{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/13/2016 5:44:37 PM
16
Lmao you liberals are hilarious
Your candidate was a corrupt piece of shit election-rigger who was bought by Wall Street and had her laundry aired out
You couldn't have picked a worse candidate. Ffs you could've put a felon up there and they would've done better because at least they aren't hiding their crimes and rigging an election
English
-
I don't know who you're talking to, but I didn't vote for the psycho.
-
Then disregard this, sir This is meant for the people who are baffled why she lost and then indignant when she won the popular vote (except that counting isn't done and they wont count the 7m absentee ballots which lean 80% republican and there's an estimated 3m illegal alien votes)
-
Bullshit. Only about 120 million votes were cast. What you're saying is that about one out of every forty voters was an illegal alien. That's 2.5%. Please link to a credible source that details exactly how that number was reached.
-
Edited by Apostate: 11/15/2016 9:14:32 PMMaybe you should type that into google and see the controversy yourself California has no voter ID laws and only requires drivers licenses, also has the highest illegal population and gives drivers licenses to illegals
-
I did that before replying to you. I'm not interested in reading reports on a tweet that some guy made. I'm asking you for a link to a reputable source that details how the figure of three million came about.
-
Nice 2 minute glance Check it out, the sources are already reporting and people are tweeting based on it. If you have any ability to use a computer whatsoever, it should take you but 45secs to find the original source of the claim
-
A tweet from somebody associated with Votefraud.org is where the original claim comes from, as far as I can tell. I've looked at that site and I can't find a detailed report. If you've seen one, link me to it and prove me wrong. If you haven't, then it's clear you believe this simply because you want to, not because you're being objective.
-
The orginisation responsible is taking legal action. When they do so, the document and evidence will be made public as always You've really never seen this orginisation before? How the hell are Americans so ignorant of their own system and groups like this which have been doing this for 4 decades so far? Give it time, but their track record is as spotless as Wikileaks. I would say within a month or two, we should all be able to see the full report when they release it as they've done for decades now.
-
So you're saying you don't know yet, but you have a valid reason to be pretty sure you'll end up being right. Seems like just a week ago a bunch of pollsters were saying the same thing.
-
The polls were rigged and I was right about that too Wikileaks has never been wrong about a single thing in a decade This VoterFraud group has never been wrong about their findings (although they do have a small fudge factor +/- of about 2%ish) in four decades The issue with your comparison is that my information is vetted and tried and true whilst your pollsters were obvious liars and frauds. If the report doesn't come out, or they were wrong this time, then they will lose my confidence. Another issue is that the multiple other groups and persons identified with the server hacks are tipping their hat at this info so that adds another layer of "oh shit" to this case
-
Why would the pollsters intentionally fudge the data? You realize that them being so horribly wrong about the election makes them look bad, right? If their findings had shown that Trump had the advantage, they would have reported that, because their careers rest upon the accuracy of said findings. Accusing pollsters of reporting fake data is like accusing a fisherman of throwing back the biggest fish and keeping the small ones. To do such a thing would be directly against their own interests. Also, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Being right before doesn't mean that you're definitely right in the future. What they're saying is that the number of illegal immigrants who voted in this election is greater than the entire population of Chicago. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you're not even slightly skeptical of that, there's something wrong with you.
-
[quote]Why would the pollsters intentionally fudge the data? You realize that them being so horribly wrong about the election makes them look bad, right? If their findings had shown that Trump had the advantage, they would have reported that, because their careers rest upon the accuracy of said findings. Accusing pollsters of reporting fake data is like accusing a fisherman of throwing back the biggest fish and keeping the small ones. To do such a thing would be directly against their own interests.[/quote] I'm sad that you didn't read the Podesta emails where it talks about this exactly. The HRC campaign contacted many news outlets and polling agencies (the CA as the verifying company was the needle in the haystack) to shove a bunch of fake polls out in an attempt to discourage republican votes. When this began to fail due to the LATimes' accurate polling, the media and pollsters began to shove fake polls out, like the SurveyMonkey one from NBC, to manipulate the RCP average [quote]Also, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. [/quote] This isn't an appeal to authority. Before you use a term, understand it. As with the case with Wikileaks, the agency has proven itself to be reliable, nonpartisan and accurate over the course of decades which lends credibility to their claims. [quote]Being right before doesn't mean that you're definitely right in the future. What they're saying is that the number of illegal immigrants who voted in this election is greater than the entire population of Chicago. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you're not even slightly skeptical of that, there's something wrong with you.[/quote] Nice ad hominem argument at the end and dismissal of the human quality of reliability. California has millions of illegals in sanctuary cities like Los Angeles where they are fully able to vote as per Californian law. Is it really a stretch to believe that sanctuary cities bussed illegals around (which Project Veritas recorded) and took them to vote? We have so much corroborating evidence for this from multiple others and now we're just waiting for VoterFraud's official tally
-
It's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem would be saying that you're mentally handicapped therefore you can't be correct. If you see a number that high and immediately say "seems legit", you're just not being objective. You said hundreds of thousands, now you're saying three million. You're clearly just saying whatever the most recent number is. Let me ask you: How much time would need to pass without them releasing the official report before you stopped believing their claim?
