Jump to content

Cases of Election Fraud


Recommended Posts

Just now, Enhance said:

When in recent history have we seen mobs of people standing outside of election centers chanting about fraud and demanding access to see something they've never had reason to doubt before?

 

2000 during the Brooks Brothers Riot, which effectively stopped the recount and gave the election to Bush II.

 

 

Link to post

  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

because an angry mob stormed the building and were taking unauthorized pictures of election workers and information about registered voters...

It was an opinion article spinning a situation to make conservatives out to be a victim.    RedState is trash, Democrats outside of her campaign are not acknowledging the effort to throw out

The people being denied access excuse is total BS.  These people were just people showing up demanding to be let in.  They had no authority to be there and denying them access was the right thing to d

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

2000 during the Brooks Brothers Riot, which effectively stopped the recount and gave the election to Bush II.

Thanks for sharing (I had forgotten about that), and I think it illustrates some of what I was getting at with my post, that people at these mobs/riots/gatherings are not there for honest intentions. They're there to sow distrust and perhaps, in some cases, fuel an unethical fire.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
47 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

All you do is throw shade, I'm not entertaining you any further.  If I want to question something in a realistic way I will.  I don't have to buy anything at face value if I don't want to.  You do you.

Ok way to completely move the goalposts and not actually respond to anything I have said. You aren't questioning things in a realistic way, you are regurgitating propaganda created for the purpose of casting doubt on an election which was free, fair and reflects the will of the American people. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these election fraud claims are true so you can't possibly be questioning this in a realistic way. When these conspiracy theories are thrown out of court time and again you can no longer say that these claims have a basis in reality and you are just doing your due diligence to look into them. Thats complete BS and you and I and everyone else on this site knows it no matter how much you'd like to project otherwise. 

  • Plus1 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Just now, Enhance said:

Thanks for sharing (I had forgotten about that), and I think it illustrates some of what I was getting at with my post, that people at these mobs/riots/gatherings are not there for honest intentions. They're there to sow distrust and perhaps, in some cases, fuel an unethical fire.

 

Absolutely agree. And to claim that keeping those people out somehow taints an election is a faithless argument.

 

There are officials from both parties inside the counting rooms monitoring every person while they work. These are the official watchers there to assure the integrity of the election. Mobs from outside are not part of the democratic process.

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Enhance said:

I agree, but I think this perspective is a bit too absolute. I have nothing to hide about my job, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want a disgruntled group of people chanting at me and recording me while I do it. There are other more proficient ways of holding certain government and election officials accountable.

 

But, again, think about the context or reason as to why those people were there, and then think about that within the framework of why those election officials did what they did. The whole situation is asinine. When in recent history have we seen mobs of people standing outside of election centers chanting about fraud and demanding access to see something they've never had reason to doubt before? This is unhinged and radical behavior buoyed entirely by Trump and his cohorts. The reason those people were there was based on exaggeration, lies and intentional mistrust. The fraud these people have been so desperate to uncover has still yet to be revealed at the levels they believe it to have been done.

 

The people shouldn't have been there or playing intimidation games.  No reason to condone any of that.  And yes, Trump was crying foul months in advance and he spun a convincing web of doubt.  Hell even the Dems were saying "never concede". 

 

Then, they actually gave people reason to doubt.  Whether it was or wasn't fraud is irrelevant to this point, I just don't think there should be any reasons to doubt the legitimacy of the results.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

4 minutes ago, Redux said:

Then, they actually gave people reason to doubt.

Perhaps, but IMO, most of the people who allowed this situation to cause significant angst/doubt were people looking for reasons to have angst/doubt. They were largely people upset about Trump's potential and apparent loss at the time. They had no legitimate reason to be there other than to sow distrust and panic.

 

Had Trump and his cohorts not done what they did, I don't think we're having this conversation, and that's an important variable to this equation. It's just kind of weird to me to put so much emphasis onto an effect rather than the root cause.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Perhaps, but IMO, most of the people who allowed this situation to cause significant angst/doubt were people looking for reasons to have angst/doubt. They were largely people upset about Trump's potential and apparent loss at the time. They had no legitimate reason to be there other than to sow distrust and panic.

 

Had Trump and his cohorts not done what they did, I don't think we're having this conversation, and that's an important variable to this equation. It's just kind of weird to me to put so much emphasis onto an effect rather than the root cause.

 

That's more than fair.  But I also remember 4 years ago when nobody wanted to accept those results.  I just can't stand the double standards.  I like seeing the same logic and rules applied both ways.  If there is proof of fraud I want to see it.  So far I haven't seen squat that convinces me either way.  And unfortunately I think that's the way they want it.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Redux said:

Hell even the Dems were saying "never concede".

 

One Democrat, Hillary, said that Biden should not concede on Election Night. Which he should not have, and did not, and eventually won.

 

16 minutes ago, Redux said:

Then, they actually gave people reason to doubt.

 

No, they didn't. People who want to doubt are doubting. There is zero evidence of fraud, there is zero reason to believe this election is any different than any of the other modern elections.

 

You have provided zero evidence of election fraud. This is your problem:

 

18 minutes ago, Redux said:

Trump ... spun a convincing web of doubt

 

Not to any judge, not to any election commission, not to any person who has followed American politics with any degree of scrutiny in the past 50 years.

 

That you have doubt is a you issue. It is not reasonable, and it is not credible.

 

 

  • Plus1 4
Link to post

47 minutes ago, Redux said:

I just don't think there should be any reasons to doubt the legitimacy of the results.

I get what you're saying, but there's no way to eliminate all possible reasons to doubt anything, let alone a massive process like an election. I'm sure if you look online you'll still find people claiming reasons that the 2016 election wasn't legitimate.

 

If you have a legitimate reason that the election results should be doubted, then by all means post about it and we'll dig into it. But I think what's happening is a lot of voices are claiming reasons to doubt but none are credible. It's a lot of noise without substance.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
41 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I get what you're saying, but there's no way to eliminate all possible reasons to doubt anything, let alone a massive process like an election. I'm sure if you look online you'll still find people claiming reasons that the 2016 election wasn't legitimate.

 

If you have a legitimate reason that the election results should be doubted, then by all means post about it and we'll dig into it. But I think what's happening is a lot of voices are claiming reasons to doubt but none are credible. It's a lot of noise without substance.

 

Not all of the reasons are valid reasons.  Some are more valid than most of the rest.  I really don't like there being minimal transparency.  But of course the Trump crowd is going to scream all of them. Valid or not.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...