Jump to content

..so trump wants to delay the Election??


RedZone

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

False. He was asked a question about delaying it. It was a suggestion not a want 

And it doesn't matter its not up to him 

 

You would've flipped a shit had Obama done the same thing.

It's a ridiculous thing to even mention; how about allow people to vote by mail so they don't have to worry about their physical safety?

Or would that make too much sense and go against his bullshit widespread fraud narrative?

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fraudulent" is obviously just Drumpf doing his usual Drumpfing.

That said, most credible studies show about out 3% of all mail never makes it to the intended destination. 3% of 130 million votes seems like a significant number, so "inaccurate" probably isn't a horribly unreasonable assumption. 🤷‍♂️

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zulu1128 said:

"Fraudulent" is obviously just Drumpf doing his usual Drumpfing.

That said, most credible studies show about out 3% of all mail never makes it to the intended destination. 3% of 130 million votes seems like a significant number, so "inaccurate" probably isn't a horribly unreasonable assumption. 🤷‍♂️

well there is a pretty significant number of fraud. Heritage foundation has found over 1000 cases of fraud 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

"Fraudulent" is obviously just Drumpf doing his usual Drumpfing.

That said, most credible studies show about out 3% of all mail never makes it to the intended destination. 3% of 130 million votes seems like a significant number, so "inaccurate" probably isn't a horribly unreasonable assumption. 🤷‍♂️

 

Mail "not making it" to the destination does not constitute fraud.

So, if the ballot never makes it to me - then I can go on Election Day and vote if it's the only option.

If the ballot never makes it back to the post office, okay, that's a problem. I'm guessing the odds of that small % being your ballot (not a magazine, or junk mail, or a bill, etc) is going to be very-very small.

If that was a study regarding fraud then it would be a severe issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

well there is a pretty significant number of fraud. Heritage foundation has found over 1000 cases of fraud

Over 4 years.

Which would include hundreds of millions of votes.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/database-swells-1285-proven-cases-voter-fraud-america

Although talk of voter fraud may be increasing because of the stakes in the 2020 election, The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database has been around for four years. With the addition of our latest batch of cases, we are up to 1,285 proven instances of voter fraud.

And their database includes voter registration fraud which is not, in fact, voter fraud.

Examples include impersonation fraud at the polls; false voter registrations; duplicate voting; fraudulent absentee ballots; vote buying; illegal assistance and intimidation of voters; ineligible voting, such as by aliens; altering of vote counts; and ballot petition fraud.

The geniuses at the Heritage Foundation chose an awfully shoddy and even by their own admission "by no means comprehensive" method to count voter fraud.

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

well there is a pretty significant number of fraud. Heritage foundation has found over 1000 cases of fraud 

 

How many votes were affected?

And how many instances were by "the right," because the last election I can think of that was seemingly stolen was that seat in North Carolina stolen by Republicans, though I don't recall the particulars off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@HSFBfan and other Republicans...

 

So there was this company called Cambridge Analytica that used people's information from Facebook to bombard them with political advertisements supporting Clinton. They were hired by the Clinton campaign and ran 5.9 million ads as opposed to Trump's 66,000. The election was as close as it was because of this. Of course, this was entirely illegal because it stole personal information and used it for profits, but the Clinton campaign used it nonetheless.

Happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ngdawg said:

@HSFBfan and other Republicans...

 

So there was this company called Cambridge Analytica that used people's information from Facebook to bombard them with political advertisements supporting Clinton. They were hired by the Clinton campaign and ran 5.9 million ads as opposed to Trump's 66,000. The election was as close as it was because of this. Of course, this was entirely illegal because it stole personal information and used it for profits, but the Clinton campaign used it nonetheless.

Happy?

R u telling me something i didn't know? This information has been public for years 

She also outspent him by a wide margin

And she lost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DownSouth said:

 

Mail "not making it" to the destination does not constitute fraud.

