VP Debate: Vance vs Walz

[thegeneral 2,896]

6 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Nope.  I promised you that YOU could have the last word.  Go ahead. 

But you never do. I always get some dumbass comment from you in return. You can promise the last word, but you never deliver!

[BrahmaBulls 628]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

But here you are responding.

And you keep proving him to be correct.  

[Jeff Probst 59]

27 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How many of those lawsuits did Trump bring? 

Probably none.  What's your point?

[Strike 5,186]

13 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Well, I guess if you want to ignore that they didn’t meet the requirements to bring a lawsuit in the first place… I don’t think this is the win you think it is.

I thought we were done?  I wasn't speaking to you.  I was more than willing to have that discussion with you but you won't even acknowledge that many of the lawsuits weren't decided on their merits, which was your original stance that I objected to.  As I've said, I don't know something like 4 or 5 times now, standing wasn't the only reason some of the suits were dismissed.  But we never got past that because as many times as I say that was just ONE example you go "but standing!!!!"   You seem fixated on that instead of the actual issue, which is why we never progressed from that.  And, I'm not trying to "win" anything.  I'm trying to have an intelligent, ACCURATE discussion.  You made an inaccurate statement which I objected to.  You seem incapable of understanding that and just want to focus on minutia.  I'm sure your boyfriend loves having an argument with you about something general and you just keep saying "but that one time you looked at a girl special."  Must be productive discussions like this one has been. 

[Strike 5,186]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Probst said:

Yeah it's us, not you.

Considering not one of you has addressed my actual point, I'm gonna say yeah it's you, not me.

[Jeff Probst 59]

Bro makes a semantics argument and claims he wants to have an intelligent conversation

[Jeff Probst 59]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Considering not one of you has addressed my actual point, I'm gonna say yeah it's you, not me.

I don't even know what your actual point was anymore.  Was it just that some cases were dismissed on standing?  Sure.  Ok.  Who cares.

Susie's point was of the 62 court cases, they only won 1 and it had no effect on the election anyway.

Do you agree with that?

[Strike 5,186]

Just now, Jeff Probst said:

I don't even know what your actual point was anymore.  Was it just that some cases were dismissed on standing?  Sure.  Ok.  Who cares.

Susie's point was of the 62 court cases, they only won 1 and it had no effect on the election anyway.

Do you agree with that?

ROFLMAO.   Yeah, about what I figured.  You're just a troll who gets suspended every other month.   And no you don't know what "Susie's point" was.   Go back and read the original post I responded to of hers and then you'll know what point I objected to.  Then you can read the rest of the posts in that tangent and TRY to comprehend what is going on.  Or you can just continue to troll and jump in to conversations midstream.

[OldMaid 2,129]

24 minutes ago, Strike said:

I thought we were done?  I wasn't speaking to you.  I was more than willing to have that discussion with you but you won't even acknowledge that many of the lawsuits weren't decided on their merits, which was your original stance that I objected to.  As I've said, I don't know something like 4 or 5 times now, standing wasn't the only reason some of the suits were dismissed.  But we never got past that because as many times as I say that was just ONE example you go "but standing!!!!"   You seem fixated on that instead of the actual issue, which is why we never progressed from that.  And, I'm not trying to "win" anything.  I'm trying to have an intelligent, ACCURATE discussion.  You made an inaccurate statement which I objected to.  You seem incapable of understanding that and just want to focus on minutia.  I'm sure your boyfriend loves having an argument with you about something general and you just keep saying "but that one time you looked at a girl special."  Must be productive discussions like this one has been. 

I thought you quit drinking?  

The. Reason. Why. The. Lawsuits. Weren’t. Decided. On. Merit. Is. Because. They. Didn’t. Meet. The. Requirements. To. Bring. A. Case. 

That’s not some big gotcha. That means they didn’t have enough for a case. If you can’t provide enough evidence-then that’s where it ends. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t litigated.

Now, let’s get to your other points:

You were the one to enter merit into this conversation-not me. I said that everything was litigated. You said it was a lie. Then you are the one who brought up standing. I gave you an explanation and you tried to correct it. I posted the definition of standing with the relevant parts bolded. Then you went off on some tangent about standing not being the only reason, so I asked for an example. 

Then you decided to take your ball and go home.

As far as arguments in my house- He lives by the mantra “happy wife, happy life" like all good men should.

[Strike 5,186]

2 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

I thought you quit drinking?  

The. Reason. Why. The. Lawsuits. Weren’t. Decided. On. Merit. Is. Because. They. Didn’t. Meet. The. Requirements. To. Bring. A. Case. 

That’s not some big gotcha. That means they didn’t have enough for a case. If you can’t provide enough evidence-then that’s where it ends. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t litigated.

Now, let’s get to your other points:

You were the one to enter merit into this conversation-not me. I said that everything was litigated. You said it was a lie. Then you are the one who brought up standing. I gave you an explanation and you tried to correct it. I posted the definition of standing with the relevant parts bolded. Then you went off on some tangent about standing not being the only reason, so I asked for an example. 

Then you decided to take your ball and gone home.

As far as arguments in my house- He lives by the mantra “happy wife, happy life" like all good men should.

I thought we were done?  I took my ball and went home because I got sick of arguing with you over the same point over and over.  You don't seem to get it.  And I would have been happy to explain to you why my point stands REGARDLESS of whether a court ruled a plaintiff didn't have standing or not, but since you wouldn't even acknowledge.  Aw fock it.  Never mind.  I used to think you had brains even if we disagreed.  Now I just feel sorry for your BF.  

[Strike 5,186]

1 minute ago, Jeff Probst said:

Actually we were talking about election fraud and how none of the 62 court cases proved any fraud, then you jumped in with some semantic BS about cases not having standing.  Who the fock cares. 

If you wanna make the case the 2020 election was fraudulent, go for it.  Otherwise I suggest you shut the fock up and stop acting like an ass hole.

You've been back like two days.  Chill out dude. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,832]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

You've been back like two days.  Chill out dude. 

The cases couldn't prove fraud because they never got that far to begin with.  I mean, c'mon.  Even a child can understand that. 

Why is Jeffpimpadouchejamesdaultonprobst having such a hard time with that?  Is he unable to think on his own?

[Jeff Probst 59]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

The cases couldn't prove fraud because they never got that far to begin with.  I mean, c'mon.  Even a child can understand that. 

Why is Jeffpimpadouchejamesdaultonprobst having such a hard time with that?  Is he unable to think on his own?

But they did, except for the ones that had no standing, which means that they had no merit to be brought in the first place

Seriously how dumb are you?

[OldMaid 2,129]

9 minutes ago, Strike said:

I thought we were done?  I took my ball and went home because I got sick of arguing with you over the same point over and over.  You don't seem to get it.  And I would have been happy to explain to you why my point stands REGARDLESS of whether a court ruled a plaintiff didn't have standing or not, but since you wouldn't even acknowledge.  Aw fock it.  Never mind.  I used to think you had brains even if we disagreed.  Now I just feel sorry for your BF.  

I don’t even know what the fock you’re angry about, dude, but it seems to have stemmed from me asking for examples. I tried going back but didn’t find any. IDK, maybe I didn’t look back far enough, but I thought we were having a reasonable discussion and you could just tell me.

Anyway…  I’m not going to disparage you over this. I was enjoying the back and forth until it went sideways.

Oh, and we just celebrated our 19th anniversary! I think if he was miserable he probably would have left by now. Or maybe I keep him tied up in the basement because I’m a horrible shrew.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,927]

1 minute ago, OldMaid said:

I don’t even know what the fock you’re angry about, dude, but it seems to have stemmed from me asking for examples. I tried going back but didn’t find any. IDK, maybe I didn’t look back far enough, but I thought we were having a reasonable discussion and you could just tell me.

Anyway…  I’m not going to disparage you over this. I was enjoying the back and forth until it went sideways.

