Vote suppression efforts lose again

  • Thread starter Thread starter puer.dei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll state again that I’m now an independent, but it’s a stark difference when one party wants as many people to legally vote as possible, an the other party is, as an election strategy, trying to deny the counting of some peoples votes, usually in strongholds of the opposite party.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
I’ll state again that I’m now an independent, but it’s a stark difference when one party wants as many people to legally vote as possible, an the other party has, as an election strategy, trying to deny the counting of some peoples votes, usually in strongholds of the opposite party.
Click to expand...
Gee, why is that Paul? Have you seen the ballot harvesting videos from Texas?

I wonder why the Republicans want to keep a close eye on the vote tabulating?

 
when should we believe her-- when she didn’t know she was being recorded or when she was in danger of prosecution?
 
Annie said:
when should we believe her-- when she didn’t know she was being recorded or when she was in danger of prosecution?
Click to expand...
Since she was just blathering, and no actual actions have been proven, just move on. People say things all the time.
 
But Trump, when he was joking with the radio-announcer Bush about seducing a married woman by taking her to a furniture store, he wasn’t joking around (despite the laughter).

Got it.
 
I thought in one court, I heard on the radio, they were going to disallow some late votes (not Pennsylvania) but I did not see it as a big reason to come here and write up “Voter Fraud Loses Again”.
 
Annie said:
But Trump, when he was joking with the radio-announcer Bush about seducing a married woman by taking her to a furniture store, he wasn’t joking around (despite the laughter).

Got it.
Click to expand...
If the woman talking to the Veritas people had a history of voter fraud, then your comment would make sense.

Trump has a history of adultery, and in your example was talking about attempted adultery.
 
Evidence is against the part of the tape he was vilified for. I was just trying to be discreet in how I referenced what I was saying.

Anyway, back to the topic…
 
27lw said:
“I lied” says the self-confessed liar.
So when do we believe her? 🤣
Click to expand...
I agree with you. However, OKeefe doesn’t have a sterling reputation.

Whatever. Let the AG investigate.
 
27lw said:
“I lied” says the self-confessed liar.
So when do we believe her? 🤣
Click to expand...
In general, I take the position that there is little or no information to be taken from an untrusted source. Testimony from an untrusted source does not support either conclusion. Thus, as @PaulinVA said, it is appropriate to move on.
 
PaulinVA said:
40.png
27lw:
“I lied” says the self-confessed liar.
So when do we believe her? 🤣
Click to expand...
I agree with you. However, OKeefe doesn’t have a sterling reputation.

Whatever. Let the AG investigate.
Click to expand...
O’Keeffe doesn’t have a sterling reputation? With the lamestream media? I wonder why. Ever heard of ACORN?

“Whatever”. 🤣
 
Last edited:
ThinkingSapien said:
40.png
27lw:
“I lied” says the self-confessed liar.
So when do we believe her? 🤣
Click to expand...
In general, I take the position that there is little or no information to be taken from an untrusted source. Testimony from an untrusted source does not support either conclusion. Thus, as @PaulinVA said, it is appropriate to move on.
Click to expand...
Yes, let’s move on when there’s something damaging to the liberal faction.
Let’s wallow in it if it’s damaging to conservatives.
 
27lw said:
Yes, let’s move on when there’s something damaging to the liberal faction.
Click to expand...
Whether it is helpful or hurtful to any part isn’t relevant. This is an epistemological stance.
27lw said:
Let’s wallow in it if it’s damaging to conservatives.
Click to expand...
It looks like you are making an argument in favour of cognitive bias. Consider this, if one person made a statement that was harmful to the GOP and the retracted it, and one person made a statement harmful to the Democratic Party and then retracted it, is there some party neutral rule that you can come up with on how to treat both incidents?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
40.png
27lw:
Yes, let’s move on when there’s something damaging to the liberal faction.
Click to expand...
Whether it is helpful or hurtful to any part isn’t relevant. This is an epistemological stance.
27lw said:
Let’s wallow in it if it’s damaging to conservatives.
Click to expand...
It looks like you are making an argument in favour of cognitive bias. Consider this, if one person made a statement that was harmful to the GOP and the retracted it, and one person made a statement harmful to the Democratic Party and then retracted it, is there some party neutral rule that you can come up with on how to treat both incidents?
Click to expand...
I’m speaking on behalf of the lamestream media.
 
People have a right to integrity of the voting system.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Mandela said so but now, it’s some bogeyman to assert one’s rights?
 
27lw said:
I’m speaking on behalf of the lamestream media.
Click to expand...
The story was being covered by local media. A San Antonio station covered the story for what a woman said in San Antonio. I don’t know what criteria that you use for classifying news reporting entities, or what entity you would consider to be a more appropriate source.
 
Last edited:
Get an ID?! To vote?!
I didn’t know that Nelson Mandela is in favor of voter suppression!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top