Evidence of General Election Voting Fraud

[mx5nut]

turbobloke said:

Elsewhere other non-proof admissions/boasting includes six votes from one student, but with Corbyn and his students wholly inadequate in getting Labour elected, it's funny as well as not proven.

Must have been balanced out by holiday home owners voting twice and landlords voting at each one of their BTLs

[Turbotbloke]

sidicks said:

Turbotbloke said:

My argument stands. My original statements were ambiguous and you failed to clarify them, so you ended up agreeing with stuff you don't actually agree with. Yes, you should have used multiple quotes. At least you realise that now.

I didn’t agree with anything you’d said and that’s exactly what my post confirmed.

If I’d have tried to weasel out of my earlier post by claiming that I actually meant to only agree with one of your two statements not both, then you might have a point. But I didn’t, so you don’t.

Turbotbloke said:

The words I removed, didn't alter the meaning of what I said, they clarified it. If you don't agree you have to explain how the meaning was altered.

They don’t support your case. Your two statements were still both wrong, hence my disagreement with them.

Turbotbloke said:

I know you think you know what you said and, if it were a colloquial conversation, people might agree but they'd be mistaken. The original statement was equivocal and you fell for it and now you can't accept you were misled. I'd suggest you go see Macbeth sometime to understand how it's done (although I'm afraid you still wouldn't get it and would ask for your money back - so much for art in the life of sidicks).

You seem determined to make statements that are demonstrably untrue (or misrepresent what others have said) and then, when you get called picked up on it, seek to pretend you’d said something entirely different or suggest that someone else is at fault, in your typical supercilious manner. There are numerous examples on this thread.

I’m sure that trolling a motoring forum when you seemingly have no interest in cars is another sign of your massive intellect.

I’ll leave you to pretending you were right, even where you clearly weren’t.

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 10th March 07:18

I know you said you didn't agree with what I said, that's the whole point. What you actually said say and what you think you said aren't the same and your English is so poor that you can't understand the problem.

Here's the original, quoted in full.

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.

Please explain which bit you think is untrue.

Do you think it's untrue that students and lefties commit electoral fraud?
Or do you think it's untrue that business and multiple property owners would never dream of doing so?

You said in your reply "I don't think that's true". If it's so simple you shouldn't have any difficulty explaining why.

Moreover, having said I was wrong in the first part of your reply, you went on to say that "I’m in favour of all forms of election fraud being addressed."
Well, if you're agreeing that all forms of electoral should be addressed, then you have to accept that the potential loophole with business and multi property owners should also be closed. If you don't agree with that, you're contradicting yourself again because you also said that you don't believe lefties are more dishonest than small c conservatives. If you were as even handed as you say you are, you should have no problem with both forms of fraud being stopped.

But here's the real crux of this argument. At no point have you actually refuted what I'm saying; all you've done is contradict me, which isn't proving me wrong. On the other hand, you constantly demand proof or evidence from other contributors and if you don't get it you become increasingly snide and provocative.

What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Saying I'm "clearly not right" isn't the same as proving I'm not right. If I'm not right, you should be able to prove it and, if it's so clear as you say, it should be easy.

If you can't do that, you lose the argument.

[sidicks]

Turbotbloke said:

Please explain which bit you think is untrue.

Do you think it's untrue that students and lefties commit electoral fraud?
Or do you think it's untrue that business and multiple property owners would never dream of doing so?

You said in your reply "I don't think that's true". If it's so simple you shouldn't have any difficulty explaining why.

Moreover, having said I was wrong in the first part of your reply, you went on to say that "I’m in favour of all forms of election fraud being addressed."
Well, if you're agreeing that all forms of electoral should be addressed, then you have to accept that the potential loophole with business and multi property owners should also be closed. If you don't agree with that, you're contradicting yourself again because you also said that you don't believe lefties are more dishonest than small c conservatives. If you were as even handed as you say you are, you should have no problem with both forms of fraud being stopped.

But here's the real crux of this argument. At no point have you actually refuted what I'm saying; all you've done is contradict me, which isn't proving me wrong. On the other hand, you constantly demand proof or evidence from other contributors and if you don't get it you become increasingly snide and provocative.

What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Saying I'm "clearly not right" isn't the same as proving I'm not right. If I'm not right, you should be able to prove it and, if it's so clear as you say, it should be easy.

You still don’t get it? Never mind.

[Turbotbloke]

sidicks said:

You still don’t get it? Never mind.

So, you know you're right but you just can't explain why.

Pathetic

[sidicks]

Turbotbloke said:

So, you know you're right but you just can't explain why.

Pathetic

What’s pathetic is you still not being able to understand it! Never mind!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 10th March 16:32

[BlackLabel]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission say “evidence of voter fraud is minimal”. Wonder where their evidence is that minority groups are significantly less likely (than the general population) to have proper ID?



https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news...

Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 22 April 22:23

[Johnnytheboy]

I can't work out how treating everyone the same is discriminatory.