If we allow Democrats to get away with massive voter fraud as they did this year...

[forkup]

...then we may as well just cash in our chips, declare an end to our Constitutional form of government, and allow the Democrats to set up a one party state like the Nazis, the fascists and the Communists.

They changed the law to allow for voting after the election day. This means that they did not commit fraud. The law needs to be challenged to the SCOTUS and a blanket election rule that states no votes are to be accepted AFTER the election day.

Can I ask what your problem is with having every vote cast counting? Isn't that the idea in a Democratic system? Why should people NOT be allowed to cast their vote?

So, you don't see a reason for having a deadline for casting votes? Its okay with you that we just keep voting until one side is satisfied with the outcome, in this case, the Democrats?

Their was a deadline. It was three days after the election. To allow for absentee ballots mailed on election day. That seems fair to me. Please tell me why that would be unfair?

Not fair at all considering that these were not mail-in ballots AND the fact that every election date is known 2 and 4 years in advance.

So, the mail-in deadline needs to be earlier than the election day in order to meet a well known and well-publicized deadline.

These were ballots that were canvassed for, meaning that they went door to door and collected ballots from people who failed to meet the deadline. There is no proof that these people were not told that they could fill out the ballot right then and there.

Which means they were cast AFTER the deadline and should NOT be counted.

Something that's unfair to me is something that gives an unfair advantage to one side or another. Like for instance drawing up districts in a way that is specifically designed to concentrate or disperse demographic groups who favor one party or another. Giving as many people the chance to vote as is practical is NOT unfair. Were only Democratic absentee votes counted? Were they told how to vote? I don't think so. Your problem seems to be that the maximum amount of people were allowed to vote. I find that a weird problem to have if you are interested in fair elections.

 

[Darkwind]

They changed the law to allow for voting after the election day. This means that they did not commit fraud. The law needs to be challenged to the SCOTUS and a blanket election rule that states no votes are to be accepted AFTER the election day.

Can I ask what your problem is with having every vote cast counting? Isn't that the idea in a Democratic system? Why should people NOT be allowed to cast their vote?

So, you don't see a reason for having a deadline for casting votes? Its okay with you that we just keep voting until one side is satisfied with the outcome, in this case, the Democrats?

Their was a deadline. It was three days after the election. To allow for absentee ballots mailed on election day. That seems fair to me. Please tell me why that would be unfair?

Not fair at all considering that these were not mail-in ballots AND the fact that every election date is known 2 and 4 years in advance.

So, the mail-in deadline needs to be earlier than the election day in order to meet a well known and well-publicized deadline.

These were ballots that were canvassed for, meaning that they went door to door and collected ballots from people who failed to meet the deadline. There is no proof that these people were not told that they could fill out the ballot right then and there.

Which means they were cast AFTER the deadline and should NOT be counted.

Something that's unfair to me is something that gives an unfair advantage to one side or another. Like for instance drawing up districts in a way that is specifically designed to concentrate or disperse demographic groups who favor one party or another. Giving as many people the chance to vote as is practical is NOT unfair. Were only Democratic absentee votes counted? Were they told how to vote? I don't think so. Your problem seems to be that the maximum amount of people were allowed to vote. I find that a weird problem to have if you are interested in fair elections.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Shall we start collected votes from Republicans after the deadline day and continue to collect them until such time as we can announce the GOP candidate as the winner?

That is what happened here.

If you truly want every vote to count, then we need to keep allowing people to vote every day of every year.

What I find unfair is that when the polls closed, elections that had been called for GOP members were overturned by additional voting after the fact.

If that had happened to the Democrats, as much as I detest 90% of them, I would be howling from the rooftops that the law that allowed this was unconstitutional.

If the GOP won't challenge this, then they better find a way to do what the Democrats did and ensure they have a cadre of voters sitting in the wings ready to vote should their guy fall behind on election night.

 

[forkup]

Can I ask what your problem is with having every vote cast counting? Isn't that the idea in a Democratic system? Why should people NOT be allowed to cast their vote?

So, you don't see a reason for having a deadline for casting votes? Its okay with you that we just keep voting until one side is satisfied with the outcome, in this case, the Democrats?

Their was a deadline. It was three days after the election. To allow for absentee ballots mailed on election day. That seems fair to me. Please tell me why that would be unfair?

Not fair at all considering that these were not mail-in ballots AND the fact that every election date is known 2 and 4 years in advance.

So, the mail-in deadline needs to be earlier than the election day in order to meet a well known and well-publicized deadline.

These were ballots that were canvassed for, meaning that they went door to door and collected ballots from people who failed to meet the deadline. There is no proof that these people were not told that they could fill out the ballot right then and there.

Which means they were cast AFTER the deadline and should NOT be counted.

Something that's unfair to me is something that gives an unfair advantage to one side or another. Like for instance drawing up districts in a way that is specifically designed to concentrate or disperse demographic groups who favor one party or another. Giving as many people the chance to vote as is practical is NOT unfair. Were only Democratic absentee votes counted? Were they told how to vote? I don't think so. Your problem seems to be that the maximum amount of people were allowed to vote. I find that a weird problem to have if you are interested in fair elections.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Shall we start collected votes from Republicans after the deadline day and continue to collect them until such time as we can announce the GOP candidate as the winner?

That is what happened here.

If you truly want every vote to count, then we need to keep allowing people to vote every day of every year.

What I find unfair is that when the polls closed, elections that had been called for GOP members were overturned by additional voting after the fact.

If that had happened to the Democrats, as much as I detest 90% of them, I would be howling from the rooftops that the law that allowed this was unconstitutional.

If the GOP won't challenge this, then they better find a way to do what the Democrats did and ensure they have a cadre of voters sitting in the wings ready to vote should their guy fall behind on election night.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Because both sides were allowed to vote. Both sides were under the same rules. As to people knowing the dates. So what, people are dumb, lazy, nonchalant or all of the above. None of those traits are disqualifying to cast a ballot.

 

[Darkwind]

So, you don't see a reason for having a deadline for casting votes? Its okay with you that we just keep voting until one side is satisfied with the outcome, in this case, the Democrats?

Their was a deadline. It was three days after the election. To allow for absentee ballots mailed on election day. That seems fair to me. Please tell me why that would be unfair?

Not fair at all considering that these were not mail-in ballots AND the fact that every election date is known 2 and 4 years in advance.

So, the mail-in deadline needs to be earlier than the election day in order to meet a well known and well-publicized deadline.

These were ballots that were canvassed for, meaning that they went door to door and collected ballots from people who failed to meet the deadline. There is no proof that these people were not told that they could fill out the ballot right then and there.

Which means they were cast AFTER the deadline and should NOT be counted.

Something that's unfair to me is something that gives an unfair advantage to one side or another. Like for instance drawing up districts in a way that is specifically designed to concentrate or disperse demographic groups who favor one party or another. Giving as many people the chance to vote as is practical is NOT unfair. Were only Democratic absentee votes counted? Were they told how to vote? I don't think so. Your problem seems to be that the maximum amount of people were allowed to vote. I find that a weird problem to have if you are interested in fair elections.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Shall we start collected votes from Republicans after the deadline day and continue to collect them until such time as we can announce the GOP candidate as the winner?

That is what happened here.

If you truly want every vote to count, then we need to keep allowing people to vote every day of every year.

What I find unfair is that when the polls closed, elections that had been called for GOP members were overturned by additional voting after the fact.

If that had happened to the Democrats, as much as I detest 90% of them, I would be howling from the rooftops that the law that allowed this was unconstitutional.

If the GOP won't challenge this, then they better find a way to do what the Democrats did and ensure they have a cadre of voters sitting in the wings ready to vote should their guy fall behind on election night.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Because both sides were allowed to vote. Both side were under the same rules. As to people knowing the dates. So what, people are dumb, lazy, nonchalant or all of the above. None of those traits are disqualifying to cast a ballot.

They absolutley disqualify, or they did until the Democrats decided to cast votes AFTER the deadline and make a law protecting it.

Why have deadlines at all if this is the attitude.

We can stop paying taxes on Tax Day in April and the government can stop charging penalties and interest on those penalites. After all, as long as you pay some day, why every payment should count, right? Why penalize people for not paying taxes on time.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So where does one find it? Where is your source?

This should clear it up for ya.....if not you just don't care....

Election Integrity Project

So where is your evidence that five counties had more voters then who are registered?

San Diego County was found to have the biggest discrepancy according to the analysis, with 38 percent more registered voters than people who are legally allowed to vote. San Francisco County placed second, with 14 percent more voters.

Other counties were found to be in violation as follows: Imperial (2%), Lassen (2%), Los Angeles (12%), Monterey (4%), San Mateo (11%), Santa Cruz (9%), Solano (11%), Stanislaus (2%), and Yolo (10%).