Agreed. That's basically what I said. 🤷‍♂️

9 minutes ago, DownSouth said:

If the ballot never makes it back to the post office, okay, that's a problem. I'm guessing the odds of that small % being your ballot (not a magazine, or junk mail, or a bill, etc) is going to be very-very small.

You're free to guess that I suppose. I'd love to hear some examples of actual steps taken to insure that 3.9 million ballots aren't at risk of being lost along that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

"Fraudulent" is obviously just Drumpf doing his usual Drumpfing.

That said, most credible studies show about out 3% of all mail never makes it to the intended destination. 3% of 130 million votes seems like a significant number, so "inaccurate" probably isn't a horribly unreasonable assumption. 🤷‍♂️

Links?  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

R u telling me something i didn't know? This information has been public for years 

She also outspent him by a wide margin

And she lost. 

You know what's weird? I accidentally flipped the names. Here's the correct version:

So there was this company called Cambridge Analytica that used people's information from Facebook to bombard them with political advertisements supporting Trump. They were hired by the Trump campaign and ran 5.9 million ads as opposed to Clinton's 66,000. The election was as close as it was because of this. Of course, this was entirely illegal because it stole personal information and used it for profits, but the Trump campaign used it nonetheless.

Don't believe me? Watch "The Great Hack" on Netflix. The show was produced by Republicans, I believe.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

Agreed. That's basically what I said. 🤷‍♂️

You're free to guess that I suppose. I'd love to hear some examples of actual steps taken to insure that 3.9 million ballots aren't at risk of being lost along that way. 

 

Since I don't work for the postal service, I'm not partial to that information.

I can assume that Trump being prickly over the thought of giving the Post Office their funding is done intentionally to make that issue more of...an issue (I think I read that the Post Office finally got funding approved).

I would hope that IF the effort was ever actually made, that on a nationwide scale, receipts and signatures would be issued upon your ballot getting to the proper voting destination, along with tracking numbers. 

Nevada and Washington seem to have it down quite well, I'm sure a couple other states can be included too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ngdawg said:

You know what's weird? I accidentally flipped the names. Here's the correct version:

So there was this company called Cambridge Analytica that used people's information from Facebook to bombard them with political advertisements supporting Trump. They were hired by the Trump campaign and ran 5.9 million ads as opposed to Clinton's 66,000. The election was as close as it was because of this. Of course, this was entirely illegal because it stole personal information and used it for profits, but the Trump campaign used it nonetheless.

Don't believe me? Watch "The Great Hack" on Netflix. The show was produced by Republicans, I believe.

And she still out spent him be a huge margin and still lost. Money doesn't buy elections 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

And she still out spent him be a huge margin and still lost. Money doesn't buy elections 

And yet Trump ran more digital advertisements than Hillary. Hillary even won the popular vote from what I remember, but lost to Trump based on the Electoral College.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ngdawg said:

And yet Trump ran more digital advertisements than Hillary. Hillary even won the popular vote from what I remember, but lost to Trump based on the Electoral College.

Popular vote means nothing zilch. The democrats own 2 of the biggest states in the country ca and NY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ngdawg said:

So how is this a democracy if popular vote means nothing? America then would be lying to itself and its citizens.

Because the EC is the only thing that matters. It makes sure every state counts and not just the most populated one

Our founding father made sure middle America had a voice 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

"Fraudulent" is obviously just Drumpf doing his usual Drumpfing.

..and this is obviously acceptable to you and WE should accept it too, right.....

No big deal....just trump!

Will you ever commit to be a trumper????....that's the real question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DownSouth said:

 

Since I don't work for the postal service, I'm not partial to that information.

I can assume that Trump being prickly over the thought of giving the Post Office their funding is done intentionally to make that issue more of...an issue (I think I read that the Post Office finally got funding approved).

I would hope that IF the effort was ever actually made, that on a nationwide scale, receipts and signatures would be issued upon your ballot getting to the proper voting destination, along with tracking numbers. 

Nevada and Washington seem to have it down quite well, I'm sure a couple other states can be included too.

I'd be perfectly fine with that. Probably not happening this cycle though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...