5214
Comments (178)
sorted by:
296
upvote 296 points ago +296 / -0

Wow, they're just pulling numbers out of their ass.

116
deleted 116 points ago +116 / -0
60
ATwizzy810 60 points ago +61 / -1

"There may not be evidence of widespread voter fraud(there is), but there is tremendous evidence of targeted voter fraud."

Yup, you're onto something

31
jomten 31 points ago +31 / -0

Illegals voting is widespread voter fraud, and there is lots of evidence of that.

7
ATwizzy810 7 points ago +7 / -0

I agree

4
JuicyfearsMAGA 4 points ago +4 / -0

If you took out illegals voting in Los Angeles in 16, Hillary doesn't win the popular vote. Which is why I always push back when I hear people saying Trump didn't win the popular vote.

3
TiaTisa 3 points ago +3 / -0

I had a cousin who voted in 2016, before he was a citizen. when I went all ballistic on him, he said he didn't know. He was a legal resident and legal, but still voted. as a resident....so not right. So it's not just the illegals.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
Meme_Too 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, Scott Adams made that point this morning.

6
Jackhererer 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yep Targeted Fraud happens.

2
DrCowboyPresident 2 points ago +2 / -0

These people actually believe urban centers don't cheat votes.

Have they never heard of the Chicago Machine? Tammany Hall?

It's almost like they've never read anything of substance in their entire miserable lives.

51
Cakes4077 51 points ago +51 / -0

5/4 statistics are made up on the spot.

21
DarkMemeDuck 21 points ago +21 / -0

About 90/abc of the time it's pancake% of the time.

14
Cakes4077 14 points ago +14 / -0

Joe? Is that you?

17
DarkMemeDuck 17 points ago +17 / -0

Listen fat. I'm gonna cloyehsumsnens onnaeezdaze dish yehnow. C'mon, man!

2
Pandas4Trump 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't what you said, but it's provocative. Really gets the Jeeps a honkin'

3
DarkMemeDuck 3 points ago +3 / -0

Am I Senator yet? Is Donald J Biden president?

2
sysopz 2 points ago +2 / -0

You sure those aren't the Trump supporters honking at his no turn out "drive-in rallys?"

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
10
JiubUnbound 10 points ago +10 / -0

Impressive! No wonder JoePedo got two hundred thirty million thousand votes.

4
Joaniev9 4 points ago +4 / -0

The hairs on my leg, they turn blonde in the sun

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
ClokworkGremlin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, I totally believe the candidate who sounds like he's having a stroke half the time pulled the largest voter turnout in American history.

4
-STIMUTAX- 4 points ago +4 / -0

Statistician blues reference?

32
deleted 32 points ago +32 / -0
15
HaitchElGee 15 points ago +15 / -0 (edited)

Given how many contradictory beliefs they all seem to have, they aren't even honest with themselves let alone anyone else.

11
publ1us 11 points ago +11 / -0

That’s part of the problem, I think. A lot of them just live with that cognitive dissonance which turns them into hateful people and they don’t do the hard work of understanding why they think the way they do. They might know they’re hypocrites deep down, but think they’re doing the right thing because Colbert told them so.

I almost started to believe some of the lefty bullshit before Trump, then re-read the Federalist Papers cover to cover and I was reborn: like a Phoenix, rising from Arizona!

7
HaitchElGee 7 points ago +7 / -0

I agree with you on that. My lib ex was very sweet, but when lockdown hit he started using social media more and more, bingeing on (so-called) news and opinion pieces and it brought out the absolute worst qualities in him. He became quite a mean, judgmental and bitter person, and although even he acknowledged that his moods and behavior were worse, he never stopped to consider why or tried to change.

5
Averon 5 points ago +5 / -0

Also with mailing out ballots to everyone on the voter rolls when the voter rolls aren't even clean increases the chance of fraud bigly. When people get 5 ballots in the mail, a lot of democrats are going to choose to send all of them in. Republicans, not so much since they generally aren't cheaters.

3
matrik 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fundamentally. I see what you did there.

16
okayfilet 16 points ago +16 / -0

Where does that risk percentage come from? Complete bs. They're grasping at straws.

14
YeDragonEnergy 14 points ago +14 / -0

Random numbers to make normies believe them and make leftists confirm their own viewpoints.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
4
YeDragonEnergy 4 points ago +4 / -0

For these people, consequences are only for conservatives.

6
USA1 6 points ago +6 / -0

(Please ignore the features...ahmm...glitches)

8
YeDragonEnergy 8 points ago +8 / -0

We had failed investigations, the Russia hoax, and a failed impeachment, but totally believe us guys!

112
JBlaze056 112 points ago +112 / -0

There is plenty of evidence for widespread voting fraud. The risk of fraud increases exponentially when people are mass mailed ballots based off old voter rolls, and no one has custody over all those ballots. This AJ+ is a shill. There are many like him trying to turn a steal into something legitimate.

22
deleted 22 points ago +22 / -0
13
America_Good_LA 13 points ago +13 / -0

Yea, if 1 dead mf voted somewhere it’s on.

10
YeDragonEnergy 10 points ago +10 / -0

Sprinkle in a few numbers and tell people there's nothing to worry about, and that everything conservatives say is fear-mongering. This is essentially all of the "fact-checking" they do on social media.

6
Filo76 6 points ago +6 / -0

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Gaslighting has begun. It was all part of the plan.

4
MatthiasBlack 4 points ago +4 / -0

AJ plus is the Al Jazeera progressive wing. I'm sure that will clear things up for you lol.

2
ParadigmShift2070 2 points ago +2 / -0

By progressive they mean progressive to subvert the west, that shit won't fly in their home country

4
publ1us 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah that “no additional risk” blurb is especially hilariously bad.

80
Silencemennow 80 points ago +80 / -0

See, they keep pushing "widespread" as if it needs to occur everywhere. It just has to happen in key counties in key states. They're just going to push the "widespread" message.

37
PatLash 37 points ago +37 / -0

Exactly. It’s a no true Scotsman fallacy. Any evidence presented will be dismissed as anomalies attributed to a system that “isn’t perfect but no system is” because “that’s not widespread”. What’s “widespread” will just keep shifting.

Sound familiar? It’s what commie idiots say when they see a pile of bones and conclude “that wasn’t really socialism”

18
Magus_Strife 18 points ago +18 / -0

Very specifically, they use that term so that low information and dyed-in-the-wool Dem voters will throw it back at you. It works like this (You in this example is the 'general you'):

You: "There is fraud." Them: "No. Prove it." You: "Ok, here is an example (example given, with evidence)" Them: "Well that's just one case. It doesn't prove widespread voter fraud."

Now here is the mistake most people make (me included). You either keep trying to show them case after case and they keep saying those are just isolated incidents, or you throw up your hands and get angry because you can't believe they aren't getting it.

Here's what we need to do:

Them: "Well that's just one case. It doesn't prove widespread voter fraud." You: "The reason that your side, the Dems and the media, keep saying that is because they know that no one has the time or patience to lay out every... single instance of voter fraud in the entire country. Every example I give you, you'll just say it's one case. I could show you 1,000 examples where 100 votes were flipped fraudulently and you'd say "those are just individual cases". Do you know what 1,000 times 100 is? 100,000. If Trump had 100,000 more votes in key areas, he wins in a landslide."

tl;dr - Always have specific examples to give in an argument, but never let anyone drag you into an argument of specifics. You MUST win the overarching logical points, then make them go do the work to find the specifics. If they want to disbelieve after that, they are beyond you saving.

12
Silencemennow 12 points ago +12 / -0

At the same time they want to play up numbers like black trans dudes being violently attacked for being trans. Don't you dare ask them what percentage of those assaulted participated in the dangerous act of prostitution, or if magically passable to a drunk man being taken advantage of in a dark club likely filled with drug use, what number admitted to being preop trans before attempting to violate their would be participant.

The left lives in lies and manipulation.

5
censorthisss 5 points ago +5 / -0

Good point.

4
Free-Ninety-Nine 4 points ago +4 / -0

This guy argues

Seriously, I saved your post.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
7
USA1 7 points ago +7 / -0

Also it's not fraud if the software glitches and changes votes! Right?!?!

61
Turtler 61 points ago +61 / -0 (edited)

Friendly Reminder that AJ+ is the English Language version of Al Jazeera, propaganda mouthpiece for Qatar. The Arabian shithole country so shithole even the Saudis have issues with it.

Also favorite propaganda outlet for Osama Bin Laden.

These people are pathological.

29
mintscape 29 points ago +29 / -0

They also fund TYT, for real.

7
samsng2 7 points ago +7 / -0 (edited)

They make huge propaganda in France too, appealing to the young and arab population

5
DarkMemeDuck 5 points ago +5 / -0

That makes this tweet make a lot more sense now

32
deleted 32 points ago +32 / -0
18
GrizzleFist 18 points ago +18 / -0

Those are the most made up numbers I have every seen, even if I wanted to Biden to win, I would have either not posted such ridiculous numbers or increased them to at least feign that I knew what I was talking about

9
mintscape 9 points ago +9 / -0

I think I know where they got the numbers from, you better sit down for this one. Those are the percentages of fake votes that were caught.

Fucking unreal isn't it. That is like saying that the level of drug dealing is only as high as the number of deals that get caught by cops.

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
17
mintscape 17 points ago +17 / -0 (edited)

Qatar media, known worldwide for the honesty /s

I've spent the many hours looking at voter fraud through history, it's a very depressing situation. I am willing to bet it has happened in a large number of American elections. Bernie Sanders was victim to it twice, I wonder if Bernie fans have figured out why he did so much better caucus states? In 2012 looks like Obama got a helping hand as well.

This time though the fraud they needed was so massive it is transparent.

The media really are trying so hard to keep a lid on this and just lie to stop people looking for themselves. To claim mail-in voting doesn't change things, is total crap and should get the old noggin joggin for why they would say that.

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
7
DisjointedHunstville 7 points ago +7 / -0

So now we’re taking news from a source known to have terror links?

Boy after 9/11, the terrorists really did win.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
DisjointedHunstville 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh I apologise, I should have been more clear, Al Jazeera is an official Facebook “fact check” partner 😒

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
bledsawj 5 points ago +5 / -0

BOOM!

5
Commence 5 points ago +5 / -0

The risk is 100% where demrats are in control.

5
cannoli9116 5 points ago +5 / -0

Biden's turnout lower in every urban area except in 5 convenient cities all run by Democrats for years upon years.

Does not take a high IQ to realize something is up with that.

4
PosterIsDead 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

The complete absence of journalistic curiosity is troubling. "There is no evidence . . ." Go take a look Edward R. Murrow. There's evidence aplenty.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
4
Lmfao 4 points ago +4 / -0

How on earth could they say with a straight face that there is no increased risk of fraud through mail in ballots? That is just objectively untrue. The signature requirement and validation already leaves your vote to the subjective whims of the counter. Your mail in ballot is already a coin flip whether or not it will be permitted. These fucking gaslighting mother fucking commies

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
47urOFH3d 4 points ago +4 / -0

It doesn't need to be proved that fraud took place. It only needs to be proved that the rules weren't followed. At that point, fraud is the default assumption, that in turn would need to be disproved (which is impossible).

3
NotoriousCIC 3 points ago +3 / -0

The media, the apparent searchers for truth and corruption frantically telling you to STFU and don’t question obvious corruption.

It’s actually incredibly easy to commit voter fraud. The left has even accused other leftist candidates of doing it. Read the dnc leaks. You’ve got dead people voting, ballot harvesting, illegals, stealing ballots, registering people without their knowledge, even in actual person voting, California is the easiest to commit voter fraud as all you do not have to show any proof that you are who you say you are. You also have people being bused to vote. Never forget 2012 Ohio.

3
eddedandedamame 3 points ago +3 / -0

Its the same word for word talking points every time!

3
Abarth 3 points ago +3 / -0

A newschannel funded by islamofascists should shut the fuck up about elections

3
TonyGucciano 3 points ago +3 / -0

"The risk does not increase with mail in voting." Everything EVERYTHING they say is a lie. They have no crafter or integrity, only care about raw power.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
America_Good_LA 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is it another pollster coming up with these figures?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
FuckRioters 3 points ago +3 / -0

His "facts"

  • The word "widespread" is a trap. It's LARGE SCALE but concentrated to large democrat run cities.
  • Anyone who believes those risks numbers is a fucking moron. Does anyone here believe that fewer than 1 of 1million cases of ballots are fraud? Add this to the pile of 98% of statistics are made up on the spot.
  • The level of stupidity is off the charts.
3
peterstrzoked 3 points ago +3 / -0

1 in 1 million would be, what, roughly 145 fraudulent votes?

There are probably that many votes in PA alone that were mailed in by “voters” born in the 1800s.

How about the 98,000 in Wisconsin that only voted for Joe and no one else down ballot?

How about the 3000 in Nevada that the GOP referred to the DOJ?

The 140,000 in Michigan that showed up in the middle of the night and were unloaded from a Ferrari a Chrysler 300 and a van (all official MI department of elections vehicles I’m sure, nevermind the out of state tags)

I’m gunna need some sauce on those stats Mr AJ. Because they smell like you pulled them out of your ass.

3
duvalpede 3 points ago +3 / -0

Their definition they’re going with their definition of “widespread” means everywhere. Fine. I’ll play.

We’re witnessing TARGETED fraud in specific cities to influence and steal the election. There.

3
Thehonkswamp 3 points ago +3 / -0

Meanwhile the same media years ago was warning of the dangers of voting by mail and how it's prone to abuse and fraud. Honk honk.

3
BumpForTrump 3 points ago +3 / -0

Rhetorical question.

How come that this tweet isnt flagged in this highly disputed claim?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Vashts1985 3 points ago +3 / -0

at this point when anyone says no evidence they mean no evidence they wish to address.

3
Dondonmondon 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can AJ+ calculate the statistical probability of Biden receiving 100% of the 138K 4am ballots? Forget the circumstances of which they came in, just calculate the odds of Biden receiving 100% of the vote. Also can the shill also do some math in regards to a 90% voting turnout for WI when it has been about 65-70% since 2000? And here's one more cause Liberals are really good at math: calculate the odds of Biden winning every contested battleground state by such a razor thin margin despite being down incredibly heavy odds the night before with 90% of the vote left to count?

I have frontal lobe damage so I cant do math

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Loscann 3 points ago +3 / -0

Its ok as long as it is not wide spread fraud, just narrow spread fraud in key states

3
PromiseImNotASpook 3 points ago +3 / -0

I wouldn’t for a second listen to anything Al Jazeera says

3
Usernameicanrecall 3 points ago +3 / -0

The talking point is "no evidence of widespread voter fraud". NONCONFORMANCE TO BENFORD'S LAW IS EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
jomten 3 points ago +3 / -0

Convicted cases are not the only times it happens.

Thats like saying Chicago only has 20 murders a year.

If they don’t even investigate the cases how the hell would they know?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
PanderjitSingh 2 points ago +2 / -0

You need to be an accomplished liar to say things that are the opportunities of the truth. ‘Widespread fraud’ is not the issue, carefully targeted fraud in 5 or 6 states is.

Obvious the odds of some fraud happening are near 100%.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
anthemstander 3 points ago +3 / -0

I love the articles that are popping up:

"Here are some truly wacky theories about voter fraud by nutcase Trumpists.

"There were computer glitches." This is wrong, okay.

"Dead people voted." This is just ridiculous. And impossible.

"The statistics/math doesn't add up." This might sound plausible, but it's just not. Besides which math is totally racist.

"Ballot tampering occurred." This is only the case with Republicans. Democrats are pure and good, always..

2
fapoo 2 points ago +2 / -0

oh, so there is fraud then?

2
Eris 2 points ago +2 / -0

They tried to tell us only 2% of women lie about rape during the Kavanaugh trial..where did they get these numbers?

2
kung-flu-fighting 2 points ago +2 / -0

If it's not enough to change the outcome they wouldn't do it then right?

2
electricboogaloo 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

l1xC Vml lte 8jbr vSC7yR o9PS fE6 lzk OJGH x xsHVJq

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
ClokworkGremlin 2 points ago +2 / -0

The risk does not increase with widespread mail-in voting.

How to spot someone who didn't pay attention in statistics class. That statement is a mathematical impossibility.

(Besides, if mail-in voting was truly secure, the Democrats wouldn't have been pushing for it night and day for 3 straight months.)

2
Ba_dillydilly1988 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sooooo let’s say I flip a quarter 100,000 times, it’s gonna land heads up 100,000 times....kinda like all these other votes....alllllllll went to Biden???

2
bf4truth 2 points ago +2 / -0

the statement that mail-in doesnt increase the chance of fraud by itself makes this person into a smooth brain

2
Saxmaster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Now do the likihood of being shot by police

2
ToTheRescues 2 points ago +2 / -0

So if that's the case....why did they spend 4 years believing in election fraud?...

2
AntiCommie89 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hahah right

2
Logan_W_Logan 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fact that these people are ok with this number bring anything greater than zero tells us everything we need to know about them.

2
DasBurt 2 points ago +2 / -0

Voter fraud is thousands of times more likely than dying of COVID-1984

2
VetforTrump2 2 points ago +2 / -0

If there is a chance for cheating the rule of thumb is that the left will cheat. Small or largenots the only way they can win. This ztate.ent above is more proof of wrong doing you can ask for. Denial and projection are their tools.

TRUMP WON PERIOD WE ALL KNOW IT. ITS THE PEOPLES HOUSE NOT THE DEEP STATES. LIBERTY OR DEATH

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0