However, Judicial Watch reported that Los Angeles County’s number is actually higher than the data analysis showed, with county officials telling the watchdog in June that it actually has 44 percent more voters than it should – making it the county with the largest discrepancy.

The watchdog said in its report that “California is failing to comply with the voter registration list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act of 1993).”

11 California counties have more registered voters than eligible adults – report

California has 11 Counties With More Registered Voters Than Voting-Age Citizens: Registered Voters 144% of Eligible - Planet Free Will


Like I said...you must search off Google for the real truth.....

What is 'ballot harvesting' and how was it used in California elections?

Still waiting for your proof that Orange County and four others had more voters than people who were registered. That is exactly what you said. You didn't say more registered voters than eligible. Those are two very different things. As far as these articles you quoted, there is a very simple and logical explanation for having an abundance of people on the voter roles. There are people who have died or moved away who haven't been taken off. That happens everywhere and you have no evidence votes were cast in their names. I haven't lived in South Carolina for six years and I'll bet I'm still registered to vote there.

Here is the thing you tards continue to ignore. If voter fraud was as massive and widespread as you claim it would be very EASY to prove and yet nobody has done so

Like I said, #fakenews

I hate when people are willfully ignorant....

LA County Admits Number Of Registered Voters At 144% Of Resident Citizens Of Voting Age

A. That's not election fraud.

B. That's not what you originally claimed either. You said five counties had more votes cast than voters who were registered. That is not true.

 

[Rambunctious]

A. That's not election fraud.

B. That's not what you originally claimed either. You said five counties had more votes cast than voters who were registered. That is not true.

I'm finished trying to explain this to an idiot....conversation over...go away...

 

[forkup]

Their was a deadline. It was three days after the election. To allow for absentee ballots mailed on election day. That seems fair to me. Please tell me why that would be unfair?

Not fair at all considering that these were not mail-in ballots AND the fact that every election date is known 2 and 4 years in advance.

So, the mail-in deadline needs to be earlier than the election day in order to meet a well known and well-publicized deadline.

These were ballots that were canvassed for, meaning that they went door to door and collected ballots from people who failed to meet the deadline. There is no proof that these people were not told that they could fill out the ballot right then and there.

Which means they were cast AFTER the deadline and should NOT be counted.

Something that's unfair to me is something that gives an unfair advantage to one side or another. Like for instance drawing up districts in a way that is specifically designed to concentrate or disperse demographic groups who favor one party or another. Giving as many people the chance to vote as is practical is NOT unfair. Were only Democratic absentee votes counted? Were they told how to vote? I don't think so. Your problem seems to be that the maximum amount of people were allowed to vote. I find that a weird problem to have if you are interested in fair elections.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Shall we start collected votes from Republicans after the deadline day and continue to collect them until such time as we can announce the GOP candidate as the winner?

That is what happened here.

If you truly want every vote to count, then we need to keep allowing people to vote every day of every year.

What I find unfair is that when the polls closed, elections that had been called for GOP members were overturned by additional voting after the fact.

If that had happened to the Democrats, as much as I detest 90% of them, I would be howling from the rooftops that the law that allowed this was unconstitutional.

If the GOP won't challenge this, then they better find a way to do what the Democrats did and ensure they have a cadre of voters sitting in the wings ready to vote should their guy fall behind on election night.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Because both sides were allowed to vote. Both side were under the same rules. As to people knowing the dates. So what, people are dumb, lazy, nonchalant or all of the above. None of those traits are disqualifying to cast a ballot.

They absolutley disqualify, or they did until the Democrats decided to cast votes AFTER the deadline and make a law protecting it.

Why have deadlines at all if this is the attitude.

We can stop paying taxes on Tax Day in April and the government can stop charging penalties and interest on those penalites. After all, as long as you pay some day, why every payment should count, right? Why penalize people for not paying taxes on time.

Again there was a deadline. The fact that you don't consider that deadline as early enough doesn't give anybody an unfair advantage. Let me flip the argument. Would you object to the deadline for absentee ballots closing five days before election day?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A. That's not election fraud.

B. That's not what you originally claimed either. You said five counties had more votes cast than voters who were registered. That is not true.

I'm finished trying to explain this to an idiot....conversation over...go away...

There was no confusion on my part what you were saying. What you said is simply false.

