Kari Lake tweet this morning

[RaceBannon]

I'm surprised any of you keep arguing with Team Prog over this. They will never change their minds. They WANT no chain of custody. They WANT opportunity for fraud. Just like they are trying to change election laws to lets felons and illegals vote, etc. They have no valid reasons for wanting less verification, thus security, in the system. And because their position is indefensible, I mean who could possibly be against one citizen one verifiable vote, they have forced Jim Crow 2.0 into the lexicon. Same as it's always been. If your position has no basis in fairness, but you can't say that, blame racism. The progs here know that all the legislative efforts to loosen vote security are by design, to ensure Dems get elected. And if you complain about it, you must be a racist.

Republicans are going to have to figure out a way to win in this environment, and then when finally in power do not puss out, stand up to the charges of racism, and fix election laws state by state. See DeSantis, Ron, for ways to do that.

This but also.

It's obvious these people have no values or principles.

They don't care if they are hypocrites. They don't care if they are liars. They don't care if they've been proven wrong and given a [Citation]. They don't care if they apply moving standards and goalposts. They don't care if something is purely partisan. It's all just a means to an end for people who lack any internal morality. [/b][/i]

They are partisans and appartchiks who have internalized the party propaganda as part of their identity. They are demoocrats.

View attachment 53850

@MelloDawg @HHusky @BearsWiin consistently demonstrate it by parroting the party line. All while maintaining a delusional sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

What is my party line? Pretty certain I haven’t declared a party.

You just did

Again

And again

 

[MelloDawg]

Regardless of party, mail in voting and especially vote harvesting invite malarky and shenanigans by breaking the chain of custody and having no means of verifying a ballot was properly filled out by the person's name it bears. No ID, no precinct, signature verification is a joke, so it's mostly based on good faith, which the party who pushed Russian Collusion for 4 years is not entitled to.

If elections aren't secure, there's no way to validate them, and the party in power doesn't indict or investigate itself, so by the time Election Day rolls around, it's too late to challenge without a boatload of cash, volunteers, and a court willing to allow audits, which few are, because it's much easier to throw the problems back into the lap of the legislature and say, "you wanted this, you got it."

Speculation... the facts are that multiple studies have show that voter fraud is very very very rare... and it stands to reason. Who'd risk a felony from a few lousy votes? Personally I had to input my driver's license, they checked my signature[/b]

Good for you. In person voting is not a concern, like I said, voting by mail and vote harvesting are the issues.

Can't anyone explain, like you or @MelloDawg said has been done multiple times, where 26 million new votes came from in 2020. If there's an explanation that bests my speculation, I'd like to hear it, as I haven't yet, despite your confidence and assurances.

Sounds like it would hold up in a court of law to me. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Still haven't explained where 26 million new voters came from in 2022. Why are you ducking the question?

How many weeks will pass without an answer from those of you who claim and believe all mail-in-voting elections are squeaky clean and were in 2020 and 2022?

There have been explanations in links provided in this thread. That said, the “fraud cuz a pipe burst in Georgia and something something Venezuela and Dominion and the mules again” explanation is just easier to compute for some.

In other news, it’s almost 2023.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

Regardless of party, mail in voting and especially vote harvesting invite malarky and shenanigans by breaking the chain of custody and having no means of verifying a ballot was properly filled out by the person's name it bears. No ID, no precinct, signature verification is a joke, so it's mostly based on good faith, which the party who pushed Russian Collusion for 4 years is not entitled to.

If elections aren't secure, there's no way to validate them, and the party in power doesn't indict or investigate itself, so by the time Election Day rolls around, it's too late to challenge without a boatload of cash, volunteers, and a court willing to allow audits, which few are, because it's much easier to throw the problems back into the lap of the legislature and say, "you wanted this, you got it."

Speculation... the facts are that multiple studies have show that voter fraud is very very very rare... and it stands to reason. Who'd risk a felony from a few lousy votes? Personally I had to input my driver's license, they checked my signature[/b]

Good for you. In person voting is not a concern, like I said, voting by mail and vote harvesting are the issues.

Can't anyone explain, like you or @MelloDawg said has been done multiple times, where 26 million new votes came from in 2020. If there's an explanation that bests my speculation, I'd like to hear it, as I haven't yet, despite your confidence and assurances.

Sounds like it would hold up in a court of law to me. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Still haven't explained where 26 million new voters came from in 2022. Why are you ducking the question?

How many weeks will pass without an answer from those of you who claim and believe all mail-in-voting elections are squeaky clean and were in 2020 and 2022?

There have been explanations in links provided in this thread. That said, the “fraud cuz a pipe burst in Georgia and something something Venezuela and Dominion and the mules again” explanation is just easier to compute for some.

In other news, it’s almost 2023.

And yet you swallowed "studies show" without [Citation]. Studies...

Right along party lines.

 

[HHusky]

Regardless of party, mail in voting and especially vote harvesting invite malarky and shenanigans by breaking the chain of custody and having no means of verifying a ballot was properly filled out by the person's name it bears. No ID, no precinct, signature verification is a joke, so it's mostly based on good faith, which the party who pushed Russian Collusion for 4 years is not entitled to.

If elections aren't secure, there's no way to validate them, and the party in power doesn't indict or investigate itself, so by the time Election Day rolls around, it's too late to challenge without a boatload of cash, volunteers, and a court willing to allow audits, which few are, because it's much easier to throw the problems back into the lap of the legislature and say, "you wanted this, you got it."

Speculation... the facts are that multiple studies have show that voter fraud is very very very rare... and it stands to reason. Who'd risk a felony from a few lousy votes? Personally I had to input my driver's license, they checked my signature[/b]

Good for you. In person voting is not a concern, like I said, voting by mail and vote harvesting are the issues.

Can't anyone explain, like you or @MelloDawg said has been done multiple times, where 26 million new votes came from in 2020. If there's an explanation that bests my speculation, I'd like to hear it, as I haven't yet, despite your confidence and assurances.

Sounds like it would hold up in a court of law to me. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Still haven't explained where 26 million new voters came from in 2022. Why are you ducking the question?

How many weeks will pass without an answer from those of you who claim and believe all mail-in-voting elections are squeaky clean and were in 2020 and 2022?

There have been explanations in links provided in this thread. That said, the “fraud cuz a pipe burst in Georgia and something something Venezuela and Dominion and the mules again” explanation is just easier to compute for some.

In other news, it’s almost 2023.

And yet you swallowed "studies show" without [Citation]. Studies...

Right along party lines.

Higher voter turnout = More votes?

TugCons can’t be sure. Need an unbiased study.

 

[TurdBomber]

Regardless of party, mail in voting and especially vote harvesting invite malarky and shenanigans by breaking the chain of custody and having no means of verifying a ballot was properly filled out by the person's name it bears. No ID, no precinct, signature verification is a joke, so it's mostly based on good faith, which the party who pushed Russian Collusion for 4 years is not entitled to.

If elections aren't secure, there's no way to validate them, and the party in power doesn't indict or investigate itself, so by the time Election Day rolls around, it's too late to challenge without a boatload of cash, volunteers, and a court willing to allow audits, which few are, because it's much easier to throw the problems back into the lap of the legislature and say, "you wanted this, you got it."

Speculation... the facts are that multiple studies have show that voter fraud is very very very rare... and it stands to reason. Who'd risk a felony from a few lousy votes? Personally I had to input my driver's license, they checked my signature[/b]

Good for you. In person voting is not a concern, like I said, voting by mail and vote harvesting are the issues.

Can't anyone explain, like you or @MelloDawg said has been done multiple times, where 26 million new votes came from in 2020. If there's an explanation that bests my speculation, I'd like to hear it, as I haven't yet, despite your confidence and assurances.

look man, stop citing anything but proof of fraud. There is no end to the way you can take reality, be selective of the facts, and come up with something that looks suspicious.... but basically here is some infohttps://www.brookings.edu/research/...publican-voting-groups-new-census-data-shows/

I know we're all shocked that TurdForBrains is still mindlessly repeating his question on the next page.

'Cuz he was really curious.

somebody should tip off ShitForBrainsBomber that there is this new invention since the internet called the "search engine." Altavista is a possibility. You type in things like "compare 2016 2020 election" and then you get links to a number of reports, typically from think-tanks run by a lot of people with Ivy League educations.

So the answer is that you're too lazy or incapable of answering a basic simple question, and still swallow "Ivy League educations" - the Homes for Woke Culture and Racial Segregation - as credible sources for your information.

Of course I am incapable on my own of answering the question[/b] since I don't have fucking data in front of me. That's why, einstein, you look it up.

Libtard Hallmark.

JFC that's fucking Gold.

 

[HHusky]

Regardless of party, mail in voting and especially vote harvesting invite malarky and shenanigans by breaking the chain of custody and having no means of verifying a ballot was properly filled out by the person's name it bears. No ID, no precinct, signature verification is a joke, so it's mostly based on good faith, which the party who pushed Russian Collusion for 4 years is not entitled to.

If elections aren't secure, there's no way to validate them, and the party in power doesn't indict or investigate itself, so by the time Election Day rolls around, it's too late to challenge without a boatload of cash, volunteers, and a court willing to allow audits, which few are, because it's much easier to throw the problems back into the lap of the legislature and say, "you wanted this, you got it."

Speculation... the facts are that multiple studies have show that voter fraud is very very very rare... and it stands to reason. Who'd risk a felony from a few lousy votes? Personally I had to input my driver's license, they checked my signature[/b]

Good for you. In person voting is not a concern, like I said, voting by mail and vote harvesting are the issues.

Can't anyone explain, like you or @MelloDawg said has been done multiple times, where 26 million new votes came from in 2020. If there's an explanation that bests my speculation, I'd like to hear it, as I haven't yet, despite your confidence and assurances.

look man, stop citing anything but proof of fraud. There is no end to the way you can take reality, be selective of the facts, and come up with something that looks suspicious.... but basically here is some infohttps://www.brookings.edu/research/...publican-voting-groups-new-census-data-shows/

I know we're all shocked that TurdForBrains is still mindlessly repeating his question on the next page.

'Cuz he was really curious.

somebody should tip off ShitForBrainsBomber that there is this new invention since the internet called the "search engine." Altavista is a possibility. You type in things like "compare 2016 2020 election" and then you get links to a number of reports, typically from think-tanks run by a lot of people with Ivy League educations.

So the answer is that you're too lazy or incapable of answering a basic simple question, and still swallow "Ivy League educations" - the Homes for Woke Culture and Racial Segregation - as credible sources for your information.

Of course I am incapable on my own of answering the question[/b] since I don't have fucking data in front of me. That's why, einstein, you look it up.

Libtard Hallmark.

JFC that's fucking Gold.

26 million “new” votes POTD

 

[TurdBomber]

Regardless of party, mail in voting and especially vote harvesting invite malarky and shenanigans by breaking the chain of custody and having no means of verifying a ballot was properly filled out by the person's name it bears. No ID, no precinct, signature verification is a joke, so it's mostly based on good faith, which the party who pushed Russian Collusion for 4 years is not entitled to.

If elections aren't secure, there's no way to validate them, and the party in power doesn't indict or investigate itself, so by the time Election Day rolls around, it's too late to challenge without a boatload of cash, volunteers, and a court willing to allow audits, which few are, because it's much easier to throw the problems back into the lap of the legislature and say, "you wanted this, you got it."

Speculation... the facts are that multiple studies have show that voter fraud is very very very rare... and it stands to reason. Who'd risk a felony from a few lousy votes? Personally I had to input my driver's license, they checked my signature[/b]

Good for you. In person voting is not a concern, like I said, voting by mail and vote harvesting are the issues.

Can't anyone explain, like you or @MelloDawg said has been done multiple times, where 26 million new votes came from in 2020. If there's an explanation that bests my speculation, I'd like to hear it, as I haven't yet, despite your confidence and assurances.

Sounds like it would hold up in a court of law to me. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Still haven't explained where 26 million new voters came from in 2022. Why are you ducking the question?

How many weeks will pass without an answer from those of you who claim and believe all mail-in-voting elections are squeaky clean and were in 2020 and 2022?

There have been explanations in links provided in this thread. That said, the “fraud cuz a pipe burst in Georgia and something something Venezuela and Dominion and the mules again” explanation is just easier to compute for some.

In other news, it’s almost 2023.[/b]

Well, well. Look who's moving on. [/b]

And the irony is completely lost on him.

 

[TurdBomber]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

 

[HHusky]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

 

[TurdBomber]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

 

[HHusky]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

And yet it amounts to a pedestrian 62-64% participation rate. 2008 was a little lower, but over 60. 2012 and 2016 were mid 50s.

#NewVotes!

 

[TurdBomber]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

And yet it amounts to a pedestrian 62-64% participation rate. 2008 was a little lower. 2012 and 2016 were mid 50s

Like I've asked all day long: Explain the massive increase.

 

[HHusky]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

And yet it amounts to a pedestrian 62-64% participation rate. 2008 was a little lower. 2012 and 2016 were mid 50s

Like I've asked all day long: Explain the massive increase.

8 - 10 % more of the electorate cared enough to vote as compared to 2016.

Like people have been answering you.

All day.

 

[TurdBomber]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

And yet it amounts to a pedestrian 62-64% participation rate. 2008 was a little lower. 2012 and 2016 were mid 50s

Like I've asked all day long: Explain the massive increase.

8 - 10 % more of the electorate cared enough to have others vote for them[/b][/i] as compared to 2016.

Like people have been answering you.

All day.

Unfortunately, due to vote harvesting in critical states, you'll never be able to prove otherwise with mail-in voting.

Which warms your heart, I'm sure.

 

[Sledog]

I'm surprised any of you keep arguing with Team Prog over this. They will never change their minds. They WANT no chain of custody. They WANT opportunity for fraud. Just like they are trying to change election laws to lets felons and illegals vote, etc. They have no valid reasons for wanting less verification, thus security, in the system. And because their position is indefensible, I mean who could possibly be against one citizen one verifiable vote, they have forced Jim Crow 2.0 into the lexicon. Same as it's always been. If your position has no basis in fairness, but you can't say that, blame racism. The progs here know that all the legislative efforts to loosen vote security are by design, to ensure Dems get elected. And if you complain about it, you must be a racist.

Republicans are going to have to figure out a way to win in this environment, and then when finally in power do not puss out, stand up to the charges of racism, and fix election laws state by state. See DeSantis, Ron, for ways to do that.

This but also.

It's obvious these people have no values or principles.

They don't care if they are hypocrites. They don't care if they are liars. They don't care if they've been proven wrong and given a [Citation]. They don't care if they apply moving standards and goalposts. They don't care if something is purely partisan. It's all just a means to an end for people who lack any internal morality.

They are partisans and appartchiks who have internalized the party propaganda as part of their identity. They are demoocrats.

View attachment 53850

@MelloDawg @HHusky @BearsWiin consistently demonstrate it by parroting the party line. All while maintaining a delusional sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

What is my party line? Pretty certain I haven’t declared a party.

All commie all the time. Centrist communist I'm sure.

 

[HHusky]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

And yet it amounts to a pedestrian 62-64% participation rate. 2008 was a little lower. 2012 and 2016 were mid 50s

Like I've asked all day long: Explain the massive increase.

8 - 10 % more of the electorate cared enough to have others vote for them[/b][/i] as compared to 2016.

Like people have been answering you.

All day.

Unfortunately, due to vote harvesting in critical states, you'll never be able to prove otherwise with mail-in voting.

Which warms your heart, I'm sure.

So your question wasn’t an honest one. Imagine my surprise.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

Regardless of party, mail in voting and especially vote harvesting invite malarky and shenanigans by breaking the chain of custody and having no means of verifying a ballot was properly filled out by the person's name it bears. No ID, no precinct, signature verification is a joke, so it's mostly based on good faith, which the party who pushed Russian Collusion for 4 years is not entitled to.

If elections aren't secure, there's no way to validate them, and the party in power doesn't indict or investigate itself, so by the time Election Day rolls around, it's too late to challenge without a boatload of cash, volunteers, and a court willing to allow audits, which few are, because it's much easier to throw the problems back into the lap of the legislature and say, "you wanted this, you got it."

Speculation... the facts are that multiple studies have show that voter fraud is very very very rare... and it stands to reason. Who'd risk a felony from a few lousy votes? Personally I had to input my driver's license, they checked my signature[/b]

Good for you. In person voting is not a concern, like I said, voting by mail and vote harvesting are the issues.

Can't anyone explain, like you or @MelloDawg said has been done multiple times, where 26 million new votes came from in 2020. If there's an explanation that bests my speculation, I'd like to hear it, as I haven't yet, despite your confidence and assurances.

Sounds like it would hold up in a court of law to me. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Still haven't explained where 26 million new voters came from in 2022. Why are you ducking the question?

How many weeks will pass without an answer from those of you who claim and believe all mail-in-voting elections are squeaky clean and were in 2020 and 2022?

There have been explanations in links provided in this thread. That said, the “fraud cuz a pipe burst in Georgia and something something Venezuela and Dominion and the mules again” explanation is just easier to compute for some.

In other news, it’s almost 2023.

And yet you swallowed "studies show" without [Citation]. Studies...

Right along party lines.

Higher voter turnout = More votes?

TugCons can’t be sure. Need an unbiased study.

I'm sorry mam but you don't qualify as a study.

[Citation Needed]

 

[hardhat]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

And yet it amounts to a pedestrian 62-64% participation rate. 2008 was a little lower. 2012 and 2016 were mid 50s

Like I've asked all day long: Explain the massive increase.

8 - 10 % more of the electorate cared enough to have others vote for them[/b][/i] as compared to 2016.

Like people have been answering you.

All day.

Unfortunately, due to vote harvesting in critical states, you'll never be able to prove otherwise with mail-in voting.

Which warms your heart, I'm sure.

So your question wasn’t an honest one. Imagine my surprise.

Who better to judge honesty than you?

 

[HHusky]

Daddy got 12 million of the “new” votes, ladies.

Mules?

#QuiteAConspiracy

 

[TurdBomber]

'04 122 million votes
'08 130 million votes
'12 127 million votes
'16 129 million votes
'20 155 million votes

Nothing to see here, say the libtards. It's 2023. Move on.

Two low voter participation rate elections followed by one that saw relatively high voter participation by recent standards. Voter participation over 60% is too far fetched for TurdForBrains.

Largest increase in past 2020 years was 8 million who turned out for Obama. Ever seen a more compelling candidate?

Yes! In 2020! A geriatric fool from his basement who couldn't draw flies in public trounces Hillary's count by 15 million votes.

81 Million Votes!! Who can reasonably question that? More compelling and popular candidate than Obama!

Wanna buy a bridge?

And yet it amounts to a pedestrian 62-64% participation rate. 2008 was a little lower. 2012 and 2016 were mid 50s

Like I've asked all day long: Explain the massive increase.

8 - 10 % more of the electorate cared enough to vote as compared to 2016.[/b]

Like people have been answering you.

All day.

20% Increase over 2016, actually.

Not that it matters anymore than voting security to you.