Election Results

[wmLambert]

That is the official poll numbers from people who now know the details of Hunter's criminal actions and payments from China, Russia, and other foreign adversaries...

Which people, specifically?

This was announced weeks ago. Do you expect me to believe that no one here has the ability to verify on their own that Hunter's laptop has officially been verified and that the people that voted for him were outraged over what was hidden from them?

https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll/

The NYPost cited the polls, and said "79% say ‘truthful’ coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed 2020 election "

There is little doubt about the Biden Crime Family's guilt, or that the media has steered clear of addressing it. The DOJ had to react to this - so it selected two minor charges against Hunter that do not trace back to the POTUS. This is not conjecture, is it? Why did Tony Bobulinski state that the DOJ never called him back for any interviews?

[NobleHunter]

Nearly four of five Americans who’ve been following the Hunter Biden laptop scandal believe that “truthful” coverage would have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to a new poll.

The poll results, published Wednesday, are based on responses from 437 adults who said they were following the laptop story “very” or “somewhat” closely when they were surveyed online earlier this month, according to the TIPP.

Shockingly, people who were invested in the story of "Hunter's" laptop believe it would have a significant effect on the outcome of the election. Just as shocking, the poll doesn't say what wmLambert is saying it does.

[Tom]

the facts have now verified that his fears were probable

I think you misunderstand either the definition of "verified" or the definition of "probable".

[msquared]

AZ AG office is asking the FBI and IRS to look into True the Vote for not turning over the evidence TTV says they have about fraud in AZ.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-attorney-generals-office-asks-024659704.html

TTV uses the movie to raise money but will not supply the "evidence" they say they have, even though they said they would, but they continue to fund raise off of the movie. You mean a group founded by someone convicted of fraud in the past may be doing it again?  Say it isn't so.

[DJQuag]

Arizona turns around so quickly and so often that despite growing up there I don't know what to think.

[msquared]

True the Vote leads jailed for not turning over the evidence they say they have after a judge told them they have to identify the person who was central to their claims.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/true-vote-leaders-jailed-being-175646366.html

[wmLambert]

AZ AG office is asking the FBI and IRS to look into True the Vote for not turning over the evidence TTV says they have about fraud in AZ.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-attorney-generals-office-asks-024659704.html

TTV uses the movie to raise money but will not supply the "evidence" they say they have, even though they said they would, but they continue to fund raise off of the movie. You mean a group founded by someone convicted of fraud in the past may be doing it again?  Say it isn't so.

Look it up. True the Vote said they turned over all the info and evidence early on - and then watched as the Arizona AG's office stonewalled then claimed they never received anything. Nothing was adjudicated at all, because of the stonewalling.

[msquared]

They say they turned it over and the AG, who asked for it, in an Red State, says they did not. Who to believe? The group associated with a convicted felon or the AG of AZ?

[wmLambert]

Also, Phillips and Englebrecht declined to name the man, claiming their hands were tied because he is an FBI informant, according to a person who attended the hearing. If the FBI, which is part of the DOJ, will not provide that info, I guess Phillips and Englebrecht need to don the orange, neh?

Why is everything caused by the weaponized DOJ allowed to fester and devolve on political opponents to bear the brunt?

[wmLambert]

They say they turned it over and the AG, who asked for it, in an Red State, says they did not. Who to believe? The group associated with a convicted felon or the AG of AZ?

We spent years listening to Democrats say the Steele dossier proved Russian collusion. How long did it take for you to admit it was all Hillary's doing? Which side is best worth trusting? It certainly is not your side. How many of your side has donned that orange for lying to the FISA Courts? Have you no shame? BTW, claiming an anti-Trump sentiment must be believed because the parties are GOP seems to misidentify the Anti-Trumpers and RINOs, doesn't it?  Perhaps next Tuesday will begin to right the ship.

[msquared]

And if it does not your side will claim fraud and a stolen election, again without any proof.
But AZ is not anti Trump. They are pro Trump. The head of the AZ House asked Rudy and Trump for the evidence, and under oath, said it was never supplied.

The Trumpist make wild claims but when it comes time to say it under oath, they will not do so.
And all it takes to be called a RINO is to not support Trump. That is it.

So, no I do not accept your claim that they are RINO's. What they are not is Trumpist.  He, and those who support him, are RINO's and should name themselves what they truly are, Trumpist.

[NobleHunter]

Some of these so-called Anti-Trumpers would be all-in for Trump except Trump and his people can't even provide a fig leaf of a reason for what they're saying.

[Wayward Son]

Let me get this straight.  They are not releasing the name of the guy because he is an FBI informant.

However, the FBI made clear it had no confidentiality interest in the case.  They completely deny that there is any informant in this affair.

So most likely the guy is lying about being an informant.  And even if he wasn't, the FBI says he no longer is.  Either way, he is not now an FBI informant.

So what is preventing them from revealing the name of this criminal? 

[msquared]

Well a Milwauke election official, trying to show fraud can happen, commits fraud and gets caught.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/milwaukee-election-commission-official-kimberly-175427030.html

[cherrypoptart]

Here's a question for Mr. Lambert. Or anyone.

I tried to find the answer but was not successful.

So undated mail in ballots will not be counted in this election.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pennsylvania-voters-scramble-to-cast-new-ballots-after-gop-lawsuit/ar-AA13Qt35

The question is, were they counted in the last election?

[TheDrake]

Here's a question for Mr. Lambert. Or anyone.

I tried to find the answer but was not successful.

So undated mail in ballots will not be counted in this election.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pennsylvania-voters-scramble-to-cast-new-ballots-after-gop-lawsuit/ar-AA13Qt35

The question is, were they counted in the last election?

Because the precedent would say they are wrong if they didn't count last time and they shouldn't have been thrown out? Or because if they did count last time, then that means they were fraudulent and the election was stolen.

This whole business about date on the envelope is just a transparent way to try to not count votes.

Multiple judges have ruled over the past two years that mail ballots returned on time by eligible Pennsylvania voters should be counted even if they lack a date on the outer envelope.

Do you even read the contents of your own articles? The lack of a date has always been fine when it can be determined through other means that the ballot was cast before the deadline.

Now, with all the replacement ballots coming in, inevitably there will be duplicates of ones that were not thrown out, and as they're being weeded out, Republicans will accuse Democrats of counting them both.

What good is that to prevent fraud? Somebody can't back date the envelope? Why is the date even there? It might be in the article, I didn't read the whole thing.

[cherrypoptart]

I along with you still have more questions than answers but you did hit one nail on the head.

If ballots were counted last time that are not legal to count this time and there were a lot of them then there's your massive voter fra... well massive voter something that doesn't look legit right there. It may not be fraud but it sure seems fishy. It means Democrat judges and courts counted votes that at the end of the day, with the final state Supreme Court decision, should not have been legal to count. And won't be legal to count this time.

[TheDrake]

It means common sense. The purpose of the date is to ensure the validity of the ballot, if the validity of the ballot can be ascertained by other means (like the fact that the election worker is holding it in their hands on Monday before the election) Then why would we want to thwart the attempt to vote?

I'm not digging into all those previous court cases, but I'll be they amount to something like that. The goal is not to toss any ballot on any technicality, but to ensure that valid votes get counted. That's not a fraudulent conspiracy, that's counting votes.

IF you forget to write a date on your check, do you think the bank will invalidate it or cash it? If someone wanted to commit fraud in either case, why wouldn't they just write in the date themselves as they are processing it?

[msquared]

if the ballot is received by the EOD on election day it should be a legal ballot.

[yossarian22c]

I along with you still have more questions than answers but you did hit one nail on the head.

If ballots were counted last time that are not legal to count this time and there were a lot of them then there's your massive voter fra... well massive voter something that doesn't look legit right there. It may not be fraud but it sure seems fishy.
...

So a registered voter who requests a mail in ballot, fills out their ballot completely, signs the envelope, does everything right except a date on the envelope is fishy? Why is it fishy? If the ballot is postmarked and/or received by election officials before election day what is fishy about it? What ways can fraud slip in by the date being missing or only evident on the postmark? What if they dated it using the European standard (day/month/year) instead of month/day/year. Or what if they wrote 21 instead of 22 for the year? Should we not count the ballot for on a technicality? What fraud prevention does a date on the envelope add that a postmark doesn't? Give a real answer to that question then maybe you can call something fishy.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't know for sure but if I had to guess it's because they don't have the common sense to separate out the ballots received before election day is over and those that come after so they comingle a bunch of ballots and if that happens then you can no longer tell which ones are on time or late.

[yossarian22c]

I don't know for sure but if I had to guess it's because they don't have the common sense to separate out the ballots received before election day is over and those that come after so they comingle a bunch of ballots and if that happens then you can no longer tell which ones are on time or late.

If you look at the past court cases they absolutely do segregate the ballots that come in late. And a voter predating their envelope doesn't do anything to prevent help determine if a vote came in late.

[cherrypoptart]

Well I agree it makes sense to put all the ballots that arrive before election day is over in one big pile and say those got there on time with no written date required, as long as there is no chance of comingling.

But then you get into the issue of all the ballots that arrive after election day but were sent before it which includes a lot of military ballots. Maybe a separate issue but maybe not if there's a chance those ballots, most of which may still be legit, can get mixed together with earlier ones.

[yossarian22c]

Well I agree it makes sense to put all the ballots that arrive before election day is over in one big pile and say those got there on time with no written date required, as long as there is no chance of comingling.

But then you get into the issue of all the ballots that arrive after election day but were sent before it which includes a lot of military ballots. Maybe a separate issue but maybe not if there's a chance those ballots, most of which may still be legit, can get mixed together with earlier ones.

How does a voter written date determine if one of those later arriving ballots is valid or not? All of the rules are received by/postmarked by election day.

[cherrypoptart]

The USPS doesn't always postmark the ballot envelopes.

I suppose somebody could write a date before election day on the ballot and then send it after election day so I can see the point about questioning the validity of dates just written on there by the sender.

If the USPS was competent that would help a lot but don't even get me started on that subject.

[Tom]

Trump's hand-picked agent has done quite a lot to destabilize the postal service, yeah.

[msquared]

The Postal worker where I dropped off my mail in ballot post marked the envelope while I watched. If you go to the counter they will do that for you.

Cherry I think you are finding that most of this stuff about mail in ballots that the Republicans are worried about are wrong. And the few instances where there might be an issue would not be enough to change the outcome of an election.

[TheDrake]

Personally, I accept the risk of some fraudulent ballots slipping through the cracks rather than silencing the political voice of thousands of people. The frauds seem to get flagged pretty easily.

[msquared]

So Philly is allowing mail in voters to come down in person to fix their ballot.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philadelphia-voters-still-fix-issues-165101668.html

Lets see how the Republicans spin this as some effort to steal the election.

[Tom]

I'm cautiously optimistic. Turnout looks to beat 85% in most crucial Democratic counties. And my hometown beat Waukesha (*censored*in' Waukesha, may that whole town rot in hell) in the state championships this weekend.

[msquared]

So officials in MO and FL are refusing to allow Federal election observers into polling locations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/desantis-officials-reject-federal-voting-172900566.html

I wonder what they are trying to hide?  Just asking questions.

[wmLambert]

So officials in MO and FL are refusing to allow Federal election observers into polling locations.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/desantis-officials-reject-federal-voting-172900566.html

I wonder what they are trying to hide?  Just asking questions.

The answer is obvious. Based on the history of vote-scamming, efforts to clean up the opportunity to cheat is under attack. Each state has the sole authority to control its own elections, and the Fed is not included in the process. In New Jersey, Michigan, Arizona, and other places, The vote-scamming process by old-line Demorats is trying to control outcomes. One obvious strategy now is simply not counting turned-in ballots, if they have the "wrong" nominee selected. https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/ballots-now-gone-missing-dominion-voting-machine-disaster?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=brief-FP&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=2022-11-11&ats_es=bf80a2d151fe5206ffc264443dd14ed1

So the GOP response to scamming is to avoid mail-in ballots and show up on election day. If the counters take in the filled-out ballots,  but never count them - then only the ones allowed in will matter.

Of course, states like Florida which has largely protected the voting process are attacked for proving how easy the process should be. Counting seven million votes on election day is possible if it is done right (like countries all over the world).

 Arizona election officials say the stalling and messiness of their process is "normal and standard." Let's use technology to help - but make sure the transparency is ensured. Body cams for everyone, and cameras on all counting activities should be essential. Secondly, those discovered cooking the count should see jail time (and be banned from voting.)

[cherrypoptart]

Massive Voter Fraud Finally Substantiated.

At least in the mid-terms.

Regarding college loan "forgiveness", Biden bought the mid-term election with money that wasn't his and he never had any authority according to Speaker Pelosi among others or perhaps even intention of paying. Voters got scammed. In its own way, it's funny because as much as Biden and the Democrats talk about how it's all just a ridiculous conspiracy theory, the play we just witnessed where Biden tricked all of these gullible kids out of their votes by promising them money he could never deliver was its very own version of a massive voter fraud.

Or let me put it another way.

So if you promise to buy something and then someone gives it to you and you don't pay what is that called?

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I do believe that's called fraud.

So when Biden promised to pay $10,000 for the votes of these kids with college debt and they gave him their votes and now he doesn't pay what would you call that?

Seems like the only way to describe it is massive voter fraud.

Sadly there is no consumer protection available to help them. They are all shaking their raised fists in anger right now screaming about how "I gave you my vote now give me my money!"

Then they start crying about how if they can't get the money they were promised then they at least want their votes back.

Biden just takes another lick of his vanilla ice cream cone and laughs at them.

[Tom]

To be fair, false promises about Foxconn got Scott Walker kicked out of office. And Trump was rightly mocked for his complete failure to build any sort of meaningful wall. But, yeah, voters generally should and do remember when a candidate can't keep their promises to them, even when the majority of the blame lies elsewhere.

That said, college kids looking for financial relief from the government certainly aren't going to be voting Republican, so the worst case scenario for Dems here is that they don't turn up to vote the next time. It's why pissing on the under-30 bracket is practically a political hobby.

[NobleHunter]

Has there been another court challenge other than the ones with dubious standing? I hadn't heard anything about the debt plan being more than temporarily inconvenienced.

[cherrypoptart]

You're right that it's still in limbo. Time will tell. Yeah, the standing thing will be hurdle especially since you can opt out now. AOC had a hot take on the situation, saying that “Why are we taking this as a legislative compromise, when the opportunity is so much greater, or when Biden could do this stuff with a stroke of a pen, and is just reminding us that he’s choosing not to?” Ocasio-Cortez asked during her New York Times interview.

If I read her right she thinks he could and should have just cancelled it effectively immediately and that way the courts wouldn't get a chance to weigh in. Of course then the student voters wouldn't need him or the Democrats anymore so while they might vote for them out of appreciation they wouldn't do it just to make sure they get the money they were promised because they'd already have it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-biden-midterms-student-loans-b2016589.html

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/28/aoc-says-bidens-student-debt-relief-plan-could-be-better_partner/

I suppose Biden actually did take her advice to some extent and wave his magic pen around to cancel some of it. AOC did call it correctly about how important it was to the mid terms.

[Grant]

So if you promise to buy something and then someone gives it to you and you don't pay what is that called?

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I do believe that's called fraud.

In politics it is simply called politics.  Like promising to build a wall and have mexico pay for it.  It is up to the voters to beware of politicians promising things that they probably cannot deliver or holding politicians accountable when they promise something and do not deliver because it was out of their power. 

As for Uncle Joe and the student debt relief, it was obviously something promised that he hoped to be able to achieve but could not.  The question remains, did he absolutely promise that it would be done, or that he would introduce legislation and attempt it?  There is a difference between saying "I will try to get this done", and "I will get this done".  Uncle Joe obviously was hoping for more support in the Senate for this, but I honestly don't think that it was a major campaign promise anyways.  I don't believe his entire campaign centered on student debt relief.  It's unpopular with a large majority of voters.  It's focused on a particular interest group.  Similar to the environmental legislation. 

Now, if the dude wanted to get it passed through Congress and could not, but wanted to fulfill his promise by attempting to get an EO for it past the courts, then he can say he at least tried.  But it is catering to the uninformed who believe that such things are possible. 

In the end, Democrat voters have no-one to blame but themselves for believing that Uncle Joe has magical powers to make all their dreams come true.  Most of them are probably happy enough if he tried to make it happen.  Similarly Republican voters have no-one to blame but themselves if they believed L'Orange could build a wall and have Mexico pay for it.  This does not absolve any politicians for writing checks they cannot cash, but the recourse is the polls. 

[msquared]

Maybe Trump didn't do fraud for the wall but Bannon did. One of his chief advisors in the 2016 election.

[yossarian22c]

Massive Voter Fraud Finally Substantiated.

At least in the mid-terms.

