Greg Palast says the Crosscheck purges were enough to tip key Senate races — http://www.gregpalast.com/the-secret-lists-that-swiped-the-senate/
Ha ha ha!
You Democrats are so incredibly impotent.
Took the Senate, we did, right out from under your noses! And you can’t do a thing about it!!!
Woo hoo!!!
USA! USA! USA!
From your quote:
Are you saying that the people in line for seven hours was the result of the robocalls?
Your link says:
Well, liar?
You are, as the previous post demonstrates yet again. You’re a liar, happy to lie to advance your cause.
Your “acknowledgment” was a poisoned well. Nothing in my original statement in any way suggested anything OTHER than the brain-dead people being the judges; you simply made up the contrary interpretation, announced it was true, announced you didn’t believe anything to the contrary, advanced “only two” possibilities, and only then as an afterthought “acknowledged,” another one, with yet another caveat that you were certain that it wasn’t so.
Filth.
So you’re recognizing the 2014 midterms were affected by what most people with a sense of fair play would call cheating, and celebrating such?
I stand corrected on that one–the link came from a ThinkProgress article which implied that the delays were caused by the judges, and I wasn’t scrupulous in analyzing the claim.
Here’s a better one, courtesy CBS (that bastion of progressive liberal bias):
Late starts and late finishes as a direct result of the malicious robocalls. People turned away from polling places that should not have been closed.
Another round of highly selective quoting.
And:
So here’s what I don’t see: support for your lie that “…as a direct result of the malicious robocalls,” people were unable to vote. The article acknowledges that even without malicious robocalls, they expect to have 1500 braid-dead volunteers not show up.
So I grant you that some of the morons that the Democrats rely upon for election wins did not show up, and for about half of them the reason might have been the robocall. What I haven’t seen is voters “unable” to vote for this reason. I see voters who may have had to wait longer, or come back.
When you decide to lie, do you tell yourself that it’s a lie in a good cause, or does that internal dialog just not happen?
No, I absolutely deny it.
But I’m amused to point out than even if it were true, it shows stupidity and impotence. If Palast’s paranoid fantasy were true, it means that the GOP took the Senate right out from under your noses, and you can’t do a thing about it. That’s the funniest thing ever.
Fucking morons. According to you, the GOP placed into effect “cheating” rules, they were accepted as rules, executed, and you lost. And you think “most people” imagine that to be cheating.
No, most people imagine that to be a reasonable program with reasonable results. Where is the groundswell of backlash for this “cheating?” Nowhere: no one of any importance cares. That article may as well have said, “Thank you, sir; may I have another?”
In your magic unicorn and pony world, who cares what fluffy rainbow rules you think ought to exist?
Well, I’m prepared to tentatively assume that the effect of the robocalls may have been minimal or even insignificant, pending investigation.
It’s still a scummy thing to do but, hey, Illinois.
Aren’t you afraid you’ll get shunned by the other liberals at the next Occupy meeting?
Hilarious to accuse me of selective quoting, given your post 7753. Also, “another”? I haven’t quoted from any articles this thread.
The part you quoted literally says that 500-1500 additional judges did not show up as a result of the robocalls. Like, it’s right there in your own post. In fact, you even acknowledge (quoted below) that about “half the reason” might be electoral cheating!
As for Neal’s quote, excuse me for not taking seriously the claims of the politician responsible for smooth elections when he says the elections went smoothly. All evidence in the article indicates things did not go smooth, and Neal has a strong incentive for spin.
What the hell are you talking about? How are poll workers people the democrats “rely upon for election wins?”
This is just insane.
If a person who works far in the suburbs, or has children or a disable spouse, or who works two jobs, gets turned away from the polls in the morning and told to come back in the afternoon when they are out of the city/caring for children/on shift, that person cannot vote.
There’s no indication of an “if” qualifier in your earlier post. It looks like an acceptance of a premise and a celebration thereof.
I’m not a liberal as you define such so the question is moot.
Everybody has their own personal favorite Bricker quote in this thread. This has to be mine, its a peach!
Was it a hundred illegal aliens? Two hundred, a thousand? Did they tell you they were illegal, or did you use your own astonishing powers of perception? Were they all illegal aliens? Was it a crowd mostly composed of American citizens of Hispanic derivation, and there were just a couple of illegal aliens there, or did you just assume that? How did you know?
You use the plural “volunteers”. Did they all counsel illegal aliens on how to vote? Or just one? Which of the proper authorities did you report this to? What further action did you take in regard to this corrupt and destructive effort on the part of CASA? Other than telling us about it, what did you do?
So many questions, so few answers. Perhaps, in the future, you might be a little more circumspect in tossing about words like “liar”? Just a suggestion…
Weren’t these “morons” recruited by the Republican Party? I’ve been avoiding the cheap (and I’ll be honest, untrue) observation that agreeing to work for the Republicans is proof of stupidity in itself, while you seem eager to imply such.
Oh, by the way, what *was *their advice? Did they offer specific methods for each individual voter fraud felony?
And nobody said anything like “Hey, we can’t do that, its against the law…” Did you? Didn’t speak out to protest, solid citizen that you are? Nothing? You did nothing?
No.
I “imply” what i have outright said: if you get a call that says you must vote a particular way in order to be an election judge, and you believe it, then you’re a moron. This is true if you’ve been recruited by Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, or Monarchists.
So? we’re in the fucking pit–I can poison the goddamn well as much as I want to, mister “liberals are stupid.” You seem to have trouble separating rhetoric from logic, as we demonstrated when you accused me of lying while simultaneously ignoring both my evidence and my conclusion, all because I used a hyperbolic phrase to draw an analogy.
I did acknowledge that there might be other possibilities–you don’t get to accuse me of logical fallacies by saying “yeah, but you were mean about it so it doesn’t count.”
This is not true. You claimed that the only effect of the robocalls was “braindead” people not showing up to the polls. Given that the judges work the polls and their collective work affects literally every voter in the city, your claim that **only **people getting robocalls were affected is strong (not conclusive) evidence that you were writing about voters then and are backpedalling now to cover your ass.
Wrong. I explained exactly why your quote didn’t make sense in reference to the judges.
So? You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Why shouldn’t I believe what I believe?
Note that I specifically said that I “doubt” that you have anything to offer. That’s not the same as saying that I’ll ignore any explanations or evidence you put forward. It simply means that you have enough evidence stacked against your honesty that it will require an exceptional explanation to change my mind.
It’s not an excluded middle if there is no middle. You still haven’t actually explained what the third option is.
Again, so fucking what? You accuse me of stating “only two possibilities” with one breath, then with the next say that when I do acknowledge a third it somehow doesn’t count? Your own post contradicts itself.
This is a straight-up lie. I said “I doubt it.” I never said, or implied, absolute certainty.
I call a liar a liar when he says something factually untrue.
I said: I have personally heard CASA of Maryland volunteers telling illegal aliens how easy it is to vote. That’s absolutely, completely, factually true.
Why do you care about details? How would that possibly change the story?
I didn’t “report” it. Why would I? There was no crime.
In fact, I myself have spent many posts here explaining how easy it is for illegal aliens to vote in states without Voter ID. Who has reported me? You? Why not?
That’s part of the problem. I call a person on their mistakes when they say something factually untrue. I need quite a bit more evidence that the person is willfully and knowingly prevaricating before I start jumping to the conclusion that they are lying.