Massive voter fraud leads to Connecticut election results being thrown out

[metis]

@Shaul Why didn't you answer my question on my post # 20, which went like this: "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?"?

 

[F1fan]

Who are you talking about?

Gee whiz, if only there was press coverage on the right wing disinformation media you access about the corrupt ex-president DJ Trump (not an actual DJ). I suggest you find some courage and look at reputable news sources and find out what's happening with this wanna be authoritarian, and his many co-conspirators, who couldn't pull off election fraud. They tried, but now they see where they wen't wrong. There were five people who had integrity that stopped Trump's attempt to overturn the will of the voters.

I haven't declared who I support for President. So don't pretend you know who I support, because you don't.

Oh don't try to cover yur butt, we have all seen your support for Trump and the overall attempt to manipulate the story by posting dubious stories, or one's like in this thread that aims to suggest there was voter fraud in 2020. I wonder if you really underestimate us to this degree, or you just are so deep in your MAGA that you don't care to think beyond the superficial. I suspect you kind of know you are full of it, but are so confused that you keep retreating into your extreme bias, your safe (mental) space.

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.

No kidding blah, blah, blah... As if we don't know what you are up too. Like a child who says to mommy "I don't know who broke the lamp, don't look at me. I sure wasn't kicking my socer ball in the house again." We know your schtick.

 

[Shaul]

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

In your post #20 quoted me when I wrote:
"I submit that there are far, far fewer serial killers than people who commit voter fraud."
To which you replied,
"Not according to Barr or any other non-partisan source I've read."
So I asked you to supply a citation of where Barr had compared the number of serial killers to the number of those who commit voter fraud. That's where you said something about serial killers by quoting me.

 

[metis]

In your post #20 quoted me when I wrote:
"I submit that there are far, far fewer serial killers than people who commit voter fraud."
To which you replied,
"Not according to Barr or any other non-partisan source I've read."
So I asked you to supply a citation of where Barr had compared the number of serial killers to the number of those who commit voter fraud. That's where you said something about serial killers by quoting me.

Maybe just answer my question instead of just walking around it?

 

[Shaul]

@Shaul Why didn't you answer my question on my post # 20, which went like this: "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?"?

For one, it is off topic. The topic is the article about the election thrown out in Connecticut due to massive Democrat voter fraud. That has nothing to do with Trump. For another the question lacks specificity. That's two good reasons not to answer your question.

 

[metis]

For one, it is off topic. The topic is the article about the election thrown out in Connecticut due to massive Democrat voter fraud. That has nothing to do with Trump. For another the question lacks specificity. That's two good reasons not to answer your question.

No, I have no doubt there's a third option, Shaul. Obviously, you're not fooling posters here.

So, even if you consider this to be a sidebar, why not answer it anyway? You could have easily done that in far less words and less time than you already have by skirting the question.

 

[tytlyf]

The election was for Mayor of the city Bridgeport. The system appears to be working and catching fraud.

 

[sun rise]

Not looking into potential cases due to a present lack of evidence is itself a problem. You won't find evidence without investigating.

True. But tell me where to start and where to stop. I could using that statement claim that every Republican elected to any office might have been elected due to fraud and we need to investigate them all. So what is your criteria beyond that statement?

 

[sun rise]

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.

I'd add that it ought to be a crime to mass remove people from the voting rolls when they are truly eligible to vote. There's more than one way to commit fraud but some are not illegal (yet).

 

[Shaul]

No, I have no doubt there's a third option, Shaul. Obviously, you're not fooling posters here.

So, even if you consider this to be a sidebar, why not answer it anyway? You could have easily done that in far less words and less time than you already have by skirting the question.

I have already explained why I wouldn't answer. I have no obligation to answer. On the other hand, you have refused to post the citations requested for your assertion that there were sources you said you had read including "Barr or any other non-partisan source I've read" showing that there are not far, far fewer serial killers than there are vote fraudsters. Since you made the assertion, and you said you had read them, you have an onus to support your assertion. Which should be easy enough. Stop the deflection and produce the citations.

 

[metis]

I have already explained why I wouldn't answer. I have no obligation to answer. On the other hand, you have refused to post the citations requested for your assertion that there were sources you said you had read including "Barr or any other non-partisan source I've read" showing that there are not far, far fewer serial killers than there are vote fraudsters. Since you made the assertion, and you said you had read them, you have an onus to support your assertion. Which should be easy enough. Stop the deflection and produce the citations.

You're simply hiding behind the fact that you have defended Trump and his corrupt antics at every turn as we have repeatedly seen. Too bad you can't even admit the truth.

You should remember that this old adage runs true: "A hero dies once but a coward dies a thousand deaths".

 

[Shaul]

You're simply hiding behind the fact that you have defended Trump and his corrupt antics at every turn as we have repeatedly seen. Too bad you can't even admit the truth.

You should remember that this old adage runs true: "A hero dies once but a coward dies a thousand deaths".

You continue to refuse to supply the citation that you wrote that you had read and were easy to find. Until you do you lose credibility.

 

[Ebionite]

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?

It's not reasonable because of the presumption of innocence. Balance of probabilities (i.e statistical likelihood of criminality) is not the same as beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have already explained why I wouldn't answer. I have no obligation to answer. On the other hand, you have refused to post the citations requested for your assertion that there were sources you said you had read including "Barr or any other non-partisan source I've read" showing that there are not far, far fewer serial killers than there are vote fraudsters. Since you made the assertion, and you said you had read them, you have an onus to support your assertion. Which should be easy enough. Stop the deflection and produce the citations.

Is the frequency of serial killers vs voter fraud the debate issue?

 

[Shaul]

Is the frequency of serial killers vs voter fraud the debate issue?

No, despite ImortalFlame injecting serial killers into the discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, despite ImortalFlame injecting serial killers into the discussion.

Have you picked a topic to debate yet?

 

[Shaul]

Have you picked a topic to debate yet?

You have this before and I answered. I answered this in posts 50, 59, and 66.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have this before and I answered. I answered this in posts 50, 59, and 66.

#50 said only that an issue exists....
"There certainly is an issue for debate."

#59 & #66 said what the top is,
but didn't state what is to be debated.
Is this thread just an attempt to spark
debate, & then shut every attempt
down as off topic....there being no topic
for debate?

The thread about trans women assaulting
women in lavatories appears the same way.

 

[Shaul]

#50 said only that an issue exists....
"There certainly is an issue for debate."

#59 & #66 said what the top is,
but didn't state what is to be debated.
Is this thread just an attempt to spark
debate, & then shut every attempt
down as off topic....there being no topic
for debate?

The thread about trans women assaulting
women in lavatories appears the same way.

You edited post #50. You edited out the part that reads, "There certainly is an issue for debate. That is the article linked in the OP. That article has nothing about Trump in it whatsoever. " The topic of debate is clear.

 

[Revoltingest]

You edited post #50. You edited out the part that reads, "There certainly is an issue for debate. That is the article linked in the OP. That article has nothing about Trump in it whatsoever. "

I quoted the only portion that appeared
to address the issue for debate.

The topic of debate is clear.

Is it whether or not the claimed fraud actually happened?
Or is it whether the court decided correctly?
Or something else?