Oh yeah, I read that. Can you quantify "substantially overstates" for us? They certainly didn't. So since their readers who had no reason not to lie responded at 28.2% that they live in a different state than they voted in (yep, that passes the eye test for sure!) then even if the real number was, oh let's say 15% then Trump still would've won. Most of the time.

lol

Yeah. There wasn't 28% fraud, Brian.

There wasn't 15%, which would qualify as a substantial overstating when they said 28%.

It would be a fraction of a percent. Anything higher than that is literally a joke.

And there only evidence is a poll that THEY CONDUCTED.

I knew you were gullible, but this is impressive.

So, no, then. You cannot produce a direct quote, nor the tape. Got it, thanks.

And no, then. You cannot produce the US Code and concrete evidence of that US Code being specifically broken, like we can with Trump.

Got it again, thanks.

Man, this squirrel trick is really losing its potency.

I think these clowns surveyed 1040 people, correct? And when did they conduct this survey? Just loooooooooooooooooool, Losern, Jr.

I don't think Biden won because of mail ballot voter fraud at all.

But can we all agree that you should have a voter ID (free of charge ofc) and only vote in person? Militaries and similar situation should have special booths set up for them. Same for people in hospitals, mobile booth.

Would it cost more? Probably.

But elections are core functions of democracy so it's ok to spend more to guarantee the process.

It's also beyond absurd that we don't know the completely full perfect count in 12-24 hours, like normal countries do.

And of course, strictly and only paper and pencil voting.

Oh and voting day should obviously be a federal holiday

If I’m not mistaken fraud vote is a federal crime right ?
And they just admit they committed it ?
I wonder if they would keep the same story if they would actually charged them ?

Show me where it says they polled their readers.

Of course not. They literally were trying to get this result.

Usually the people conducting a poll describe their sampling methods, which is crucial to determine the validity of a poll.

"Online voluntary anonymous participation" is usually the bottom low of poll quality.

You are exactly right. That fact that they did not extensively describe how the sample was selected is conclusive itself.

Without that data this poll is completely useless. We'll wait for that data to be supplied before giving it any weight at all.

But yeah, they defo polled their readers. It just looks like they put it up on their website.

Wrong again Gorgo. (yet another L to add to the collection lol)


Also, if you read the study you will find the results are consistent with data on mail ballot fraud from other sources which are referred to in the study.

These are literally the same people putting out studies that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist and second hand smoking is not harmful. Hardly worth wasting time looking into their methods. BJ posting this study is dead on form though, for sure.

Second hand smoking is exceptionally less harmful than people have being conditioned to think which is why papers on the topic stopped quantifying it's damage a long ago.

Can you provide me a paper from the last 25 years that quantifies how much life expectancy you lose if you are a kid living in a house with one of the parents smoking a pack per day?

Would you believe if that was in the "weeks" of life expectancy at most?

Do you... think that paragraph you quoted somehow shows Im wrong?

BJ found 1 dubious study to say trump won the 2020 election props to him.
But when u look at the trend, what election trump did win since 2016 ?
ah yes they were all rigged except the 2016 where trump lost the popular votes by 3 millions....
It all adds up!

So u dont deny its harmful ?

moving on....

I am saying that from the wikipedia page it's abundantly clear they are one of those "think tanks" that are paid by certain interests to produce studies that arrive at pre-determined, unscientific, unfounded conclusions - i.e. a bunch of grifters, so it's not worth wasting time looking into their methods, other than for the lols I suppose.

BJ has to be a troll, there is no way someone can be compos mentis enough to get on the internet, navigate to this forum, and post at least semi-coherently, while simultaneously being gullible enough to believe that is a real and meaningful study. In fact, I find it unlikely that anyone with enough brain cells to remember to continue to breathe actually believes that is a real study.

Fact is even grifters might have a point at times.

For voting for ex Scandinavian countries tried electronic voting and decided paper and pencil were far preferable for a series of rational reasons.

So if a grifter who claims election fraud happened in the USA without any justification cites among other things the fact that electronic voting machines are a "bad thing", he can still be right about that even if he is a bad faith grifter.

Many such cases tbh

Donald J Trump quoted it and called it one of the most important stories of the year or something like that.

I mean, I could start throwing out all sorts of random horseshit with no evidence to back it up and be right about something by accident. That doesn't mean you should waste the time to examine all of my claims carefully, just in case some of my delerious ramblings accidentally turn out to be correct.

In fact, what I just described there is pretty much the Trump/MAGA mode of political discourse, on the premise that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to debunk horseshit than it does to spew it.

I'll take that as a no.

Which is good, because nothing in that paragraph has a thing to do with what I said.

Ah. Explains a lot. Daddy said.

I have seen people with very good (for a right-wing person) Twitter feeds going completely crazy about election fraud.

Literally nuanced people going to great length to discuss how asking for voter ID laws are correct but they would require expanding access to the IDs themselves for minorities and the like at taxpayer expenses in 2018-19, going in 2020 with takes such as "110% of adults voted in some Wisconsin counties".

Same as many very reasonable center left people who were nuanced in most of their policy proposals up to 2019, went crazy with covid NPIs