TheTexan
Member

Glad to hear you’re doing well, brother. I hope that continues indefinitely for you. I agree with you. I’ve been finding real life pursuits to be much more gratifying and fulfilling as well. I plan to be devoting a LOT more of mybtime and efforts in that area from here on out. Give me a shout sometime.

Read your own search results for fucks sake. Your own link proves I'm right.

Correct, and this is why I don't vote and never will :up:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=are+death+records+confidential

It's times like this I don't fully regret the passing of the 19th amendment. It of course was and remains still a mistake, however.

It's answers like the above ^ that prove you haven't given a serious intelligent thought to what you're actually proposing. People being registered to vote in multiple states is very common. People voting in multiple states, is a common form of fraud. And people voting on behalf of people who have moved away from the state, is another common form of fraud. To just dismiss it as "irrelevant", just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about here. Cool. Are you gonna break into the records offices for us?

Pretty much every war that was ever fought had a root cause of "trade dependencies", but that's ok, keep your head buried in the sand LOL

It wouldn't be that simple for numerous reasons. The above methodology presumes that there is a 1:1 ratio between eligible voters, and actual people, which isn't gonna be true, and to what extent that's not true, is not gonna be revealed by the above methodology. The above methodology is also flawed because it doesn't account for the inability to contact the people most likely to be voted on behalf of by others - e.g. mentally ill, elderly, and dead people. Not to mention, you'd need to do some control group analysis, to account for the fact that people are naturally going to lie about whether they voted. And of course how many and which direction they lie, is going to change based on location and demographics. There would also be a generally positive relationship (I assume) between people who are even willing to answer the phone for you at all, and people who vote. You would also need to ask each of these people what state they voted in, or otherwise control for people who may have moved and/or voted in multiple states. You would also need to ask if they voted using a normal or a provisional ballot, and then account for the number of people who don't even know what a provisional ballot even is.

It's certainly strong circumstantial evidence for fraud, yea. Does it prove anything? Of course not. Election fraud by its very nature cannot generally be proven, so this is as close to proof as we'll ever get.

I can kinda see how it might make sense. Back in 2016 I think he ran for President just for the sake of running for President. I don't know if he thought he might actually win, but I don't think he was actually aiming to achieve anything besides "Winning". I can certainly see how it might take someone 4 years to develop an ideological compass, especially considering the witch hunts and then covid distractions. It is of course entirely possible that he learned nothing and he's the exact same guy from 2016. We'll see on Day 1 what happens.

Voter turnout was the highest in 120 years and it's a non story? :rolleyes:

My contacts at the Red Dog Mine gulag say they haven't had any new arrivals in weeks, so he's not there.

I'm leaving the US and moving to Texas :up:

Yea, I just don't see the same amount of visceral hate for the "free trade" agreements. I see plenty of hate for tariffs. Virtually none for "free trade" agreements.

I see plenty of animosity from you and others on tariffs, but where is your animosity for "free trade agreements"? Seems conspicuously absent.

Hey, if Newt says so, well, I think you can take that to the bank. After all, I remember what happened back in his Contract With America days.

Corbett is sharp and what he has to say is always worth at least considering. It won’t be, but there it is.

I dunno if I'm quite ready to provide a welcome but I can certainly give a hi Hi there

This is the only constant that we can really rely on

Exactly 0 "not compliant" states? Thanks Abe... for fucks sake

Want to get the government to cut spending? Pressure it into doing so by driving up the deficit by cutting taxes. The government won't cut spending unless it has to, and if we keep feeding the beast by trying to keep the deficit down by raising taxes it only enables their spending behavior. Cut taxes. Always cut taxes. I don't care how it impacts the deficit. Cut taxes.

Tax cuts are tax cuts, and tax cuts are always good. "If we don't steal your money now, we'll have to steal more money later" has never been and never will be a valid argument for stealing.

I hope they stand by their cheating claims with enough conviction to actually do something about it. But they won't. Secede, losers :cool:

I just looked at it like a fat kid alone with a bowl of skittles. If the adults leave the room, those skittles are gonna f'in disappear, and when the adults come back in, he's like "wasn't me and you can't prove it lololol"

Looks like the Wisconsin cheaters haven't given up yet. They've managed to bring it down from a 150,000 lead at 2am or so to what is now a 30,000 lead

Are they done with their cheating already??? I was really looking forward to a long and entertaining Election Season Kinda disappointed not gonna lie.