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

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Trumpsters bringing the hot pro-crime takes itt

Their leader is a criminal surrounded by criminals, trying to demonize the people charged with investigating his campaign.

Shitbirds of a feather can burn together

 

[Jack V Savage]

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

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

I've said as much . . .

So putting these three things together, you can see the issue, no? If you're asking me whether Clinton has had people murdered, then, yes, it's 100% false and totally batshit crazy. If you're saying something else, what?

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

OK, so you're an insane hack who will believe anything as long as it's about the other party. Got it. Should have made that clearer earlier.

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

"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."

Implication here is that nutters wouldn't be making up stories about someone in the other party if there weren't some truth to it. But we know that's false, and it seems that you're admitting it by denying that implication (trying to have it both ways).

 

[spamking]

So putting these three things together, you can see the issue, no? If you're asking me whether Clinton has had people murdered, then, yes, it's 100% false and totally batshit crazy. If you're saying something else, what?

I don't know the truth Jack . . . and neither do you. Good grief . . .

OK, so you're an insane hack who will believe anything as long as it's about the other party. Got it. Should have made that clearer earlier.

Wow. You are so self-absorbed it's ridiculous . . . I NEVER said I believed any of it regardless of who says it and who it's said about . . . but yes, I may disagree with you on many things on here, but to pull the insane hack card is pathetic. But that's just you spouting off about something you don't understand. Again.

"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."

Implication here is that nutters wouldn't be making up stories about someone in the other party if there weren't some truth to it. But we know that's false, and it seems that you're admitting it by denying that implication (trying to have it both ways).

So anyone who speaks ill of the Clintons or questions the validity of the rumors is a nutter . . . . got it. I'm sure everything that anyone associated with them has ever said is completely false and based solely on their dislike for the family.

I'll say it again to make it clear . . . . I don't know the truth . . . and neither do you. I'm not so blind that I'll accept something based on who says it or who it's said about.

You are so freaking full of yourself you can't see it. Anyone who disagrees with you or holds a differing opinion than you is a nutter or an insane hack . . . you sir are pathetic.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know the truth Jack . . . and neither do you. Good grief . . .

In the sense that all human knowledge is flawed, I guess. There's much more of a chance that you've killed multiple people than there is that Clinton has (I'm not aware of evidence for either, but she's one of the most heavily scrutinized people in the world, while you are anonymous). You know this to be true, but since she's in the other party, you are comfortable going along with the craziness.

Wow. You are so self-absorbed it's ridiculous . . . I NEVER said I believed any of it regardless of who says it and who it's said about . . . but yes, I may disagree with you on many things on here, but to pull the insane hack card is pathetic. But that's just you spouting off about something you don't understand. Again.

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

and

But I'm sure all the stories are completely coincidental . . . none of them are true.

Why not get off the fence? Do you think that there is any reasonable chance that Clinton has had people killed? Other than partisanship, what would be the reason for that suspicion if you'll acknowledge it?

So anyone who speaks ill of the Clintons or questions the validity of the rumors is a nutter . . . . got it. I'm sure everything that anyone associated with them has ever said is completely false and based solely on their dislike for the family.

Do you think this is a reasonable, honest summary of the position that accusing her of having multiple people killed is crazy? If you want to talk about something real, by all means, do. If you're just repeat crazy fantasies, yes, you're a nutter and a hack. Own it.

You are so freaking full of yourself you can't see it. Anyone who disagrees with you or holds a differing opinion than you is a nutter or an insane hack . . . you sir are pathetic.

Again, this is not an honest summary. My position is that your specific allegations are crazy and hackish.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

But what about the 5 million illegal votes!!!!!

Don't know but I could go for a slim jim right about now...

 

[spamking]

In the sense that all human knowledge is flawed, I guess. There's much more of a chance that you've killed multiple people than there is that Clinton has (I'm not aware of evidence for either, but she's one of the most heavily scrutinized people in the world, while you are anonymous). You know this to be true, but since she's in the other party, you are comfortable going along with the craziness.

