400ex said:
But if you catch 100 people jaywalking,, doesn't mean only 100 people were jaywalking. So clearly the voter fraud is exponentially higher than the documented cases.dhdawg said:And that federalist article is seriously reaching. When you have to reference a investigation that hasn't been completely you are really grasping at straws
-
14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here? -
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not. -
Sorry it goes against your feelings or beliefs or whatever, but unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has come forward with, those are the facts.Southerndawg said:
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not. -
Feelings or beliefs? Wow. Nothing of the sort, just simple logic. It simply makes no sense that 130,000,000 ballots can be cast with only 14 incidences of voter fraud. That suggests severely limited oversight at the very least and at the worst, intentionally restrained enforcement and reporting of actual incidences.ThomasFremont said:
Sorry it goes against your feelings or beliefs or whatever, but unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has come forward with, those are the facts.Southerndawg said:
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not. -
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.Southerndawg said:
Feelings or beliefs? Wow. Nothing of the sort, just simple logic. It simply makes no sense that 130,000,000 ballots can be cast with only 14 incidences of voter fraud. That suggests severely limited oversight at the very least and at the worst, intentionally restrained enforcement and reporting of actual incidences.ThomasFremont said:
Sorry it goes against your feelings or beliefs or whatever, but unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has come forward with, those are the facts.Southerndawg said:
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not. -
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.ThomasFremont said:
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.Southerndawg said:
Feelings or beliefs? Wow. Nothing of the sort, just simple logic. It simply makes no sense that 130,000,000 ballots can be cast with only 14 incidences of voter fraud. That suggests severely limited oversight at the very least and at the worst, intentionally restrained enforcement and reporting of actual incidences.ThomasFremont said:
Sorry it goes against your feelings or beliefs or whatever, but unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has come forward with, those are the facts.Southerndawg said:
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not. -
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?Southerndawg said:
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.ThomasFremont said:
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.Southerndawg said:
Feelings or beliefs? Wow. Nothing of the sort, just simple logic. It simply makes no sense that 130,000,000 ballots can be cast with only 14 incidences of voter fraud. That suggests severely limited oversight at the very least and at the worst, intentionally restrained enforcement and reporting of actual incidences.ThomasFremont said:
Sorry it goes against your feelings or beliefs or whatever, but unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has come forward with, those are the facts.Southerndawg said:
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not.
Sounds like you fear the recount. -
ThomasFremont said:
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?Southerndawg said:
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.ThomasFremont said:
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.Southerndawg said:
Feelings or beliefs? Wow. Nothing of the sort, just simple logic. It simply makes no sense that 130,000,000 ballots can be cast with only 14 incidences of voter fraud. That suggests severely limited oversight at the very least and at the worst, intentionally restrained enforcement and reporting of actual incidences.ThomasFremont said:
Sorry it goes against your feelings or beliefs or whatever, but unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has come forward with, those are the facts.Southerndawg said:
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not.
Sounds like you fear the recount.
Your claim that it is a statistically irrelevant issue is dubious, particularly if you insist that only 14 cases of actual voter fraud occurred amongst the 130,000,000 ballots that were cast.
Proper voting laws and enforcement of those laws does not constitute big government.
I have no problem with a recount so long as it is conducted in a way that does not result in additional fraud. -
14 cases have been found. 14/130,000,000 is the definition of statistically irrelevant. Were there a few more that weren't caught? Maybe. Was it the 3 million that Infowars is pushing and Trump is parroting? No fucking way.Southerndawg said:ThomasFremont said:
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?Southerndawg said:
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.ThomasFremont said:
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.Southerndawg said:
Feelings or beliefs? Wow. Nothing of the sort, just simple logic. It simply makes no sense that 130,000,000 ballots can be cast with only 14 incidences of voter fraud. That suggests severely limited oversight at the very least and at the worst, intentionally restrained enforcement and reporting of actual incidences.ThomasFremont said:
Sorry it goes against your feelings or beliefs or whatever, but unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has come forward with, those are the facts.Southerndawg said:
Sorry, but that doesn't sound remotely credible. There were 130,000,000 or so ballots cast. Only 14 actual incidences of fraud? C'mon, you're smarter than that.ThomasFremont said:14 instances of voter fraud. 14.
That's not enough votes to impact a middle school student presidential election, much less POTUS.
I mean, if the system was that corrupt, it could just as easily have been manipulated in Trump's favor. But since we only have conspiracy theory speculation as proof, nobody with any credibility is backing this up. Don't you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought Hillary lost because of widespread voter fraud?
So the Dems are so smart that they can manipulate voting numbers with millions of votes in an untraceable and undetectable manner, but are unable to do it in the states that matter. Right.
We done here?
The real question is whether or not the system contains adequate checks to ensure that only qualified citizens are allowed to cast ballots and that voters are limited to casting a single ballot per election. The reasonable answer on both counts is probably not.
Sounds like you fear the recount.
Your claim that it is a statistically irrelevant issue is dubious, particularly if you insist that only 14 cases of actual voter fraud occurred amongst the 130,000,000 ballots that were cast.
Proper voting laws and enforcement of those laws does not constitute big government.
I have no problem with a recount so long as it is conducted in a way that does not result in additional fraud.
If you have some real numbers, let's see them.
Even the people pushing this can't produce any evidence. Maybe use some of your deductive logic and realize that they are happy to just put that story out there, and they don't need any evidence because a shit ton of people will accept it as fact.
