The most secure ever.

2 hours ago, akvanden said:

I don’t get why these graphs and feelings don’t hold up in court?!

They made it legal to cheat moron.

3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

They made it legal to cheat moron.

You notice how he always skips over the main points? Why I usually just scroll on by.

15 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

They made it legal to cheat moron.

Explain how this is cheating.

I’m guessing you can’t.

12 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

You notice how he always skips over the main points?

No, can you provide an example.

Just now, akvanden said:

Explain how this is cheating.

I’m guessing you can’t.

No, can you provide an example.

Be sure to hold your breath Mr. miss the point.

7 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Be sure to hold your breath Mr. miss the point.

Oh you can’t. Ok.

More deflection.

Although this is worth repeating.

39 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

They made it legal to cheat moron.

Thinking someone else is a moron when you just stated there is cheating, but the cheating is legal is fucking hilarious. Even better that woolie just blindly defended you. Shows true devotion.

7 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Although this is worth repeating.

Thinking someone else is a moron when you just stated there is cheating, but the cheating is legal is fucking hilarious. Even better that woolie just blindly defended you. Shows true devotion.

There’s seriously something psychologically wrong with you two. It’s been explained multiple times, and you guys are hung up on word games. Its obvious who’s blind here.

You haven't explained anything other than you believe it to be the case. Zero facts or evidence that show anything of merit. Kindergartners make better arguments.

7 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

There’s seriously something psychologically wrong with you two. It’s been explained multiple times, and you guys are hung up on word games. Its obvious who’s blind here.

It's quite remarkable to see them think they have a win.

A win would be when you are able to actually explain your beliefs. You have a feeling and call it a win.

1 hour ago, DriftBusta said:

There’s seriously something psychologically wrong with you two.

Definitely nothing wrong with the ones inventing fraud with no actual evidence.

And then incessantly trying to convince everyone else they are right. It's obviously the ones who correct them that are psychologically demented....

Pure Obedience

19 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Definitely nothing wrong with the ones inventing fraud with no actual evidence.

You can’t prove the fraud. What you can prove is there are no safeguards or controls to prevent it. So when all these irregularities happen, people have every right to question or doubt the results. So keep making excuses and think you are winning the argument. You and Dorkhaven sound like a bunch of wind up sock puppets…..“no evidence! No evidence! Show us the proof!!!”

When you take out all the rules and laws allowing fraud, it makes it harder to prove. Sheephaven, are you all for fraud? How about ak? Do you guys just want fraud to take place? Do you want ballot stuffing, dead people voting, illegals voting? Is that what you want?

18 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

You can’t prove the fraud.

Are you joking? How do you think this works? Let’s say you intercept 1,000 mail in ballots, fill them out, forge the signature, and send them in the mail. 1) signatures won’t match 2) every person who voted in person will be followed up with because they supposedly voted twice, which is illegal. Then an investigation would ensue - that’s called evidence.

What do you think happens when statistical anomalies occur? What if historically .001% of ballots are rejected due to mismatching signatures, and all of the sudden it’s 1%. That raises questions, investigations, and is evidence that can be actually used in court.

To say you can’t prove fraud is flat out wrong. The issue is you can’t even think of a hypothetical way to cause mass fraud. You post something, it’s easily explained or refuted, you ignore it and continue down the same imaginary fraud path.

3 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Are you joking? How do you think this works? Let’s say you intercept 1,000 mail in ballots, fill them out, forge the signature, and send them in the mail. 1) signatures won’t match 2) every person who voted in person will be followed up with because they supposedly voted twice, which is illegal. Then an investigation would ensue - that’s called evidence.

What do you think happens when statistical anomalies occur? What if historically .001% of ballots are rejected due to mismatching signatures, and all of the sudden it’s 1%. That raises questions, investigations, and is evidence that can be actually used in court.

To say you can’t prove fraud is flat out wrong. The issue is you can’t even think of a hypothetical way to cause mass fraud. You post something, it’s easily explained or refuted, you ignore it and continue down the same imaginary fraud path.

Wow, blind obedience

4 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Is that what you want?

No, just explanation of how the rules in place today would allow mass fraud to occur unnoticed will suffice. 👍

1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Wow, blind obedience

Facts > feelings

1 minute ago, akvanden said:

No, just explanation of how the rules in place today would allow mass fraud to occur unnoticed will suffice. 👍

It allows people to pay others to vote. That used to be illegal and still is in some states.

7 minutes ago, racer254 said:

It allows people to pay others to vote. That used to be illegal and still is in some states.

False. You can’t legally pay people to vote or to register to vote. Both federal and California law prohibit financial incentives to influence someone’s decision to cast a ballot.

13 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Facts > feelings

Obedience personified

You're stupidity is killing me. It's real.

21 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Are you joking? How do you think this works? Let’s say you intercept 1,000 mail in ballots, fill them out, forge the signature, and send them in the mail. 1) signatures won’t match 2) every person who voted in person will be followed up with because they supposedly voted twice, which is illegal. Then an investigation would ensue - that’s called evidence.

What do you think happens when statistical anomalies occur? What if historically .001% of ballots are rejected due to mismatching signatures, and all of the sudden it’s 1%. That raises questions, investigations, and is evidence that can be actually used in court.

To say you can’t prove fraud is flat out wrong. The issue is you can’t even think of a hypothetical way to cause mass fraud. You post something, it’s easily explained or refuted, you ignore it and continue down the same imaginary fraud path.

You're dismissed. You're blind, deaf and dumb.

Sooo, are republicans too honest or to stupid to do the same thing they are claiming the dems are doing legally?

It's a puzzler for sure.