Gotta love those ballot dumps if you are a marxist

Teflon Don said:
I think the term ballot dump is self explanatory

Apparently you think it is normal to not have an election decided almost a week after it happens.

I can say this. If you were going to cheat, this is how you would do it.

And if you can't have faith in your election process you can't have a functioning constitutional republic.

There should be zero reasons Commiefornistan can't count their votes in a reasonable time. Similar size states are able to do it
Click to expand...
In California it is normal. California officials, including Newsom, admit they're slow.

It took 39 days to certify Arnold Schwarzenegger's win.

Slow doesn't mean cheating.
 
Last edited:
HKQzDGGbkAAgR8B
 
ZenMode said:
In California it is normal. California officials, including Newsom, admit they're slow.

It took 39 days to certify Arnold Schwarzenegger's win.

Slow doesn't mean cheating.
Click to expand...
Like I said, if you were going to cheat, this is exactly how you would do it.

I really do want to give you kudos for trying to be cute with the language to try to obfuscate the point.

While technically, you are correct that the recall of Ahnald was not officially certified until November 14th (the recall happened on October 7th), everyone pretty much knew from the vote and exit polling that Ahnald beat Davis. In fact Davis conceded that night.

I think even a marxist like you would admit that there is a difference between official certification and knowing who won.

But, for shits and giggles. Let's stick with your example of Ahnald and the recall of Grey Davis. That was in 2003 if I am not mistaken. It has been 23 years and still Commiefornistan can't get their shit together?

Don't you guys brag about being the most advanced state in country, possibly even the world? You have all of these tech companies in your back yard and after 23 years you still can't get it right.

The point is that while there is no definitive proof of cheating (that is true). There is no definitive proof that there isn't. And if you were going to cheat, this is how you would do it.

Oddly enough it is always the marxists who stand as a roadblock to any policies that would improve election integrity and the publics trust in the outcome.
 
Teflon Don said:
Like I said, if you were going to cheat, this is exactly how you would do it.

I really do want to give you kudos for trying to be cute with the language to try to obfuscate the point.

While technically, you are correct that the recall of Ahnald was not officially certified until November 14th (the recall happened on October 7th), everyone pretty much knew from the vote and exit polling that Ahnald beat Davis. In fact Davis conceded that night.

I think even a marxist like you would admit that there is a difference between official certification and knowing who won.

But, for shits and giggles. Let's stick with your example of Ahnald and the recall of Grey Davis. That was in 2003 if I am not mistaken. It has been 23 years and still Commiefornistan can't get their shit together?

Don't you guys brag about being the most advanced state in country, possibly even the world? You have all of these tech companies in your back yard and after 23 years you still can't get it right.

The point is that while there is no definitive proof of cheating (that is true). There is no definitive proof that there isn't. And if you were going to cheat, this is how you would do it.

Oddly enough it is always the marxists who stand as a roadblock to any policies that would improve election integrity and the publics trust in the outcome.
Click to expand...
Nothing happens fast in California... nothing. They are mocked constantly for their high speed rail, home building and, yes, counting votes.

Again, being slow isn't cheating but, on the Right, claims of cheating don't require proof.
 
ZenMode said:
Nothing happens fast in California... nothing. They are mocked constantly for their high speed rail, home building and, yes, counting votes.

Again, being slow isn't cheating but, on the Right, claims of cheating don't require proof.
Click to expand...
ok so you are stupid is that what you are saying?

I can live with that. But you cheat too
 
Teflon Don said:
Like I said, if you were going to cheat, this is exactly how you would do it.

I really do want to give you kudos for trying to be cute with the language to try to obfuscate the point.

While technically, you are correct that the recall of Ahnald was not officially certified until November 14th (the recall happened on October 7th), everyone pretty much knew from the vote and exit polling that Ahnald beat Davis. In fact Davis conceded that night.

I think even a marxist like you would admit that there is a difference between official certification and knowing who won.

But, for shits and giggles. Let's stick with your example of Ahnald and the recall of Grey Davis. That was in 2003 if I am not mistaken. It has been 23 years and still Commiefornistan can't get their shit together?

Don't you guys brag about being the most advanced state in country, possibly even the world? You have all of these tech companies in your back yard and after 23 years you still can't get it right.

The point is that while there is no definitive proof of cheating (that is true). There is no definitive proof that there isn't. And if you were going to cheat, this is how you would do it.

Oddly enough it is always the marxists who stand as a roadblock to any policies that would improve election integrity and the publics trust in the outcome.
Click to expand...
So come up with some evidence of fraud and I'd pay attention, dont just lie and guess. That is the mark of a lame person.
 
Teflon Don said:
Like I said, if you were going to cheat, this is exactly how you would do it.

I really do want to give you kudos for trying to be cute with the language to try to obfuscate the point.

While technically, you are correct that the recall of Ahnald was not officially certified until November 14th (the recall happened on October 7th), everyone pretty much knew from the vote and exit polling that Ahnald beat Davis. In fact Davis conceded that night.

I think even a marxist like you would admit that there is a difference between official certification and knowing who won.

But, for shits and giggles. Let's stick with your example of Ahnald and the recall of Grey Davis. That was in 2003 if I am not mistaken. It has been 23 years and still Commiefornistan can't get their shit together?

Don't you guys brag about being the most advanced state in country, possibly even the world? You have all of these tech companies in your back yard and after 23 years you still can't get it right.

The point is that while there is no definitive proof of cheating (that is true). There is no definitive proof that there isn't. And if you were going to cheat, this is how you would do it.

Oddly enough it is always the marxists who stand as a roadblock to any policies that would improve election integrity and the publics trust in the outcome.
Click to expand...
"The point is that while there is no definitive proof of cheating (that is true). There is no definitive proof that there isn't."

What does that even mean? There's no definitive proof that Big Foot doesn't exist. There's no definitive proof that there isn't actually a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top