Evidence of General Election Voting Fraud
Discussion
sidicks said:
Turbotbloke said:
[sidicks mode]
I know what they were referring to, I'd already read the rest of the report. It was me that first introduced it to this thread. But you, you didn't quote the bit you said proposed ID cards and so you're wrong. As usual. HTH
[/sidicks mode]
Irritating, isn't it?
You are extremely irritating, repeatedly pretending I’ve said something entirely different to what I’ve actually said. But others can see this too.
I know what they were referring to, I'd already read the rest of the report. It was me that first introduced it to this thread. But you, you didn't quote the bit you said proposed ID cards and so you're wrong. As usual. HTH
[/sidicks mode]
Irritating, isn't it?
You are extremely irritating, repeatedly pretending I’ve said something entirely different to what I’ve actually said. But others can see this too.
I've been perfectly clear. You resort to pettifogging quibbles whenever you're wrong or can't back up your arguments. Thus far you've contradicted yourself, failed to quote bits you think you've quoted and generally failed to keep up with the thread. You fell into a trap on your first response to me today and you've been trying to pretend it didn't happen from then on by scoring nitpicking points. It's what you always do. Then, when I responded using the same tactics you didn't like it.
You can give it but you can't take it and, contrary to what you say, you're the one that people see through. Why? Because I've been using your own methods and I'm admitting it here.
And now you've messed up the quoting.
Edited by andy.mod on Thursday 8th March 15:16
Turbotbloke said:
Thus far you've contradicted yourself,
Where? Turbotbloke said:
failed to quote bits you think you've quoted
Not true.Turbotbloke said:
and generally failed to keep up with the thread.
Says the person that has repeatedly tried to claim I’ve said something quite different to what i actually have.Turbotbloke said:
You fell into a trap on your first response to me today and you've been trying to pretend it didn't happen from then on by scoring nitpicking points.
Once again you are wrong - you’ve been misrepresenting things and are trying to pretend it was sonething entirely different. Never mind.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 8th March 15:21
sidicks said:
Turbotbloke said:
Thus far you've contradicted yourself,
Where? Turbotbloke said:
failed to quote bits you think you've quoted
Not true.Turbotbloke said:
and generally failed to keep up with the thread.
Says the person that has repeatedly tried to claim I’ve said something quite different to what i actually have.Turbotbloke said:
You fell into a trap on your first response to me today and you've been trying to pretend it didn't happen from then on by scoring nitpicking points.
See above. We see you for what you are, little man.
Turbotbloke said:
A bit predictable, don't you think? Challenge me to go back over everything to dredge up all your mistakes today in the hope that I can't be arsed to do it? Or that it'll take so much time the dust will have settled and everyone will have forgotten about your tactics?
We see you for what you are, little man.
It’s certainly predictable that you’d try and avoid having to back up your claims.We see you for what you are, little man.
‘little man’
Have you moved on from ‘sunshine’? What a big keyboard warrior you are!
sidicks said:
Turbotbloke said:
A bit predictable, don't you think? Challenge me to go back over everything to dredge up all your mistakes today in the hope that I can't be arsed to do it? Or that it'll take so much time the dust will have settled and everyone will have forgotten about your tactics?
We see you for what you are, little man.
It’s certainly predictable that you’d try and avoid having to back up your claims.We see you for what you are, little man.
‘little man’
Have you moved on from ‘sunshine’? What a big keyboard warrior you are!
25 posts in over one year and I'm the keyboard warrior?
Turbotbloke said:
Makes a change from "ignorant bile", don't you think?
25 posts in over one year and I'm the keyboard warrior?
I think you’ll find you have 25 posts in over 1 month, none of which are about cars - on a car forum! And being a keyboard warrior is nothing to do with volume of posts.25 posts in over one year and I'm the keyboard warrior?
keyboard warrior
a person who makes abusive or aggressive posts on the Internet”
Atomic12C said:
Once registered for postal voting they cast their vote for Labour and send it back.
However they also turn up on election day and vote Labour using the ballot card they received.
This allows an individual two votes for Labour.
It's telling that everybody claiming voter fraud is absolutely convinced it's happening in support of the party they don't like.However they also turn up on election day and vote Labour using the ballot card they received.
This allows an individual two votes for Labour.
Unlikely to be a coincidence that the rumours about multiple votes came started around the time the Tories were facing actual charges of electoral fraud.
mx5nut said:
It's telling that everybody claiming voter fraud is absolutely convinced it's happening in support of the party they don't like.
Unlikely to be a coincidence that the rumours about multiple votes came started around the time the Tories were facing actual charges of electoral fraud.
No, ‘everybody’ isn’t.Unlikely to be a coincidence that the rumours about multiple votes came started around the time the Tories were facing actual charges of electoral fraud.
mx5nut said:
Atomic12C said:
Once registered for postal voting they cast their vote for Labour and send it back.
However they also turn up on election day and vote Labour using the ballot card they received.
This allows an individual two votes for Labour.
It's telling that everybody claiming voter fraud is absolutely convinced it's happening in support of the party they don't like.However they also turn up on election day and vote Labour using the ballot card they received.
This allows an individual two votes for Labour.
Unlikely to be a coincidence that the rumours about multiple votes came started around the time the Tories were facing actual charges of electoral fraud.
tha actual fraud commited by Candidates and with the explicit knowledge of thier Parties.
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
It's also telling that some here want to "tackle" the rumours before, or rather, than
tha actual fraud commited by Candidates and with the explicit knowledge of thier Parties.
Who are you referring to and can you link to the post where they say what you claim?tha actual fraud commited by Candidates and with the explicit knowledge of thier Parties.
I'm refering to a singular poster, do you not understand the meaning of "some"?
gooner1 said:
mx5nut said:
Atomic12C said:
Once registered for postal voting they cast their vote for Labour and send it back.
However they also turn up on election day and vote Labour using the ballot card they received.
This allows an individual two votes for Labour.
It's telling that everybody claiming voter fraud is absolutely convinced it's happening in support of the party they don't like.However they also turn up on election day and vote Labour using the ballot card they received.
This allows an individual two votes for Labour.
Unlikely to be a coincidence that the rumours about multiple votes came started around the time the Tories were facing actual charges of electoral fraud.
tha actual fraud commited by Candidates and with the explicit knowledge of thier Parties.
Turbotbloke said:
Of course, it's only lefties and students that commit electoral fraud. Business owners and multiple property owners wouldn't dream of doing such a thing.
Personally, I don’t think that is true and I would be surprised if that is a view shared by many others. I’m in favour of all forms of election fraud being addressed.But you are entitled to your opinion.
gooner1 said:
"If there are multiple posts"
So you did take it that I was refering to a singular poster then.,Who and why do you think that was?
No, I didn’t make that assumption. Your post is (presumably) deliberately vague, but it suggests more than one person. I’m waiting for the links...So you did take it that I was refering to a singular poster then.,Who and why do you think that was?
Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 15:01
sidicks said:
Turbotbloke said:
Of course, it's only lefties and students that commit electoral fraud. Business owners and multiple property owners wouldn't dream of doing such a thing.
Personally, I don’t think that is true and I would be surprised if that is a view shared by many others. I’m in favour of all forms of election fraud being addressed.But you are entitled to your opinion.
Are you saying it's untrue that only lefties etc commit fraud? Or are you saying that business owners wouldn't dream of doing it? (Either way, it would appear that you just said the opposite of what you meant...).
--
This is the sidick problem in a nutshell. You think you know what your saying but, in reality, your arguments are strewn with errors and lack of clarity and then you get upset when people point this out.
This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact you leap on the slightest error of expression made by anyone else and pick at it, ad infinitum, until they lose the will to live.
Turbotbloke said:
Would you mind rephrasing that in parseable English, please?
Are you saying it's untrue that only lefties etc commit fraud? Or are you saying that business owners wouldn't dream of doing it? (Either way, it would appear that you just said the opposite of what you meant...).
--
This is the sidick problem in a nutshell. You think you know what your saying but, in reality, your arguments are strewn with errors and lack of clarity and then you get upset when people point this out.
This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact you leap on the slightest error of expression made by anyone else and pick at it, ad infinitum, until they lose the will to live.
It’s extremely clear what I meant (which is exactly what I said), sorry you’re struggling with it.Are you saying it's untrue that only lefties etc commit fraud? Or are you saying that business owners wouldn't dream of doing it? (Either way, it would appear that you just said the opposite of what you meant...).
--
This is the sidick problem in a nutshell. You think you know what your saying but, in reality, your arguments are strewn with errors and lack of clarity and then you get upset when people point this out.
This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact you leap on the slightest error of expression made by anyone else and pick at it, ad infinitum, until they lose the will to live.
sidicks said:
Turbotbloke said:
A bit predictable, don't you think? Challenge me to go back over everything to dredge up all your mistakes today in the hope that I can't be arsed to do it? Or that it'll take so much time the dust will have settled and everyone will have forgotten about your tactics?
We see you for what you are, little man.
It’s certainly predictable that you’d try and avoid having to back up your claims.We see you for what you are, little man.
‘little man’
Have you moved on from ‘sunshine’? What a big keyboard warrior you are!
And have another schoolboy caught red handed jpeg..
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Friday 9th March 15:46
gooner1 said:
sidicks said:
If there are multiple posters making these claims, it will be even easier for you to link to those claims...
"If there are multiple posts"So you did take it that I was refering to a singular poster then.,Who and why do you think that was?
Please let it be me
Although my post was not really making a sure fast claim as mx5nut would like to suggest, just creating an example - for illustrative purpose of course
And also to represent all those student unions that got in on the action - of course yet an unproven claim , but quite easy to cast a line and get a bite on this forum.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff