Evidence of General Election Voting Fraud

[FiF]

Turbotbloke said:

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.

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 perfectly clear what he said, and what he meant.

[Turbotbloke]

FiF said:

It's perfectly clear what he said, and what he meant.

Then it will be no problem for you to explain what he meant, will it?

(Yes, I owe it all to sidicks)

[Kccv23highliftcam]

FiF said:

Turbotbloke said:

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.

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 perfectly clear what he said, and what he meant.

But there's no ficking evidence!

Question to sidicks, were you a member of Mays re election team by any chance?

Because this idea that "we" are going to have an ID card for voting is as pie in the sky as some of her other campaign and manifesto pledges.

I would have hoped that mainstream Conservatives would have wised up now and seen just what damage crap like that does to the country.

But here we are, stuck in brexit doldrums with the timer counting down and all they can come up with is, well not very much.

The government better shape up and shape up sharply or we will ALL be in for a nightmare as "the people" really have had enough of the Tories failing to deliver, momentum has been building and in more ways than one...

[sidicks]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

But there's no ficking evidence!

Question to sidicks, were you a member of Mays re election team by any chance?
Because this idea that "we" are going to have an ID card for voting is as pie in the sky as some of her other campaign and manifesto pledges.

Question to you - wasn’t this coming from the Electoral Commission, not the Tory party?

Kccv23highliftcam said:

I would have hoped that mainstream Conservatives would have wised up now and seen just what damage crap like that does to the country.

Yes, seeking ways to ensure that only those that are entitled to vote, do vote, is ‘damaging the country’.

Kccv23highliftcam said:

But here we are, stuck in brexit doldrums with the timer counting down and all they can come up with is, well not very much.

The government better shape up and shape up sharply or we will ALL be in for a nightmare as "the people" really have had enough of the Tories failing to deliver, momentum has been building and in more ways than one...

Sorry you’re in the doldrums.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 16:42

[gooner1]

Atomic12C said:

Was it me?
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.

Nope, sorry to disappoint you but it wasn't you.
So your bait is still dangling.

Edited by gooner1 on Friday 9th March 17:00

[FiF]

Turbotbloke said:

FiF said:

It's perfectly clear what he said, and what he meant.

Then it will be no problem for you to explain what he meant, will it?

(Yes, I owe it all to sidicks)

It's perfectly clear you are a troll. Ban beckons.

[Turbotbloke]

FiF said:

Turbotbloke said:

FiF said:

It's perfectly clear what he said, and what he meant.

Then it will be no problem for you to explain what he meant, will it?

(Yes, I owe it all to sidicks)

It's perfectly clear you are a troll. Ban beckons.

I'm quite prepared to discuss whatever point he was trying to make as long as he (or you) clarifies his position. At the moment, he's failing to do that and you appear to be acting his white knight.

I don't know why you'd wish to be his white knight; your arguments are usually considered and have clear premises whereas his rarely do and end in bickering due to his tactics. If you're doing it simply because he's 'of the right' and his tactics tend to kill discussion, it doesn't reflect well on you.

If you or he are prepared to state clearly what he meant, I'd be more than happy to engage appropriately.

If, on the other hand, neither you or he are prepared to do that, then I don't see why my continuing to use his tactics back to him can be considered trolling - I'm just doing what he does and you would seem to support that.

[gooner1]

sidicks said:

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...

Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 15:01

Could you explain In which way my post was vague, deliberately or otherwise?
If my post suggests more than one person, why did you ask for
"the link" not the links?

[turbobloke]

gooner1 said:

sidicks said:

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...

Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 15:01

Could you explain In which way my post was vague, deliberately or otherwise?
If my post suggests more than one person, why did you ask for
"the link" not the links?

One link can't refer to more than one person?

[sidicks]

Turbotbloke said:

I'm quite prepared to discuss whatever point he was trying to make as long as he (or you) clarifies his position. At the moment, he's failing to do that and you appear to be acting his white knight.

I don't know why you'd wish to be his white knight; your arguments are usually considered and have clear premises whereas his rarely do and end in bickering due to his tactics. If you're doing it simply because he's 'of the right' and his tactics tend to kill discussion, it doesn't reflect well on you.

If you or he are prepared to state clearly what he meant, I'd be more than happy to engage appropriately.

If, on the other hand, neither you or he are prepared to do that, then I don't see why my continuing to use his tactics back to him can be considered trolling - I'm just doing what he does and you would seem to support that.

There is nothing remotely ambiguous about my post. Which words are you struggling with?

[gooner1]

sidicks said:

There is nothing remotely ambiguous about my post. Which words are you struggling with?

.

There was nothing vague, deliberately or otherwise in mine.
Which part confused you?

[sidicks]

gooner1 said:

There was nothing vague, deliberately or otherwise in mine.
Which part confused you?

My confusion stems from the fact that, from reading of this thread, I couldn’t find any posts that would support your claims. Given that we are still wating for you to provide a single link to support that claim, then I guess we can discount it as nonsense?

Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 18:18

[FiF]

sidicks said:

Turbotbloke said:

I'm quite prepared to discuss whatever point he was trying to make as long as he (or you) clarifies his position. At the moment, he's failing to do that and you appear to be acting his white knight.

I don't know why you'd wish to be his white knight; your arguments are usually considered and have clear premises whereas his rarely do and end in bickering due to his tactics. If you're doing it simply because he's 'of the right' and his tactics tend to kill discussion, it doesn't reflect well on you.

If you or he are prepared to state clearly what he meant, I'd be more than happy to engage appropriately.

