Massive voter fraud leads to Connecticut election results being thrown out

[Revoltingest]

@Shaul....what is it you want to debate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

You didn't need to. That is a well known fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

You're the one claiming that instances of voter fraud are more prevalent than serial killers. Not me. I've said several times I have no idea if that's the case but I'm willing to look at some numbers. But you don't have any numbers. Just conjecture.

As another poster pointed out, I could post a list of many, many dozens, if not hundreds of serial killers. I can't do the same for actual cases of voter fraud. Not sure if the same poster or another one pointed it out, but do mass shooters count as serial killers? Because that would really add to the numbers.

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.

Backing up your claims is now considered being the bigger man?


Links? I'm dubious about the claims made by the Heritage Foundation, for starters.
What are the date ranges we're talking about here? How does it break down? What are the charges? Are these cases you speak of coordinated efforts of voter fraud or errors on the parts of individuals? Because just looking over their list really quick, it seems to contain a ton of people who just made a mistake, or voted when they shouldn't have (i.e. they were an ex-con or something).


"Radford University and Florida Gulf Coast University have a jointly operated database that keeps track of serial killers, their years of operation, their victims, and their methods of execution. Each year, the team behind the database releases an annual report on serial killer data. They somewhat playfully refer to this data as Serial Killer Statistics.

The database tracks serial killings all the way back to 1900 and includes serial killers from over 115 countries. The U.S. leads the rest of the world in documented serial killers, with a whopping 3,613 serial killers as of 2020 (England is not-so-close second, with known 176 serial killers as of 2020). The data tracks the number of serial killers that have been active each year too, with 1986 being the peak in the U.S. Generally, murders by serial killers in the U.S. was at its highest between 1970 and 1990, which is when some of the most sensationalized killers were active (think Bundy, Dahmer, Ramirez, Gacy, and Kemper, among many more). That number, though, has steadily declined in recent years, although the wealth of content about them could fool you."

Serial Killer Statistics

Written by Taylor Stacy: Introduction Americans seem to have a strange fascination with serial killers. For decades, we as a nation have been enthralled by the idea of someone who kills for pleasur…

sites.lsa.umich.edu

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

There is evidence for voter fraud occasionally at a local level. That is about the best that one can do and get away with it. There is no evidence for it at a national or even statewide level. The bigger the fraud the easier it is to catch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Backing up your claims is now considered being the bigger man?

And it is something that you manage to pull off even though you are a women. Well done!

 

[SkepticThinker]

And it is something that you manage to pull off even though you are a women. Well done!

Yep, check me out, World!

 

[sun rise]

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.

True if we don't rely on evidence but instead on what we want then everyone becomes Trump

 

[Bthoth]

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.

trump didnt win in 2016, is that what the fraud is representing?

I could see him and/or steve bannon offering free vacations to trump resorts for committing criminal acts of fraud. That's the kind of person donnie is.

 

[Shaul]

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

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.

There certainly is an issue for debate. That is the article linked in the OP. That article has nothing about Trump in it whatsoever. Your post was off topic. Cromulent, fail.

 

[Shaul]

trump didnt win in 2016, is that what the fraud is representing?

I could see him and/or steve bannon offering free vacations to trump resorts for committing criminal acts of fraud. That's the kind of person donnie is.

No. Since Trump has never been found guilty of any election fraud, so you are incorrect. On the other hand, the Democrats in the OP article have been found guilty of election fraud in a court of law. That is a representation of election fraud.

 

[Bthoth]

No. Since Trump has never been found guilty of any election fraud, so you are incorrect. On the other hand, the Democrats in the OP article have been found guilty of election fraud in a court of law. That is a representation of election fraud.

I heard that 1 demo-c-rat was found guilty of wetting a cigar with an intern in the oval office.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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'

Maybe some people can finally actually learn for once that it's not only the other political party that does despicable things like this.

It's both parties, and this insane and absolutely nuts obsession over people with power ought to be severely hobbled and discouraged. It's a mental illness to get this obsessed.

There needs and ought to be proper penalties applied, like banning people from voting for several years if they engage in this type of activity.