So you're one of those folks who think if I'm not outright speaking against something I'm condoning and if I'm not outright condoning it I'm supporting it?

Why not get off the fence? Do you think that there is any reasonable chance that Clinton has had people killed? Other than partisanship, what would be the reason for that suspicion if you'll acknowledge it?

I'm not on a fence. I don't care if she did or didn't do something . . . until there is a case brought forth against her or anyone else it's a pointless discussion.

Do you think this is a reasonable, honest summary of the position that accusing her of having multiple people killed is crazy? If you want to talk about something real, by all means, do. If you're just repeat crazy fantasies, yes, you're a nutter and a hack. Own it.

Again Jack . . . you don't know . . . well, jack about me. Of course I think it's crazy to accuse someone of doing something like this without solid proof . . . just like I think it's crazy to be so naive to think that stuff like this never happens in politics. I don't have a clue if the Clintons have actually killed anyone . . .

Again, this is not an honest summary. My position is that your specific allegations are crazy and hackish.

These aren't MY allegations . . . I'm not leading some charge to investigate the Clintons.

You have your opinion . . . and I have mine.

 

[AndroidRage]

I don't know the truth Jack . . . and neither do you. Good grief . . .



Wow. You are so self-absorbed it's ridiculous . . . I NEVER said I believed any of it regardless of who says it and who it's said about . . . but yes, I may disagree with you on many things on here, but to pull the insane hack card is pathetic. But that's just you spouting off about something you don't understand. Again.



So anyone who speaks ill of the Clintons or questions the validity of the rumors is a nutter . . . . got it. I'm sure everything that anyone associated with them has ever said is completely false and based solely on their dislike for the family.

I'll say it again to make it clear . . . . I don't know the truth . . . and neither do you. I'm not so blind that I'll accept something based on who says it or who it's said about.

You are so freaking full of yourself you can't see it. Anyone who disagrees with you or holds a differing opinion than you is a nutter or an insane hack . . . you sir are pathetic.

If you are referring to the Clinton's having people murdered thing. That has definitely been debunked as bull shit. It is just something that was started in a chain email. The "list" hasn't even been consistent over the years. If you try looking into it you will find that it is bull shit. Like many things people on the right believe about the Clinton's or Obama's.

 

[spamking]

If you are referring to the Clinton's having people murdered thing. That has definitely been debunked as bull shit. It is just something that was started in a chain email. The "list" hasn't even been consistent over the years. If you try looking into it you will find that it is bull shit. Like many things people on the right believe about the Clinton's or Obama's.

Fair enough . . .

 

[Quipling]

Glad to see that Luria won. The margin was small enough that the attempted fraud could have made the difference.

 

[Whippy McGee]

What happened in Virginia was not right.

You want to talk about worse? Look at what just happened in California's elections for U.S. Senate and Lt. Governor. Democrats diluted the primaries with fake Republicans to ensure no Republicans were available for choice in the General Election.

Who else had single party elections? hmmmmm.... The Democratic Party in California and the Russian / Soviets. Way to go Leftists!

 

[Quipling]

What happened in Virginia was not right.

You want to talk about worse. Look at what just happened in California's elections for U.S. Senate and Lt. Governor.

I've never lived in California and have no idea what you're talking about.

You should start a thread on that if it was bad, though.

 

[Whippy McGee]

I've never lived in California and have no idea what you're talking about.

You should start a thread on that if it was bad, though.

... and apparently you don't want to know what I am talking about. You see... Conservatives will denounce when shit is wrong. Leftists, turn their head, because they benefited and don't give a crap. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Don't go crying and whining when you don't give two fucks when it happens the other way.... and is far far worse.

 

[Quipling]

... and apparently you don't want to know what I am talking about. You see... Conservatives will denounce when shit is wrong. Leftists, turn their head, because they benefited and don't give a crap. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Don't go crying and whining when you don't give two fucks when it happens the other way.... and is far far worse.

I invited you to start a thread on the topic and said I wasn't familiar with what you were talking about. You are also free to tag me in it. Thats not disinterest, that's an invitation. Instead of explaining whatever the hell you're talking about you are whinging about "the libs".

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

... and apparently you don't want to know what I am talking about. You see... Conservatives will denounce when shit is wrong. Leftists, turn their head, because they benefited and don't give a crap. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Don't go crying and whining when you don't give two fucks when it happens the other way.... and is far far worse.

Truth

 

[Quipling]

https://www.wsls.com/news/national/prosecutor-proof-of-election-fraud-in-us-house-race-in-va

Update:
VA prosecutors have announced two indictments in connection with the aforementioned fraud against someone associated with the Scott Taylor campaign.

 

[luckyshot]

... and apparently you don't want to know what I am talking about. You see... Conservatives will denounce when shit is wrong. Leftists, turn their head, because they benefited and don't give a crap. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Don't go crying and whining when you don't give two fucks when it happens the other way.... and is far far worse.

Truth

My understanding is that the top primary vote getters go onto the general election ballot in CA, regardless of party. That's by CA statute. You may not like it, but it is the law, and it can be changed legally and democratically.

This is nothing like a party forging signatures to get a candidate on a ballot illegally.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Elaine Luria (D) is challenging incumbent Rep. Scott Taylor (R) in Virginia's second congressional district. 4 Taylor (r) staffers and one campaign consultant worked to get enough signatures to put Shaun Brown (i) on the ballot. The Democratic campaign sued, alleging that the Taylor campaign had done so to split the progressive vote, and that at least 377 of the signatures submitted were fraudulent.

The judge agreed, finding "evidence of forgery, uttering, perjury and 'out-and-out fraud.'" He then ordered that Brown (i) be removed from the ballot.

The 4 Taylor (r) staffers and one campaign consultant involved submitted affidavits to the court, stating that they wouldn't testify pursuant to the 5th amendment.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virgi...cle_59706d14-f2da-5270-847b-a3faa64950d0.html

5/7/2019 update: two indictments against Scott staffer.

Wasn't Joe Kennedy accused of this to get his kid to win a congressional seat in MA?

The story goes goes that Joe paid a guy with the same name as a guy running in the race to throw his hat into the ring. Having two candidates with the same name split the vote.

 

[Whippy McGee]

My understanding is that the top primary vote getters go onto the general election ballot in CA, regardless of party. That's by CA statute. You may not like it, but it is the law, and it can be changed legally and democratically.

This is nothing like a party forging signatures to get a candidate on a ballot illegally.

It cannot be changed when Democrats have the super majority.

All they have to do is run a bunch of bogus "Republican" candidates to dilute the vote and ensure two Democrats for the General Election. The state is descending into a Socialist tyranny. Next they will deny even having a Republican candidate on the ballot for President of the United States. They are already vote harvesting on the Democratic Party side, which is illegal in other states, but they made it legal here, because they know they have the organization to pull it off. It's how they took down Orange County last election cycle.

 

[luckyshot]

It cannot be changed when Democrats have the super majority.

All they have to do is run a bunch of bogus "Republican" candidates to dilute the vote and ensure two Democrats for the General Election. The state is descending into a Socialist tyranny. Next they will deny even having a Republican candidate on the ballot for President of the United States. They are already vote harvesting on the Democratic Party side, which is illegal in other states, but they made it legal here, because they know they have the organization to pull it off. It's how they took down Orange County last election cycle.

Do you complaint when McConnell uses every procedural weapon at his disposal against the Democrats on the federal level?

At least you don't need to be granted citizenship somewhere else to move out of CA.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Do you complaint when McConnell uses every procedural weapon at his disposal against the Democrats on the federal level?

At least you don't need to be granted citizenship somewhere else to move out of CA.

I'm not a fan, but I don't hear you complaining when Democrats changed the rules for the first time in the history of the Judicial Committee to allow non-elected lawyers question the Attorney General of the United States and when he refused the never before heard of attempt to attack him, they now are calling for him to be charged with Contempt of Congress. Also, were you upset with how they passed Obamacare?

Again, I am not of fan of what McConnell is doing, so where do you stand?