Massive voter fraud leads to Connecticut election results being thrown out

[Shaul]

In Connecticut a state judge has thrown out a Democratic Primary election result and ordered a new election be held. This was after video evidence was presented showing a dozen "instances of (vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee) Geter-Pataky either depositing stacks of ballots herself or handing ballots to others from behind her reception desk, and four instances of Martinez dropping off ballots."

Court Overturns Ganim Win in Bridgeport Primary, Calling Evidence of Fraud 'Shocking'

 

[fantome profane]

In Connecticut a state judge has thrown out a Democratic Primary election result and ordered a new election be held. This was after video evidence was presented showing a dozen "instances of (vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee) Geter-Pataky either depositing stacks of ballots herself or handing ballots to others from behind her reception desk, and four instances of Martinez dropping off ballots."

Court Overturns Ganim Win in Bridgeport Primary, Calling Evidence of Fraud 'Shocking'

This just proves that when you have the evidence you can go to court and win.

When there is no evidence all you can do is whine and cry like a big fat orange baby.

 

[Shaul]

This just proves that when you have the evidence you can go to court and win.

When there is no evidence all you can do is whine and cry like a big fat orange baby.

It also follows that there must also be instances when despite a lack of evidence there was still actual fraud. A lack of evidence isn't always evidence lacking.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It also follows that there must also be instances when despite a lack of evidence there was still actual fraud. A lack of evidence isn't always evidence lacking.

Kind of like how a lack of evidence that you're not a robot doesn't mean you're not a robot.

Still, would be pretty weird for me to keep insisting you are a robot regardless of the lack of evidence, right?

 

[Shaul]

Kind of like how a lack of evidence that you're not a robot doesn't mean you're not a robot.

Still, would be pretty weird for me to keep insisting you are a robot regardless of the lack of evidence, right?

It is quite reasonable to expect that people who attempt voter fraud would be motivated to hide any evidence to their utmost. It is therefore reasonable to think that there are more non-provable cases of voter fraud than provable ones.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is quite reasonable to expect that people who attempt voter fraud would be motivated to hide any evidence to their utmost. It is therefore reasonable to think that there are more non-provable cases of voter fraud than provable ones.

Sure, just as it is reasonable to assume you're a serial killer, because if you were a serial killer you would be REALLY good at hiding the evidence, so the fact that there IS no evidence of you ever killing people is, in fact, very compelling and reasonable evidence that you have actually killed LOTS of people!

Re-examine your logic, here, and think about it for more than a few seconds, and answer this question: is it more reasonable to allege fraud BEFORE or AFTER there is actual evidence of fraud?

 

[Shaul]

Sure, just as it is reasonable to assume you're a serial killer, because if you were a serial killer you would be REALLY good at hiding the evidence, so the fact that there IS no evidence of you ever killing people is, in fact, very compelling and reasonable evidence that you have actually killed LOTS of people!

Re-examine your logic, here, and think about it for more than a few seconds, and answer this question: is it more reasonable to allege fraud BEFORE or AFTER there is actual evidence of fraud?

Non sequitur. The number of instances of potential serial killers is minuscule compared to the number of potential vote fraud perpetrators. Potential serial killers are an exceptional rarity. Potential vote fraudsters are not. So there is no logical problem. It is more logical to wonder if someone is a vote fraudster than a serial killer based on probability.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Non sequitur. The number of instances of potential serial killers is minuscule compared to the number of potential vote fraud perpetrators. Potential serial killers are an exceptional rarity. Potential vote fraudsters are not. So there is no logical problem. It is more logical to wonder if someone is a vote fraudster than a serial killer based on probability.

Let's see the numbers.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Non sequitur. The number of instances of potential serial killers is minuscule compared to the number of potential vote fraud perpetrators. Potential serial killers are an exceptional rarity. Potential vote fraudsters are not. So there is no logical problem. It is more logical to wonder if someone is a vote fraudster than a serial killer based on probability.

Can't help but notice you failed to answer the question, there.

Is it more or less reasonable to assume fraud BEFORE evidence is found, rather than AFTER?

And if you don't like the serial killer analogy, substitute it with anything you like. There are certainly more instances of common theft than there are of either serial killing or election fraud, so I am free to assert that you are a petty theif, correct?

How about a waffle house chef?

Tax cheat?

War criminal?

Children's party clown?

I have no evidence of any of these things. So, is it reasonable for me to assume you are these things? Yes or no?

 

[Shaul]

Let's see the numbers.