 

[Darkwind]

Not fair at all considering that these were not mail-in ballots AND the fact that every election date is known 2 and 4 years in advance.

So, the mail-in deadline needs to be earlier than the election day in order to meet a well known and well-publicized deadline.

These were ballots that were canvassed for, meaning that they went door to door and collected ballots from people who failed to meet the deadline. There is no proof that these people were not told that they could fill out the ballot right then and there.

Which means they were cast AFTER the deadline and should NOT be counted.

Something that's unfair to me is something that gives an unfair advantage to one side or another. Like for instance drawing up districts in a way that is specifically designed to concentrate or disperse demographic groups who favor one party or another. Giving as many people the chance to vote as is practical is NOT unfair. Were only Democratic absentee votes counted? Were they told how to vote? I don't think so. Your problem seems to be that the maximum amount of people were allowed to vote. I find that a weird problem to have if you are interested in fair elections.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Shall we start collected votes from Republicans after the deadline day and continue to collect them until such time as we can announce the GOP candidate as the winner?

That is what happened here.

If you truly want every vote to count, then we need to keep allowing people to vote every day of every year.

What I find unfair is that when the polls closed, elections that had been called for GOP members were overturned by additional voting after the fact.

If that had happened to the Democrats, as much as I detest 90% of them, I would be howling from the rooftops that the law that allowed this was unconstitutional.

If the GOP won't challenge this, then they better find a way to do what the Democrats did and ensure they have a cadre of voters sitting in the wings ready to vote should their guy fall behind on election night.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Because both sides were allowed to vote. Both side were under the same rules. As to people knowing the dates. So what, people are dumb, lazy, nonchalant or all of the above. None of those traits are disqualifying to cast a ballot.

They absolutley disqualify, or they did until the Democrats decided to cast votes AFTER the deadline and make a law protecting it.

Why have deadlines at all if this is the attitude.

We can stop paying taxes on Tax Day in April and the government can stop charging penalties and interest on those penalites. After all, as long as you pay some day, why every payment should count, right? Why penalize people for not paying taxes on time.

Again there was a deadline. The fact that you don't consider that deadline as early enough doesn't give anybody an unfair advantage. Let me flip the argument. Would you object to the deadline for absentee ballots closing five days before election day?

The deadline is the day of the election. If it takes the ballots x number of days to reach the polling official, then that is the deadline.

No votes CAST after the deadline are legitimate votes. It isn't difficult to comprehend. A mail-in ballot, as long as it was mailed in before the deadline is by definition, a vote CAST before the deadline.

These votes that were harvested are the ones in question. The people harvesting the votes cannot be trusted to tell us that the votes were cast before the deadline, in fact, there is NO PROOF that the votes were not cast until after the races were called and the Democrats had lost.

This law needs to be challenged right up to the SCOTUS because it disenfranchises conservative voters.

Now, you're arguments have begun to repeat themselves and I've already shot them down a number of times. You don't seem to think that deadlines mean anything so its a waste of My time to discuss it with you further.

Have a good night.

 

[forkup]

Something that's unfair to me is something that gives an unfair advantage to one side or another. Like for instance drawing up districts in a way that is specifically designed to concentrate or disperse demographic groups who favor one party or another. Giving as many people the chance to vote as is practical is NOT unfair. Were only Democratic absentee votes counted? Were they told how to vote? I don't think so. Your problem seems to be that the maximum amount of people were allowed to vote. I find that a weird problem to have if you are interested in fair elections.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Shall we start collected votes from Republicans after the deadline day and continue to collect them until such time as we can announce the GOP candidate as the winner?

That is what happened here.

If you truly want every vote to count, then we need to keep allowing people to vote every day of every year.

What I find unfair is that when the polls closed, elections that had been called for GOP members were overturned by additional voting after the fact.

If that had happened to the Democrats, as much as I detest 90% of them, I would be howling from the rooftops that the law that allowed this was unconstitutional.

If the GOP won't challenge this, then they better find a way to do what the Democrats did and ensure they have a cadre of voters sitting in the wings ready to vote should their guy fall behind on election night.

So, I'll ask again. How is it fair to anyone that we allow one side to continue to vote after a deadline that is so well known in advance that we know these dates for the next 100 years?

Because both sides were allowed to vote. Both side were under the same rules. As to people knowing the dates. So what, people are dumb, lazy, nonchalant or all of the above. None of those traits are disqualifying to cast a ballot.