Regarding college loan "forgiveness", Biden bought the mid-term election with money that wasn't his and he never had any authority according to Speaker Pelosi among others or perhaps even intention of paying. Voters got scammed.
...

Please don't stretch the term massive voter fraud to something so mundanely political. Its lying to yourself. Out of context to what you mean its just a lie. You didn't lie because you explained what you meant. But quit telling yourself this is massive voter fraud. You change the meaning of voter fraud to something that is meaningless.

[cherrypoptart]

Well I thought it was hilarious. Maybe that's the first sign of insanity when you walk around thinking funny things like that just laughing uproariously to yourself for no apparent reason. Then if you do try to explain what's so funny it just makes people think you're even more crazy.

[yossarian22c]

Well I thought it was hilarious. Maybe that's the first sign of insanity when you walk around thinking funny things like that just laughing uproariously to yourself for no apparent reason. Then if you do try to explain what's so funny it just makes people think you're even more crazy.

Sorry, I don't see the humor in validating the Trumpian degradation of our democracy. Because WM and those likeminded see massive voter fraud as still a very real thing. Accepting elections is part of a working democracy. Calling policy disputes or broken campaign promises voter fraud is dangerous in the current political climate.

[cherrypoptart]

Doubling down...

Biden's massive voter fraud went further than false promises about what he would do. He committed fraud against the voters by outright lying about already accomplishing it.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/25/joe-biden/joe-bidens-false-claims-about-student-loan-forgive/

Joe Biden stated on October 23, 2022 in a forum with Now This:

Student loan forgiveness is “passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect.”

At one point, the discussion turned to Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.

As Biden explained it, "What we’ve provided for is, if you went to school, if you qualified for a Pell Grant … you qualify for $20,000 in debt forgiveness. Secondly, if you don’t have one of those loans, you just get $10,000 written off. It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect. And already a total of, I think it’s now 13 million people, have applied for that service."

But there are two key problems with Biden’s statement: how the policy came to be and whether it’s "in effect."

Biden didn’t go through Congress to pursue student debt relief. Technically, Biden didn’t issue an executive order, either.

Rather, his administration drew on the HEROES Act, a law passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that allows relief from student loan payments during times of war or national emergency.

The Donald Trump and Biden administrations repeatedly used the law to pause payments on student loans since the coronavirus pandemic — classified as a national emergency — started in early 2020. (Under Biden’s debt relief plan, that pause would end in January 2023.)

In a legal opinion, Biden’s Education Department broke with the Trump-era department in advising that the same law could be used not only to pause payments, but also to forgive debt.

Despite Biden’s comments, the plan did not pass Congress — by one vote, two votes or any other number of votes."

-----------------------------------------------------

So the Trump equivalent is right ahead of the mid-terms coming out and saying about The Wall, "It's done, coast to coast, beautiful, fifty feet high and twenty feet wide with refreshment stops along it at three mile intervals. People are riding their bicycles on top of it, doing walking tours. It's wonderful. Go check it out. Make a reservation at one of our three brand spanking new Trump hotels built into The Wall overlooking the fabulous Rio Grande River."

They've been saying that these kids were gullible enough to fall for the trap of student loans so it looks like Biden figured they'd be gullible enough to fall for anything and he took advantage of their trusting nature too. Like a bee stinging a little kid's face when she was already crying because of a scraped knee. He deserves to be called out on his deception in the strongest terms available and calling it what it is, massive voter fraud, fits the bill. Not fraud by the voters though but outright fraud against them.

[Tom]

So the Trump equivalent is right ahead of the mid-terms coming out and saying...

I'd say the closest equivalent, actually, was his claim to have delivered a middle-class tax cut, as opposed to a time-delayed tax increase.

[Grant]

Joe Biden stated on October 23, 2022 in a forum with Now This:

Student loan forgiveness is “passed. I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect.”

Is your point that Uncle Joe barely knows where he is these days?  Because if so, you could do better.  I hear he was trying to talk to dead people during a speech a few months ago.  Or that he has some strange fantasies that he now confuses with reality?  Particularly concerning his own accomplishments. 

What I really find sad is that this very old and confused at times individual is still the better alternative than what the Republican Party put up as their leader and champion in 2020.  I wish I could find it hilarious, and sometimes I kinda do, but most of the time it's just depressing.  Like: WTF were these people thinking? 

I'm able to give Uncle Joe some slack because he has one thing.  He has some respect.  Mainly because of the extremely low bar set by his predecessor.  A human being (and I say this dubiously) who most likely did not enter the world through a vagina but by some other mode.  I give Uncle Joe the same kind of respect as given to Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.  None of them were perfect.  They all had problems.  But they were not scumbags. 

So you can keep yammering about his voter fraud, but nobody is buying it.  Nobody gives a *censored*.  If inflation was at zero and if Afghanistan hadn't fallen, Uncle Joe would be sitting at 60-65% approval.  Because if you stacked the amount of stupid stuff he said against the amount of stupid stuff by the Anally Delivered, it doesn't come close. 

[yossarian22c]

Doubling down...

Biden's massive voter fraud went further than false promises about what he would do. He committed fraud against the voters by outright lying about already accomplishing it.
...

So how much "massive voter fraud" did Trump commit with his lies? Stop with that bull of calling this voter fraud. Voters get lied to all the damn time. Voter fraud means something very different. Unless you just want to keep cheapening the meaning of fraud so you can say we were right all along. Look at all this fraud. An ill informed public has been lied to and all those uninformed votes are fraudulent. Do you really want people to have to pass public policy tests to cast "unfraudulent" ballets?


Biden set up the policy, god only knows why he mentioned getting it passed by a couple votes. Maybe he got confused with the infrastructure/inflation bill (it was in some of the drafts)? But if Republicans lose their lawsuit to block it, the forgiveness goes through. And once the debt has been forgiven, no court will try to claw that back.

[msquared]

But one Trump appointed judge once said it should go on hold, so that it evidence that it is illegal to do no matter what other courts say.

[cherrypoptart]

Joe wasn't just lying about what he intended to do. He lied about what he already did.

He said, "I got it passed by a vote or two. And it’s in effect.”

Grant and Tom have the better sense of it. Whether it's the delusions of an old man who should be 25th'd out of office or whether it's what it looks like to me which is a guy embellishing with details what he knows is an outright, downright, both bold and bald faced lie.

It didn't pass by one vote. It didn't pass by two votes. It didn't even not pass by one vote or two votes because there was no vote at all. A lie doesn't get any more ridiculous than that.

Even the Democrats acknowledge this heavily influenced the election.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/11/young-voters-blocked-the-red-wave-biden-must-deliver-on-student-debt-cancellation:

Paywalled but the headline is good enough to make the point.

"Young voters blocked the ‘red wave’. Biden must deliver on student debt cancellation

Biden acknowledged that student debt relief helped motivate ‘historic’ turnout. But we have yet to see a penny of actual relief"

I don't see how I or anyone can call that anything else but massive voter fraud. What do y'all recommend calling it instead?

However, I will enthusiastically agree to spell out exactly how it is a massive fraud perpetrated against voters by Biden as opposed to the other type of massive voter fraud that is allegedly perpetrated by the Democrat shadow voters against Trump. I wouldn't want anyone to get confused. If I was writing it as a headline I'd make sure to word it correctly. "Biden perpetrates massive voter fraud against student debt laden voters" as opposed to something the media would do if the situation were reversed and run the headline "Massive Voter Fraud Finally Proven!"

[cherrypoptart]

I'll probably drop it though just because it's good enough to get it out there without having to keep repeating it all the time. I can see how y'all would think it cheapens the meaning of your go to attack against Trump. We wouldn't want that to happen. You've chosen massive voter fraud to mean one specific thing and that's what it should always mean even if the left side continuously and casually changes the meanings of numerous words and terms as part of their Orwellian manipulation of language and therefore culture. It's nice though to let you have just the teeniest tiniest little taste of that pungent dish. It's not a savory type of pungent but a disgusting one.

[Wayward Son]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

 

[rightleft22]

You've chosen massive voter fraud to mean one specific thing

I don't see how your equating electoral voting fraud with pollical lying.
The system should be dealing with electoral voting fraud while its up to the voter to discern in what the person their electing is making promises they have no intention of keeping, this issue is addressed via the vote.   I know of few on the right or left that would define Political lying as 'voter fraud' until recently that is. This change in definition seems recent and I wonder why your pushing it now.  Could it be cognitive distortion in that you don't want to, or can't, face the truth as to election fraud that you know.

Maybe it would help if you clearly stated your definition of voter fraud. Be careful though as the definition will be applied across the political spectrum.