So you have none. I Understand. I've seen 0 Stats presented. You are a liar.
Now that they rigged Pratt out who wins?
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
OK. At least I don't sell aftermarket warranties for a living.
You posted that shit.
Rin, rin away.
Wasn’t the question
Socialism Def
For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'Socialism def' themselves.letmegooglethat.com
Sorry I should be more clear.... Spelling does not interest me as long as the reader is intelligent to understand the meaning. And if the reader is not intelligent enough to understand, Then I also dont caer.
Still waiting on the source of your definition of socialism
“Socialist (noun): A devout adherent of the one true faith known as Socialism, a secular religion whose central sacrament is the belief that human nature can be perfected through enough government coercion, wealth redistribution, and the ritual denunciation of "greed" (defined as anyone producing more than they consume under the new rules).“
I would expect nothing more from you. Your lack of accuracy reflects on your OP's
Readers are not required to guess at what the author is posting.
TIFY. Good thing you only need a phone to make a living.
cawacko
Well-known member
Just asking your opinion, not a gotcha thing. What are your thoughts on the DSA's?
Poor anchovies,
Socialism Def
For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'Socialism def' themselves.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Rules that are rigged by the majority party.
Do you really believe that the jungle primary was put in place to help Republicans?
The worse lies are the ones you tell yourself.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Besides, where did he get the guarantee that the rules would/were/will be equally enforced?
From what I've seen 3/4 of the laws in this country are only enforced when it advantages an agenda, not when they are violated.
They call is "discretion".
They can exercise "discretion" by not investigating, not arresting if they investigate, and not charging if they arrest.
I have no doubt that when republicans try to cheat, they are swiftly intercepted. Hilariously that has actually been used as a talking point. "oh look only four republicans".
Rules thee me but not for me describes left-tribe grand strategy at a federal level and no doubt it extends down nearly to the grass roots.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right, so Trump's justice department confirmed that there was no "zero votes" update for Pratt. The update just came in two parts, 60 seconds apart.
You're making up scenarios to defend what you want to believe.
She admitted to it BUT the second ballot was rejected by the state before she admitted it Oh, and she was charged with 5 felonies. Part of the reason people don't commit voter fraud is because the legal penalties are harsh.
Proof of residence or identification is not required for citizens to register to vote in state elections nor is it required to cast a ballot in state elections. However, proof of residence and registration is required for first-time voters to vote in a federal election. As a result, the 2022 primary ballot cast in Maya Jean’s name was challenged and rejected. The 2021 election to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom was voted down by 61.9% of voters.
Costa Mesa Woman Charged with Five Felonies for Illegally Registering Her Dog to Vote, Casting Mail-in Ballots Sent to Dog in Two Elections - Orange County District Attorney
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: September 5, 2025 Case # 25WF3945 ...
ocdistrictattorney.gov
States, especially when Trump is President are going to resist turning over voter info AND they should. The Constitution says that STATES run elections, not the Federal government.
As I mentioned above, the Constitution says STATES run elections. I hope all those states win.
You're making things up again. There's no reason that any election can't be audited. When Trump lied and claim a bunch of illegal ballots in Georigia, Georgia came back with the exact numbers of deceased, felons, etc that voted.
There is no pattern and there's no evidence of anything being widespread.
You're making things up again.
As long as you ignore the fact that a movie that claimed up to 10,000 mules didn't show a SINGLE mule in the entire movie.
2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View: https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/2064492962323874068
2000 mules has not been meaningfully debunked.
The laws apply equally to both parties and all voters.
You're making things up again.
You're making things up... again.
I see you making things up to reinforce what you want to believe.
On this we agree. If it's raining, you don't have to make up the existence of rain clouds.
No. You relayed a very, very, very small number of incidents and then made up the rest to convince yourself of what you want to believe.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Again, there is no rigging. Both parties operate under the same rules. Actual rigging would create one set up rules for one party and different rules for the other.
I can't read minds, but I think excluding party from elections is a FANTASTIC idea.
What are those?
The Supremacy Clause is directly relevant to this dispute, but it does not automatically give the federal government unlimited authority over state election administration. State authority over elections is strong, particularly for purely state and local races like the LA mayoral primary, though federal laws can preempt conflicting state rules in specific areas.
Federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution (e.g., NVRA, HAVA, Civil Rights Act provisions) are the "supreme Law of the Land" and preempt conflicting state laws. If a valid federal statute requires states to provide certain records or maintain rolls in a specific way, states cannot refuse based on their own privacy laws.
In criminal prosecutions for voter fraud or election crimes, circumstantial evidence is routinely admissible and can support conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court in Holland v. United States (1954) upheld convictions based substantially on circumstantial evidence (net-worth method in a tax case), stating that such evidence is not inherently inferior and can be sufficient when it meets the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Appellate courts have long held that criminal convictions may rest entirely on circumstantial evidence if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Concrete examples in voter fraud contexts include federal and state prosecutions where patterns in registration forms, absentee ballot requests sent to incorrect addresses, unsigned or improperly witnessed ballots, and coordinated submissions supported inferences of fraud. A 2023 federal jury conviction in Iowa for a 2020 voter fraud scheme relied on court documents and trial evidence showing the defendant submitted or caused submission of dozens of forms with false information; the scheme involved inferences from documentary patterns and actions taken on behalf of others.