If, on the other hand, neither you or he are prepared to do that, then I don't see why my continuing to use his tactics back to him can be considered trolling - I'm just doing what he does and you would seem to support that.

There is nothing remotely ambiguous about my post. Which words are you struggling with?

Precisely nothing ambiguous about it whatsoever, except to a troll who wants to deliberately create discord.

Just from those comments it's either a returning banned poster or a dual second login, which is against the rules we all signed up to.

Even the deliberate selection of name suggests there is a deliberate attempt at creating mischief and hence the reason for no further engagement from me.

[gooner1]

sidicks said:

My confusion stems from the fact that, from reading of this thread, I couldn’t find any posts that would support your claims. Given that we are still wating for you to provide a single link to support that claim, then I guess we can discount it as nonsense?

Edited by sidicks on Friday 9th March 18:18

You were confused by my post, before you re read the thread.
You won't find a link because it's the actual lack of posts that,imo,
support my theory.
Why are we trying to justify further ID being introduced on the
basis of one conviction, and a whole shed full, or should that be
sack full of rumours, when there are bigger problems concerning
candidates and their Parties.

The fact is that more than half of complaints involved these electoral cheats,
Yet are largely ignored in favour of rumours.
Strange

[gooner1]

turbobloke said:

One link can't refer to more than one person?

It could but wouldn't asking for "a link from the posters" be
better grammar than asking for "the link from the poster" , if one
was talking multiples.?

Is your impersonation of sid becoming a bit too ifelike?

[citizensm1th]

This thread has turned out to be way more fun than i first thought it would be.

[sidicks]

gooner1 said:

You were confused by my post, before you re read the thread.
You won't find a link because it's the actual lack of posts that,imo,
support my theory.

It took you an awfully long time to admit there is no evidence?

The topic of the thread is about voting fraud, hence people are discussing voters.

If you want to discuss candidates and businesses then you could create a thread for that.

On this thread - on the few occasions where it has been brought up - has anyone said it isn’t an issue that needs addressing?

Has anyone said it is less important than voter fraud?

gooner1 said:

Why are we trying to justify further ID being introduced on the
basis of one conviction, and a whole shed full, or should that be
sack full of rumours, when there are bigger problems concerning
candidates and their Parties.

If the electoral commission can see a problem then shouldn’t we address all of the issues.

gooner1 said:

The fact is that more than half of complaints involved these electoral cheats,
Yet are largely ignored in favour of rumours.
Strange

Didn’t you think it was worthy of a separate thread?

[Turbotbloke]

sidicks said:

There is nothing remotely ambiguous about my post. Which words are you struggling with?

Let's see.

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.

First we'll clear out the garbage (by removing subordinate clauses) and here's what I said:

"It's only lefties/students commit voter fraud. Conservative types (little c) wouldn't dream of doing such a thing."

To which you replied:

"I don't think that's true."

It's the that's which caused your difficulty. Because you failed to refer clearly to my original statements in your reply, it's ambiguous as to what you're disagreeing with.

If you'd said "I don't think business owners and multiple property owners commit electoral fraud", that would be clear. Or if you said "I think it is lefties/students alone that commit electoral fraud", you'd still be ok. But you didn't, and therefore it wasn't clear what you actually meant. Basic English lack of comprehension.

OK so far?

Now, you might argue that I was being ironic and therefore meant the opposite of what I actually said. But irony is ambiguous and, so, I can argue it either way. That's why you should have been more careful.
What you did was ascribe an attitude to me because you imagine I'm left wing (and therefore "the enemy", therefore must be contradicted). And so your error was compounded.

-

Whatever, let's imagine what you really meant to say was "Only lefties/students commit electoral fraud, small c conservative types don't"

That argument is predicated on your (unvoiced) assumption: Lefties are dishonest. Righties are not dishonest.

Do you seriously want to go with that? When you know I can easily supply you with just as many examples of small c conservatives being dishonest as you can supply lefties being so. Really? If so, your ability to argue is based on nothing but flat contradiction (plus anal pettifogging) which you mistake as sounding intelligent.

I don't expect you to respond with a grown up argument but I'd suggest you don't point at that I missed out a comma somewhere - if you want to pettifog, I can do it in spades back to you. If you choose to argue in an intelligent manner without resorting to your usual bag of tricks it'd improve PH no end.

[Turbotbloke]

FiF said:

Precisely nothing ambiguous about it whatsoever, except to a troll who wants to deliberately create discord.

Just from those comments it's either a returning banned poster or a dual second login, which is against the rules we all signed up to.

Even the deliberate selection of name suggests there is a deliberate attempt at creating mischief and hence the reason for no further engagement from me.

See above.

If you have proof that I'm a returnee, please provide evidence and give it to the mods. I've been on PH for over a year and that's given me plenty of time to assess other contributors.

If you have problems with the difference between a 'turbo' and a turbot', maybe, to quote sidicks, you shouldn't be on a car forum.

[gooner1]

sidicks said:

Didn’t you think it was worthy of a separate thread?[quote]

gooner1 said:

Possibly, but since it was you that introduced the information
in the first place, then maybe you should have done just that.

sidicks said:

See here:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-inform...

I’d you don’t understand any of the big words in the report, just say.[quote]

gooner1 said:

. Btw, is that a Freudian slip above?

Edited by gooner1 on Friday 9th March 22:12

Edited by gooner1 on Friday 9th March 23:07

Edited by gooner1 on Saturday 10th March 08:18

Edited by gooner1 on Saturday 10th March 10:18