Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

Prove fraudulent votes have never successfully turned an

Posted on: October 11, 2020 at 18:05:42 CT
MizzouTigerz MU
Posts:
37095
Member For:
21.88 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
election (well in the last 100 years or so).

You made the claim; you back it up with proof.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Prediction and a poll - JG A - 10/11 16:58:33
     Why can't people just go to the poll?(nm) - tcat KC - 10/11 17:59:46
          I'm saying they SHOULD - JG A - 10/11 18:16:01
     10% failure rate seems low for the post office(nm) - El-ahrairah BAMA - 10/11 17:22:11
          When I got voter suppressed in 1976 - JG A - 10/11 17:26:03
               You didn't get voter supressed liar - Calca STL - 10/11 18:09:18
     Multiple democrat voter fraud examples have been given - Calca STL - 10/11 17:08:43
          list them - JG A - 10/11 17:10:21
               LMAO you bury your head in the sand? - Calca STL - 10/11 18:06:11
                    Two of the cases were about local elections - JG A - 10/11 18:21:30
                         So you then go on to ignore the examples given - Calca STL - 10/11 19:52:56
                              They don't speak to the point - JG A - 10/11 20:08:32
               Google is your friend. Even for libs(nm) - tman MU - 10/11 17:12:37
                    LOL yup - JG A - 10/11 17:13:36
                    So basically, you can't. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 10/11 17:13:30
                         I can. Google voter fraud. Rather teach you how to fish - tman MU - 10/11 17:56:18
                              So still you can't. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 10/11 18:18:06
                              LOL the first page is almost entirely - JG A - 10/11 17:58:58
                                   Of course. Does that surprise you? No wonder the monkeys - tman MU - 10/11 18:02:43
                                        LOL lying about things you know nothing about to support - JG A - 10/11 18:15:17
     Why are libs supressing vote by demanding universal - tman MU - 10/11 17:07:57
          Quite the opposite. They are enabling fraudulent votes which - MizzouTigerz MU - 10/11 17:50:47
               fraudulent votes DO happen - JG A - 10/11 17:57:09
                    Prove fraudulent votes have never successfully turned an - MizzouTigerz MU - 10/11 18:05:42
                         Prove that Comey's October surprise didn't hand the election - SparkyStalcup MU - 10/11 18:27:40
                              I didn't make the claim. That was JG. Try to keep up with - MizzouTigerz MU - 10/11 19:24:30
                         The most famous case was 1964 - JG A - 10/11 18:22:47
          How would that even suppress the vote? Dumb nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 10/11 17:12:02
               Because aprox 20 percent end up getting rejected - tman MU - 10/11 17:58:55
                    wrong in the last 20 years or so - JG A - 10/11 18:24:26
                         Wrong. You are confusing absentee balloting - tman MU - 10/11 19:37:01
                              nope - JG A - 10/11 20:39:52
                    Link? 20% sounds incorrect. Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 10/11 18:20:40
          link? - JG A - 10/11 17:09:06
               You dont believe that libs want mail in voting - tman MU - 10/11 17:11:35
                    How does that suppress votes? - JG A - 10/11 17:19:00
                         Because approx 20 percent end up getting rejected - tman MU - 10/11 18:06:10
                              LOL yes 21% get suppressed - JG A - 10/11 18:27:45
                              Link? In Colorado, fewer than 1% of ballots get rejected. - SparkyStalcup MU - 10/11 18:23:17
                    How does that suppress the vote? Nm - SparkyStalcup MU - 10/11 17:12:48




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard