Elections GOP Election Fraud in Virginia (update: Dem won) (update two: indictments)

[Big Nasty Edison]

You lost.

Only more people in certain populated areas voted for that witch.

I’m fine with all of the shit you posted. If they are guilty, they should be held accountable.

I could go scour the internet for Democrat shenanigans, but you know both sides do it.

You seem to think that I am a hard core Conservative/Republican. I don’t trust any politician. I’m for as little government intervention in our lives as possible.

You keep saying "both sides" yet don't bother to prove that any side does it as often and openly as the Republicans do. Seems to be a common thing around this joint.

 

[all caps]

It's almost like the scale of the investigation is way bigger than anything you've ever had the chance to take part in!



Also lol at the rest of that shit. Not even worth trying to explain this to you. It's all fake news, Trump did nothing wrong, everything is fake until it isn't, and then it'll just be totally okay and who cares?

Come on bro. You are better than this.

 

[Falsedawn]

Come on bro. You are better than this.

Sorry i have a brain.

 

[all caps]

Sorry i have a brain.

Source?

 

[Jack V Savage]

man, you are suddenly totally cool with election fraud. i wonder why. if only there was an obvious reason.

@nostradumbass is cool with real election fraud, but he's totally pissed about imaginary election fraud.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Really? Who has been found guilty of any collusion?

And lol if you think Dems aren’t cheating. Whether you are forging signatures or getting deceased/illegals to vote, it’s still cheating.

Er, that would be cheating, but it has to actually happen.

Do you really believe a Democrat should have won the last election based on merit or platform???

Of course. It was the clearest choice we've ever had. Overqualified, extremely intelligent, long-time public servant vs. a corrupt, dumb, unqualified conman.

 

[Higus]

It's threads like this that make me feel really cynical.
I think it's time for Liberals, and especially Liberal politicians, to wake up and see that their opposition is not playing by the same rules they are, and that is why they never seem to win.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's threads like this that make me feel really cynical.
I think it's time for Liberals, and especially Liberal politicians, to wake up and see that their opposition is not playing by the same rules they are, and that is why they never seem to win.

But what's the solution? I think tribalism and corruption are enemies, and if we embrace them to beat them, there's no point. It's just surrendering in advance to avoid losing the battle.

 

[HomerThompson]

But what's the solution? I think tribalism and corruption are enemies, and if we embrace them to beat them, there's no point. It's just surrendering in advance to avoid losing the battle.

You don't have to be corrupt or tribalistic to use harsher language, or be more aggressive.

For example, I think Obama should have recess appointed Garland. The GOP refused to do their constitutionally mandated duties, so fuck 'em.

 

[spamking]

It was the clearest choice we've ever had. Overqualified, extremely intelligent, long-time public servant vs. a corrupt, dumb, unqualified conman.

Yet folks still voted for a change . . . are all of the claims about the Clinton's evil deeds just hearsay?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You don;t have to be corrupt or tribalistic to use harsher language, or be more aggressive.

For example, I think Obama should have recess appointed Garland. The GOP refused to do their constitutionally mandated duties, so fuck 'em.

From a technical standpoint, my understanding is that that wouldn't have worked. But fair on the general principle. Dems should have ditched the filibuster as soon as it was apparent it was being abused, for example. But really, I think liberals are always going to be at a disadvantage because they do believe in the rules. It's just an inherent feature that people lacking in principles have some competitive advantages.

 

[Quequeg]

You don;t have to be corrupt or tribalistic to use harsher language, or be more aggressive.

For example, I think Obama should have recess appointed Garland. The GOP refused to do their constitutionally mandated duties, so fuck 'em.

Obama definitely played too nice, he kept thinking the R's would do the right thing for the country, alas their butthurt was too great.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yet folks still voted for a change . . . are all of the claims about the Clinton's evil deeds just hearsay?

"Still"? Yeah, it's well-known that it's hard to hold the WH (incumbent presidents have an advantage, but then the replacement is at a disadvantage). Don't know what "evil deeds" you're referring to (murder? human trafficking? eating babies? There are a lot of batshit crazy allegations against her that have no supporting evidence), but her record is outstanding.

 

[spamking]

"Still"? Yeah, it's well-known that it's hard to hold the WH (incumbent presidents have an advantage, but then the replacement is at a disadvantage). Don't know what "evil deeds" you're referring to (murder? human trafficking? eating babies? There are a lot of batshit crazy allegations against her that have no supporting evidence), but her record is outstanding.

I think you do know . . . but sure, until there is an actual indictment or judgement against them/her it's all allegations. But I'm sure all the stories are completely coincidental . . . none of them are true.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you do know . . . but sure, until there is an actual indictment or judgement against them/her it's all allegations. But I'm sure all the stories are completely coincidental . . . none of them are true.

Again, no, I don't know what *you're* referring to. As I said, there are a lot of people who make insane claims. I bet even you'd agree with that. Are there some claims of "evil deeds" that aren't crazy? Maybe? I'm not aware of any that are true. If your theory is that a lot of hacks won't say something bad about a presidential candidate in the other party unless that candidate is evil, I'm going to go ahead and disagree.

 

[Higus]

But what's the solution? I think tribalism and corruption are enemies, and if we embrace them to beat them, there's no point. It's just surrendering in advance to avoid losing the battle.

I don't think that Tribalism and Corruption are the solutions. I think a real problem in politics today is that Democrats overvalue rationality and facts in public discourse. That might be a feature to most left leaning voters, but we've seen time and time again that conservative people vote with their emotions. Like @HomerThompson said, having some candidates with the courage to throw fire at their opponents would be a great start. Liberals need to stop patting themselves on the back for being smarter in defeat. They need to be ANGRY. They should be furious! They've been cheated and short changed at the national level for most of their lives. Democrats have to stop compromising to a party that has never bargained in good faith. They need to stop thinking of conservative voters as people that just need the right approach to be reached and instead they need to think of them as ENEMIES to be punished, because that's what they see Liberals as. Because the only thing modern conservatives are consistent about is they respect strength and despise weakness.
Democrats need to be bullies, not nerds.

 

[WTF2008]

Gotta keep that language vague. More choices="election fraud". Why are we pretending this is vote tampering? Dems are worried about asking for ID at a voting booth and verifying citizenship, but now we're apoplectic if someone else gets added to the ballot. Are you guys fucking serious?

I want voter ID immediately.
It's ridiculous that we don't have it yet.

 

[spamking]

Again, no, I don't know what *you're* referring to.

Right . . . but then you say this . . .

As I said, there are a lot of people who make insane claims.

So you clearly have heard the whacked out stories I have and what I'm referring to.

I bet even you'd agree with that.

I've said as much . . .

Are there some claims of "evil deeds" that aren't crazy? Maybe? I'm not aware of any that are true.

I'm not sure if we'll ever find out the truth . . . especially since all of the "witnesses" end up committing "suicide".

If your theory is that a lot of hacks won't say something bad about a presidential candidate in the other party unless that candidate is evil, I'm going to go ahead and disagree.

Not sure where this came from . . . I never offered any such theory or anything close to this crap.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Every election will have someone cry fraud. Part of the game at this point.

This election has frauds.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

I don't think that Tribalism and Corruption are the solutions. I think a real problem in politics today is that Democrats overvalue rationality and facts in public discourse. That might be a feature to most left leaning voters, but we've seen time and time again that conservative people vote with their emotions. Like @HomerThompson said, having some candidates with the courage to throw fire at their opponents would be a great start. Liberals need to stop patting themselves on the back for being smarter in defeat. They need to be ANGRY. They should be furious! They've been cheated and short changed at the national level for most of their lives. Democrats have to stop compromising to a party that has never bargained in good faith. They need to stop thinking of conservative voters as people that just need the right approach to be reached and instead they need to think of them as ENEMIES to be punished, because that's what they see Liberals as. Because the only thing modern conservatives are consistent about is they respect strength and despise weakness.
Democrats need to be bullies, not nerds.

Preach it, brother.