1,600 voters born 1900 or earlier voted in NC alone
-
This is bullshit. I'm not reading the rest of that. The proof is there, in the title of this post, and also we have 125% turnout in Nevada, and more in other swing states. If you have 101 votes in the Senate, someone voted twice. The proof is right there. It's in all those swing states that stopped counting at 9pm, a more than 100% vote turnout, which means, if it's 125%, than 25% is fraudulent. You can't have 1,000,000 registered, and 1,000,001 vote. But it's much more than 1. The proof is in your face, and you're gaslighting.
When the accusations have been made on record, then it'll be YOUR side's turn, the ball will be in YOUR court, not Trump's. You are only correct by the technicality that the suits haven't been filed yet. You are stating the obvious. If they tested the oxygen level in Malaysia ten years ago, and it said the atmosphere has 85% oxygen, is it safe to assume that this year, there is also oxygen in Malaysia? They didn't test the oxygen level this year, so you don't have proof… Some things are just self-evident. There is obviously oxygen in Malaysia, even though you don't have "proof" from a chemical test of the air... There is obviously voter fraud, no one denies that (you got hundreds of court cases and criminal convictions on record), even though a full audit of the system hasn't concluded, but has already provided information regarding substantial irregularities.
The proof that Dominion flipped votes has already been found, and corrected, flipping a legislative seat. It's already been proven.
125% Turnout is PROOF. If 101% of Senators voted, that would be proof of fraud. All the swing states that stopped counting at the same time have over 100%. If we can't accept 1% of fraud in the Senate like that, how can we accept 25% in Nevada? There is no excuse for fraud or miscalculations whatsoever in our advanced society.
-
Oh dear…
OK... where to begin...
So to start, these claims you're making now have nothing to do with the original post you made. You're now claiming that voter turnout was greater than the number of people possible to vote in the state... instead of what you claimed originally, which was the people voting in the state should be dead because their birthdates were in the 1800s.
I'm sure you might have valid evidence to support your accusations that more people voted in the election than should have been able to - but that's not what this thread is about. If you want to create a thread that's just accumulating all your beliefs about the election in one place so that people can debate those, I'm sure people will be happy with that. But this is not the place for one new theory after another.
You might even start a new thread all about the extra people in the states that shouldn't be possible based on voting numbers. You could then provide your evidence and we could all evaluate it. But let's please not derail this conversation about this particular piece of evidence you're claiming proves something.
Why do I suggest this? Well, it makes your argument look bad... it seems to me (and I'm sure others) that you're trying to avoid the topic of this issue being not believed by me. This is not a good look... so please, do provide the evidence I've requested - and answer those questions. If not, we're not really having a conversation... you're just stating your beliefs and not convincing anyone of them.
Secondly, and this one is very very important. You've attempted to reverse the burden of proof with the latter part of your statement. This is another logical fallacy... and is not a great way of getting to a result that will favour you, if I might say so. You've also constructed a straw man in order to try and support your argument... let me show you what I mean:
Straw man: if the oxygen was tested in Maylaysia 10 years ago - should I believe that there is oxygen in Malaysia today? Well... I think you can see, as you're certainly bright enough, that - unless you provide more information - no one can answer this question in any way that's meaningful. For example, let's say you also added the much needed caveat that: there are people living in Malaysia, they are still living in Malaysia and no odd or weird atmospheric conditions had happened which might cause the oxygen in Malaysia to disappear. If those caveats were also given - then of course, I could happily say "yes, I believe there is oxygen in Malaysia today" - without being unduely concerned about that prediction. If, on the other hand, you were to tell me that there was a mass extinction event in Malaysia, humans and animals and everyone died out... and you believed it was a lack of oxygen that was at fault... I would then ask you for evidence of this belief. I would also consider all other claims for the cause... and weigh up which one is most likely to be correct.
Can you see now why this is an impossible question to answer at all in any way that would be meaningful? And indeed, you can see that you only designed that question to try to prove your point (this is a straw man argument... can be in the form of a question).
As to reversing the burden of proof... the person who makes a claim is the person who has to prove it. No, just making a claim does not immediately validate it as true - and no, people do not have to disprove your claim... this would be impossible. For the example for this, you will have heard of no doubt, we take the chocolate tea pot... I might claim that there is a chocolate tea pot orbiting the earth at 100,000,000 miles above sea level. You would, rightly, ask me to prove it... if I said to you: "no, you must disprove it!"... you can see how you might feel. Not terribly impressed I should think!!
OK... and the last logical error you made is conflating many things together to try and say your view is correct. Afraid that won't work - for me at least! So you're right - no one denies there is occasional voter fraud. But... I do deny having seen any evidence of any form of wide-spread voter fraud - or any evidence at all of voter fraud which would change the outcome of the election. When that evidence comes to light, I will be very happy to change my mind! (and sad as well, as that will be a terrible inditement on the democratic system in the USA). But again, this is not the topic of this post (at least as far as I understand it!).
Please do not accuse me of gaslighting - I think that's demonstrably not true. To gaslight someone, I would need to be doing something to try and make you second guess what you saw or did... NOT what you believe. Now I'm making an assumption here... it could be that you did go and commit voter fraud in the way that you've described in this post (registering a lot of dead relatives, using them to vote for Biden etc)... and if that's so, I would welcome you claiming it and I will, of course, stop this conversation (as I don't wish to gaslight your experience at all). But questioning your beliefs and asking you for evidence of them is not gaslighting - at all. This is how we achieve a better society and it is also how republic or a democracy - any of them - work effectively.
And I must ask... if you don't want your beliefs questioned (which is a perfectly reasonable stance to take...), then why on earth would you put them out publically on an open forum where, no doubt, people will disagree with you and question your beliefs? Wouldn't it be easier for you to simply not do that?
-
Dude I don't have to stick to the title. It's one example of voter fraud, of which there are many, I was stating the latest. Not reading all that. You're a nasty person. You're making a long drawn out example of why you don't believe it, but you are not an authority on anything, and you ARE gaslighting. You know that it's very obvious, that if 125% of people voted in Nevada, that's fraud. It's obvious. You are a liar and a snake. It's basic common shit. If you have 100 people registered, 101 voting means there's fraud! Its very simple to understand and you're pretending that you don't. If 125 people voted, and only 100 people are allowed to vote, that means it's compromised. It's very fucking simple. I'm not sure why you want to lie but I feel like you have a dark spirit in you and trying to spread your darkness. Fraud is obvious. You are trying to make it sound like it's not true but it's self-evident.
-
Well then, I’m sorry to say but it looks like we can’t go any further with this.
You’re not understanding what I’m saying, you don’t want to understand and you yourself say you don’t read anything I’ve written. As that’s extremely rude and you’re not a very good interlocutor, I’m going to stop this conversation.
If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists - you’ve failed.
If you’re just here to shout and scream your views… I don’t think you should be here.
-
Ok bye. "If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists… you failed." Well problem with that is that it's already been proven, multiple times. It's actually on the record hundreds of times. So you're a liar and a fraud yourself. Everyone knows how easy it is to just look that info up, voter fraud... it does exist... hundreds of examples.
-
Ok bye. "If you were trying to convince anyone here that voter fraud exists… you failed." Well problem with that is that it's already been proven, multiple times. It's actually on the record hundreds of times. So you're a liar and a fraud yourself. Everyone knows how easy it is to just look that info up, voter fraud... it does exist... hundreds of examples.
And now you're either being willfully dishonest or incredibly simple…
As I've said, numerous times (if you had bothered to read what I had written), you would have seen I have indeed said that there is plenty of instances of small fraud that has been caught, prosecuted and dealt with. And I have also said there is no wide-spread fraud and no evidence of it. And, as I have also said, the one does not mean the other is happening (for clarity, as you seem to need it, small occasional fraud that gets caught does not mean that there is some wide-spread fraud having occurred).
As we can see these cases have all been thrown out - with prejudice - I think we can all be content with the reality that there as no wide-spread voter fraud in this election, the claims that there was were all complete nonsense and spurious... and the USA now has a new president-elect.
I do hope all this crying wolf will not dissuade people from being cautious in future and being mindful of and watchful for any sort of voter fraud. A very dangerous thing to go around making spurious, nonsense claims that get thrown out in court over and over again... as that might indeed disuade people from listening in the future when there might be voter fraud.
-
It's not spurious. It's obvious. You're gaslighting. Ronna McDaniel has 500 affidavits with 11,000 examples of fraud. Just for this election. It's not ridiculous or absurd. These are people going on the record and testifying under penalty of purgery. The live hearing in PA today I heard was highly effective. You can call it what you want… nonsense or not... it's up to the jury and the court and the outcome, not you. You have already decided in your mind one way, and that's fine, but it's delusional.
-
Again, still not gaslighting… you really aught to look up what that term means before you keep using it. By all means, don’t believe me when I’ve already told you you’re using it incorrectly.. but at least look it up and check. ATM, your usage of it makes you sound like you don’t know the language we’re speaking in...
I agree enteritis! It will indeed be up to the courts! So far, they have thrown out every single case.
Hearings are very different things - and don’t have perjury issues within them (you can say what you like in a hearing!). But if the hearing decides that legal action should be taken, then the perjury issue comes to bear. You know this...
Similarly, you can say whatever you like in a sworn affidavit - it’s only when they go into a court proceeding and your sworn in that it matters if you believe you’re lying or not... and affidavits are all about belief. If the person believes they aren’t lying, then that’s ok! But it doesn’t mean it won’t get thrown out (there are sworn affidavits that have gone to court with people who believe that they’re the second coming of Jesus Christ... for example...). Again, you should know this...
So, so far, every court case for this has been thrown out of court for lack of evidence for what is being claimed. And yet, you still think that, for some reason, those court cases weren’t the ones that will matter... that, for some reason, the people pursuing those court cases decided to ignore all the “obvious” evidence that you claim is evidence (yet falls woefully short of what real evidence is to anyone else)... and yet you still think there will be a court case that suddenly decides in your favour... because of a bunch of people who make claims in their affidavits?
Doesn’t sound terribly credible to me...
-
Oh please. We knew this would go this way and go the SCOTUSl You're acting like all this is a surprise and just off the cuff. We conservatives said this would happen months ago. And it's happening exactly as we said it would. Too much evidence. You ignore all that.
-
Oh please. We knew this would go this way and go the SCOTUSl You're acting like all this is a surprise and just off the cuff. We conservatives said this would happen months ago. And it's happening exactly as we said it would. Too much evidence. You ignore all that.
I’m sorry… I have no clue what you’re talking about here.
As far as I’ve seen, there was a whole bunch of people, led by Trump, who claimed (without evidence) that the democrats would try the to steal the election. And now, post Trump losing the election, they are claiming the Democrats have have stolen the election... and are still not providing any evidence for this (hence all the court cases being effectively thrown out). The recounts haven’t helped him (indeed have increased Biden’s lead...) and he just seems a bit like he’s desperately trying to con people into paying his campaign expenses for him with his funding pleas.
So, until someone can provide real evidence that will stand up in court (not stuff cooked up by a bunch of internet sleuths who evidently don’t know what they’re talking about) - then there doesn’t seem like any evidence at all that the democrats stole the election.
This constant crying of “no fair” really doesn’t fit with the image that you’re trying to portray of yourself either...
-
Dude you don't know what you're talking about. You're just another gaslighter. We already had one seat flipped due to fraud in MI. Go ahead and deny. Just wait. I don't think you realize what's going on in any of the states. It's looking very bad for your side.
-
Dude you don't know what you're talking about. You're just another gaslighter. We already had one seat flipped due to fraud in MI. Go ahead and deny. Just wait. I don't think you realize what's going on in any of the states. It's looking very bad for your side.
You telling someone they don’t know what they’re talking about, whilst at the same time still using a term incorrectly is not a very good look… and indeed doesn’t make you very believable or credible.
How long will I need to wait exactly? Can you please tell me the specific seat that was flipped so I can check this information from the official sources to confirm it?
-
Adam Kochenderfer, from the Detroit Free Press:
In Oakland County’s 15th County Commission District
Wasting my time looking this up and serving it to you on a silver platter.
6,000 votes switched because of proven fraud
-
Adam Kochenderfer, from the Detroit Free Press:
In Oakland County’s 15th County Commission District
Wasting my time looking this up and serving it to you on a silver platter.
6,000 votes switched because of proven fraud
So if you have actually looked this up… as you claim... you would know the reason for this was not fraud, but error... and the error was human in origin... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/technology/no-software-glitches-are-not-affecting-vote-counts.html
So perhaps it wouldn't be such a waste of your time to actually look this stuff up, rather than desperately making claims about things that haven't happened?
-
The New York Times is a far-left rag, everything they say is extremely suspect.
-
The New York Times is a far-left rag, everything they say is extremely suspect.
Sure - so look for other sources. I've found lots… won't take you long! Including from the county itself, explaining this... painfully clearly... so everyone would understand.
Don't take my word for it... check! And stop just listening to a tiny group of people who have been constantly proven to be wrong.
-
Right… it was just an "accident." Shut up. That's dumb. Computers don't forget how to add 1 + 1.
-
Right… it was just an "accident." Shut up. That's dumb. Computers don't forget how to add 1 + 1.
Well, a computer can be programmed to do anything according to you… so...
All joking aside, this is precisely why it is explained to be a human error... not a computer error.
-
Shut up. Computers don't forget how to add 1 + 1. You know it's bullshit.
-
Shut up. Computers don't forget how to add 1 + 1. You know it's bullshit.
Yeah… indeed I just said that...
But sadly, people can...
Hence the person having a problem.
Literally, now you're only asking me to "shut up" everywhere... means you've got nothing else. So we can safely ignore what you have to say.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login