Fraud season is here

archives said:
Don’t usually bother responding to deflections, but as asked above, “proof that dead people,“illegals,” “illegal aliens” or “noncitizens” voting actually meant anything or effected any race in any election anywhere?
Click to expand...
Where's your proof that our elections are flawless arsecheese?
 
Truth Detector said:
No arsecheese, all US elections are as clean and honest as the driven snow.

megan-mullally-karen-walker.gif
Click to expand...
Fiction, never said all elections are perfect, rather, zero evidence exists anywhere showing any election was ever altered or swayed by voter fraud, even Trump’s man Billy Barr confirmed that fact
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Let me ask you something. If, and this is just for debate purposes, you wanted to conduct massive voter fraud in an election, how would you go about it?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't try, because it simply isn't possible. If you need more than 2 people involved - it will come to light. Actually, that likely holds true if even more than 1 person is involved.
 
Last edited:
BartenderElite said:
I wouldn't try, because it simply isn't possible. If you need more than 2 people involved - it will come to light. Actually, that likely holds true if even more than 1 person is involved.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. You just need the right 'ingredients.'

First, I'd want an election period of voting that lasts as long as possible. Weeks would be good, a month or more even better.
Second, I'd want no restrictions on voter registration and keeping voter roles untouched. That is, once someone is registered they stay registered.
Next, I'd want access to those voter roles.
From there, I'd want an all-mail-in ballot election with ballots mailed out and mailed in and hand collection possible.
I'd want ballot harvesting to be legal.
Lastly I would want very weak controls on verifying the ballots such as a low standard for signature matching.
Then I would send out paid harvesters to collect ballots, preferably unfilled out and have them over several weeks return said ballots to a collection point "To be turned in." The harvesters get paid and don't see anything beyond picking up the ballots and turning them over to the collection point.
That would all be legal meaning nothing to that point could be prosecuted.

Once the ballots are in hand, I shred and burn any that voted contrary to my wishes leaving no evidence of them. Those that voted "properly" or left the ballot blank (which I fill out), are forwarded to the election officials either by mail or hand delivery (drop boxes would help).

A single person running such an operation could easily generate pretty massive voter fraud to the tune of thousands of votes either not counted or made fraudulently. While it might not change a presidential election, it could certainly have a serious effect on local and state elections that could then have an effect on future elections even up to the presidential level.

All of that is possible, and all of the legal processes I listed are ones the Democrats want implemented nationwide.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Sure it is. You just need the right 'ingredients.'

First, I'd want an election period of voting that lasts as long as possible. Weeks would be good, a month or more even better.
Second, I'd want no restrictions on voter registration and keeping voter roles untouched. That is, once someone is registered they stay registered.
Next, I'd want access to those voter roles.
From there, I'd want an all-mail-in ballot election with ballots mailed out and mailed in and hand collection possible.
I'd want ballot harvesting to be legal.
Lastly I would want very weak controls on verifying the ballots such as a low standard for signature matching.
Then I would send out paid harvesters to collect ballots, preferably unfilled out and have them over several weeks return said ballots to a collection point "To be turned in." The harvesters get paid and don't see anything beyond picking up the ballots and turning them over to the collection point.
That would all be legal meaning nothing to that point could be prosecuted.

Once the ballots are in hand, I shred and burn any that voted contrary to my wishes leaving no evidence of them. Those that voted "properly" or left the ballot blank (which I fill out), are forwarded to the election officials either by mail or hand delivery (drop boxes would help).

A single person running such an operation could easily generate pretty massive voter fraud to the tune of thousands of votes either not counted or made fraudulently. While it might not change a presidential election, it could certainly have a serious effect on local and state elections that could then have an effect on future elections even up to the presidential level.

All of that is possible, and all of the legal processes I listed are ones the Democrats want implemented nationwide.
Click to expand...

"A single person running such an operation?"

I don't think you're thinking that through w/ everything you listed. Hundreds would need to be involved. No wonder you think there was fraud.
 
BartenderElite said:
"A single person running such an operation?"

I don't think you're thinking that through w/ everything you listed. Hundreds would need to be involved. No wonder you think there was fraud.
Click to expand...
One person hires ballot harvesters. The harvesters return the ballots for their pay to that person. The one person does all of the fraud out of sight of anyone else. What the harvesters are doing is legal. They're picking up individual ballots for a fee and simply returning them to a single point for eventual passing on to the election authorities. Thus, they see what they are doing as legal. The person handing them their ballot does so freely and that's legal.

Only the one person paying the harvesters knows that what happens next is fraudulent and illegal. A single person over say four weeks could easily process thousands of ballots to skew an election. All the elements for that are present:

Lots of time to commit the fraud (the election goes on for say a month or more of balloting)
Ballots are automatically sent to everyone on the voter rolls and these are not checked for accuracy.
The fraud is done out of sight and control of anyone (single person controlling it)
There are few or no controls on who gets a ballot (no voter ID, rolls never purged)
There are few or no controls on who actually fills out the ballot (no one is watching this occur)
Use of paid proxies and shills (ballot harvesting) is legal
There are few or no controls on verifying the returned ballot's authenticity (a low probability signature match is acceptable for example. Eg., if it's signed, it's valid)

Where is any one of those things not possible in at least some states today (usually a blue state)?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
One person hires ballot harvesters. The harvesters return the ballots for their pay to that person. The one person does all of the fraud out of sight of anyone else. What the harvesters are doing is legal. They're picking up individual ballots for a fee and simply returning them to a single point for eventual passing on to the election authorities. Thus, they see what they are doing as legal. The person handing them their ballot does so freely and that's legal.

Only the one person paying the harvesters knows that what happens next is fraudulent and illegal. A single person over say four weeks could easily process thousands of ballots to skew an election. All the elements for that are present:

Lots of time to commit the fraud (the election goes on for say a month or more of balloting)
Ballots are automatically sent to everyone on the voter rolls and these are not checked for accuracy.
The fraud is done out of sight and control of anyone (single person controlling it)
There are few or no controls on who gets a ballot (no voter ID, rolls never purged)
There are few or no controls on who actually fills out the ballot (no one is watching this occur)
Use of paid proxies and shills (ballot harvesting) is legal
There are few or no controls on verifying the returned ballot's authenticity (a low probability signature match is acceptable for example. Eg., if it's signed, it's valid)

Where is any one of those things not possible in at least some states today (usually a blue state)?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this to be offensive - but you don't seem to understand how vote counting works. Yeah, they could give ballots to one person - in one district of one precinct.

You were asking about massive voting fraud.
 
BartenderElite said:
I'm not saying this to be offensive - but you don't seem to understand how vote counting works. Yeah, they could give ballots to one person - in one district of one precinct.

You were asking about national voting fraud.
Click to expand...
One person could be working across multiple precincts within a state. If the vote was close, a few thousand votes could change the election outcome of the state. So, one person could potentially change a national election. A few such people could do so. All they need is a close election.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
One person could be working across multiple precincts within a state. If the vote was close, a few thousand votes could change the election outcome of the state. So, one person could potentially change a national election. A few such people could do so. All they need is a close election.
Click to expand...

But if you're trying to rig a national election, you don't know which districts & precincts to pick & choose. And you'd have to keep it to a real minimum - it would likely get leaked eventually anyway.

People have to do tremendous cartwheels to even suggest the idea of national voter fraud. It simply isn't possible. And again - the only reason anyone believed there was in 2020 was because a pathological liar who truly hates losing said so. And he said the same in '16, and called the 2012 election a "sham."
 
BartenderElite said:
But if you're trying to rig a national election, you don't know which districts & precincts to pick & choose. And you'd have to keep it to a real minimum - it would likely get leaked eventually anyway.
Click to expand...

You know which states are "battleground" ones. You know how various districts have voted in the past. So, you could have a pretty accurate prediction of where you needed to operate to make things go the way you want them to.

As for being found out... Let's say your fraud is discovered say, 26 months after a presidential election and that the guy elected should have been the opponent of the guy in the White House. That is the Presidential election was fraudulent. What happens now? It isn't the guy that was elected's fault. You'd have to be able to prove he was in on the fraud. Not happening.
So, do we turn that guy out of office and put the other guy in? Do we invalidate the entire election for President and the election of the state(s) involved and do it over? What happens? Worse, there was just a midterm election. Was it fraudulent too?
It would be a national disaster brought on by a for shit Turd World election scam system that is in place. But this EXACT system is what the Democrats want for elections nationwide. It was the basis of their For the Voter's Act, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. They want this.
BartenderElite said:
People have to do tremendous cartwheels to even suggest the idea of national voter fraud. It simply isn't possible. And again - the only reason anyone believed there was in 2020 was because a pathological liar who truly hates losing said so. And he said the same in '16, and called the 2012 election a "sham."
Click to expand...
No tremendous cartwheels necessary when you set the system up to allow massive fraud to occur. That that system isn't in place nationwide is only because there is resistance to it from outside the Democrat party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top