Isis attack on OSU campus

RaceBannon said:

dhdawg said:

RaceBannon said:

BUT THE CONSTITUTION!

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.

BECAUSE YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION

clearly

Sledog said:

dhdawg said:

RaceBannon said:

BUT THE CONSTITUTION!

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.

Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.

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.

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.

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

Imagine the damage if he had a gun rather than a knife.

That why all your butthole dems are calling for more gun control? Calling it an active shooter situation? Dem's it's whats for dummies.

Who is calling for gun control? Komo4 buttfucker.

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.

No change without chaos as your hero's say.

Link. Buttfucker.

KOMO Tim Kaine Turd burglar!

Sledog said:

dhdawg said:

Sledog said:

dhdawg said:

RaceBannon said:

BUT THE CONSTITUTION!

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.

Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.

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.

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.

Wut?

Still waiting for evidence of the "millions" of fraudulent votes...tick...tick...tick...

PurpleThrobber said:

ThomasFremont said:

Sledog said:

dhdawg said:

Sledog said:

dhdawg said:

RaceBannon said:

BUT THE CONSTITUTION!

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.

Then being certain a person isn't voting illegally by impersonating another or not being a citizen shouldn't bother anyone either.

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.

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.

Wut?

Still waiting for evidence of the "millions" of fraudulent votes...tick...tick...tick...

A few voters in Washington state.

Data. Care to provide it?

There's a difference between people being on the voter rolls and actually voting.

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 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 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 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 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.