3 ms·

You'll note that I said more general election fraud happens. That was the point of the 2004 election reference. >Even in this case, there is no proof of substa

You'll note that I said more general election fraud happens. That was the point of the 2004 election reference. >Even in this case, there is no proof of substantial voter fraud deciding an election. Perhaps not voter fraud, but certainly the fact that there were substantially more improperly cast ballots than the outcome of the election makes it impossible to know which candidate received more votes. The judge's ruling does not change reality.

ch4s3 9y ago
> Perhaps not voter fraud You said it was an example of voter fraud, I guess expecting no one to be familiar with the case or to bother reading the decision. What is your game here? > substantially more improperly cast ballots Then fix the ballots and the procedure for casting them. THat's no reason to purge rolls with a 99% error rate in the purging process. > The judge's ruling does not change reality. Neither does you nonsense argument. The ruling does however change settled case law. And wishing it away doesn't make in person voter fraud a problem, which it is not. You are a liar, and you are spinning the truth. You are clearly a shill for the interests that want to purge rightful voters from the rolls. You are an enemy of democracy.