In civil election contests seeking to overturn or challenge certified results, circumstantial evidence is also applicable but must satisfy the specific statutory standard—typically proof that fraud or misconduct occurred and was outcome-determinative (exceeded the certified margin and changed the result). Courts can evaluate whether the inferences drawn are reasonable and supported, not speculative if the case is heard.
No uniform national quantum exists for “how much circumstantial evidence suffices” to prove outcome-determinative fraud in an election contest; it varies by state statute and judicial application.
Federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution (e.g., NVRA, HAVA, Civil Rights Act provisions) are the "supreme Law of the Land" and preempt conflicting state laws. If a valid federal statute requires states to provide certain records or maintain rolls in a specific way, states cannot refuse based on their own privacy laws.
In criminal prosecutions for voter fraud or election crimes, circumstantial evidence is routinely admissible and can support conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court in Holland v. United States (1954) upheld convictions based substantially on circumstantial evidence (net-worth method in a tax case), stating that such evidence is not inherently inferior and can be sufficient when it meets the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Appellate courts have long held that criminal convictions may rest entirely on circumstantial evidence if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Concrete examples in voter fraud contexts include federal and state prosecutions where patterns in registration forms, absentee ballot requests sent to incorrect addresses, unsigned or improperly witnessed ballots, and coordinated submissions supported inferences of fraud. A 2023 federal jury conviction in Iowa for a 2020 voter fraud scheme relied on court documents and trial evidence showing the defendant submitted or caused submission of dozens of forms with false information; the scheme involved inferences from documentary patterns and actions taken on behalf of others.
In civil election contests seeking to overturn or challenge certified results, circumstantial evidence is also applicable but must satisfy the specific statutory standard—typically proof that fraud or misconduct occurred and was outcome-determinative (exceeded the certified margin and changed the result). Courts can evaluate whether the inferences drawn are reasonable and supported, not speculative if the case is heard.
No uniform national quantum exists for “how much circumstantial evidence suffices” to prove outcome-determinative fraud in an election contest; it varies by state statute and judicial application.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
when one party SET the rules for both parties to operate under then that party is rigging the game.
It is like saying that the elk and the pack of wolves are operating under the same rules.
You are a silly little rabbit
ZenMode
Well-known member
How? Aren't the majority of laws passed, at the state, local and federal level, passed when one party has a majority?
No. It's like saying the elk and elk are operating under the same rules... because they ARE.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Two parts, for three candidates? Why?
You're ignoring complexity and patterns to proclaim what you want to believe.
Doesn't look like it:
Did dog illegally vote in California election? Sniffing out the truth
Prosecutors said a vote cast in the dog's name was counted in California's 2021 gubernatorial recall election.
www.snopes.com
An investigation reportedly uncovered a social media post from January 2022 in which Yourex posted a photo of the dog wearing an "I voted" sticker
The election was in November 8, 2022
Now, this is how I was taught the months: November comes after January.
Gasp, are you making things up to defend what you want to believe?
Also "an obviously dog ballot only counted once!"... kinda an concession disguised as a victoy.
I haven't a clue what relevance you think that has.
Looks like punishing people who threaten the conspiracy to me.
No, they aren't because they're never caught, because nobody in power wants them caught.
The penalties for threatening democrat power by seeking or exposing the truth, now those are harsh.
Prove it. (You can't that would require auditability)
They don't trust Trump, I don't trust them.
The difference is that you seem to think that reasonable honest people are obliged to admit that legitimate elections are held even though these abominations are not auditable and the people who run them resist and subvert all attempts to establish their legitimacy.
The burden of proof is not on the doubter. If they want to be treated as legitimate authorities by right of democracy, they need to prove they were democratically empowered.
You act as if you can give some excuse and the roadblock defaults back to "oh well guess we just have to trust the authoritea (Cartman voice)", No, roadblock to proving the election and the default is no mandate, no authority, no owed obedience (if there ever was any).
Tell it to the voting rights act.
You can hope what you want, but you won't win the debate with red herrings.
The people are legally owed democracy, not excuses.
I just conducted an election in my kitchen. The vote was 300 million for me as supreme leader, 5 for other people.
Audit the election or admit that some elections can't be audited.
Hilarious how you just skipped right over the video.
Here it is again:
View: https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/2064492962323874068?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2064492962323874068%7Ctwgr%5E09cdd5b1f296936723ede83ecc4c2bc76daeb27f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justplainpolitics.com%2Fthreads%2Fnow-that-they-rigged-pratt-out-who-wins.248258%2Fpage-4
That's what they said about Jim Crow.
I relayed more than the number that would be expected to be observed if there was cheating of a scale great enough to effect outcome. Here are some more: