Sign in to follow this  
Gouvernail

Fraud: What Are The Red Flags?

Recommended Posts

People have been screaming about election fraud. accusations: 
**Somebody tampered with the machines.
 **Somebody stuffed the ballot boxes

**ineligible people flocked to the polls 

**dead people mailed in votes 

 

What is the “control” that lets us know something is fishy? 

HINT : It isn’t, “I thought my team would win.”

 

How about: 

Virtually all the professional pollsters who make their living by carefully gathering information about public opinion predicted a different result than was reported.

The folks like Gallup cannot afford to be far off EVER! Their price is based upon their ability to give accurate information to clients. 
 

Sometimes the pollsters are a little off but for some reason they have been way off when one guy is running for office.

Why? 
 

The pollsters got virtually every other contest dead on and always within their claimed margin of error. 

Why isn’t there a huge focus on the question, “Why are the pollsters suggesting such different results for just that one guy?”

That one guy also keeps  screaming about fraud, fraud, fraud. 

It is a case of skunk smells his own hole first?? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tucker seriously.......the guy that claimed to have earth shattering goss on Hunter but then lost it in the mail with no second copy, where is that piece of shocking news now probably got flushed with the ratings, all of the talking heads on Fox have been relegated to entertainers, irrelevant ones at that.

Laura admitting that Biden won was humble pie comedy gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing fraudulent about campaigning for the candidate you favor. The Supreme Court decided corporations  were people 


this thread is about the results not matching the votes cast by the individuals. 
 

I contend; When the votes counted don’t match the exit polls, we ought to be VERY suspicious 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

 

Nobody should take Tucker seriously. Tucker's own employer said so in a court of law. Why do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

I contend; When the votes counted don’t match the exit polls, we ought to be VERY suspicious 

No, because of the fundamental difference between opinion (polling) and fact (ballot). The pollsters could be more honest about their numbers...or the public more skeptical...rounding their guesses to the nearest 5% would be more representative of reality. Their stated "error" figure does not in any way represent what people think it does, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Nobody should take Tucker seriously. Tucker's own employer said so in a court of law. Why do you?

...and Dr. Robert Epstein's bio in Wikipedia, which appears to be written mostly by himself, paints a picture of an opportunistic quack. Perfect for FOX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes it the word of God for The Mutt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When elections in other countries have results that do not match the exit polls 

your good ol' USG has screamed fraud more than once. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

 

someone should cut that gum flapping clown's brake lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read a good article about modern polling. Most folks block or don't talk to unknown numbers. The modern pollster has to call >100 persons to get 1 person to talk to them. It used to be around 10:1. Their sample is not really random any more - and apparently Trump voters were less likely to talk to pollsters. They *know* this and try to model it into their polls but still have trouble. People without college degrees are much less likely to talk to pollsters and they are a key Trump voter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nice! said:

Nobody should take Tucker seriously. Tucker's own employer said so in a court of law. Why do you?

It's an interview ya fukwit. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nice! said:

Nobody should take Tucker seriously. Tucker's own employer said so in a court of law. Why do you?

How about Dr. Epstein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

123786526_3845091682176037_1954233252527097912_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we say Joe will be an illegitimate President for the next couple of years or does that only work for DemocRats?

carter.jpg

Emae3gUXIAAHVfT.jpg

Emaes-eWEAAuZkG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EmaevJBXEAAn3m_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Honorable Chris Christie said T**** lawyers are claiming fraud in front of the cameras but not claiming fraud in court.

That says it all. 

This is simply a ploy to suck more money out of his supporters.  That's what T**** does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jules said:

The Honorable Chris Christie said T**** lawyers are claiming fraud in front of the cameras but not claiming fraud in court.

That says it all. 

This is simply a ploy to suck more money out of his supporters.  That's what T**** does.

Thing is, that's not quite correct.

They -did- claim fraud in court. -IF- the court had been satisfied with these claims, and the court(s) had overturned the election, Trump would be perfectly happy to fraudulently keep office.

The claims were fraudulent, there was no evidence. Courts request evidence, it's how they determine what is "true" and what isn't. Judges dislike having their decisions rest on a pile of bullshit. So the courts booted out Trump's lawyers and their bogus claims.

It's perfectly functional scam to fleece money from Trump fans. But it was also a real-live sure-enough coup attempt. It was just a very stupid and fraudulent one, it was bullshit, like everything else Trump does.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After spending billions to bribe people to “adjust” the reports from hundreds of voting machines and  still coming up short..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

How about Dr. Epstein?

He's on Tucker's show. Nuf said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nice! said:

Nobody should take Tucker seriously. Tucker's own employer said so in a court of law. Why do you?

No one who takes Tucker seriously or cites him for evidence should be taken seriously.

As evadent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

OFGS

Oh please. Why don't you wax poetic for us about Dr. Epstein's credentials then?

(nevermind Tucker's)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Oh please. Why don't you wax poetic for us about Dr. Epstein's credentials then?

(nevermind Tucker's)

Go hide in your safe place. You're not up to considering the inconvenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Go hide in your safe place. You're not up to considering the inconvenient.

I'll consider anything from a legitimate source. Now are you going to answer the challenge of backing up your post or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dog said:

If you're really interested in the case this is a must read.

Skeptical of Voter Fraud in 2020? Here's Your Evidence. (thomisticthinker.com)

From the article: " The media is telling us “There is no evidence. You can’t prove it” and “You are just a crazy conspiracy theorist” over and over again. They’re gaslighting, ridiculing, and dismissing. "

When the media reports that Judges are ridiculing and dismissing, that is not the media ridiculing and dismissing.  It's the judges ridiculing and dismissing.

Make sense?

Moreover, if there is fraud, the attorneys for Trump don't seem to be presenting the allegations in court.  They are presenting relatively small bore issues.  The claims of fraud seem rampant coming publicly from Giuliani, here on PA, on Parler, and everywhere else where evidence is not needed.  But in a court of law, the claims get watered down, and even THOSE are being dismissed.

Why do you think that is?   it's almost like talk on social media is cheap, and courtroom proceedings are revealing that these people on social media are full of shit. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nice! said:

The truth has a left-bias? Weird, huh?

Are his credentials somehow legitimate when he's cited in the LAT but somehow illegitimate on Tucker's show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is fraud it is the machines that gave way more votes to Lame Duck than were even cast. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are his credentials somehow legitimate when he's cited in the LAT but somehow illegitimate on Tucker's show?

The point is, Fox News is bullshit. The truth even catches up to them sometimes.

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-paid-seven-figures-to-settle-lawsuit-over-bogus-seth-rich-conspiracy-story-003236858.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Are his credentials somehow legitimate when he's cited in the LAT but somehow illegitimate on Tucker's show?

Your contention  seems to be “the Google corporation helped convince voters to support Biden and therefore we should realize there was fraud.

Does it follow FOX  helped convince voters to support Lame Duck and therefore we should realize there was fraud??

hint: neither is fraud. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Some is bullshit, some is truth...like all media. 

The difference is FOX leans hard right be design 

Those we call the mainstream are biased at times in all sorts of ways but the mainstream policy is to be an unbiased source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gouvernail said:

The difference is FOX leans hard right be design 

Those we call the mainstream are biased at times in all sorts of ways but the mainstream policy is to be an unbiased source

Dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

Some is bullshit, some is truth...like all media. 

Dream on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Some is bullshit, some is truth...like all media. 

 

How come you always pick the stuff which is bullshit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

If there is fraud it is the machines that gave way more votes to Lame Duck than were even cast. 

I seriously think they had this thing rigged and were planing on winning with around 73mm.  What they did not take into account was that 80mm would vote the shitstain out...  Hence the incompetence as they were convinced there was no way they could loose and wanted to keep it sort of tight to throw people off the sent.  The delay has been to shore up their shit.  Get some semblance of a distro plan in place before Biden's people came in and saw what a shit show it really was.  This closing of the cages thing is along the same line.  Seems to fit the pattern of a teen age HS party where the parents will be home at noon and you just woke up at 10.  Fix the shit before they come home.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Can we say Joe will be an illegitimate President for the next couple of years or does that only work for DemocRats?

carter.jpg

Emae3gUXIAAHVfT.jpg

Emaes-eWEAAuZkG.jpg

Sure. Why not? All that really matters is that the piece of shit Trump is out of office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are his credentials somehow legitimate when he's cited in the LAT but somehow illegitimate on Tucker's show?

No, he's equally full of shit both places

Why is it that you insist that "freedom of speech" means the freedom to tell fiction and pretend it's fact? To lie, in other words? Why is it that "conservatives" demand that a private business help them spread their lies, for free? It's bad enough that you are free to lie in paid advertising

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Can we say Joe will be an illegitimate President for the next couple of years or does that only work for DemocRats?

You can say whatever you would like.You are widely recognized here as a total jackass, but there is no harm in reinforcing the reputation.

Hope this helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, shaggy said:

I seriously think they had this thing rigged and were planing on winning with around 73mm.  What they did not take into account was that 80mm would vote the shitstain out...  Hence the incompetence as they were convinced there was no way they could loose and wanted to keep it sort of tight to throw people off the sent.  The delay has been to shore up their shit.  Get some semblance of a distro plan in place before Biden's people came in and saw what a shit show it really was.  This closing of the cages thing is along the same line.  Seems to fit the pattern of a teen age HS party where the parents will be home at noon and you just woke up at 10.  Fix the shit before they come home.  

It's quite possible. Suppose Trump and his buddies acted to rig it in their favour. And because of who Trump is, he believes that everybody else thinks the same as he does. So he believes the Democrats also rigged it. He projects everything that he is thinking by accusing others. He's an open book that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, he's equally full of shit both places

Why is it that you insist that "freedom of speech" means the freedom to tell fiction and pretend it's fact? To lie, in other words? Why is it that "conservatives" demand that a private business help them spread their lies, for free? It's bad enough that you are free to lie in paid advertising

- DSK

You either have free speech or you have censured speech. Free speech necessarily means allowing bullshit speech. Censured speech necessarily means some bureaucrat is arbitrating what's true for us and deciding what we are allowed to hear like in some Orwellian nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Censured speech necessarily means some bureaucrat is arbitrating what's true us and deciding what we are allowed to hear like in some Orwellian nightmare.

I think many recognized that which contributed to him not being re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife was looking over my shoulder and saw the title of the thread

Fraud: What Are The Red Flags?

 

and her answer is "When you see the name TRUMP on anything"

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

You either have free speech or you have censured speech. Free speech necessarily means allowing bullshit speech. Censured speech necessarily means some bureaucrat is arbitrating what's true for us and deciding what we are allowed to hear like in some Orwellian nightmare.

"censure" (def.) to express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement. ex- "a judge was censured in 1983 for a variety of types of injudicious conduct"

I think you mean "censored" but let's just move on.....
 
Free speech does not mean allowing bullshit to run unchecked. How about if I tell a neighbor man who's a bit of a hothead that you ran over his kid on their bicycle, and he comes to your house and shoots your ass dead? You didn't do it after all? Aww, it was just free speech.
 
How about if I tell you that candy bars are actually good for your teeth? I can make a lot more profit if I can just lie my ass off
 
Dog, you are mistaking "free speech" for total irresponsibility. Is anybody surprised that a dedicated Trumpalo would believe this?
 
- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

"censure" (def.) to express severe disapproval of (someone or something), especially in a formal statement. ex- "a judge was censured in 1983 for a variety of types of injudicious conduct"

I think you mean "censored" but let's just move on.....
 
Free speech does not mean allowing bullshit to run unchecked. How about if I tell a neighbor man who's a bit of a hothead that you ran over his kid on their bicycle, and he comes to your house and shoots your ass dead? You didn't do it after all? Aww, it was just free speech.
 
How about if I tell you that candy bars are actually good for your teeth? I can make a lot more profit if I can just lie my ass off
 
Dog, you are mistaking "free speech" for total irresponsibility. Is anybody surprised that a dedicated Trumpalo would believe this?
 
- DSK

You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater that's true.  Free speech does mean Milo should be allowed to speak at Berkeley. It does mean there is a right to express conservative opinion and any true liberal would be defending that right even if they thought the speech itself was bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

Free speech does mean Milo should be allowed to speak at Berkeley.

As part of an organized event?   No it doesn't.  

But I believe the parking lot is open for an impromptu. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:

As part of an organized event?   No it doesn't.  

But I believe the parking lot is open for an impromptu. 

Freedom of speech does mean Milo should have been able to deliver his speech at Berkeley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

Freedom of speech does mean Milo should have been able to deliver his speech at Berkeley.

No it doesn't.  Universities are all about content discrimination.  They do it constantly.   

Your nit picking is oddly on vacation right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

 

You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater that's true.  Free speech does mean Milo should be allowed to speak at Berkeley. It does mean there is a right to express conservative opinion and any true liberal would be defending that right even if they thought the speech itself was bullshit.

Well, I am not really liberal and I have no objection to conservative speech... or right-wing speech. Or left-wing speech.

I draw the line at incitement to murder and treason. And I see no reason whatever to permit people to blatantly lie for profit.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Do  you think I am interested in reasonable discussion? Dream on.

I don’t. Responses to your posts are only offered to watch yoU flail 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

You either have free speech or you have censured speech. Free speech necessarily means allowing bullshit speech. Censured speech necessarily means some bureaucrat is arbitrating what's true for us and deciding what we are allowed to hear like in some Orwellian nightmare

Lots of countries have limits on speech beyond "fire" in a theatre.

For example in Canada their is a law against hate speech - but it's a not a bureaucrat deciding what is allowed. It's a judge when you are charged with the crime.

"incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace" 

In Germany there are severe restrictions on Nazi writings, denial of the Holocaust etc.

Neither country seems to be a nightmare. 

In the US, there is no obligation by an organization such as a university to allow an organized speech by a racist nut job.

Your first amendment merely says GOVERNMENT shall not pass a law restricting speech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

I don’t. Responses to your posts are only offered to watch yoU flail 

 

Why did you change  my post?  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zonker said:
17 hours ago, Dog said:

...

Lots of countries have limits on speech beyond "fire" in a theatre.

For example in Canada their is a law against hate speech - but it's a not a bureaucrat deciding what is allowed. It's a judge when you are charged with the crime.

"incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace" 

In Germany there are severe restrictions on Nazi writings, denial of the Holocaust etc.

Neither country seems to be a nightmare. 

In the US, there is no obligation by an organization such as a university to allow an organized speech by a racist nut job.

Your first amendment merely says GOVERNMENT shall not pass a law restricting speech

For a person who claims to have passed the citizenship test (which, if true, would mean that he knows... or knew at the time... more than most born-heres), Dog is remarkably ignorant about what the US Constitution actually says.

I helped a good friend prepare for the citizenship test a few years back, pretty sure I would have passed it BUT then I went to school in an era when 'civics'  was a required high school class and I actually stayed awake for it.

Thank you, Z

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zonker said:

Lots of countries have limits on speech beyond "fire" in a theatre.

For example in Canada their is a law against hate speech - but it's a not a bureaucrat deciding what is allowed. It's a judge when you are charged with the crime.

"incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace" 

In Germany there are severe restrictions on Nazi writings, denial of the Holocaust etc.

Neither country seems to be a nightmare. 

In the US, there is no obligation by an organization such as a university to allow an organized speech by a racist nut job.

Your first amendment merely says GOVERNMENT shall not pass a law restricting speech

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Thank you, Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

Child

Awwww!! Golly whiz whillikers. He calls people names. He must have learned that from Lame Duck Gropenfuher  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Venom said:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Is that how you see life in Canada or Germany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zonker said:

Is that how you see life in Canada or Germany?

No I was referring to your neo-marxist Orwellian Dystopia that you'd like to cram down everybody's throat. 

Thank you, Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Food for thought...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this