Um, no, let's not. I submit that there are far, far fewer serial killers than people who commit voter fraud. I don't even want to debate it, frankly. If you think that isn't so, then I am quite willing to disagree with you and leave it at that.

 

[Shaul]

Can't help but notice you failed to answer the question, there.

Is it more or less reasonable to assume fraud BEFORE evidence is found, rather than AFTER?

And if you don't like the serial killer analogy, substitute it with anything you like. There are certainly more instances of common theft than there are of either serial killing or election fraud, so I am free to assert that you are a petty theif, correct?

How about a waffle house chef?

Tax cheat?

War criminal?

Children's party clown?

I have no evidence of any of these things. So, is it reasonable for me to assume you are these things? Yes or no?

It isn't more nor less reasonable to "assume"(your word, not mine) voter fraud before or after evidence it found. The likelihood of voter fraud remains the same. Since if there is evidence it isn't really an assumption any longer.

I don't care to make any analogies to voter fraud. Any analogy would be imperfect and not add clarity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Um, no, let's not. I submit that there are far, far fewer serial killers than people who commit voter fraud. I don't even want to debate it, frankly. If you think that isn't so, then I am quite willing to disagree with you and leave it at that.

Well then that's just like, your opinion, man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn't more nor less reasonable to "assume"(your word, not mine) voter fraud before or after evidence it found. The likelihood of voter fraud remains the same. Since if there is evidence it isn't really an assumption any longer.

I don't care to make any analogies to voter fraud. Any analogy would be imperfect and not add clarity.

Yes the likelihood of voter fraud remains the same. Almost zero. Excellent point!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It isn't more nor less reasonable to "assume"(your word, not mine) voter fraud before or after evidence it found. The likelihood of voter fraud remains the same. Since if there is evidence it isn't really an assumption any longer.

I don't care to make any analogies to voter fraud. Any analogy would be imperfect and not add clarity.

Wow.

"It isn't more or less reasonable to assume voter fraud before or after evidence is found."

That is... An unbelievable statement.

"I believe there is voter fraud, but I have no evidence whatsoever, but I still believe it."
"I believe there is voter fraud, because I have found all of this evidence of it."

According to you, these are EQUALLY REASONABLE POSITIONS.

Well, since the "likelihood" of you being a tax cheat remains the same regardless of whether or not there is evidence of it, I guess it's perfectly reasonable to accuse you of committing tax fraud. Perfectly reasonable position, yes?

 

[Audie]

This just proves that when you have the evidence you can go to court and win.

When there is no evidence all you can do is whine and cry like a big fat orange baby.

When you find that the case against someone
who defrauded you is lost due to insufficient
evidence you can behave as you reccomend.

 

[Shaul]

Well then that's just like, your opinion, man.

"Just like"? I stated my opinion that serial killers are far, far less common than vote fraudsters. I stand by that opinion. But you haven't stated yours. So is it your opinion that serial killers are as common as vote fraudsters, or not?

 

[Shaul]

Yes the likelihood of voter fraud remains the same. Almost zero. Excellent point!

There is nothing in what I wrote that indicates the rate of voter fraud is "almost zero".

 

[We Never Know]

This just proves that when you have the evidence you can go to court and win.

When there is no evidence all you can do is whine and cry like a big fat orange baby.

And OJ Simpson was really innocent

 

[Shaul]

Wow.

"It isn't more or less reasonable to assume voter fraud before or after evidence is found."

That is... An unbelievable statement.

"I believe there is voter fraud, but I have no evidence whatsoever, but I still believe it."
"I believe there is voter fraud, because I have found all of this evidence of it."

According to you, these are EQUALLY REASONABLE POSITIONS.

Well, since the "likelihood" of you being a tax cheat remains the same regardless of whether or not there is evidence of it, I guess it's perfectly reasonable to accuse you of committing tax fraud. Perfectly reasonable position, yes?

There is nothing wrong with considering that voter fraud exists either before or after evidence has come out. To not consider the possibility is what is both illogical and perilous. Considering and exploring the possibility of voter fraud before there is evidence is prudent. As is following any evidence that has been uncovered.

Again with yet another totally irrelevant comparison? Voter fraud is like voter fraud. Irrelevant comparisons are like nonsense.

 

[metis]

I submit that there are far, far fewer serial killers than people who commit voter fraud.

Not according to Barr or any other non-partisan source I've read.

BTW, if Trump supposedly lost because of massive voter fraud, then why don't all the Pubs who got elected on the same exact ballots resign and demand new elections?