Oh, and we just celebrated our 19th anniversary! I think if he was miserable he probably would have left by now. Or maybe I keep him tied up in the basement because I’m a horrible shrew.

Happy anniversary! 

[OldMaid 2,129]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Happy anniversary! 

Thank you!

[jerryskids 6,559]

I've repeatedly said that if a system has no mechanism to catch fraud, you cannot catch fraud.  I'm going to try an example:

Different states have laws regarding ballot harvesting -- some allow it, others don't.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state

Any state that added unmonitored ballot drop-off boxes, had by definition, no way to monitor if ballot harvesting occurred.

I'm not sure if this will connect with the "62 lawsuits$#@!" crowd, or if I'll just get some Spinal Tap "but this one goes to 11" responses, but what the hell.   

 

[Jeff Probst 59]

11 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

The question is how dumb are you?  And it's been answered:  You're as dumb as a box of rocks, you f'n moron.  

Better head over to the far left glory hole to get your talking points on how to respond to my post. 

Ok so tell me why none of the cases made it far enough to prove the fraud?

[jerryskids 6,559]

2 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Thank you!

Congrats!  My 31st is next Wednesday.  LOOKATME!

[thegeneral 2,896]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Sorry, dumbass comments are YOUR forte.  

Go ahead, have the last (dumbass) word. 

You are nothing if not predictable

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,832]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

You are nothing if not predictable

You did it!  you got the last dumbass word!!!!

Good boy!

[Strike 5,186]

19 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

I don’t even know what the fock you’re angry about, dude, but it seems to have stemmed from me asking for examples. I tried going back but didn’t find any. IDK, maybe I didn’t look back far enough, but I thought we were having a reasonable discussion and you could just tell me.

Anyway…  I’m not going to disparage you over this. I was enjoying the back and forth until it went sideways.

Oh, and we just celebrated our 19th anniversary! I think if he was miserable he probably would have left by now. Or maybe I keep him tied up in the basement because I’m a horrible shrew.

I'm not mad.  I just don't like wasting my time and having to literally say the same thing 4 times over a 20 hour period of time is just a waste.  And then you keep revisiting it after we had agreed we were done. 

[thegeneral 2,896]

3 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

You did it!  you got the last dumbass word!!!!

Good boy!

Have you stopped to consider when you respond to me you are doing this odd thing you have chosen to obsess on

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,832]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Have you stopped to consider when you respond to me you are doing this odd thing you have chosen to obsess on

HAH!  TDS guy thinks I'm obsessed!    

[thegeneral 2,896]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

HAH!  TDS guy thinks I'm obsessed!    

I think you are starting to get it!

[The Real timschochet 6,410]

This woman is going to prison for promoting Trump’s election dishonesty: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/03/tina-peters-colorado-elections-prison/

The question is when will Trump himself be going to prison for this? Hopefully soon…

[Jeff Probst 59]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

This woman is going to prison for promoting Trump’s election dishonesty: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/03/tina-peters-colorado-elections-prison/

The question is when will Trump himself be going to prison for this? Hopefully soon…

She's joins the club of the numerous trump conspirators that are broke, in jail, disbarred, indicted.  They all bought into the lie because the big baby can't accept that he lost.  That orange piece of sh1t just keeps destroying lives.

[Reality 3,096]

You simply don't hate the media enough. 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,927]

ABC has surpassed NBC as being the most shameless of the networks. 

[OldMaid 2,129]

26 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I've repeatedly said that if a system has no mechanism to catch fraud, you cannot catch fraud.  I'm going to try an example:

Different states have laws regarding ballot harvesting -- some allow it, others don't.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_laws_by_state

Any state that added unmonitored ballot drop-off boxes, had by definition, no way to monitor if ballot harvesting occurred.

I'm not sure if this will connect with the "62 lawsuits$#@!" crowd, or if I'll just get some Spinal Tap "but this one goes to 11" responses, but what the hell.   

 

Well, Jerry, I think I need to know what you consider "no mechanism to catch fraud’.

From what I could find:

Quote

The most common method to verify that absentee/mail ballots come from the intended voter is to conduct signature verification. When voters return an absentee/mail ballot, they must sign an affidavit on the ballot envelope. When the ballot is returned to the election office, election officials have a process for examining each and every signature and comparing it to other documents in their files that contain the voter signature—usually the voter registration record.

If a ballot is missing a signature or the signature does not match the one on file, some states offer voters the opportunity to “cure” their ballots. The election official will contact the voter explaining the problem and asking them to verify their information and that that they did in fact cast the ballot. See Table 15: States with Signature Cure Processes for more details.

Some states have other methods for verifying absentee/mail ballots, such as requiring voters to provide a copy of an identification document or to have the absentee/mail ballot witnessed or notarized.

Thirty-one states conduct signature verification on returned absentee/mail ballots:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia.

Ten states, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., verify that an absentee/mail ballot envelope has been signed but do not conduct signature verification:

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming.

Seven states require the signature of a witness in addition to the voter’s signature:

Alabama (two witnesses or a notary), Alaska (witness or notary), Louisiana, Minnesota (witness or notary), North Carolina (two witnesses or a notary), South Carolina and Wisconsin.

Three states require the absentee/mail ballot envelope to be notarized:

Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma.

Arkansas requires a copy of the voter’s ID to be returned with the absentee/mail ballot. And Georgia requires the voter’s driver’s license number or state identification card number, which is compared with the voter’s registration record. Note: Minnesota and Ohio also require this information, though Minnesota also requires a witness signature, and Ohio conducts signature verification.

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots

 

[thegeneral 2,896]

Does this “shotgunning” ballots premise have some holes in it

Birdshot perhaps?

[Jeff Probst 59]

Jerry is referring to ballot harvesting, where people collect ballots and bring them to the polling location, for elderly or disabled people.

The inherent risk here is someone collects the ballots and dumps them in the river.  It's very rare but possible and has happened.

He's essentially grasping at straws because he doesn't have the balls to admit trump lost.

[OldMaid 2,129]

1 minute ago, Jeff Probst said:

Jerry is referring to ballot harvesting, where people collect ballots and bring them to the polling location, for elderly or disabled people.

The inherent risk here is someone collects the ballots and dumps them in the river.  It's very rare but possible and has happened.

He's essentially grasping at straws because he doesn't have the balls to admit trump lost.

Yeah, I realize my reply was to yesterday’s question (my bad) but was too lazy to go back and find it.

[jerryskids 6,559]

6 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Well, Jerry, I think I need to know what you consider "no mechanism to catch fraud’.

From what I could find:

 

Well Suz, I don't quite get your point.  Your link states that many states don't do signature verification.  Anyone could sign those, fill out the ballots, and send them in, including for people that haven't been scrubbed from the voting rolls (dead, moved, etc.).

[jerryskids 6,559]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Probst said:

Jerry is referring to ballot harvesting, where people collect ballots and bring them to the polling location, for elderly or disabled people.

The inherent risk here is someone collects the ballots and dumps them in the river.  It's very rare but possible and has happened.

He's essentially grasping at straws because he doesn't have the balls to admit trump lost.

Also this.  Thanks Meph!

[Jeff Probst 59]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Also this.  Thanks Meph!

I'll tell Mona you said hi.

[thegeneral 2,896]

Where were these ballots “shotgunned” out and what is that?

[OldMaid 2,129]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Well Suz, I don't quite get your point.  Your link states that many states don't do signature verification.  Anyone could sign those, fill out the ballots, and send them in, including for people that haven't been scrubbed from the voting rolls (dead, moved, etc.).

The link says 10 states (but I actually count 11 ) + The Virgin Islands and D.C. so that is only 13. And I actually happen to think that not requiring signature verification is stupid. But that’s their laws…  

I mean if you want to make a case that the election was stolen through those 11 states plus VI & DC, who am I to stop you?

[jerryskids 6,559]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Probst said:

I'll tell Mona you said hi.

 

[thegeneral 2,896]

I have heard stories of people voting in person under assumed names. You can never really be sure. Every election is suspect.