 

[Revoltingest]

There certainly is an issue for debate. That is the article linked in the OP. That article has nothing about Trump in it whatsoever. Your post was off topic. Cromulent, fail.

Still no topic to debate, eh.
Well then....since you failed to provide
one, you're fortunate that I did.

 

[F1fan]

Um, no, let's not. I submit that there are far, far fewer serial killers than people who commit voter fraud.

Or attempt voting fraud. There's a guy running for president who has been charged in a conspiracy for attempting election fraud, and you support him. So don't pretend you are against it.

And while we're at it, because of Trump and many MAGAs who threaten election workers many have quit, and there is a huge need to get new workers to run elections. Without enough people there could be opportunities for candidates to have to fill in certain duties and commit fraud for their own sake. Naturally this would affect smaller elections more than big ones. But if you are against fraud, then you are also against threateneing election workers, and support them doing their duty.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is nothing wrong with considering that voter fraud exists either before or after evidence has come out.

"Considering" it? How about openly alleging it?

There's nothing wrong with "considering" that you are a serial adulterer, but would you or would you not think it was a bit weird for me to repeatedly ACCUSE you of being a serial adulterer despite a complete lack of evidence?

To not consider the possibility is what is both illogical and perilous.

This is a strawman. I never said it was wrong to consider the possibility. It's about making the assumption that it is true without evidence.

Do not engage with dishonest tactics with me. I cut through them like butter.

Considering and exploring the possibility of voter fraud before there is evidence is prudent. As is following any evidence that has been uncovered.

Your claim is that it is perfectly reasonable to CLAIM voter fraud has occurred, EVEN IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

Stop pivoting just because you know your position is indefensible.

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

Here is your statement, again:

"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."

Please explain to me how this logic doesn't also apply to literally any allegation I could make against you, including that you are a tax fraud. You are arguing that it is just as reasonable to assume WITHOUT EVIDENCE as it is to reach a conclusion BASED ON EVIDENCE.

I'd be careful accusing other people of talking nonsense when your entire argument is "It's perfectly reasonable to accuse people of something even when you have absolutely no evidence or reason to".

You are not the rational actor in this discussion. Really, this is something a schoolchild understands, and yet - for some reason - you're having difficulty with it. It's unbelievable the lengths you will go to justify making stuff up.

 

[McBell]

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.

What do you believe should have been done differently with the Trump allegations of fraud?
The OP shows a claim was made, investigated, evidence found, evidence investigated and action brought forth.
In the trump claims, investigations were made, not a single bit of evidence was found so they were dismissed as bold empty claims.

 

[metis]

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

Where did I say anything about "serial killers"? And how in the world did you miss the simple question that I posted?

 

[Shaul]

Or attempt voting fraud. There's a guy running for president who has been charged in a conspiracy for attempting election fraud, and you support him. So don't pretend you are against it.

Who are you talking about? I haven't declared who I support for President. So don't pretend you know who I support, because you don't.

And while we're at it, because of Trump and many MAGAs who threaten election workers many have quit, and there is a huge need to get new workers to run elections. Without enough people there could be opportunities for candidates to have to fill in certain duties and commit fraud for their own sake. Naturally this would affect smaller elections more than big ones. But if you are against fraud, then you are also against threateneing election workers, and support them doing their duty.

Blah, blah, blah. I never mentioned Trump. The topic is an article about Democrats who were convict of voter fraud in Connecticut and the Primary election results that were thrown out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is what happens when it's real ajd not chasing boogeymen.
You get caught, there are consequences, it is very difficult to pull off, has a high risk of getting caught, and unless its local elections the reward is low and there's more effective ways to influence elections without cheating.

 

[metis]

Who are you talking about? I haven't declared who I support for President. So don't pretend you know who I support, because you don't.

Blah, blah, blah. I never mentioned Trump. The topic is an article about Democrats who were convict of voter fraud in Connecticut and the Primary election results that were thrown out.

I don't think there's likely anyone here at RF who reads your political posts who thinks you're not supporting and defending Trump and the Pubs.