The Pro Hillary Thread

@Builder,

Saw what? Where on that 43 minute video does the evidence exist that a 2% difference between the exist poll and vote count is supposed to mean fraud? And that woman is sitting in her home, talking about a thousand things and she is not an expert on elections.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Because I've never heard of it.

I would recommend you to do a research and you may find what you are looking for. There have been universities in the US and abroad that are looking at us the way we have been taught to look at other dictatorships.

0 Replies

@Builder,

It has to be exhausting scrambling around looking for possible conspiracies and scaring the bejesus out of yourself. Just in case you worry others don't take your concerns seriously, relax, we just think you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Saw what?

Your favourite form or reference, or did you have your blinkers on again?

Lots of charts and graphs and all backed up by evidence.

Here it is again. Enjoy.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Seriously, you're asking Builder for his sources????? What sources??? He don't need no steenkin sources.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

....scaring the bejesus out of yourself

We're still safe here. Not so sure what the scenario is there.

1 Reply

@Builder,

We want to send Rupert back, if that doesn't scare you it should.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

We want to send Rupert back...

Jerry might not like it here. Too much like Texas.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Quote Builder:

Quote:

Yeah, and what's even stranger, is that the US govt uses a 2% margin between exit polls and actual polls to detect electoral fraud in other nations, but ignores such a discrepancy at home.

Quote parados:

Quote:

I suggest you read "contrast with a media poll". Media polls are not accurate enough to compare to final results because of their methodology.

Quote Builder:

Quote:

The data used was exit poll data.

All the references for source material is listed at the link.

The exit polls were conducted by the NY Times and CNN, which are media outlets. Therefore, that JFK conspiracy blog that you are trying to use for a reference, ( Drunk

) is using polls that say they are NOT designed to provide verification.

Besides, we are still waiting for information as where it is stated that a 2% difference in verification exit polling, (as distinct from media polls). Still waiting.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Still waiting.

Then you're being lazy.

Links to the exit poll data are found within that post.

I have no interest in holding your hand and guiding your heart.

1 Reply

@Builder,

The exit polling data is invalid, since parados' link showed that exit polls conducted by media are not valid, and these polls were media exit polls. Therefore, it doesn't matter at all what the CNN and NY Times polls say, or what or self-admitted JFK conspiracist say they amount to. Besides which, "Jeff Somebody's Blog" is hardly a source that can be accepted. Especially when he says the point of the blog is prove a JFK conspiracy.

Man, and I thought Lash scraped the bottom of the barrel for her sources. You're worse.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Then the onus is on you to provide some evidence.

That's how it works in your rule book, so start abiding by your own rules.

As stated, the blog links to exit poll data. Prove it doesn't.

2 Replies

@Builder,

That's nuts. One of the Forum crackpots makes a statement they believe is true and then ask others to do research to prove its not true??? You must think you're Tom Sawyer and everyone else was born yesterday.

0 Replies

@Builder,

The crap you posted is based on an exit poll. Notice it is a poll that may have anywhere from a 2% to 10% accuracy. More bs from a bs'er.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

People are not compelled to tell the truth at an exit poll. We have a secret ballot and no one has to tell any body bupkus about how they cast their ballot and who they voted for.

Buider is woefully clueless.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Quote parados:

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_verification_exit_poll

I suggest you read "contrast with a media poll". Media polls are not accurate enough to compare to final results because of their methodology.

Going to wikipedia:

Quote:

The purpose of a media exit poll is to strategically poll many precincts to obtain a representative sample for an entire district (e.g., state, city) so election outcomes can be predicted. Most of the polling is done well before polling places close on Election Day so the exit poll results can be tabulated and presented by the news outlets immediately after the polls close. Since verifying particular precinct results is not an objective of media exit polls, typically only 1000-2000 voters are interviewed in an entire state, meaning that relatively few voters are interviewed in any given precinct. Consequently, an EVEP [Election Verification Exit Poll] should be considerably more reliable (given that there is no within precinct bias) for the targeted precincts than media exit polling would be since a much larger sample of voters would be interviewed in these selected precincts. Media exit polling has incidentally served to cast doubt on official vote counts, but such polling is not particularly designed to verify election results.[2]

The exit polls the JFK conspiracy theorist cited were the NY Times and CNN. So he was using media exit polls. Therefore, his results are inaccurate, though as a conspiracy nut, he'd never accept that.

So, where is the evidence that says a 2% discrepancy in the exit poll is evidence of fraud, (no doubt meaning the Election Verification Exit Poll, NOT the media exit polls)? You are still running away from it.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Wikipedia? Is that your idea of a joke?

It's not acceptable in freshman-year essays to reference wikipedia.

You do know how that site works, right?

That's why I ignored paradoos use of it.

Try again.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Wikipedia? Is that your idea of a joke?

No sparky, you're our idea of a joke. Worry about your own country.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Worry about your own country.

I am. Do I have to remind you again of the ANZUS treaty?

That alzheimer's creeping up on you?

1 Reply

@Builder,

and do I have to remind you again about 5 eyes, why can't you understand the agreements and partnerships. Out of curiosity, for you have even a glimmer of understanding regarding who funds who. Is your brain so fevered you think my country doesn't send your country massive amounts of US taxpayer money???? I understand that Australia doesn't fund any US endeavors but we are cool with that.

Are you under the impression that Aussie land only partners with the US???? Can you consider Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand???? No, you really can't??? Wake up semi-partner, and look into your own budget and see if you can find your governments tran sparancy on how MUCH money the other 4 eyes pour into Australia.

1 Reply

The Pro Hillary Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know