Texas now a swing state, Trump fuels voter fraud claims

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

11 minutes ago, Goosey said:

 

George Soros is the owner of the companies that provide many voting machines. And George Soros is a HUGE Democrat, Hillary, establishment supporter. Coincidence?

A paper by Stanford researchers suggested that there were abnormal differences in the Democratic primary between states which used paper ballots and states which used electronic voting.

The researchers said that the results were suspicious and that the suspicious results provided justification for a full study into whether or not voting fraud occurred.

"[...] we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support."

 

 

My point is that Donald's claims should not be simply dismissed. That's foolish. Voting fraud occurs every year in many countries around the world.

Not true  

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

To clarify, Let's not suggest that Trump would be intelligent enough to do research on the ways voter fraud actually occurs (and compare that to ways that it doesn't) and actually reference that in a tweet 

He's talking more about this kind of "rigging"

 

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, ItsTommyBitch said:

Not true  

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

What do you mean NOT TRUE?!?!?

Did you even read your own link? Because that's where I went to get the quote in the first place. Smh.

 

"CLAIM: A 2016 Stanford study revealed widespread primary election fraud in multiple states favoring Hillary Clinton."

"WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states."

 

 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

7 minutes ago, Goosey said:

What do you mean NOT TRUE?!?!?

Did you even read your own link? Because that's where I went to get the quote in the first place. Smh.

 

"CLAIM: A 2016 Stanford study revealed widespread primary election fraud in multiple states favoring Hillary Clinton."

"WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states."

 

 

 

I did read the article...,

You also left out:

WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.

it basically explains how their paper is not a definitive source of truth and can't be for several reasons, along with the fact that to someone that doesn't understand how electronic polling (and polling in general) work, passing along the paper as such (definitive, conclusive, etc.) would be intellectually dishonest, which is what you are essentially doing  There are many other factors involved in the process that make it not black and white and doing so is shady af  

There is not enough evidence to say that they are definitively 100% wrong, but there is enough doubt and bias in their methodology to call the study into question, which is more than enough to say that we shouldn't use it as a source... The most we can say is

"Two students did some research and came to this unverified conclusion"

Besides, what makes you think Trump is intelligent enough to do research on voter fraud and pass it along on twitter, its just as effective to lie about individual voter fraud (and encourage it  ) to a bunch of people who will believe anything they hear if it fits into their worldview anyway. Going out of his way with legitimate, verified information is completely out of character (and in this case, impossible)

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

6 minutes ago, Goosey said:

What do you mean NOT TRUE?!?!?

Did you even read your own link? Because that's where I went to get the quote in the first place. Smh.

 

"CLAIM: A 2016 Stanford study revealed widespread primary election fraud in multiple states favoring Hillary Clinton."

"WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states."

 

 

 

Yeah, but Trump doesn't actually care is the thing. If he was winning, he wouldn't be bringing it up.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 minutes ago, AlexanderLevi2 said:

Yeah, but Trump doesn't actually care is the thing. If he was winning, he wouldn't be bringing it up.

This too^

[Goosey 3,017]

3 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I did read the article...,

You also left out:

WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.

I never claimed it was a study, because I had read Snopes beforehand.

I said "researchers" and "paper", which they are, and it is. And I never claimed it was "proof", I said "The researchers said that the results were suspicious and that the suspicious results provided justification for a full study into whether or not voting fraud occurred."

And then you said what I said was untrue.

5 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Besides, what makes you think Trump is intelligent enough to do research on voter fraud and pass it along on twitter, its just as effective to lie about individual voter fraud (and encourage it  ) to a bunch of people who will believe anything they hear if it fits into their worldview anyway. Going out of his way with legitimate, verified information is completely out of character (and in this case, impossible)

I never said Trump researched it, I said it's silly to disregard the possibility. It could occur with or without Trump.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,564]

lol. Texas is actually on The Edge of (Liberal) Glory? wow, those *** tapes DESTROYED him.

[Elizabeth 750]

Gaga releases an album with country music vibes and Texas is suddenly voting democrat? Coincidence? I think not 

 

On a serious note though, for Texas to be swinging is huge. I guess it just shows how people are reacting to Trump.

[President Trump 3,508]

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, Goosey said:

 

George Soros is the owner of the companies that provide many voting machines. And George Soros is a HUGE Democrat, Hillary, establishment supporter. Coincidence?

Blah, Blah, Blah.......................

My point is that Donald's claims should not be simply dismissed. That's foolish. Voting fraud occurs every year in many countries around the world.

Yeah, I'm not believing a bunch of crazy ass conspiracy theories. We are talking about the US here, not "other countries". That Brietbart **** is just that...s h i t. 

If there is voter fraud in Texas, then all the Republucans that were voted into office, and all the times the state went red is fraudulent, right? Or is it just fraudulent when your cheeto hitler doesn't win? 

Your conspiracy theories are straight up BS! 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

 

George Soros is the owner of the companies that provide many voting machines. And George Soros is a HUGE Democrat, Hillary, establishment supporter. Coincidence?

A paper by Stanford researchers suggested that there were abnormal differences in the Democratic primary between states which used paper ballots and states which used electronic voting.

The researchers said that the results were suspicious and that the suspicious results provided justification for a full study into whether or not voting fraud occurred.

"[...] we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support."

 

 

My point is that Donald's claims should not be simply dismissed. That's foolish. Voting fraud occurs every year in many countries around the world.

So they have been able to rig the election all this time in Texas but Democrats never win there?

Wow! That sounds veeeeery logical 

[Goosey 3,017]

31 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

So they have been able to rig the election all this time in Texas but Democrats never win there?

Wow! That sounds veeeeery logical 

I never said they rigged anything. I said people should merely keep an open mind. It's not anti-democracy to be inquisitive 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

17 minutes ago, Goosey said:

I never said they rigged anything. I said people should merely keep an open mind. It's not anti-democracy to be inquisitive 

I guess we should start questioning if Elvis is really dead or not. 

[Goosey 3,017]

2 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

I guess we should start questioning if Elvis is really dead or not. 

No, Elvis is dead. The question is if he died in 1977.