Isis attack on OSU campus

Southerndawg

2001400ex said:

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

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.

ThomasFremont

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?

Southerndawg

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?

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.

ThomasFremont

Southerndawg said:

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?

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.

Southerndawg

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

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?

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.

ThomasFremont

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

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?

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.

Southerndawg

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

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?

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.

ThomasFremont

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

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?

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.

Southerndawg

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

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?

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.

ThomasFremont

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

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?

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.