Texas to conduct a lawful audit of election

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 9, 2009
10,477
1,846
136
The entire purpose of the "stop the steal" propaganda is use false claims of voter fraud in order to disenfranchise legal voters.
Also, whenever someone digs up the old "the US is a republic, not a democracy," it's because they're trying to argue that some citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote. And in that case, why not start with them?
Finay, this thread isn't about felons voting. That's a whole other subject about voter suppression, and one that I wouldn't expect you to engage in any more honestly than you do any other subject.
No, the idea that any type of vote security is trying to disenfranchise voters is just bullshit and a lie. Making voting secure is routine.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,849
945
136
First you'll have to give me a list or publications or references you'd accept. Only left wing sources? mainstream media? corporate media ? Fox news ?
Wrong answer.

Get fucked. I never had a conversation with you, much less about your sources. I asked for a source to be cited with no stipulations. You clearly don't want to have a real conversation.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pohemi420
Jul 9, 2009
10,477
1,846
136
democracy or republic is a distinction without a difference. one is greek, one is latin, they both mean the same thing. the only people who care are small-minded individuals who think it gives them some sort of blessing to restrict the electorate.
lol, look who's talking. To simply label the United States as a ... duh "democracy" is for simpletons.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,849
945
136
As i expected.
Now prove to me the source is reliable or provide some form of credentials. Heck, I'd even take if you could provide at least 2 more sources that corroborate these accounts.

Edit: Linking to the source of your source isn't providing another source. I want 3 independent sources that are not just quoting each other. Then I'll believe it.


I researched your source's source's source.

I'll shortcut for you:

"A smaller group of inmates may have it even worse: those awaiting trial for alleged crimes in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. They've been placed in "restrictive housing," a maximum-security designation. "

Oh, you mean people who have had charges filed against them and are actively awaiting trial? Where are the people that are being held with no charges filed?

You have to provide a source that corroborates your claims. You claimed the capitol rioters were an equivalent scenario to the immigrants.

Where's the source showing the capitol rioters did not receive an appointment of defense within 3 days of being imprisoned? Where's the source showing they did not have charges filed within 15-30 days of being imprisoned?

Edit 2: Also your original source's source simply tacked on the quote I cited about the restrictive housing to its claim from its own source. No underlying source has any claim or evidence of that phrase.
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,094
6,372
136
Anyone attempting to have a rational discussion with the shitbag traitor who wants to murder immigrants has lost the argument simply by treating the shitbag traitor as an actual human being interested in rational discussion.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
No, the idea that any type of vote security is trying to disenfranchise voters is just bullshit and a lie. Making voting secure is routine.
As demonstrated by the 0.0006% fraud rate, our elections are already very secure. Your bullshit and lie is your press for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, when your real problem is that your party keeps losing elections. And yet, losing elections is just what happens to a party that is openly hostile to the majority of the electorate.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,049
1,619
136
Your piss ignorance and basic stupidity is a source of constant amusement to me. Speaking of amused. ....................





"The United States of America is defined as a constitutional republic.
But what does this mean? Let’s break it down.

First, the “constitutional” part refers, of course, to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution functions as the supreme law of the land – by “supreme law,” we mean that no laws made by state governments or the federal government can contradict it. If a specific law is believed to go against the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s Justices will decide whether it does or not according to their individual interpretations of the Constitution."
Are you and Someonesmind1 brothers? You both seem to like to post shit without fully reading it, thinking it supports your argument. I would point out your stupidity, but Amused took care of that. Don't you think it's time you park your idiot cycle, or are you practicing so you can join the circus as a clown?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,956
1,160
126
So, how many lives could they save this winter if they instead put this money towards winterizing their power grid? But they're "pro life" lol, and that's why they passed the most 1984 law in US history in their "report your neighbors" abortion law.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,147
331
126
Why pass voter restriction laws prior to an aduit so you can make the laws with the information you uncover? Oh right, because when the laws were made there was no plan for an audit, Trump forced them into one.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,049
1,619
136
Why pass voter restriction laws prior to an aduit so you can make the laws with the information you uncover? Oh right, because when the laws were made there was no plan for an audit, Trump forced them into one.
Trump did not force anything. All Trump did was ask.. no force involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420 and BD:)

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,561
11,499
136
lol, look who's talking. To simply label the United States as a ... duh "democracy" is for simpletons.
Like the simpletons that say we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy?

Here is something that’s probably news to you, you are an idiot and you’ve been brainwashed as bad as you claim “leftys” are. I know that’s difficult to hear but you can blame your old age as it’s per common knowledge that the elderly are more susceptible to misinformation. How could one come to this conclusion? The first clue was your bogus argument about not being a democracy, the second clue was your refusal to acknowledge your wrongness when it was explained to you, and finally, the third clue was your defense mechanism to move the goal posts from “not a democracy” to “it’s not that simple”.

Of course me explaining to you all of this is pointless as you are too far gone to even consider that your world views are based on lies and propaganda. It’s why you’ll continue to use sources that by all standards are considered bull shit and why you will continue to accept accusations as facts when and only when they agree with the world view you’ve been brainwashed to believe. Hence the reason why you believe your anti democratic policy positions are good for democracy and it’s why someone who sees themselves as a patriot is actually a traitor.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,477
1,846
136
Now prove to me the source is reliable or provide some form of credentials. Heck, I'd even take if you could provide at least 2 more sources that corroborate these accounts.

Edit: Linking to the source of your source isn't providing another source. I want 3 independent sources that are not just quoting each other. Then I'll believe it.


I researched your source's source's source.

I'll shortcut for you:

"A smaller group of inmates may have it even worse: those awaiting trial for alleged crimes in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. They've been placed in "restrictive housing," a maximum-security designation. "

Oh, you mean people who have had charges filed against them and are actively awaiting trial? Where are the people that are being held with no charges filed?

You have to provide a source that corroborates your claims. You claimed the capitol rioters were an equivalent scenario to the immigrants.

Where's the source showing the capitol rioters did not receive an appointment of defense within 3 days of being imprisoned? Where's the source showing they did not have charges filed within 15-30 days of being imprisoned?

Edit 2: Also your original source's source simply tacked on the quote I cited about the restrictive housing to its claim from its own source. No underlying source has any claim or evidence of that phrase.
Why would i bother trying to "prove" anything to you? I honestly asked you what type a link/reference you wanted and got the typical ATP&N "get fucked". You seem more concerned with what "the source" is rather than the accuracy of the claim. So i'll ask you, what's more important, "the source" or the accuracy of the report?


One more thing, how about the "source" for "Russia,Russia,Russia"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420
Jul 9, 2009
10,477
1,846
136
Terrorists. The word you're looking for it terrorists. To be more precise, Nazi terrorists supported only by vile, worthless, sieg heiling, piece of shit Nazis.
Damn, and here in the United States i thought you actually had to be prosecuted and convicted before you're found guilty of crimes. Isn't there some kind of rule or law? Oh yeah


"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,849
945
136
Why would i bother trying to "prove" anything to you? I honestly asked you what type a link/reference you wanted and got the typical ATP&N "get fucked". You seem more concerned with what "the source" is rather than the accuracy of the claim. So i'll ask you, what's more important, "the source" or the accuracy of the report?


One more thing, how about the "source" for "Russia,Russia,Russia"
Nice misdirect but you clearly dodged the question which was: where's a source that corroborates your claim the prisoners being held for the 1/6 insurrection are being denied their right to timely legal counsel and right to know their charges?

I outright told you the source of the source of the source you provided made no such claim.

In fact, the source of your source made no such claim.

In fact, your direct source made no such claim.

So, in retort, fuck off you lying sack of shit.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,477
1,846
136
Nice misdirect but you clearly dodged the question which was: where's a source that corroborates your claim the prisoners being held for the 1/6 insurrection are being denied their right to timely legal counsel and right to know their charges?

I outright told you the source of the source of the source you provided made no such claim.

In fact, the source of your source made no such claim.

In fact, your direct source made no such claim.

So, in retort, fuck off you lying sack of shit.
yawn
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

ASK THE COMMUNITY