U.S. Supreme Court to hear case determining if states can count mail-in ballots that are received AFTER Election Day

Yea, we're supposed to rely on blue, Democrat, run states to do that. They're the ones with the most fraud. California just had 17,000 illegal CDL's cancelled. Illinois is fighting tooth and nail to keep illegal aliens in the state.

If anything, the blue / Democrat record on doing the right, legal, thing is pretty sketchy.

"Most fraud?"

What stats do you have for that? Is the "fraud" anything statistically significant?
 
"Most fraud?"

What stats do you have for that? Is the "fraud" anything statistically significant?





Blue states and blue areas within red states have the highest rates of welfare (all types) fraud.
 





Blue states and blue areas within red states have the highest rates of welfare (all types) fraud.

Oh, my bad. I thought we were talking about voter fraud.

I didn't realize you were referring to welfare fraud.

Isn't this thread about voter fraud?

EDIT: yes, absolutely - this thread & the whole discussion was about voter fraud.

So, why did you think welfare fraud was relevant?
 
Last edited:
Oh, my bad. I thought we were talking about voter fraud.

I didn't realize you were referring to welfare fraud.

Isn't this thread about voter fraud?

EDIT: yes, absolutely - this thread & the whole discussion was about voter fraud.

So, why did you think welfare fraud was relevant?
Vote fraud is hit and miss. But there are things that increase the chances of it happening:

Long voting periods. Having a voting period of weeks or more increases the chances of fraud occurring.
Mail in voting. Out of sight is out of mind so-to-speak
Ballot harvesting. When anyone can handle ballots, anyone can do what they please with them.
No voter ID.
No cleanup of voter rolls
Automatic voter registration
Ballot drop-boxes. Another out of sight, out of mind thing

Since blue states tend to do these things far more than red states, it would follow that chances are higher in blue states of voter fraud occurring. It also argues that it would be harder to detect and catch in blue states for the same reasons.
 
Vote fraud is hit and miss. But there are things that increase the chances of it happening:

Long voting periods. Having a voting period of weeks or more increases the chances of fraud occurring.
Mail in voting. Out of sight is out of mind so-to-speak
Ballot harvesting. When anyone can handle ballots, anyone can do what they please with them.
No voter ID.
No cleanup of voter rolls
Automatic voter registration
Ballot drop-boxes. Another out of sight, out of mind thing

Since blue states tend to do these things far more than red states, it would follow that chances are higher in blue states of voter fraud occurring. It also argues that it would be harder to detect and catch in blue states for the same reasons.

Wow, was that a bad attempt.

You were wrong. Just say so.
 
No, I'm being honest here. If it were about voter fraud, then I've given an answer. If my previous answer was irrelevant, sobeit.

Don't use ad hominem to try and divert attention from the discussion.

You said that blue states had the "most fraud" in a discussion about voter fraud.

When called on it, you attempted to justify that conclusion with stats on welfare fraud.

I really don't have to say anything beyond that.
 
You said that blue states had the "most fraud" in a discussion about voter fraud.

When called on it, you attempted to justify that conclusion with stats on welfare fraud.

I really don't have to say anything beyond that.
They do. It's almost certain in any sort of simulation that would be the case. It argues like this:

If voter fraud occurs at some rate per 10,000 people, then blue states and areas having more population would have more voter fraud. This fraud isn't necessarily detected, and because blue states enact practices into law that increase the chances of both fraud and it going undetected, they would have more fraud.

In fact, because red states tend to have stronger voter ID, and other laws to prevent fraud, it would be expected they would find and deal with more cases of voter fraud simply because they are actively trying to prevent it. Blue states on the other hand, would assume any fraud is in their favor of retaining power and work to ignore it only going after fraud when it is pointed out and that fraud is conducted by the opposition.

To argue against that is a combination of McNamara and Ludic fallacy.
 
Last edited:
They do. It's almost certain in any sort of simulation that would be the case. It argues like this:

If voter fraud occurs at some rate per 10,000 people, then blue states and areas having more population would have more voter fraud. This fraud isn't necessarily detected, and because blue states enact practices into law that increase the chances of both fraud and it going undetected, they would have more fraud.

To argue against that is a combination of McNamara and Ludic fallacy.

You're kidding, right?

Do you think that holds up as any kind of support for your conclusion? Really?

I mean, LOL. That's all I've got.
 
And, you've lost. You presented nothing to show that voter fraud doesn't exist or that the items and methods used in our elections don't promote it, or that blue states don't have more of it. Nothing.

No, I didn't lose. Not at all.

You made the claim. Burden of proof is on you. It's not on me to "prove" anything about voter fraud - though it does exist at a statistically insignificant level.
 
If it’s not the fault of the voter then why not?


Otherwise you could have someone find a way to slow the mail to keep voters from having their rights honored
The government needs to set a date well before the Election to the last date for a postmarked ballot. If you can't make your decision by 10 days before the election then you need to vote in person instead.
 
Yea, we're supposed to rely on blue, Democrat, run states to do that. They're the ones with the most fraud. California just had 17,000 illegal CDL's cancelled. Illinois is fighting tooth and nail to keep illegal aliens in the state.

If anything, the blue / Democrat record on doing the right, legal, thing is pretty sketchy.

Just re-posting your original claim, and bolding it.
 
No, I didn't lose. Not at all.

You made the claim. Burden of proof is on you. It's not on me to "prove" anything about voter fraud - though it does exist at a statistically insignificant level.
I gave sufficient proof. Voter fraud occurs. I has been caught. The actual rate is likely unknown. There are things that can increase the chances of voter fraud, and I listed several. Those things are generally only practiced in blue states currently.

Arguing that it is "statistically insignificant" is a McNamara fallacy as we don't have a good idea how much actually occurs and goes undetected.
 
I gave sufficient proof. Voter fraud occurs. I has been caught. The actual rate is likely unknown. There are things that can increase the chances of voter fraud, and I listed several. Those things are generally only practiced in blue states currently.

Arguing that it is "statistically insignificant" is a McNamara fallacy as we don't have a good idea how much actually occurs and goes undetected.

You didn't give any proof for the claim that blue states have the "most fraud."

None.
 
I gave sufficient proof. Voter fraud occurs. I has been caught. The actual rate is likely unknown. There are things that can increase the chances of voter fraud, and I listed several. Those things are generally only practiced in blue states currently.

Arguing that it is "statistically insignificant" is a McNamara fallacy as we don't have a good idea how much actually occurs and goes undetected.
BINGO! I mean its like they are hiding it.
 
BINGO! I mean its like they are hiding it.

They keep a website to track it all. It's all onesy twosy stuff. We're a nation of 350 million - elections aren't going to be perfect.

It's statistically zilch.

The only reason anyone believes that there is any kind of massive fraud, or coordinated fraud, is because a pathological liar who hates losing said so. He said the same in 2016. He called 2012 a "sham."
 
Back
Top