Massive voter fraud leads to Connecticut election results being thrown out

[fantome profane]

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.

You know you are going down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theory when you start thinking the lack of evidence is proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Just like"? I stated my opinion that serial killers are far, far less common than vote fraudsters.

It's a quote from the Big Lebowsky.

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?

I have no idea. Hence the reason I asked for the numbers.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Where there is evidence, a court should rule that fraud occurred.
This happened in CT.
Where there is no evidence of fraud, a court won't rule that it occurred.
This happened dozens of times in USA for Trump.

Trump minions (eg, Giuliani) failed to present any evidence to the courts.
This utter lack in every case by those who claimed to have it, & then later
admitted to lying, is pretty strong evidence that no real fraud existed in
that election.
Moreover, attempted fraud by Republicans here in MI was found....128 felony counts.

Sixteen people charged in Michigan 2020 false elector scheme

Charges announced by the state’s attorney general against people who signed paperwork falsely claiming Trump won 2020 election

www.theguardian.com

So far, the only voter fraud found in the 2020 election was by Trump supporters.

 

[Shaul]

You know you are going down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theory when you start thinking the lack of evidence is proof.

I never wrote that it was proof. I wrote that mere lack of evidence isn't necessarily proof it doesn't exist. That isn't going down any rabbit hole. Since examples of voter fraud do exist, regardless of their extent, cases should not be dismissed out of hand without investigating. That isn't conspiracy mongering. Not looking into potential cases due to a present lack of evidence is itself a problem. You won't find evidence without investigating.

 

[fantome profane]

Since examples of voter fraud do exist, regardless of their extent, cases should not be dismissed out of hand without investigating.

Cases should not be dismissed without investigating. But after numerous investigations have been preformed, then you should base your conclusions on the results of those investigations.

regardless of their extent

No, the extent is very important and should not be disregarded.

Individual instances of voter fraud are in reality very rare. Are they more or less rare than serial killers*? I don't know, I don't think the answer to that question is obvious. But massive voter fraud on the scale that changes outcomes is extremely rare, much less common than serial killers. You have one example, it would take me one second to google a list of a hundred serial killers.


(and it depends on how you define serial killer, your country has mass shootings on a daily basis, and what is a mass shooter but an efficient serial killer? But that is a debate for another thread)

 

[Shaul]

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

Provide a citation of Barr that the number of serial killers is comparable to the number of those committing voter fraud.

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?

Nobody mentioned Trump. The OP is about a case of massive Democrat voter fraud in Connecticut.

 

[Shaul]

It's a quote from the Big Lebowsky.

I have no idea. Hence the reason I asked for the numbers.

So I can consider the worth of your opinion inasmuch as you think it is even possible that the number of serial killers could be comparable to the number of those that commit voter fraud. I see I can dismiss your opinion.

 

[Shaul]

Cases should not be dismissed without investigating. But after numerous investigations have been preformed, then you should base your conclusions on the results of those investigations.


No, the extent is very important and should not be disregarded.

Individual instances of voter fraud are in reality very rare. Are they more or less rare than serial killers*? I don't know, I don't think the answer to that question is obvious. But massive voter fraud on the scale that changes outcomes is extremely rare, much less common than serial killers. You have one example, it would take me one second to google a list of a hundred serial killers.


(and it depends on how you define serial killer, your country has mass shootings on a daily basis, and what is a mass shooter but a efficient serial killer? But that is a debate for another thread)

And we now have a case of proven massive voter fraud in Connecticut. That is evidence that voter fraud happens. Which is another reason to take the possibility seriously in other elections.

 

[Shaul]

Cases should not be dismissed without investigating. But after numerous investigations have been preformed, then you should base your conclusions on the results of those investigations.


No, the extent is very important and should not be disregarded.

Individual instances of voter fraud are in reality very rare. Are they more or less rare than serial killers*? I don't know, I don't think the answer to that question is obvious. But massive voter fraud on the scale that changes outcomes is extremely rare, much less common than serial killers. You have one example, it would take me one second to google a list of a hundred serial killers.


(and it depends on how you define serial killer, your country has mass shootings on a daily basis, and what is a mass shooter but a efficient serial killer? But that is a debate for another thread)

Since we now have another proven case of voter fraud here in Connecticut, that means the extent has now been proven greater. Since the extent of voter fraud is important and we have evidence of it increasing, then we should investigate voter fraud more, not less.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never wrote that it was proof. I wrote that mere lack of evidence isn't necessarily proof it doesn't exist.

Sometimes the lack of evidence rises to the level of proof,
eg, when Trump had dozens of court challenges to the 2020
election, claiming voter fraud, but failed to present any evidence.
If it were there, they were highly motivated to find it.

 

[fantome profane]

Since we now have another proven case of voter fraud here in Connecticut, that means the extent has now been proven greater. Since the extent of voter fraud is important and we have evidence of it increasing, then we should investigate voter fraud more, not less.

Go ahead, investigate. Investigate your brains out!

But if you are just going to ignore the results of those investigations, what is the point?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Cases should not be dismissed without investigating. But after numerous investigations have been preformed, then you should base your conclusions on the results of those investigations.


No, the extent is very important and should not be disregarded.

Individual instances of voter fraud are in reality very rare. Are they more or less rare than serial killers*? I don't know, I don't think the answer to that question is obvious. But massive voter fraud on the scale that changes outcomes is extremely rare, much less common than serial killers. You have one example, it would take me one second to google a list of a hundred serial killers.


(and it depends on how you define serial killer, your country has mass shootings on a daily basis, and what is a mass shooter but a efficient serial killer? But that is a debate for another thread)

I was just thinking over this too.

 

[Shaul]

Sometimes the lack of evidence rises to the level of proof,
eg, when Trump had dozens of court challenges to the 2020
election, claiming voter fraud, but failed to present any evidence.
If it were there, they were highly motivated to find it.

That is just one possibility. Another is that the perpetrators hid any evidence well. At any rate, This isn't about Trump nor that case. This is about an actual case where evidence was found.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So I can consider the worth of your opinion inasmuch as you think it is even possible that the number of serial killers could be comparable to the number of those that commit voter fraud. I see I can dismiss your opinion.

My opinion that I have no idea? LOL Go ahead. This is why I asked you for the numbers.
Because it's clear you have no idea either.

 

[Shaul]

Go ahead, investigate. Investigate your brains out!

But if you are just going to ignore the results of those investigations, what is the point?

Like the result in this case of proven Democrat voter fraud in Connecticut? I'm not ignoring it. I posted about it. Others here do seem to want to ignore the result of that investigation though.

 

[fantome profane]

Another is that the perpetrators hid any evidence well.

Forgive me, but I am going to repeat myself, just this once.

You know you are going down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theory when you start thinking the lack of evidence is proof.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is just one possibility. Another is that the perpetrators hid any evidence well.

It seems very very difficult to hide evidence of
fraud. Trump's minions tried, & failed to hide
their fraud. Are the Democrats just far more
sophisticated than Republicans? Nah.

At any rate, This isn't about Trump nor that case. This is about an actual case where evidence was found.

You put it in a Political Debates forum,
yet you offered no question to debate
regarding this case.
This suggested something broader than
merely accepting your proffered news
of a singular case of fraud.

 

[Shaul]

My opinion that I have no idea? LOL Go ahead. This is why I asked you for the numbers.
Because it's clear you have no idea either.

What I am saying is that in this case asking for the numbers is unwarranted. If you genuinely and sincerely don't know based on your own life experience that the number of serial killers is minuscule compared to the number of people that commit voter fraud, then absolutely I will dismiss your opinion. Truly. You can't even form an opinion? Even an unsubstantiated one?

Fine, I will be the bigger man and go the extra mile. According to Scientific American, there are between 25 and 50 serial killers who are active in the United States at any given time. The Heritage Foundation keeps a database on voter fraud and has over 1,400 proven cases of voter fraud. That is only proven court cases. Which is far, far greater than the number of serial killers.

 

[Shaul]

It seems very very difficult to hide evidence of
fraud. Trump's minions tried, & failed to hide
their fraud. Are the Democrats just far more
sophisticated than Republicans? Nah.

You put it in a Political Debates forum,
yet you offered no question to debate
regarding this case.
This suggested something broader than
merely accepting your proffered news
of a singular case of fraud.

I presented a proven case of Democrat voter fraud for discussion. Apparently you want to debate other topics.

 

[Revoltingest]

I presented a proven case of Democrat voter fraud for discussion.

You certainly did.
And you posted it in a Political Debate forum without stating the issue to debate.

Apparently you want to debate other topics.

I saw my post as on topic.
You've still not stated what it is you
want to debate, thereby leaving a
vacuum that I filled cromulently.