gearhog
-
Posts
1,464 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by gearhog
-
Nice work! I googled "examples of election fraud" two days ago and that was the website I was using when I asked my question. You're the first of five people to actually look it up. And yes, it does answer my question. I didn't count, but there are at least a dozen different ways fraud can be committed by an individual. Bear with me: Would you say that, generally speaking, crimes do not occur outside of those that are convicted?
-
Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout was 1,327,394 ballots. https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054 Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President. https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1 Biden leads by 33,000 votes. Is Trump raising doubts about the electoral process, or is Nevada?
-
Bye, I guess.
-
Next... If I'm not being genuine or honest, then I am being disingenuous and dishonest. You're making a claim. According to you, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, yet you haven't quoted any text where I have been disingenuous or dishonest. Maybe I have, I don't know. It certainly wasn't my intent. But if you provide the evidence, I'd very much like to apologize for it, and make corrections. I'm glad you also agree that fraud exists. But you still haven't answered the question as to what that fraud is and what the evidence would be. Curiously, the article you linked to isn't an example of "fraud." It's an example of an honest man who unintentionally had his vote recorded twice. Please understand, I'm left to assume you either don't know the definition of the word "fraud" or are disingenuously or dishonestly making the claim this man intentionally committed a fraudulent act. Which is it? Forget it, let's let that one go. Do you have any real examples? Where have I indicated that I'm upset that no one is listening? Again, another specious claim. I don't have circumstantial evidence, I don't have any lawsuits. Why are you using the terms "you" and "your"? If I were mad and childish, wouldn't I be using profane insults, refusing to engage, and quitting the conversation when it became apparent I was losing? Although you failed, you tried to answer my question so I'd be happy to address yours. How did they keep the Senate? You'll probably want to look at an election map while reading this. Here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=senate+races+2020. Use the buttons at the top to switch between Presidential and Senate races. Can you see the states that had senate races? Can you see the states that did not have senate races? The states where voting irregularities were alleged to have occurred did not have Senate races. Does that blow your mind or what?
-
Bye, I guess.
-
Slow down, brother. We'll get there, I promise. I believe you, Pooter, Prozac, and slackline are smart dudes. I'm not going to be able jedi-mindtrick any of you, so I can't quite understand the reluctance to answer if we are all genuinely interested in having an intellectually honest exchange. Maybe I put a little snark in my earlier posts, and I shouldn't have, because I really want to figure out what, if anything, is happening to our democratic process without pissing everyone off. I'm not willing to take it at face value that "Everything is Fine." because I like my way of life and my country, and I don't want it fucked up because I was complacent and implicitly trusted the system when I shouldn't have. However, if the path of logic dictates that everything is fine, Great! The old quote comes to mind: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." So what if I dispensed with my assumptions and preconceived notions about the reliability of our process, tried to make an accurate assessment of the risks, and then attempted to determine if the proper mitigations were in place? Is that wrong? A bad idea? I think it's reasonable to begin with asking the simple question: Does election fraud exist and what would the evidence be?
-
Right. It shouldn't be complicated. I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud. Okay... Okay. I'm willing to hear you out on that one, but let's back up. Once more: What is an example of fraud that you believe exists?
-
LOL. My game? I'm asking a basic straightforward question that requires a simple answer. Relax. I'm not trying to trick you. We both agree there is election fraud. What is an example of the fraud you're referring to and what would be evidence of it?
-
I'll try another way: What is a specific example of the fraud you acknowledge exists and what would you say evidence of that fraud would look like?
-
Here we go yet once again. Over and over again. Forum Debate 101: When you can't argue against a point, mischaracterize the point, and argue against that instead. Did I ever say the entire system is compromised? I don't think you know the definition of semantics. Semantics would be arguing, for example, the differences between a mischaracterization, a falsehood, and a lie. You want concrete evidence? I bet I can get you to also "lose interest" before we get there. Here's how: I'll ask you to establish what "concrete evidence" is. Give me an example that you wouldn't outright dismiss.
-
Wait a sec... you were all to eager to engage the past few pages. What's changed? If you believe I cannot budge from my position, that's false. I can and I'd like to. It's just my position hasn't been sufficiently challenged. I'm open minded to reason and logic. However, if you believe you, yourself, cannot be budged from your position, that says to me that you'll stand by it no matter what. That's closed minded. Listen, I asked a few easy to answer questions. If you're a smart person, and I'll give you credit and say that you likely are, you see that my line of questioning will yield answers that will follow a path of logic that's detrimental to your position. That's why you're not going to answer them. Bye, I guess.
-
I think this is fantastic progress. Not only do you agree with both myself and slackline that fraud exists, but you go one step further in specifying that it is committed by Democrats. How is this fraud perpetrated? Give one example, please. Just one. Maybe two if you can think of two.
-
I see we've stopped accusing anyone of making claims, and are now saying she "seems to be insinuating...." Backpedal much? Still, no one ever claimed Chavez himself interfered in this election. Words matter. If there were evidence that communist money paid for Smartmatic voting software produced in Venezuela at the direction of Chavez, what evidence would you find acceptable? Can you think of any government agencies that might provide an official report to that effect that you would find credible? Could you list just a few off the top of your head? Do you think that such a report exists? Would you deny it if were presented to you?
-
Stop trying to act like anyone here ever did? Once again, from the single link you've provided to support your argument: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." But you're saying that fraud does, in fact, exist. Great. Now that we've made progress agreeing that it does, all that is left is determining to what extent. What constitutes "small"? 1%? We're no longer disagreeing that there is fraud in the election. Can you provide evidence as to the amount of fraud you're claiming? It cannot be "no fraud" because that doesn't support your argument. What were the childish insults I've used? I didn't call anyone a shit throwing orangutan, so I'm not sure to what you're referring.
-
Again, does election fraud exist in any form? It's a yes or no. I'm not asking you how much, only if it does. I posted links to the the New York Times from 2019. You seem to be saying the age of an article is a discredit in itself. It's not. Updated controverting information is. You have none. Believe me, I fully understand why you have a problem with precise language. If you believed precision was important, you wouldn't have much to say.
-
Prozac, are you no longer beating your wife? Invalid question. Why would I frame a question like that unless I was trying to be deceptive? You're asking which article supports the narrative that Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. No one said Hugo Chavez had a hand in the 2020 election. I know it's easier to attack your own mischaracterization of what was said than attacking what was actually said. But it's also obvious, and dishonest. However, I'm not sure if you're intentionally creating a false statement that a narrative exists in which people believe Hugo Chavez interfered in the election, or if you're lazily summarizing what you think was said. I've provided links to mainstream media sources in 2019 that said electronic voting fraud is possible and probable. If you ignored them earlier, would it change anything if I posted the same ones again, or more of them? What were my claims? I have claimed that fraud exists. I've made no indication as to the extent, because I simply do not know. However, I believe it entirely possible, even probable that it could exist in ways that could have changed some of the results. You seem to be saying election fraud simply does not exist. Am I misunderstanding? As for the about "70%" of Republicans rooting for the "shit throwing orangutan", your derangement is showing. How is it you expect a civil conversation with regard to election security when you can so easily devolve into profane insults and emotional hysterics? Again, invalid question. You don't expect a civil conversation.
-
Let me make it easy for you. Each and every claim in that article is numbered. Each numbered paragraph has a link to the source of the information, many of them being from .gov websites, CNN, The Guardian, etc. If I were to ask you to find a single false truth in the article, the probability that you'd switch the subject, "butwhatabout...", or stick to the "Nuh-Uh!" tactic is extremely high. Here's how I know that you, also, are not interested in finding the truth: You don't have any disputes about the contents of the article, which is merely a compilation of other sources you'd otherwise call solid.
-
"We asked the companies if there were any incriminating relationships and they said 'No'." LOL.
-
From your link: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." Yet you are saying there were inconsistencies. Which is it? None or Some? Now this is the frustrating thing: You go on to claim that I've quoted the above sources you listed. I didn't. Now you'll go back and check, and maybe post something like "My Bad." Once Again. How many times are you going to falsely attribute things to me just to score a debate point? For someone who seems so concerned about fact finding and truth, you sure seem to fire from the hip anything that suits your narrative, valid or not. Why is it you didn't correctly attribute the sources which I actually did link to: New York Times, CBS, CNN? You're being disingenuous. Are you dismissing the contents of those articles as well?
-
False claim. You didn't inform me as to what the reality is in this case, and should you want to, you would only able to relay what your perception of it is.
-
Just watched the press conference. What exactly are you disputing? That Smartmatic has connections to US voting machines? https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/updated-attachment-states-have-bought-voting-machines-from-vendors-controlled-and-funded-by-nation-6597e4dd3e70 Or that Smartmatic was originally developed in Venezuela for the purpose of rigging elections?
-
What is your personal statute of limitations for the relevance/recency of evidence? Perhaps I can find some within it. New York Times, again. Think they replaced all the voting machines in the last year? It's up to you to prove that they did. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/us/politics/pennsylvania-voting-machines.html
-
Yes. That's what I am saying. Would you like to dispute it with something other than "Surely not!"? NOVEMBER 3rd, 2019:
-
Not a very good analogy, brother. The chutes are manufactured and packed by a foreign third party contractor off base. Your own inspectors found flaws. CBS: CNN: The New York Times:
-
What’s the greater threat to our freedoms and democracy: believing our election process isn’t flawed or believing that it is flawed?