They absolutley disqualify, or they did until the Democrats decided to cast votes AFTER the deadline and make a law protecting it.

Why have deadlines at all if this is the attitude.

We can stop paying taxes on Tax Day in April and the government can stop charging penalties and interest on those penalites. After all, as long as you pay some day, why every payment should count, right? Why penalize people for not paying taxes on time.

Again there was a deadline. The fact that you don't consider that deadline as early enough doesn't give anybody an unfair advantage. Let me flip the argument. Would you object to the deadline for absentee ballots closing five days before election day?

The deadline is the day of the election. If it takes the ballots x number of days to reach the polling official, then that is the deadline.

No votes CAST after the deadline are legitimate votes. It isn't difficult to comprehend. A mail-in ballot, as long as it was mailed in before the deadline is by definition, a vote CAST before the deadline.

These votes that were harvested are the ones in question. The people harvesting the votes cannot be trusted to tell us that the votes were cast before the deadline, in fact, there is NO PROOF that the votes were not cast until after the races were called and the Democrats had lost.

This law needs to be challenged right up to the SCOTUS because it disenfranchises conservative voters.

Now, you're arguments have begun to repeat themselves and I've already shot them down a number of times. You don't seem to think that deadlines mean anything so its a waste of My time to discuss it with you further.

Have a good night.

I just don't care when a deadline is as long as the deadline is the same for every voter. Saying that I don't care about a deadline is a strawman darkwind. Anyways goodnight.

 

[nat4900]

Someone needs to get the truth out there.....I really do not care whether you believe or not...Gnat....

A mountain of evidence points in one direction: Russia sought to sway .

Tell voters in real time if adversaries like Russia try to ..

 

[Rambunctious]

Someone needs to get the truth out there.....I really do not care whether you believe or not...Gnat....

A mountain of evidence points in one direction: Russia sought to sway .

Tell voters in real time if adversaries like Russia try to ..

You got Russia on the brain dude......its making you crazy....

 

[nat4900]

You got Russia on the brain dude......its making you crazy....

MORON.....YOU'RE the one that is citing Russia Today TV to prove your idiotic point of voting fraud........and then you tell ME that I have "Russia on the brain"???

What a dolt (but you do make Putin happy)......LOL

 

[Rambunctious]

MORON.....YOU'RE the one that is citing Russia Today TV to prove your idiotic point of voting fraud........and then you tell ME that I have "Russia on the brain"???

What a dolt (but you do make Putin happy)......LOL

It was just a news link dummy....like I said you have Russian butt hurt syndrome....get some help...

 

[debbiedowner]

Finally, a criminal investigation opens in North Carolina.

North Carolina man implicated in voting fraud scheme turns in hundreds of absentee ballots

Fuking Republicans. What a bunch of criminals. We don't have enough jails to lock up all those lawbreakers.

Low life scum.

 

[Rambunctious]

Finally, a criminal investigation opens in North Carolina.

North Carolina man implicated in voting fraud scheme turns in hundreds of absentee ballots

Fuking Republicans. What a bunch of criminals. We don't have enough jails to lock up all those lawbreakers.

Low life scum.

 

[sealybobo]

...then we may as well just cash in our chips, declare an end to our Constitutional form of government, and allow the Democrats to set up a one party state like the Nazis, the fascists and the Communists.

More people showing up to vote is a good thing. Then you find out how the nation really feels. You like it that 80% of poor people don’t show up. I don’t because they agree with me you guys suck. But you’ve convinced them that voting doesn’t matter. We’re trying to convince them it’s the most important thing you can do.

Don’t riot. Don’t protest. Don’t come here and bitch. Vote.

 

[debbiedowner]

Finally, a criminal investigation opens in North Carolina.

North Carolina man implicated in voting fraud scheme turns in hundreds of absentee ballots

Fuking Republicans. What a bunch of criminals. We don't have enough jails to lock up all those lawbreakers.

Low life scum.

What a cry baby, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why vote when you get your way through violent protest?

 

[sealybobo]

Finally, a criminal investigation opens in North Carolina.

North Carolina man implicated in voting fraud scheme turns in hundreds of absentee ballots

Fuking Republicans. What a bunch of criminals. We don't have enough jails to lock up all those lawbreakers.

Actually now that pot is legal in Michigan we have extra room in our jails to house these guys.

Republicans cry about voter fraud while they attempt to commit election fraud.