Vote suppression efforts lose again

“There is no evidence that any vote that should lawfully be counted has or will not be counted. There is no evidence that any vote that lawfully should not be counted has or will be counted. There is no evidence that any election worker did anything outside of the law, policy, or procedures”


I’ll state again that I’m now an independent, but it’s a stark difference when one party wants as many people to legally vote as possible, an the other party is, as an election strategy, trying to deny the counting of some peoples votes, usually in strongholds of the opposite party.


Gee, why is that Paul? Have you seen the ballot harvesting videos from Texas?

I wonder why the Republicans want to keep a close eye on the vote tabulating?

1 Like

when should we believe her-- when she didn’t know she was being recorded or when she was in danger of prosecution?


Since she was just blathering, and no actual actions have been proven, just move on. People say things all the time.

But Trump, when he was joking with the radio-announcer Bush about seducing a married woman by taking her to a furniture store, he wasn’t joking around (despite the laughter).

Got it.

1 Like

I thought in one court, I heard on the radio, they were going to disallow some late votes (not Pennsylvania) but I did not see it as a big reason to come here and write up “Voter Fraud Loses Again”.

If the woman talking to the Veritas people had a history of voter fraud, then your comment would make sense.

Trump has a history of adultery, and in your example was talking about attempted adultery.

1 Like

Evidence is against the part of the tape he was vilified for. I was just trying to be discreet in how I referenced what I was saying.

Anyway, back to the topic…


“I lied” says the self-confessed liar.
So when do we believe her? :rofl:

1 Like

I agree with you. However, OKeefe doesn’t have a sterling reputation.

Whatever. Let the AG investigate.

In general, I take the position that there is little or no information to be taken from an untrusted source. Testimony from an untrusted source does not support either conclusion. Thus, as @PaulinVA said, it is appropriate to move on.

O’Keeffe doesn’t have a sterling reputation? With the lamestream media? I wonder why. Ever heard of ACORN?

“Whatever”. :rofl:


Yes, let’s move on when there’s something damaging to the liberal faction.
Let’s wallow in it if it’s damaging to conservatives.


Whether it is helpful or hurtful to any part isn’t relevant. This is an epistemological stance.

It looks like you are making an argument in favour of cognitive bias. Consider this, if one person made a statement that was harmful to the GOP and the retracted it, and one person made a statement harmful to the Democratic Party and then retracted it, is there some party neutral rule that you can come up with on how to treat both incidents?

I’m speaking on behalf of the lamestream media.

People have a right to integrity of the voting system.

Mandela said so but now, it’s some bogeyman to assert one’s rights?


The story was being covered by local media. A San Antonio station covered the story for what a woman said in San Antonio. I don’t know what criteria that you use for classifying news reporting entities, or what entity you would consider to be a more appropriate source.

Get an ID?! To vote?!
I didn’t know that Nelson Mandela is in favor of voter suppression!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit