The election hasn't happened. You have no evidence of any kind of rigging.
Rigging will often occur prior. You can find evidence prior. We have evidence from Wikileaks of cheating taking place prior to the debate between sanders and Clinton.. of cheating taking place prior to the votes in the democrat primary... etc.
You should have actually read what you found. Bush v Gore was cited as one of several reasons for paranoia on the left (against Hillary, btw), not as an analogous case. Enjoy your meal.
[h=2]7. Salon’s Farhad Manjoo[/h]“Was the New Hampshire vote stolen?” Manjoo asked of the 2008 New Hampshire primary Clinton unexpectedly won.
In recent years several factors — 1) crazily hackable voting machines, 2) generally heightened partisanship, 3) very close races, and 4) a real, honest-to-goodness purloined race (see Bush v. Gore) — have raised the paranoid in all of us. Wondering if any election outcome is honest has become a standard post-election emotion; not wondering, now that’s just crazy.Manjoo concluded his piece by saying that even if we fixed our voting machines, it still wouldn’t make elections fair.
My point is reinforced by every Dem television ad that ties a Repub candidate to Trump.
The WikiLeaks emails don't show any rigging. No votes have been cast yet. And Donald Trump wasn't in the Democratic primary so he has no reason to discuss it. If Bernie Sanders wants to make an issue out of it, let him.
If Trump loses, as he probably will and good riddance, it's because he's a piece of garbage that decent people can't stomach.
You were caught red handed, over the same lies, twice.
It is obvious to any objective reader.
No it isn't, that's another lie. You're still committing the same fallacy in that instance.
Sorry, but no.
Feel free to be more careful with your own statements and arguments so that you do not so blatantly contradict yourself in the future.
Again, no. You have had this wrong from the start. Arm waving and name calling don't substitute for sound argumentation.
#204 and #209 conclusively displays your unwillingness to demonstrate so much as a modicum of honesty.
Try #210 and #212.
You said that Gore was not mentioned, and then it was proven that Gore was mentioned.
The Gore mention was purely collateral.
That doesn't change the fact that you neglected to acknowledge the obvious error of your earlier claim.
Had the link used Gore to make the case you would have a point. It didn't and you don't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?