Post Your Voter Fraud Evidence Here

#551
#551
NashVol11 said:
That article doesn't show anything. It says "here are some places where a bunch of people have been incorrectly left on the voter rolls", leaving Republicans to jump to the conclusion that that means (a) no one is checking those voter rolls between then and the next election (obviously incorrect), (b) illegal voters are inspecting the voter rolls, (c) they're noticing who won't be showing up anymore or sending in absentee ballots, (d) they're impersonating those people (in the correct precinct every time, so that there aren't provisional ballots that still wouldn't count), (e) they're all voting Democrat, (f) they're actually impacting an election and (g) there's an explanation for there being absolutely no evidence of this actually happening and definitely not impacting an election, once, such that the biggest documented evidence of voter impersonation going back decades is 24 people. They're also assuming that voter ID laws would actually change anything, when some kind of illegal voting strategy would be much more likely to rely on absentee ballots or something else with an exponentially higher chance of success than voting illegally in person. It's a fear-based boogeyman based on essentially nothing.
Click to expand...
The article correctly pointed out millions of ghost voters on the rolls, dumbass. That's literally millions of potential voter impersonation, dumbass. After you claimed the danger is negligible, dumbass. It's no wonder how poking your eyes out to not see it...



Dumbass.
 
Last edited:
#552
#552
NashVol11 said:
Yeah, it's a nice way of dodging real-world application. If you're going to say Republicans, generally, are trying to nobly protect our elections, then you should probably be able to explain why those actual Republicans don't seem to be doing anything of the sort.

They're trying to keep their power, like just about all politicians do. Feel free to lionize them if you want, but that's what it is.
Click to expand...
i'm not dodging anything. Like I said, dumbass, I've been talking about the need of voter IDs to protect against voter impersonation. Why would I waste my time defending a poor implementation of ID laws? Only a dumbass would expect me to do that.


And yet you expect me to do that... Interesting.

If you want to see "dodging" see the post where you dodged the implications of the voter roll article.

Dumbass.
 
#553
#553
Orange_Crush said:
The article correctly pointed out millions of ghost voters on the rolls, dumbass. That's literally millions of potential voter impersonation, dumbass. After you claimed the danger is negligible, dumbass. It's no wonder how looking your eyes out to not see it...



Dumbass.
Click to expand...

"There's a dark area under your bed. Multiply that across the entire country and there are literally millions of potential monster hiding spots. Literally no evidence that this means what we're saying it means, but let's make monster prevention our highest priority"
 
#554
#554
Orange_Crush said:
i'm not dodging anything. Like I said, dumbass, I've been talking about the need of voter IDs to protect against voter impersonation. Why would I waste my time defending a poor implementation of ID laws? Only a dumbass would expect me to do that.


And yet you expect me to do that... Interesting.

If you want to see "dodging" see the post where you dodged the implications of the voter roll article.

Dumbass.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you agree with me, then. Republicans behind these laws have typically been using them as political means to preserve power. You're just making the argument that theoretically, if politicians magically stopped being power-hungry, a "fair" (nonexistent) voter ID law could be a good idea. OK, cool
 
#555
#555
NashVol11 said:
"There's a dark area under your bed. Multiply that across the entire country and there are literally millions of potential monster hiding spots. Literally no evidence that this means what we're saying it means, but let's make monster prevention our highest priority"
Click to expand...
Again, dumbass. It's millions of ghost votes that literally anyone without an ID can pull the lever for. That's a danger that is wise to close up. It's also a danger you said didn't exist. Now,with the danger documented, you have to make fallacious comparisons to arm wave away.
 
Last edited:
#556
#556
Orange_Crush said:
Again, dumbass. It's millions of ghost votes that literally anyone without an ID can the lever for. That's a danger that is wise to close up. It's also a danger got said didn't exist. Now,with the danger documented, you have to make fallacious comparisons to arm wave away.
Click to expand...
no you don’t understand. There’s no evidence it’s happening because we don’t check IDs so we have no idea who is voting.


wait.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad, NurseGoodVol and Orange_Crush
#558
#558
NashVol11 said:
Sounds like you agree with me, then. Republicans behind these laws have typically been using them as political means to preserve power. You're just making the argument that theoretically, if politicians magically stopped being power-hungry, a "fair" (nonexistent) voter ID law could be a good idea. OK, cool
Click to expand...
I have a hint for you since you haven't bothered asking, dumbass.

I'm not a Republican. i think republicans are the other evil side of our two sided, two party stranglehold. I actually despise the Republicans.

I'm not in here defending republicans. Like I've you to many times already, dumbass, I'm merely here defending the principle of One citizen, One vote. Like I've said to many times already, dumbass, I'm not here to discuss bad implementations of that principle.

Now go practice not being a dumbass, and then come try engaging me again.
 
#559
#559
Orange_Crush said:
Again, dumbass. It's millions of ghost votes that literally anyone without an ID can the lever for. That's a danger that is wise to close up. It's also a danger got said didn't exist. Now,with the danger documented, you have to make fallacious comparisons to arm wave away.
Click to expand...

I said there's no evidence that voter impersonation happens on a scale above 25 people. There wasn't and there still isn't. It's not as simple as just showing up and voting for dead people, and if Democrats wanted to cheat, again, that's the absolute last way they would do it. "Documenting the danger" would be presenting a case where a substantial number of people were caught trying to impersonate dead people, not saying "look, here's something that COULD happen if we ignore all facts and context"
 
#560
#560
Orange_Crush said:
I have a hint for you since you haven't bothered asking, dumbass.

I'm not a Republican. i think republicans are the other evil side of our two sided, two party stranglehold. I actually despise the Republicans.

I'm not in here defending republicans. Like I've you to many times already, dumbass, I'm merely here defending the principle of One citizen, One vote. Like I've said to many times already, dumbass, I'm not here to discuss bad implementations of that principle.

Now go practice not being a dumbass, and then come try engaging me again.
Click to expand...

Definitely makes sense to quote my post and dodge what I said in order to, as you mentioned, tell me something I didn't ask. Your difficulty with spelling three-letter words makes the rest pretty entertaining.

Do you think there have been any good implementations of that principle to this point, or are you arguing in support of a law that will likely never exist?

EDIT: Damn, I even missed one. One "to many times" could be a typo, but two of them has to be intentional.
 
#561
#561
NashVol11 said:
I said there's no evidence that voter impersonation happens on a scale above 25 people. There wasn't and there still isn't. It's not as simple as just showing up and voting for dead people, and if Democrats wanted to cheat, again, that's the absolute last way they would do it. "Documenting the danger" would be presenting a case where a substantial number of people were caught trying to impersonate dead people, not saying "look, here's something that COULD happen if we ignore all facts and context"
Click to expand...
That's a dumbass way to look at it for sure. Let's apply that to corporate cyber security:

Well, we have all these risks and vulnerabilities, and we're not tracking the network, but we can't give you evidence that APTs are actually taking advantage of the vulnerabilities, so...

I vote we leave the vulnerabilities open.

Do some research on the "defense in depth". You won't sound like such a dumbass.
 
#562
#562
Orange_Crush said:
That's a dumbass way to look at it for sure. Let's apply that to corporate cyber security:

Well, we have all these risks and vulnerabilities, and we're not tracking the network, but we can't give you evidence that APTs are actually taking advantage of the vulnerabilities, so...

I vote we leave the vulnerabilities open.

Do some research on the "defense in depth". You won't sound like such a dumbass.
Click to expand...

Corporate cybersecurity and DiD developed in response to actual threats, not made-up ones, so that's a bad comparison
 
#563
#563
NashVol11 said:
Definitely makes sense to quote my post and dodge what I said in order to, as you mentioned, tell me something I didn't ask. Your difficulty with spelling three-letter words makes the rest pretty entertaining.

Do you think there have been any good implementations of that principle to this point, or are you arguing in support of a law that will likely never exist?
Click to expand...
I'm posting mobile. You got me on the spelling. Makes you look better i guess?

I'm not so sure the law will never exist. It definitely won't if we stop trying. It definitely won't if everyone is a dumbass like you that argues against a valid principle because it may not have been achieved yet.

I think you're stupid and weak for arguing that way.

Now, go practice not being a dumbass.
 
#564
#564
NashVol11 said:
Corporate cybersecurity and DiD developed in response to actual threats, not made-up ones, so that's a bad comparison
Click to expand...
Lol. All this wasted energy just to return to the fact that you look stupid because you haven't learned how to be a loser.
 
#565
#565
Orange_Crush said:
I'm posting mobile. You got me on the spelling. Makes you look better i guess?

I'm not so sure the law will never exist. It definitely won't if we stop trying. It definitely won't if everyone is a dumbass like you that argues against a valid principle because it may not have been achieved yet.

I think you're stupid and weak for arguing that way.

Now, go practice not being a dumbass.
Click to expand...

FTR, I don't think it is invalid. If applied fairly, it's more of a personal preference issue. I think it's a fake problem that doesn't need fixing (just purge voter rolls if it bothers you that much, which almost certainly happened between that article and the next election anyway) and that it should generally be easy to vote, while you (and I'm sure most here) think it's a genuine concern and getting an ID is easy. I think you can argue either way, but that it's generally a moot point because politicians will continue to prioritize power over fairness.

No one was really concerned about voter ID until Republicans around 2013 started using it as a scare tactic to justify a political strategy, and it ended up being a remarkably effective (and smart, in a Machiavellian way) tactic until the laws started getting struck down.
 
#570
#570
NashVol11 said:
LMGTFY
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.



Many states now have "stop and identify" laws that require people to identify themselves when police have reasonable suspicion that they are engaged or about to engage in criminal activity. Under these laws, people who refuse to show identification under these circumstances can be arrested.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top