Vote fraud in Maine?

Cleon said:
Given his unequivocally racist associations, past newsletters, statements in favor of the Confederacy, etc., there is more than enough evidence to conclude that Ron Paul is a racist.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have unequivocally racist associations. There's one picture of him with a racist, out of hundreds of pictures of him on the internet, and there's not even any context that proves he ever met Don Black before.

Hey - you can disagree someone without calling them a racist, btw.
 
madfoot said:
Hey - you can disagree someone without calling them a racist, btw.
Click to expand...

True enough, but in Paul's case, there are multiple lines of evidence that he is a racist.

At the very least, it's reasonable to provisionally hold that proposition (that he is racist) unless or until he gives a credible answer to the racist comments written in his name and persona in the newsletters bearing his name which he touted as being of prime importance to him for years.
 
Last edited:
madfoot said:
Because it wasn't a very controversial claim.
Click to expand...

That´s BS for two reasons.

First, yes it *is* a controversial claim, as has been shown in this thread.

Second, just because *you* believe that your claim isn´t controversial, don´t mean it´s not a claim at all.
 
madfoot said:
I'm not saying it was inaccurate - just pointing this out.
Click to expand...

You certainly have claimed that you suspect that it is inaccurate. (What else does the claim "this looks suspicious" mean? Can the official results be suspicious without you suspecting that they aren't accurate?)

So what is your evidence?

Again, I note your rhetorical dishonesty in trying to make a claim while denying that you are making a claim so that you don't have to answer the question all skeptics will ask you: what is your evidence?
 
Cleon said:
Yes, he does.
Click to expand...

Source: Anonymous

lol

Spindrift said:
There absolutely is a way. Count the ballots.
Click to expand...

Of course. Too bad I don't have access to the ballots.

JoeTheJuggler said:
You certainly have claimed that you suspect that it is inaccurate. (What else does the claim "this looks suspicious" mean? Can the official results be suspicious without you suspecting that they aren't accurate?)
Click to expand...

One of them have to be inaccurate, since the self-reported results show more votes were casted than counted in the official tally. And WatchTheVote2012.com already got the Iowa results changed, so it's not like they have no credibility. They could be wrong in this case - WatchTheVote2012.com could be reporting false results, or one of their sources may have fabricated or inaccurately reported their precint tally. I never said the official tally was inaccurate, only that there is a discrepancy.
 
Rachel Maddow just reported about the catastrophe the RepublIQan election has been so far ... including the 3 Maine precincts that did not count. LMAO!

 
madfoot said:
One of them have to be inaccurate,
Click to expand...

So your claim now is that you might be suspicious of the pro-Paul numbers? That doesn't jibe with the thread title or your post questioning the accuracy of the official numbers.

Again, this is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical technique you're employing.
 
madfoot said:
I never said the official tally was inaccurate, only that there is a discrepancy.
Click to expand...

Your thread title is "Vote fraud in Maine?" Why wasn't it "Ron Paul supporters lie about vote counts in Maine?"?

This technique--making claims but hiding behind questions-- is called JAQing off for a reason.
 
Mhmm, that Fox Reality Check report actually says it was fraud ...

 
Oliver said:
Mhmm, that Fox Reality Check report actually says it was fraud ...
Click to expand...

About the most honest statement in this report is that it's "a reality check you won't see anywhere else"!

I hear a lot of JAQing off in this report. I hear a strong dislike of non-binding straw polls (which is not fraud--and is nothing unique to Maine). I hear a lot of grousing about the state committee's rules wrt the date of the straw poll. Then a bunch of CT stuff about when some votes were posted on the GOP website and so on.

But in fact you're wrong, Oliver. In the report, the guy asks repeatedly whether or not this is fraud, and concludes, "Well you can make up your own mind on that." As with madfoot, he's not willing to explicitly make the claim of fraud.

He says it's a "disaster for the Republican Party" (sounds like opinion to me--reasonable minds could disagree). The report ends with him saying that if the Maine GOP doesn't change its rules (require a public reading of all the votes, for example), it might succeed in keeping Romney as the winner of the straw poll but will lose support for him in the long run (again, this is opinion, and it presumes that the Maine GOP is conspiring to support Romney).

This "reality check" employs some of the same intellectually dishonest rhetorical techniques madfoot is using.
 
Last edited:
Yep, you're right.

1. Reporting the false results intentionally. No fraud.

2. Letting Delegates decide who they choose no matter what the people voted. No fraud.

3. Letting the GOP in Maine postpone voting in a district for a week but refusing to let those votes be count afterwards. No fraud.

4. Publishing blank results of two districts showing no vote at all. No fraud.

5. Declaring a very close win although 15% aren't reported yet. No fraud.

Bad, bad reporters. They should be ashamed of themselves. Or in Prison - according to you. :p

Did I mention that I love US-elections? Popcorn, anyone? :popcorn2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom