Democrats Caught Red Handed Engaging In Voter Fraud

[racer254]

13 minutes ago, akvanden said:

So if you dumped 135,000 mail in ballots into a drop box during the general election, and it was immediately found and removed, rather than using it as an example of the process working as it should, you’d use it as a failure? Ok…. 

 

It would be very difficult to coordinate mass voter fraud. Articulate otherwise and prove me wrong.

I just showed you multiple ways.  How many more do you want?  The NEW YORK Primary, The 84 bioterror attack. 

Combine both and you have the ways.

[ArcticCrusher]

12 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Still no mass voter fraud or conspiracy to commit mass voter fraud on the list.

No it's not.  Your ic are experts.

[ArcticCrusher]

Remember 2000 Mules.

 

 

[akvanden]

7 minutes ago, racer254 said:

I just showed you multiple ways.  How many more do you want?  The NEW YORK Primary, The 84 bioterror attack. 

Combine both and you have the ways.

Your New York example using sample ballots was immediately found. How would you go about going undetected in the final outcome? How would sample ballots hold up during a hand recount? Please, since you NY example clearly didn’t make it to the final count/outcome, you’ll have to articulate how it would work. It shouldn’t be hard.

[Deephaven]

24 minutes ago, racer254 said:

I see they have you focused on the 81 million, but you failed to realize that we have an electoral college that requires 270 electoral votes to "win" the election.  37 electoral votes 3 states or 55,000 votes changed the election. 

Not really, the 81M is all you guys.  I hear claims that it isn't 81...and then nothing to defend that.  As for the 3 states, that isn't where any of the fraud is being shown.  If it was then there would be all sorts of legal attacks to try to reverse it.  Thinking that Trump wouldn't dig up every stone possible is absurd.

36 minutes ago, akvanden said:

It would be very difficult to coordinate mass voter fraud. Articulate otherwise and prove me wrong.

It didn't happen.  They can't show shit except hope and feeling.

[racer254]

3 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Not really, the 81M is all you guys.  I hear claims that it isn't 81...and then nothing to defend that.  As for the 3 states, that isn't where any of the fraud is being shown.  If it was then there would be all sorts of legal attacks to try to reverse it.  Thinking that Trump wouldn't dig up every stone possible is absurd.

It didn't happen.  They can't show shit except hope and feeling.

Lies, fraud was shown in every one of the states I mentioned.  Do a search for it.

[Sleepr2]

8 hours ago, Skidooski said:

So now you guys throw a 3+ year tantrum when Trump loses? 

Nah, one afternoon seemed to trigger the hypocrisy of the leftists enough 

 

[racer254]

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

Your New York example using sample ballots was immediately found. How would you go about going undetected in the final outcome? How would sample ballots hold up during a hand recount? Please, since you NY example clearly didn’t make it to the final count/outcome, you’ll have to articulate how it would work. It shouldn’t be hard.

OMG, you are just not going to except anything that may prove the fact that election fraud can happen.  I have proved my point in many ways, but you just won't except it.

[racer254]

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

Your New York example using sample ballots was immediately found. How would you go about going undetected in the final outcome? How would sample ballots hold up during a hand recount? Please, since you NY example clearly didn’t make it to the final count/outcome, you’ll have to articulate how it would work. It shouldn’t be hard.

Why did the democrats change voting laws?

 

[Crnr2Crnr]

6 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Why did the democrats change voting laws?

 

Texas Senate Approves Bill To Allow Gov. Greg Abbott To Overturn Elections 

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/texas-senate-approves-bill-allow-183154752.html

 

 

See, both parties suck 

[akvanden]

12 minutes ago, racer254 said:

OMG, you are just not going to except anything that may prove the fact that election fraud can happen.  I have proved my point in many ways, but you just won't except it.

You provided an example on how the current system ferreted out these test ballots before it changed any election outcome without providing any detail how could change the outcome, other than simply saying “it’s easy.” You haven’t proved any fact other than the current system seems to be working at preventing coordinated mass voter fraud. 

 

21 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Why did the democrats change voting laws?

 

Same reason both parties gerrymander, to gain an edge.

[racer254]

1 minute ago, akvanden said:

You provided an example on how the current system ferreted out these test ballots before it changed any election outcome without providing any detail how could change the outcome, other than simply saying “it’s easy.” You haven’t proved any fact other than the current system seems to be working at preventing coordinated mass voter fraud. 

 

Same reason both parties gerrymander, to gain an edge.

Making it harder to find/prosecute election fraud is a way to "gain an edge"?  Seems more like a way to let cheaters get away with it.

[akvanden]

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

Making it harder to find/prosecute election fraud is a way to "gain an edge"?  Seems more like a way to let cheaters get away with it.

R: removing voter ID increases cheating.

D: adding voter ID suppresses marginalized voters.

 

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Steve753]

2 minutes ago, akvanden said:

R: removing voter ID increases cheating.

D: adding voter ID suppresses marginalized voters.

 

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Pretty simple. No ID, no vote.

[Roosting]

26 minutes ago, akvanden said:

R: removing voter ID increases cheating.

D: adding voter ID suppresses marginalized voters.

 

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

can you provide more detail on the D response as it pertains to today and not 1900? it's an empty statement for unthinking retards but lets see your take on it.

[akvanden]

5 minutes ago, Roosting said:

can you provide more detail on the D response as it pertains to today and not 1900? it's an empty statement for unthinking retards but lets see your take on it.

I can’t, no, as I never made the claim. 
 

Can you speak for them?

[Roosting]

1 minute ago, akvanden said:

I can’t, no, as I never made the claim. 
 

Can you speak for them?

so what you type is not what you say? interesting but stupid and normal for you.

 

[akvanden]

5 minutes ago, Roosting said:

so what you type is not what you say? interesting but stupid and normal for you.

 

It’s called speaking in third person. Heard of it before? The R denotes what republicans say, the D denotes what democrats say. 
 

No worries, you learn something new everyday. 

 

[Roosting]

13 minutes ago, akvanden said:

It’s called speaking in third person. Heard of it before? The R denotes what republicans say, the D denotes what democrats say. 
 

No worries, you learn something new everyday. 

 

And yet you added the truth is somewhere in-between so lets hear your take on it. 

Or are you unable to articulate your own opinion? 

[akvanden]

1 hour ago, Roosting said:

And yet you added the truth is somewhere in-between so lets hear your take on it. 

Or are you unable to articulate your own opinion? 

You’re so overly condescending that it’s funny. 

 

Clearly there’s part of the population that doesn’t have a drivers license, or whatever ID you have in mind. No matter how simple you make the process to get one, they may have a barrier (maybe pure laziness). It’s not hard to fathom that some of them may stop voting because of it. If you need it quantified, talk to a democrat strategist.

 

And that is why it’s somewhere in the middle, because there’s some truth in both statements. 
 

 

Roosting: “I’m such a retard.”

(that was me, speaking in third person, calling yourself a retard)

Edited May 4, 2023 by akvanden

[Roosting]

1 minute ago, akvanden said:

You’re so overly condescending that it’s funny. 

 

Clearly there’s part of the population that doesn’t have a drivers license, or whatever ID you have in mind. No matter how simple you make the process to get one, they may have a barrier (maybe pure laziness). It’s not hard to fathom that some of them may stop voting because of it. If you need it quantified, talk to a democrat strategist.

 

And that is why it’s somewhere in the middle, because there’s some truth in both statements. 
 

 

Rooster: “I’m such a retard.”

(that was me, speaking in third person, calling yourself a retard)

Bold: you have earned that from previous attempts to get you to answer with your opinion.

Like I said in my first response to you in todays terms and not 1900. 

Everything you highlighted are good enough reasons to disqualify that person from voting as they have no skin in the game and should actively resist going to vote for something they do not participate in.

See how easy it is to relay an opinion?  

In closing you lack the aptitude to sling articulate jabs and rely on weak third grade material. So weak that you need to explain the attempt at so called humor. 

now can you articulate your statement to today's reality or just old tired weak talking points?  

[Crnr2Crnr]

just for you crusher... 

 

[akvanden]

32 minutes ago, Roosting said:

See how easy it is to relay an opinion?

No one asked you for your opinion, but we appreciate you providing it. You never asked for mine, rather you misinterpreted the talking points from each party as my own. The truth is in the middle, it’s not really a debatable no matter what your personal opinion is, it’s just a fact.

 

1 hour ago, Roosting said:

now can you articulate your statement to today's reality or just old tired weak talking points? 

I already did.  The Ds don’t like voter ID because some people don’t want or won’t get ID. You don’t like that - good for you. There’s nothing to argue. 

 

 

[Roosting]

3 hours ago, akvanden said:

No one asked you for your opinion, but we appreciate you providing it. You never asked for mine, rather you misinterpreted the talking points from each party as my own. The truth is in the middle, it’s not really a debatable no matter what your personal opinion is, it’s just a fact.

 

I already did.  The Ds don’t like voter ID because some people don’t want or won’t get ID. You don’t like that - good for you. There’s nothing to argue. 

 

 

that's all fine and dandy but the fact still remains that i asked you what your opinion is, not to repeat the D talking point. but in the end you will just repeat the nothing over again like broken record.

 

[akvanden]

44 minutes ago, Roosting said:

that's all fine and dandy but the fact still remains that i asked you what your opinion is, not to repeat the D talking point. but in the end you will just repeat the nothing over again like broken record.

 

Well now that you ask, I have no issues with voter ID. I don’t feel that it’s strongly needed, but have nothing against it if legislation was introduced.