Re: "The president’s complaints about “voter fraud” could be used to deny legitimacy of Democratic victory "
- oldCADuser www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?mode=read&id=1056483
Yeah, if the election is suspect then maybe he will.
If it's any consolation, our President would only succeed in setting aside an election if the evidence of widespread voter fraud is there and VERY apparent. And as YOU have told us many times, it isn't. Couldn't be. Never happened. Never will. So no worries, eh OCU. Unless, of course, you've been WRONG all along.
You see, genius, controls against fraud aren't just there to prevent fraud, but also to preven the PERCEPTION of fraud. Politicians won't get very far with claims of vote fraud if strong controls are in place. If they aren't . . . well . . . perhaps you understand now why such controls matter - whether fraud has happened or hasn't. You're such a 20/20 hindsight kind of guy...
Re:
"In fact there has been absolutely nothing that could be seen as creating the "perception of voter fraud" except for the paranoid rantings of right-wing wackos and faux news pundits."- oldCADuser
#msg-854750
Re:
"Alabama Secretary Of State Said Hundreds May Have Voted Illegally. None Will Face Charges."- oldCADuser
#msg-1022135
Re:
"New Hampshire Tightens Voting Requirements Following Trump’s Baseless Voter Fraud Claims"- oldCADuser
#msg-1005877
Re:
"California, Virginia Refuse To Cooperate With Trump Voter Fraud Probe ... California’s secretary of state called the investigation a waste of money. Virginia’s governor called it “silly.”"- oldCADuser
#msg-1004377
But you won't find it "silly" if loose election security enforcement results in the overturning of a Democratic victory, will you, doofus?
Re:
"This State Just Dug Deep Into Voting Irregularities. It Found Nothing Close To Widespread Voter Fraud."- oldCADuser
#msg-991531
Hmm. Why does the headline include the word "Widespread"? Because voter fraud WAS discovered? Apparently. Maybe this was a dry run by the Democrats for Widespread fraud in 2018.
Even a LITTLE voter fraud is a very serious thing, OCU. As you know too well, some elections are close. Very close. If you don't care about fraud because it usually helps your side with close elections, well, WE DO. And just watch out - because what goes around, comes around, Bucko. The policies you've supported may well come back to bite you in the ass.
Re:
"Re: New Study Exposes Over 800,000 Illegal Votes for Clinton, Further Fueling Trump's Voter Fraud Claims / can you say "fake news"..."- oldCADuser
#msg-989335
Re:
"Stop Perpetuating Myth of Vote Fraud to Distract From Reality of Massive Voter Suppression"- oldCADuser
#msg-982260
Re:
"Judge Rejects GOP Effort To Send Poll Watchers To Philadelphia To Guard Against ‘Voter Fraud’"- oldCADuser
#msg-978875
If you won't allow for guarding against fraud, then don't whine when fraud is shown to have happened and it invalidates an election result that you liked.
Of course, that was in 2015. IN 2016, you acknowledged cases of it while maintaining that they don't matter. How about in 2018 - when it happens so often in California and other liberal states that the President (or DOJ) might be forced to throw out their election? Will it matter to you then?? Does anything EVER really matter to you, OCU? Except for yourself, I mean.
You're so hypocritical for a Catholic, OCU. You encourage dishonesty . . . so long as only your side benefits from it. You'll burn in Hell for that eventually . . . rather soon, I suspect, based upon your medical stats. Maybe then, through the agonized screams, you'll see the light. Or are you one of the "Progressive" Catholics who has decided that there isn't a Hell to worry about? LOL. Wrong...
Re:
"These are laws for a problem which does NOT and NEVER has existed."- oldCADuser
#msg-896301
Even if you're right that voter fraud has not existed, weak laws that make election results suspect are a HUGE problem. They might, as you now fear, result in a liberal victory being overturned. Try to get this through your pea-sized brain because it's important: EVEN IF FRAUD HASN'T HAPPENED ON A WIDE SCALE, WE NEED TO GUARD AGAINST IT.
By the way, it HAS happened on a large scale. It's well established that that LBJ lost a election early in his political career and that he blamed ballot-box stuffing by his opponent. When he ran again, HE had the ballot boxes stuffed. So don't be naive. It happens.
Of course, Chicago's election history is replete with fraud.
Re:
"They finally uncovered an undisputed case of voter fraud in Wisconsin..."- oldCADuser
#msg-883870
That was 2014. A year later you were lying to us that there was NO voter fraud. Did you remember to tell your priest about that in Confession? Or do you only confess to the lies that embarrass you?
But when it IS found, appropriate measures to prevent it from occurring again must be implemented. Do you agree with that? No, I didn't think you would.
The bottom line, OCU, is this: Free elections must be conducted under conditions that are substantially satisfactory to ALL sides. Right now, they aren't. Over the years, you have consistently objected to attempts to investigate reports of fraud and to bolster security so as to prevent it. You used to claim that there was no fraud. When it was proven and your position shifted to "no massive fraud." And suddenly you're worried that allegations of a massive fraud may actually invalidate an election. Whoops. It didn't have to be like this. Better controls could have eliminated any such fears.
All I can say is, IF IT HAPPENS, you and your side have done a lot to bring it upon yourselves by behaving an awful lot as if you actually WANT fraud.
Which I'm sure you do. Your side is full of cheaters and lacks the moral backbone it takes to condemn cheating if it helps your side to win. Therefore, you'll get no pity from me if the house of cards upon which you've built your world starts to crumble. I hope it happens. Dishonest people deserve to suffer a little every now and then.
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
| 
