Hillary Clinton lies...

[huskerfan2000]

When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

 

 

Oh, so now the messenger doesn't matter? Pretty convenient!

[ZRod]

 

When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

 

Oh, so now the messenger doesn't matter? Pretty convenient!

You're reaching for something that isn't there. Always consider the source. But facts are facts, and opinions are just that.

[BigRedBuster]

 

It's like someone claiming to be a vegetarian who only eats bacon. You can pretend you're all about truth all you want, but it rings hollow when you proffer up Donald Trump as your boy.

 

I don't know who that nonsense works on. Nobody with half a brain, that's for sure.

 

Hmm, I give you an A for effort, but not sure your analogy really works here. What I find funny is that you will bash Trump for some of the same things Hillary does over and over. As I just stated, Hillary tries to claim that Trump is "unfit" to be POTUS when she demonstrates everyday why she is unfit. Do you not see this?

 

Do you not see how much Trump lies and is dishonest?

[TGHusker]

Here's the thing. Being honest is not exactly a job requirement for president. It's generally helpful, but it's only one of a number of qualities we want our candidates to have.

 

This year, it's Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

 

I think the voters have decided other things are more important.

Rest in Peace Richard Nixon you were a man before your time (based on dude's comment)

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

Oh, so now the messenger doesn't matter? Pretty convenient!

You're reaching for something that isn't there. Always consider the source. But facts are facts, and opinions are just that.

 

 

 

Facts can be skewed to produce any number of things that are not necessarily true.

 

You can claim not voter fraud by only looking at certain things, and on the surface it would be true, but if you peel back the layers you find it isn't... Just like that video I posted from the computer programmer..

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

Oh, so now the messenger doesn't matter? Pretty convenient!

You're reaching for something that isn't there. Always consider the source. But facts are facts, and opinions are just that.

 

 

 

nice dodge.. Does the messenger matter or not? Facts can be skewed to produce any number of things that are not necessarily true.

 

You can claim not voter fraud by only looking at certain things, and on the surface it would be true, but if you peel back the layers you find it isn't... Just like that video I posted from the computer programmer..

 

OK....if one side uses false "facts" way more than the other, why does that make the fact checker bias?

[knapplc]

The facts remain that you are more likely to get struck by lightning than find in-person voter fraud in Texas.

 

Doesn't matter who said that.

 

Doesn't matter who verified that.

 

Those are facts, and those facts are not in dispute.

 

But hey, let's keep trying to find ways to change the subject. Those facts are, after all, inconvenient and best left undiscussed.

[BigRedBuster]

The facts remain that you are more likely to get struck by lightning than find in-person voter fraud in Texas.

 

Doesn't matter who said that.

 

Doesn't matter who verified that.

 

Those are facts, and those facts are not in dispute.

 

But hey, let's keep trying to find ways to change the subject. Those facts are, after all, inconvenient and best left undiscussed.

True....

 

But, I still don't know the answers to my questions in post #30.

[knapplc]

huskerfan2000 - do you think Hillary Clinton lies?

[ZRod]

 

 

 

When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

 

Oh, so now the messenger doesn't matter? Pretty convenient!

You're reaching for something that isn't there. Always consider the source. But facts are facts, and opinions are just that.

 

Facts can be skewed to produce any number of things that are not necessarily true.

 

You can claim not voter fraud by only looking at certain things, and on the surface it would be true, but if you peel back the layers you find it isn't... Just like that video I posted from the computer programmer..

Like Knap said that's a fact. And it's also a fact that it does not cover all potential fraud. Unless I missed it (I easily could have, maybe it's in the video I haven't watched yet.) I haven't seen a study on the other forms, which wouldn't be affect by most proposals to "eliminate" voter fraud.

[knapplc]

 

The facts remain that you are more likely to get struck by lightning than find in-person voter fraud in Texas.

 

Doesn't matter who said that.

 

Doesn't matter who verified that.

 

Those are facts, and those facts are not in dispute.

 

But hey, let's keep trying to find ways to change the subject. Those facts are, after all, inconvenient and best left undiscussed.

True....

 

But, I still don't know the answers to my questions in post #30.

 

I imagine a google search would help.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The facts remain that you are more likely to get struck by lightning than find in-person voter fraud in Texas.

 

Doesn't matter who said that.

 

Doesn't matter who verified that.

 

Those are facts, and those facts are not in dispute.

 

But hey, let's keep trying to find ways to change the subject. Those facts are, after all, inconvenient and best left undiscussed.

True....

 

But, I still don't know the answers to my questions in post #30.

 

I imagine a google search would help.

 

OK....a couple years ago, I spent a lot of time on this subject researching and never really came up with the answers. Now....since you asked me to google again, I did. I'm good at direction like that.

 

 

Anyway, I found one hell of a lot of articles claiming research has been done and there is very very little voter fraud and the proof is the number of cases prosecuted and found guilty compared to number of voters....so....it must be insignificant.

 

 

I FULLY understand that and realize that's your stance on this.

However, that doesn't answer my questions.

[knapplc]

I'm not sure why you're looking to me to answer your questions. I have access to the same information you do.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not sure why you're looking to me to answer your questions. I have access to the same information you do.

I'm not specifically just asking you. I'm asking the group.

 

You and others claim voter fraud is not a problem because there hasn't been very many prosecutions.

 

I get that. I have absolutely no clue how big voter fraud is. I don't have an opinion either way.

 

However, I just am saying that the issue is frustrating to me because I don't get how you can just use the number of cases prosecuted when there isn't a mechanism in place to catch people in order to prosecute them.

 

Hey...if you don't have the answer...no big deal. I'm just expressing my frustration over the issue.

[ZRod]

BRB, from just a quick scan of google it doesn't really appear that there is an "agency" necessarily looking for it. The media can draw attention to it if exit polls aren't matching the tallied vote, or an excessive amount of absentee ballots were requested or rejected. In person voting probabaly depends on your polling place and what they look for more than anything else. Or if you have electronic voting; something extremely suspicious like Ohio servers going down in 2004 with Kerry in the lead, being rerouter through a failsafe server in Chattanooga, then coming back online with the lead flipped in favor of Bush... that's a real rabbit hole if you need a new conspiracy to look up.