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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?
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.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?
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.
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.
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?
14 prosecuted IIRC. How many speeders are there on the road and how many tickets?
Obama encourages illegals to vote and says they will not prosecute them. California has registered over 650,000 to vote. 14 seems a bit low.
Needs to be cleaned up. How can anyone be against that?
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?
14 prosecuted IIRC. How many speeders are there on the road and how many tickets?
Obama encourages illegals to vote and says they will not prosecute them. California has registered over 650,000 to vote. 14 seems a bit low.
Needs to be cleaned up. How can anyone be against that?
I already agree that the REAL total is likely higher than 14. But the confirmed number is 14.
It sure as shit isn't 3 million.
I think elections should be fair and legit too.
But there is no evidence that voter fraud has any impact on elections.
Aren't you more concerned with the number of American citizens that are unable to vote for a variety of reasons? Those numbers are significant.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?
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.
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.
It would take a truly gullible person to believe there were only 14 incidents of voter fraud out of the 130,000,000 ballots cast. The reality is that it doesn't matter today. It might two or four years from now, but there is plenty of time to fix the problem and now there is a push to do so. For now, it's time to party on. Good day.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?
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.
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.
It would take a truly gullible person to believe there were only 14 incidents of voter fraud out of the 130,000,000 ballots cast. The reality is that it doesn't matter today. It might two or four years from now, but there is plenty of time to fix the problem and now there is a push to do so. For now, it's time to party on. Good day.
I already said it's probably higher than 14. But 14 is still the proven number.
It would take a truly gullible person to believe there were 3 million fraudulent votes cast absent any evidence whatsoever.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
Let's just replay the 2002 Apple Cup now that Gesser's leg is healed up.
Actually, the 2002 Cougs nearing middle age might have a better shot than their walking zombies did last Friday.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
Let's just replay the 2002 Apple Cup now that Gesser's leg is healed up.
Actually, the 2002 Cougs nearing middle age might have a better shot than their walking zombies did last Friday.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?
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.
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.
It would take a truly gullible person to believe there were only 14 incidents of voter fraud out of the 130,000,000 ballots cast. The reality is that it doesn't matter today. It might two or four years from now, but there is plenty of time to fix the problem and now there is a push to do so. For now, it's time to party on. Good day.
I already said it's probably higher than 14. But 14 is still the proven number.
It would take a truly gullible person to believe there were 3 million fraudulent votes cast absent any evidence whatsoever.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
Let's just replay the 2002 Apple Cup now that Gesser's leg is healed up.
Actually, the 2002 Cougs nearing middle age might have a better shot than their walking zombies did last Friday.
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.
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.
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.
For the sake of our democracy, we should have a nationwide recount.
For the sake of our Republic, we need laws and law enforcement that ensures and protects the sanctity of the vote.
So you support more spending on big government for a statistically irrelevant issue?
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.
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.
It would take a truly gullible person to believe there were only 14 incidents of voter fraud out of the 130,000,000 ballots cast. The reality is that it doesn't matter today. It might two or four years from now, but there is plenty of time to fix the problem and now there is a push to do so. For now, it's time to party on. Good day.
Republicans control 30+ governorships and statehouses. Have a large majority in the house, a smaller one in the senate, and control the presidency.
If the Democrats are committing widespread voter fraud, they REALLY fucking suck at it. This is why claims of voter fraud don't pass the most simple logic tests.
But to someone like SouthernDawg, this doesn't matter. If there was nationwide in-person voting with photo ID required, he would claim that Democrats are mass-producing fake ID cards and voting 4-5 times per election.
The right-wing news media he consumes has created a myth Democrats only win because of cheating, despite any substantial evidence. Look at what is happening in the North Carolina gubernatorial race as evidence of this silliness.
It's a viewpoint completely unmoored from reality, but SouthernDawg will parrot it like the good little GOP foot soldier he is.
Comments
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.
Obama encourages illegals to vote and says they will not prosecute them. California has registered over 650,000 to vote. 14 seems a bit low.
Needs to be cleaned up. How can anyone be against that?
It sure as shit isn't 3 million.
I think elections should be fair and legit too.
But there is no evidence that voter fraud has any impact on elections.
Aren't you more concerned with the number of American citizens that are unable to vote for a variety of reasons? Those numbers are significant.
It would take a truly gullible person to believe there were 3 million fraudulent votes cast absent any evidence whatsoever.
Actually, the 2002 Cougs nearing middle age might have a better shot than their walking zombies did last Friday.
Sounds like you need to learn the difference.
If the Democrats are committing widespread voter fraud, they REALLY fucking suck at it. This is why claims of voter fraud don't pass the most simple logic tests.
But to someone like SouthernDawg, this doesn't matter. If there was nationwide in-person voting with photo ID required, he would claim that Democrats are mass-producing fake ID cards and voting 4-5 times per election.
The right-wing news media he consumes has created a myth Democrats only win because of cheating, despite any substantial evidence. Look at what is happening in the North Carolina gubernatorial race as evidence of this silliness.
It's a viewpoint completely unmoored from reality, but SouthernDawg will parrot it like the good little GOP foot soldier he is.