-
[quote]It's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem would be saying that you're mentally handicapped therefore you can't be correct. If you see a number that high and immediately say "seems legit", you're just not being objective. You said hundreds of thousands, now you're saying three million. You're clearly just saying whatever the most recent number is. [/quote] 1.) Which is what you're doing in a sense. You're stating that my belief based on credibility is stupid and can't be correct off of your own disbelief; it's very obvious how you're doing this and setting it up. 2.) Actually no, I came up with the hundreds [u]to[/u] thousands myself based on everything I had seen but my eyes don't reach all and I don't have access to either the resources nor sources that this orginisation does. [quote]Let me ask you: How much time would need to pass without them releasing the official report before you stopped believing their claim?[/quote] Depends on how the events pan out. Right now they're moving everything, which is why we are redirected when typing VoterFraud.org, which allows for a few weeks more. Factoring in their report time taking usually about 2-4wks after their initial claim Factor in the fact that they're going to court another 2-4wks -related: supreme verification of their data, so allow another 2wks Then you have to factor in court time length. If they are immediately heard, then their evidence will be sealed for however long that court case sits (which could be a month to a few years) If they aren't immediately heard, then I would expect the info in 2 months to maybe 3.5months MAX If they are immediately heard, I don't suspect we will ever see the info, personally, but, to be positive that the dems won't bury this body via the courts, I would estimate 4 to 7 months This is all assuming that their information doesn't "get leaked" within the next month and posted by a "totally anonymous hacker"
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 11/15/2016 11:10:23 PMIt's not ad hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you should be more skeptical, not because of who the claims might help or hurt, but because of their sheer magnitude. What happens if this issue makes its way to court and it's ruled that the number is inaccurate? Will you accept it then, or will you claim there is some kind of conspiracy? This is the kind of toxic partisanship I see from you and others like you on both sides. When your side wins it's a triumph of freedom. When the other side wins it's a conspiracy. Any sources that say things you don't like are establishment-controlled propaganda machines. Anyone saying anything you do like is a brave hero attempting to expose the truth. Anyone who supports the things you oppose is either pure evil or completely retarded. Any proposed compromise is just a thinly veiled attempt to slowly press the other side's agenda. When you hear a claim that a number of illegal immigrants greater than the population of any but two of our cities was secretly and deliberately distributed throughout the country to influence the election, then you immediately and unquestioningly turn around and present that claim as fact, you're not being objective.
-
[quote]It's not ad hominem. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you should be more skeptical, not because of who the claims might help or hurt, but because of their sheer magnitude.[/quote] Then all we had was a communication break down [quote]What happens if this issue makes its way to court and it's ruled that the number is inaccurate? Will you accept it then, or will you claim there is some kind of conspiracy? [/quote] I'll say the same thing I say when I see a HuffPo or CNN link: "into the trash it goes" [quote]This is the kind of toxic partisanship I see from you and others like you on both sides. When your side wins it's a triumph of freedom. When the other side wins it's a conspiracy.[/quote] Our side was the side that: •Discovered the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie •Discovered Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS •Discovered that the State Dept funneled $500m to these states even though they knew about ^^ •Discovered that the Clinton Foundation's charitable work was done illegally and without US government clearance •Discovered that Bill Clinton received an illegal $1m gift from Qatar (the methods by which it was given were illegal) •Discovered that the Justice Department heads involved with investigating the Server Scandal had immediate conflicts of interest with the Clintons or their Foundation •Discovered the absolute overwhelming control over the media that the HRC campaign was exerting •Discovered the numerous connections that Soros has had on this cycle through protests and trying to implement voting booths that would be owned by Soros proxies And more. We've discovered so much shit that the FBI patrols our threads and posts and is using us as autistic labour to sort through thousands of documents of bullshit so we can organise it in a Google Spreaddocs and follow the money trails for them We also discovered that the Rothschilds were heavily involved, Podesta is completely convinced that aliens are here (and apparently we have some peace treaty with them about not sending weapons into space...?) and multiple instances of Moloch, Bohemian Grove and other spooky occult shit. (I could link if you're interested/want giggles) "Weaving spiders come not here" [quote]Any sources that say things you don't like are establishment-controlled propaganda machines. [/quote] Well we found the emails proving so. Hell, we made a roster, based on the emails, of each person who was leaked from each news agency. We have MSNBC, CNN, HuffPo, Slate, Politico, some Snopes and Politifact contributors, dude. Podesta had multiple dinners with these people at their homes for the express purpose of generating a narrative and shit Then you also have the emails from like CNN where the author emails Podesta, Huma, and the whole gang their full article and ask for HRC's campaign to edit it. [quote]Anyone saying anything you do like is a brave hero attempting to expose the truth. Anyone who supports the things you oppose is either pure evil or completely retarded.[/quote] Many of us have died. There's a reason we call it Guccifer [u]2.0[/u]. [quote]When you hear a claim that a number of illegal immigrants greater than the population of any but two of our cities was secretly and deliberately distributed throughout the country to influence the election, then you immediately and unquestioningly turn around and present that claim as fact, you're not being objective.[/quote] Well we know hundreds to thousands voted definitely. We have the arrest records and Veritas videos on the day of the election to prove it. Scaling it up via statistical mathematics based on sampling size estimates more than 3 million but both the fact that VoteFraud is a trustworthy site and the fact that the stats add up makes a very compelling argument that has but to be confirmed It's like when Wikileaks says they have something. You can say it's smoke and mirrors all you want, but at the end of the day they're reliably going to post authentic information
