gfm7175's "battle for senate" and "battle for house" projections

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You are not as smart as you think you are, Richard...

Ow.. that smarts!!!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yet, you've only ever mentioned a singular poster (ITN) so far... Who are these "posters" that you're speaking of?

RQAA

 

[gfm7175]

I guess you can't share the evidence then. Does that mean you lied when you said you provided it?

RQAA. I've already told you where to look. As Truth Detector would say, you are operating on full moron mode.

So if you don't have the actual evidence then you can't share it?

Continued "full moron mode".

No. It hasn't stopped.

Yes, it has.

At this point they share a missing boat.

One cannot share something that isn't in one's possession, moron. WOW you truly ARE a complete moron...

Unless you want to argue that someone can't share something unless they actually possess it physically.

One needs to first be in possession of something in order to subsequently share it with another.

So if the boat is recovered then they no longer share it? That is a rather ridiculous claim.

If the boat is recovered, then they can commence sharing it again. Until then, THERE. IS. NO. BOAT. TO. SHARE. What are you not understanding about this simple concept?

I agree. You don't have any logic.

YOUR issue, not mine. QED of this issue of yours is above.

Are you sure? Because clearly you can't share something you don't have according to you.

RQAA.

So your evidence is missing like the boat. OK.

RQAA.

How can you share something you don't have?

RQAA.

 

[gfm7175]

RQAA

Mockery. Try again.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

One cannot share something that isn't in one's possession, moron. WOW you truly ARE a complete moron...


One needs to first be in possession of something in order to subsequently share it with another.

I guess that proves you didn't share the evidence of election fraud. Even you claim anyone that says they shared something they don't have is a complete moron.

 

[christiefan915]

Did you know that R's can still win control of the Senate without winning PA?
Did you know that polls are largely meaningless (and are typically just Demonkkkrat propaganda)??

The only public pollster with a decent track record to poll the PA race to date has been Trafalgar and they show that it could go either way. (they had a Fetterman +4 result mid-August and a narrowed Fetterman +2 result mid-September).

Hilarious. Trafalgar's only been a pollster for a little over five years. They have a 50-50 record for calling the presidential races. They're only average in calling all races.

 

[christiefan915]

Fallacy fallacy

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster (almost always Into the Night) claims another poster is using a fallacy without showing why it is a fallacy. This is always done by Into the Night to try to get people to think he is smarter than he really is. In reality, it is his version of a red herring so he doesn't have to support his position which he is unable to do with any logic, facts, or reason.

RQAA is not evidence. It is deflection and will always be deflection.

I don't even know what RQAA means.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I don't even know what RQAA means.

It means, "I don't have an answer so I will just pretend I answered it earlier and then refuse to show you where I gave a valid answer."

 

[Into the Night]

I guess you can't share the evidence then. Does that mean you lied when you said you provided it?

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Void question.

So if you don't have the actual evidence then you can't share it?

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Void question. RQAA.

No. It hasn't stopped. At this point they share a missing boat. Unless you want to argue that someone can't share something unless they actually possess it physically.

You can't share what does not exist. False equivalence fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance.

So if the boat is recovered then they no longer share it? That is a rather ridiculous claim.

You can't share what does not exist. Attempted proof by negative. Trivialization fallacy. Discard of logic.

I agree. You don't have any logic.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

Are you sure? Because clearly you can't share something you don't have according to you.

He is correct.

So your evidence is missing like the boat. OK.

False equivalence fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance.

How can you share something you don't have?

You can't.

No, you cannot with the evidence of election fraud away by Democrats by comparing it to a contrivance.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess that proves you didn't share the evidence of election fraud. Even you claim anyone that says they shared something they don't have is a complete moron.

Attempted proof by contrivance. False equivalence fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. You cannot wish the evidence of election fraud away by contrivance, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't even know what RQAA means.

Repetitive Question Already Answered. This is fairly common tactic by certain morons. They just keep asking the same question over and over and over and over and over...even though it was already answered. You might say it's an argument of the Stone fallacy combined with a repetition fallacy (chanting).

Poor Richard Saunders is one of these morons. He denies logic, history (even recent history), mathematics, science, and the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.

In this case, he is discarding evidence of election by Democrats already shown to him.

This evidence includes:
* mathematical improbably of counting patterns.
* after hours counting with NO OBSERVERS.
* failure of at least seven States to choose their electors.
* choosing electors by executive branches, rather than by the legislatures of a State, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Article II.
* signed affidavits on file (from both parties!) which are sworn statements under penalty of perjury, of election fraud occurring in counting centers.
* ex-post facto laws, and laws violating the authority of the federal government in setting election dates, as defined in the Constitution.
* Congress choosing electors for a State, in violation of article II of the Constitution of the United States.
* security camera footage of election workers boarding up windows for after hours counting, workers pulling suitcases out from under desks for after hours counting, and of election workers filling out ballots after hours and of workers running the same ballot through the machine multiple times.
* demonstrated flaws in voting machine software.
* laws changed by executive branches that are unconstitutional in the State they occurred, particularly around handling absentee ballots.
* news media publishing 'election results' before polls have even closed, and before counting, introducing bias and violating law in some States.
* ballot 'mules' stuffing ballot boxes (including in States where such 'mules' are illegal). These were seen on various security cameras (on otherwise unguarded ballot boxes).
* dead people, and people no longer living in a State casting 'votes'.
* voters showing up at polling places and being told they already 'voted' when they didn't.
* busing paid voters around to polling places (usually illegal immigrants).

This is only a partial list.

Election fraud by Democrats has been a problem for literally decades. It was a problem in the 2016 election too. The 2020 election faulted as a result of it. No electoral college formed since at least seven States never chose their electors. This is the first time an election faulted as a result of this fraud.

It's not just presidential elections either. This sort of thing goes on in State elections as well, including the sham 'elections' in the SDTC (formerly the State of California).

This evidence can't be wished away. It exists. The judgement of that evidence by people across the country cannot be wished away either.

 

[gfm7175]

I guess that proves you didn't share the evidence of election fraud. Even you claim anyone that says they shared something they don't have is a complete moron.

I've already shared it. You can review my post history during the time period that I told you. Your laziness does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

 

[gfm7175]

Hilarious. Trafalgar's only been a pollster for a little over five years.

So?

They have a 50-50 record for calling the presidential races. They're only average in calling all races.

They have a much better track record than that. Quit lying.

 

[christiefan915]

They have a much better track record than that. Quit lying.

Ad hominem. I don't have to lie, I just looked at their record.

 

[gfm7175]

Ad hominem. I don't have to lie, I just looked at their record.

... and you are still lying about it.

 

[archives]

Repetitive Question Already Answered. This is fairly common tactic by certain morons. They just keep asking the same question over and over and over and over and over...even though it was already answered. You might say it's an argument of the Stone fallacy combined with a repetition fallacy (chanting).

Poor Richard Saunders is one of these morons. He denies logic, history (even recent history), mathematics, science, and the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.

In this case, he is discarding evidence of election by Democrats already shown to him.

This evidence includes:
* mathematical improbably of counting patterns.
* after hours counting with NO OBSERVERS.
* failure of at least seven States to choose their electors.
* choosing electors by executive branches, rather than by the legislatures of a State, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Article II.
* signed affidavits on file (from both parties!) which are sworn statements under penalty of perjury, of election fraud occurring in counting centers.
* ex-post facto laws, and laws violating the authority of the federal government in setting election dates, as defined in the Constitution.
* Congress choosing electors for a State, in violation of article II of the Constitution of the United States.
* security camera footage of election workers boarding up windows for after hours counting, workers pulling suitcases out from under desks for after hours counting, and of election workers filling out ballots after hours and of workers running the same ballot through the machine multiple times.
* demonstrated flaws in voting machine software.
* laws changed by executive branches that are unconstitutional in the State they occurred, particularly around handling absentee ballots.
* news media publishing 'election results' before polls have even closed, and before counting, introducing bias and violating law in some States.
* ballot 'mules' stuffing ballot boxes (including in States where such 'mules' are illegal). These were seen on various security cameras (on otherwise unguarded ballot boxes).
* dead people, and people no longer living in a State casting 'votes'.
* voters showing up at polling places and being told they already 'voted' when they didn't.
* busing paid voters around to polling places (usually illegal immigrants).

This is only a partial list.

Election fraud by Democrats has been a problem for literally decades. It was a problem in the 2016 election too. The 2020 election faulted as a result of it. No electoral college formed since at least seven States never chose their electors. This is the first time an election faulted as a result of this fraud.

It's not just presidential elections either. This sort of thing goes on in State elections as well, including the sham 'elections' in the SDTC (formerly the State of California).

This evidence can't be wished away. It exists. The judgement of that evidence by people across the country cannot be wished away either.

In other words, bottom line, even though he would never admit, if any candidate anywhere the “pidgin” wants to win, loses, it is cause the Democrats or the other candidate cheated and fixed the election.

He’s going to take his ball and go home

 

[gfm7175]

In other words, bottom line, even though he would never admit, if any candidate anywhere the “pidgin” wants to win, loses, it is cause the Democrats or the other candidate cheated and fixed the election.

He’s going to take his ball and go home

You didn't even read through his comment, did you?

 

[Into the Night]

In other words, bottom line, even though he would never admit, if any candidate anywhere the “pidgin” wants to win, loses, it is cause the Democrats or the other candidate cheated and fixed the election.

He’s going to take his ball and go home

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[gfm7175]

Hey, did you happen to catch Biden's new approval rating? He's at 47 and rising. Care to guess what your cult leader, trump's current approval rating is?

LOL.

Now, why is this important? As Biden's approval rises, he becomes a "player" who can actually endorse candidates and lead the party into more of a majority.

This is your worst nightmare, darling. Would you care for a hug?

Fake news.

You can come crying to me after R's win the Senate (I'm guessing either 52-48 or 53-47) and R's dominate the House (gaining anywhere from 20 seats as a very low very conservative guess to 35 seats as a rather plausible possibility... I could be wrong; they could gain even more than 35 seats).

 

[LurchAddams]

Fake news.

You can come crying to me after R's win the Senate (I'm guessing either 52-48 or 53-47) and R's dominate the House (gaining anywhere from 20 seats as a very low very conservative guess to 35 seats as a rather plausible possibility... I could be wrong; they could gain even more than 35 seats).

Uh huh. Tell us more.