Laughing....other than citing the National Academy of Science shredding your argument, you mean? Who peer reviewed John Lott's 'analysis'? The only peer review I was able to find was the PNAS, where they eviscerated his entire paper.
The PNAS eviceration of your 'crystal clear evidence' is 12 paragraphs and almost 1300 words. Your reply came 2 minutes after I posted.
You never even read it.
And yet you've already ignored it, refusing to acknowledge the peer review of your 'crystal clear evidence' even exists.
Evidence has absolutely nothing to do with your conspiracies, tinfoil.
So much for your “argument” when you have to lie about things I have said or you need to make up things I’ve never said.
And it’s not a “silly conspiracy.” You’re the one busy denying reality.
Let me try to talk down to you sufficiently for your tiny mind to grasp what is and what is not being said: the evidence of fraud is crystal clear.
Note well; this is not the same thing as claiming that the 2020 election was “stolen.” The latter is not a claim I have made, simply because I have not found sufficient evidence to support that conclusion.
I realize your petty little mind won’t accept any hint of evidence, nonetheless there are some people (yes, even some liberals) who have minds sufficiently “open” to at least consider the evidence.
The Trump campaign and it’s top advisers called for multiple lawsuits on the grounds that the ongoing vote count would result in tallying illegally cast ballots.
by Steve Levy Voter fraud is real, and no amount of media gaslighting to the contrary should convince you otherwise. Over the past year, one so-called fact checker after another has made the preposterous determination that voter fraud is near non-existent in our nation. These media sources...
www.theleaderonline.com
Again: there is a great deal of crystal clear evidence of voter fraud. To simply deny it is absurdly weak of you, Skyl.
And again: try to grasp the distinction between noting it versus claiming that the election was “stolen.” The latter is not a claim I’ve made; and, in fact, I’ve specifically disavowed that claim for lack of sufficient evidence.
Nope. And he wiped his ass with any claims to an 'evidence' based argument by dismissing the PNAS evisceration of his 'crystal clear evidence' in less than 2 minutes.
It always makes me giggle when they try to claim they were convinced by the 'evidence'.....all while ignoring anything that contradicts their silly conspiracy.
Laughing....other than citing the National Academy of Science shredding your argument, you mean? Who peer reviewed John Lott's 'analysis'? The only peer review I was able to find was the PNAS, where they eviscerated his entire paper.
The PNAS eviceration of your 'crystal clear evidence' is 12 paragraphs and almost 1300 words. Your reply came 2 minutes after I posted.
You never even read it.
And yet you've already ignored it, refusing to acknowledge the peer review of your 'crystal clear evidence' even exists.
Evidence has absolutely nothing to do with your conspiracies, tinfoil.
Its easy to spot a regurgitator, someone spewing pre-chewed cud without comprehension or even review of what they're letting dribble down their chin.
It's even easier to demonstrate how little evidence has to do with their position when they dismiss a detailed review by the National Academy of Science totaling 12 paragraphs, 2 diagrams and nearly 1300 words....
....in under 2 minutes.
Evidence has nothing to do with this silly, stupid little conspiracy.
Says who? Remember, you've never read the PNAS obliteration of John Lott's analysis. You have no idea what the PNAS analysis says. You reject it....because its the only peer review of your source you can find. And it SHREDS your 'crystal clear evidence'.
Demonstrating yet again that evidence has nothing to do with your argument. It never did. You'll ignore anyone or anything that contradicts you.
Says who? Remember, you've never read the PNAS obliteration of John Lott's analysis. You have no idea what the PNAS analysis says. You reject it....because its the only peer review of your source you can find. And it SHREDS your 'crystal clear evidence'.
Demonstrating yet again that evidence has nothing to do with your argument. It never did. You'll ignore anyone or anything that contradicts you.
Florida’s new Office of Election Crimes and Security (OECS) has collected enough evidence of j
pjmedia.com
Florida’s new Office of Election Crimes and Security (OECS) has collected enough evidence of systemic ballot harvesting in the Orlando area to recommend state law enforcement open a full criminal investigation.
Ballot harvesting is illegal in Florida.
Just The News reports that the OECS investigation was launched after Cynthia Harris, a former candidate for Orange County Commissioner, filed a sworn affidavit with the Florida Secretary of State’s office. In her affidavit, Harris described a long-standing, systemic ballot-harvesting operation in the Orlando area.
“So what happens is, in our community, when absentee ballots are mailed, you, the candidate, or any political party can find out when the absentee ballots are mailed and to whom. What happens is these ballot harvesters, they know which batch has gone out, they go to the door and they ask you for your absentee ballot,” said Harris. “Well, in communities that don’t look like me [aka white communities], no one does this,” noted Harris, who is black. “But in our community, it’s kind of like an accepted practice that the man is coming by to pick up my absentee ballot, or the lady is coming to pick up my absentee ballot.”
Just The News reports that Harris “even recorded a ballot broker coming to her home in 2017 to collect her ballot, and obtained the script that harvester was given by her bosses to make the pitch for a voter to turn over their ballot.”
Harris, a Democrat, alleges that the entire operation is funded by progressive organizations:
[Harris] filed a sworn affidavit in late August with the Secretary of State’s office alleging that illegal operations to collect third-party ballots have been going on for years in the Orlando area where voting activists are paid $10 for each ballot they collect.
She described an intricate system funded by liberal leaning organizations that dispatch ballot brokers into black communities to pressure voters to turn over their ballots. The $10 fee per ballot is divvied up among the parties who help complete the harvesting.
Police in Colorado said they arrested a man on suspicion of tampering with voting equipment after he reportedly inserted a USB flash drive into the voting machine during the state’s primary election in June.
