• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

Status
Not open for further replies.
To quote from another thread:
Or you could go see for yourself. Rasmussen is just the handle sharing. The material I am referring to are videos of hearings, documents, court cases etc.
 
I wonder if the number of eligible voters changes over the time between elections? People dying, moving, coming to voting age, etc.
Well of course there will be a number of metrics involved. Hence the reason why, in my mind, the rolls should be cleansed every four years, a year before the election. Less if they can get it done. The least amount of time between cleaning them and the election, the better.

Mind, it might not work for democrats. They don't usually vote until after they die.šŸ˜‚

I kid! I kid! Please don't take offence and climb up my ass. It's a joke.šŸ˜‰
 
How are they getting hundreds of mail-in ballots?

And if mail-in voting was so bad, why is the GOP pivoting on it this time around after lambasting it in the 2020 election (which may have cost them the election)?
Jesus, really? There are lots of convictions out there for this very thing. Do your own work and look it up instead of casting shade. You asked for sources, you were told Rasmussen had them, then you discount Rasmussen as not being credible without even looking.

Edit - here's one. You can find more on your own.

 
Last edited:
Jesus, really? There are lots of convictions out there for this very thing. Do your own work and look it up instead of casting shade. You asked for sources, you were told Rasmussen had them, then you discount Rasmussen as not being credible without even looking.

Edit - here's one. You can find more on your own.

Fair.
 
Jesus, really? There are lots of convictions out there for this very thing. Do your own work and look it up instead of casting shade. You asked for sources, you were told Rasmussen had them, then you discount Rasmussen as not being credible without even looking.

Edit - here's one. You can find more on your own.


While there may or may not be "lots of convictions" for this very thing (still to see any evidence), the case you provided as an example did not culminate in "a conviction". There was a "judgement" enter in this civil case that resulted in ordering a new primary for the Democratic party nomination for mayor.


1723599037461.png

Even with the redo, the result was the same. But then a cursory glance at Bridgeport municipal politics would elicit a 'WTF' regardless of whatever outcome. It's obviously a Dem's town and within the party it's an eat your young game.

Some interesting quotes from a local report on the later mayoral election(s),

As Bridgeport prepares for its third mayoral election in five months, political operatives in the city are, once again, locked in an all-out battle for absentee votes.
Ganim, who returned to the mayor's office in 2015 after serving seven years in prison on federal corruption charges, has relied heavily on absentee votes to win many of his most recent elections.
Municipal primaries in Connecticut are frequently low-turnout affairs, with less than a quarter of all eligible voters participating in those elections. And that is unlikely to improve in the new court-ordered primary where only two candidates are on the ballot.

That is part of the reason why both campaigns devoted large amounts of time and resources in the past three weeks boosting the absentee numbers.
Depending on the outcome of the new primary and future court proceedings, Bridgeport voters may be asked to return to the polls in February for a new general election, which would likely feature a fourth matchup between Ganim and Gomes.

And still mayor.

 
While there may or may not be "lots of convictions" for this very thing (still to see any evidence), the case you provided as an example did not culminate in "a conviction". There was a "judgement" enter in this civil case that resulted in ordering a new primary for the Democratic party nomination for mayor.


View attachment 87235

Even with the redo, the result was the same. But then a cursory glance at Bridgeport municipal politics would elicit a 'WTF' regardless of whatever outcome. It's obviously a Dem's town and within the party it's an eat your young game.

Some interesting quotes from a local report on the later mayoral election(s),






And still mayor.

I'll admit to mispeaking about convictions vice cases, but there have been convictions (see below) also. Other than that, the point is the system down there has a massive problem with fraud. Partially in stuffing drop boxes with bogus ballots. The question was asked about proof of drop box stuffing. I posted an article showing drop box stuffing. Whatever happened in court is secondary and not part of it. The discussion was about bogus ballots, so let's not get lost in the weeds. I appreciate the time and research you did and while welcome, I don't see any reason to pursue that point. Dimsum acknowledged my post and he appears to be satisfied bogus ballots and drop box stuffing are a real thing. I'll accept responsibility for the confusion.

Iowa officialā€™s wife convicted of 52 counts of voter fraud in ballot-stuffing scheme​


And a republican to boot
 
Last edited:
The point of election controls is to prevent fraud before it happens (maintain propriety) and increase confidence in integrity (maintain appearance of propriety). Not everything designed for the latter has to address a fault which has already been exploited. Regardless, weak points exploited in one place can be exploited elsewhere. Once the perception of fraud is established, trust is difficult to re-establish.
 
I remember after the 2020 election, Steve Crowder did an investigative report where he acquired a voter roll through FOIA and entered addresses into FedEx shipping cost estimator, and any that came back undeliverable he sent someone to check it out. A bunch of addresses turned out to not exist, most were either a vacant lot or the number was skipped in the sequence.

Twitter took it down as "unverified" even though the entire segment was the verification.
 
ā€œDictator on day oneā€ shirts next to a table with ā€œCome and Take Itā€ and ā€œDonā€™t Tread on Meā€ flags.

Irony is dead.


1723652142120.png
 
Not our (Canada's) election, but since we have Canadians commenting here, here's what Angus Reid & Co. have been hearing re: Canadian feels about Harris ....
1723654220813.png
 
ā€œDictator on day oneā€ shirts next to a table with ā€œCome and Take Itā€ and ā€œDonā€™t Tread on Meā€ flags.

Irony is dead.
Or you missed the point that they are taking the mickey out of people who fear that Trump really means he is going to be a dictator on day one.
 
Or you missed the point that they are taking the mickey out of people who fear that Trump really means he is going to be a dictator on day one.
Americans (in general) are not known for sarcasm. This is the country that had folks clutching pearls about litter boxes in classrooms for kids.

In this time of hyper-partisanship, even if those two were joking (which I doubt), there are folks on the GOP supporters side who would think it was real. Sarcasm only works if all sides of the joke know that itā€™s a joke.
 
Everyone on the planet knows Trump was tongue in cheek when responding to the accusations he'd be a dictator when he said with a smile: "only on day one".
 
I remember after the 2020 election, Steve Crowder did an investigative report where he acquired a voter roll through FOIA and entered addresses into FedEx shipping cost estimator, and any that came back undeliverable he sent someone to check it out. A bunch of addresses turned out to not exist, most were either a vacant lot or the number was skipped in the sequence.

Twitter took it down as "unverified" even though the entire segment was the verification.
Some states have absolutely deplorable voting registries, that one could drive a truck through.

In VA it is tied to the DMV, (which has requirements for Citizenship or Residency for the REAL ID). I was always curious when I was a GreenCard Holder what would have occurred if I attempted to register to vote - due to the fact there are some significant penalties for that I never did, but once I gained my US Citizenship all I needed to do was click the button to be added -- so I am curious as to what would happen if a non-citizen permanent resident did that.

We found out when going to vote that a friend of my wife when she went to vote in person that she was originally denied as she and her husband had sent in Mail in Ballots, which caused some consternation as her husband has passed in 2019. So there clearly are issues of voter fraud - the degree of that is debated heavily - most audits have shown that it isn't enough to tip the scales in any manner, but one tends to wonder about the accuracy of the audits and how the methods they employ are done.

While searching for some vote harvesting cases I also came across this.
So it is clear that some illegals are voting, and presumably not all are caught.
 
For the anti-Trumpers hanging their hat on the "34 felony convictions", Andrew McCarthy's analysis suggest you may have some real great news in the short term:


If this happens I predict Trump's popularity to get another bump and ultimately everything dumped on appeal. Due to the obvious electoral implications SCOTUS may even intervene right after sentencing.
 
Everyone on the planet knows Trump was tongue in cheek when responding to the accusations he'd be a dictator when he said with a smile: "only on day one".
Well, typing as someone on the planet who wonders what he meant, I can say you're not reading my mind correctly, so maybe it's not quite as absolute as you say ;)

We can't really be sure, though, given the same candidate has trouble pronouncing and/or spelling the names of his opponents, so hard to tell if he's serious, tongue in cheek, disrespectful (in the case of the misspelling/mispronunciations) or just being (dare I say it?) weird. #WordsMatter
 
Everyone on the planet knows Trump was tongue in cheek when responding to the accusations he'd be a dictator when he said with a smile: "only on day one".
Was the tongue in cheek part that he would be a dictator, or only on day one?

And no, not everyone on the planet knew that.
 
That was a tough one for y'all, hey?
Well, when his staff had to clarify his remarks with ā€œwhat he really meant wasā€¦ā€ multiple times during his tenure as POTUS, starting with the ā€œalternative factsā€ gem about the crowd at his inauguration, Iā€™m disinclined to believe that even he knows what heā€™s talking about half the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top