Let me guess, factcheck.org is part of the liberal conspiracy too.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/
Lol, The New Snopes. He pulls it out his ass when he's losing.
More false liberal pearl clutching. If this gets overturned there could only be fraud to blame, any other explanation wouldn't be credible.
Lol, The New Snopes. He pulls it out his ass when he's losing.
It is worth noting that only three statewide elections have overturned the apparent winner, and all three flipped to Democrat because of new votes found in heavily Democrat districts. The Minnesota Senatorial race and the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race, where King County counted hundreds more ballots than were given out (not to mention "accidentally" counting hundreds of provisional ballots, allowing hundreds of inelligible felons to vote, and counting votes of a score of dead people) stand out as particularly blatantly egregious. As Buckshot says, finding three bags of a hundred thousand votes would be blatant election stealing, but that doesn't mean it won't be tried. After all, it worked before . . .
What you call horrifying are facts about humanity that I have lived with forever, that we are monsters because we have been made to feel so monstrous we are terrified to see ourselves. So while you are horrified I am grateful that someone has dared expressed what they really feel. And is not a part of that horror the next point, they will deserve the force they will be met with? Isn't that just the same thing? How can one monster deserve to punish another? They will not deserve force but it will happen mechanically exactly like the force they will start it with. So it seems to me that it is not a matter of patience but a matter of awakening to human reality and transcending the machine, to be here in this world but not subject to the rules of sleep. We either awaken or we become extinct, seems to me. There is nothing to be horrified of, nothing to protect, nothing to avenge. There is only love and the world of men who had their capacity for it stolen by Hillary Clinton and a million other nameless horrors.It is frankly horrifying.........
If the right tried to overturn the legitimate results of the election (as they would be if the recounts came out in Clinton's favor) by force then they will deserve the force they will be met with. ........ No one should have any patience for this sort of deranged rhetoric.
I have no more faith in Annenbergs factcheck then i do in the New Snopes. Sorry fksimo, but most President-elect Trump supporters have very little trust in the mainstream media, deservedly so.Let me guess, factcheck.org is part of the liberal conspiracy too.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/
I'd be especially cautious about scientists. They are just looking for grants and the scientific method has a liberal bias.I have no more faith in Annenbergs factcheck then i do in the New Snopes. Sorry fksimo, but most President-elect Trump supporters have very little trust in the mainstream media, deservedly so.
Trying to put words in my mouth Moonbeam? How very liberal of you.I'd be especially cautious about scientists. They are just looking for grants and the scientific method has a liberal bias.
Why are you trying to use facts with conservatives? You know know facts are an anathema to them.New Mexico never had a recount in 2000, and the 'lost' votes look to have actually helped Bush, not Gore. If you are alleging some conspiracy then please post a link.
This is a frequent right wing myth that you have been duped by.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp
Will need a link for that one too. Let's put it this way, considering the basic facts you got wrong to start out with and the easily disproven conspiracy theory for the second one I'm not confident here either. It turns out that conservatives are very, very good at duping gullible people into believing ideologically convenient things. Considering how easily they tricked you into believing these things I have no doubt that if Clinton were somehow certified as the winner after the recount you would convince yourself it was stolen regardless of the evidence.
Case in point.Lol, The New Snopes. He pulls it out his ass when he's losing.
Trying to put words in my mouth Moonbeam? How very liberal of you.
The same can accurately be said about you. You're the most rabidly partisan person on these forums.Uhmm, he was pretty obviously making fun of your purposeful ignorance.
That's the usual playbook though, right? Make (or support) a ridiculous statement, declare all facts that show this claim to be wrong as the product of a liberal conspiracy, then when made fun of for doing that claim that you've been terribly wronged by them for doing so.
lol. You're so transparent.
Jhhnn might have something to say about that. The poster formally known as (the offensively named) eskimospy is a little more subtle. We're all hacks to a certain degree though.The same can accurately be said about you. You're the most rabidly partisan person on these forums.
Snopes isn't "facts". They are an opinion source who isn't exactly unbiased.Why are you trying to use facts with conservatives? You know know facts are an anathema to them.
Case in point.
The same can accurately be said about you. You're the most rabidly partisan person on these forums.
The same can accurately be said about you. You're the most rabidly partisan person on these forums.
The same can accurately be said about you. You're the most rabidly partisan person on these forums.
For a mouth and a half like yours, I would choose only those that are sesquipedalian.Trying to put words in my mouth Moonbeam? How very liberal of you.
No he's not particularly liberal, he's a rabid Democrat. Although the two intertwine there is a difference.He uses a lot of facts to support his case; I would agree that's very liberal. You on other hand never learned any of that in school despite claiming to have a college degree. I mean, you basically identify with someone like buckshot, which says quite a lot.
Anyone that thinks that USA Today or the New York Times aren't biased towards the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on as far as facts go.Facts have a well known liberal bias.
You don't think you are completely objective, do you?Classic projection. It's always the most irrational partisans on here that accuse everyone else of being just like them.
You guys enjoy your recount, but please understand one thing. If we see the left steal this election, the right will come out in force. Even people like myself, who will never vote for Trump, will come out. And it won't be burning police cars and American flags, vandalism of "enemy" buildings, and looting stores. It will be civil war, preventing Hillary's ascension by armed force. You will not do to the nation what you did in Minnesota.
Yeah, kind of a pretty direct threat. As expected.Sweet! I'd love to shoot you too!
Oh was that too direct for you? Perhaps I can word it differently like you did.
No he's not particularly liberal, he's a rabid Democrat. Although the two intertwine there is a difference.
Anyone that thinks that USA Today or the New York Times aren't biased towards the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on as far as facts go.
Yeah, kind of a pretty direct threat. As expected.
Sweet! I'd love to shoot you too!
Oh was that too direct for you? Perhaps I can word it differently like you did.
The same can accurately be said about you. You're the most rabidly partisan person on these forums.
Why would you not be in favour of recounts if you're not sure if election fraud took place?I am not in favor of the recounts but if the rules allow them, even though they won't change anything, then they can do whatever recount they want.