When did the P&R board open back up?

Lotta the regulars still here I see including inkydink! Last time I saw him 'bout 2 years ago he was on the general discussion board bragging about his special talent of bringing out the queef in one his hookers. He said she was so impressed she called him a master cocksman because nobody could make her queef quite like him! You still making them girls queef, inkster?

You guys miss me?

Mentioning members posts from other boards doesn't seem to make any sense either.

What are you the board monitor now? I guess you got you feelings hurt in kindergarten when you never were hall monitor so now you have to play pretend and act it out here.  

 
So now what, you going to squeal on him, maybe try to stab him in the back?

 
How fucking petty can you get little soy boy bobbie?

 
Get back to me when you are perfect.

Okay, how about this. Inky's still a Marxist with festering TDS.   He sure can make'm queef though.

The ole P&R has been back for geez like a year now. Good to see you back. The mods seem to have made a deal with us. Leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone. Of course not everyone can follow that. But they do a pretty good job of ignoring us if we don’t cause too much ruckus.

Thanks, willy.

I must say I'm a little disappointed that inky hasn't responded to me yet. I mean, he pretty much lives here doesn't he? Used to at least, and I figure he would have seen this by now. I'm gonna be real hurt if he doesn't throw a buncha stooge memes at me and berate me for seeing Tiffany Mynx. I miss that.

I really do.

Your as welcome as glad news!  

Thanks Lost!

Odd you are openly begging for his attention but you do you.

Let's see if you can drag the IQ of this board even lower! That seems almost impossible, but I'll bet you are up to it.

-- Modified on 2/19/2024 5:58:57 PM

I can't wait until my Personal Piñata gets back and Stoogie and they team up with Loooser. It's gonna be adorable. And flattering. I mean, poor Stoogie can't even come back here after a loooooong hiatus without immediately trolling for me.
Now THAT'S obsession.

Hi inky!!!!!

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Creepy to you? Maybe (but you're weird) but I doubt my posts are creeping out inkydink.

 
Scaring the living shit out of him, yes, but not creeping him out.

But I’m the weird one. Oh ok. Lol.  
Let me guess. The election was stolen from Trump right?

but every single post you've made in this thread is about me AND inkydink.  

 
Are you trying to be creepy?

Is Trump right? Was the election rigged and he lost to Biden on account of it?

Actually, it was, and the left is trying with all their might to keep him from running again, against "Weekend a Bernies" who has through his lefties policies taken the United States to a place the founding fathers N E V E R Intended.  

P.S.  YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT

I thought it was a rhetorical question. (That means it doesn't require an answer).

 
Of course it was rigged, everyone knows that.

And I see he is just another FM. Completely incapable. And an election conspiracist to boot.

Before this board went away, Lost & Stu were the Frick & Frack of this board.  When P&R came back, Lost & durran became the Katzenjammer Kids.  Now durran disappeared and all of a sudden Stu showed up to take durran's place with the lame excuse that he didn't know the board was back.

 
"OK, I believe you."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFRbm1zuXA4

The Dems know perfectly well that if Biden really got 81 million votes they wouldn’t be trying to put Trump in jail.

And you are idiotically implying what exactly?  

Mojostu has been around a lot longer than I have and in all that time there has never been another poster that has owned icky’s ASS lock stock and barrel like Stu has. Interestingly I tried looking up a number of these threads where Stu had turned icky into puddles of pee and yeah… most were gone 🤔interesting I tell ya,

 J U S T - P L U M - I N T E R E S T I N G 🤨

Let alone anyone else's. Second, if he's been around "a lot longer" than you have, how the fuck would you know, unless you've gone back and read his old posts. OH! Except you just said most of them disappeared.
So I guess you just made the whole thing up. As usual.

As a good land lord should I’m letting you know that I’ll be giving Mojostu a tour of the inside of your head to show him the changes I made while he was away. You know the pool table I moved in to your parietal lobe? Sorry not sorry for keeping you awake late, you know after Matlock is over and your nurse has turned off the TV for you.

You know full well I stuffed you back into your hole. Either that or you're too reading-challenged to be able to tell.
Either way, you're a Loooooooser.

http://www.huffpost.com/entry/true-the-vote-2000-ballot-mules-theory-evidence-court_n_65ce6a3be4b0f7fbe7b1e5fc
‘True The Vote’ Tells Judge It Doesn’t Have Evidence For ‘Ballot Mules’ Conspiracy Theory.
A court filing from the group is the latest acknowledgement that claims of widespread 2020 election fraud were baseless.
.
"The conspiracy theory-promoting group True the Vote says it has no evidence to back up its claims about widespread, systemic voter fraud during the 2020 elections. The group, which was heavily featured in Dinesh D’Souza’s viral documentary “2000 Mules,” claimed that ballot “mules” worked with a network of left-wing organizations to steal the election for Joe Biden. The film and its claims made a huge splash, and Donald Trump praised True the Vote for supposedly exposing “great election fraud.” ****But in responding to a subpoena for any evidence supporting those claims, the group came up empty-handed.**** ..."
.
"“Once again, True the Vote has proven itself untrustworthy and unable to provide a shred of evidence for a single one of their fairy-tale allegations,” Mike Hassinger, a spokesperson for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, said in a statement to several outlets Wednesday. “Like all the lies about Georgia’s 2020 election, their fabricated claims of ballot harvesting have been repeatedly debunked.”
.
" “True the Vote made wild and false allegations as a fundraising grift that undermined public confidence in the integrity of Georgia’s elections,” Hassinger told HuffPost in an email Thursday. “Now that they’ve admitted to their con in court, they owe the voters of Georgia an apology.” "
...
"True the Vote’s filing is far from the first time high-profile election conspiracy theorists have said they do not have the evidence to back up their claims. Just a few days ago, James O’Keefe and Project Veritas ― the struggling right-wing media outfit ― admitted that they weren’t aware of any evidence that election fraud had occurred at an Erie, Pennsylvania, post office during the 2020 election. The claim had originated with Richard Hopkins, a Trump supporter and mail carrier. The settlement in the lawsuit against O’Keefe, Project Veritas and Hopkins over the claim last week came more than three years after ****Hopkins recanted his allegation.**** ..."
.
And we're still waiting for this to be rescheduled:
http://apnews.com/article/trump-georgia-press-conference-canceled-57c3f560f4e9382df74cdf3422741c7c
Trump cancels press conference on election fraud claims, citing attorneys’ advice.
.
"Former President Donald Trump now says he won’t be holding a news conference next week to unveil what he claims is new “evidence” of fraud in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election — even though no fraud has ever been substantiated — citing the advice of lawyers as he prepares to face trial in two criminal cases that stem from his election lies. ..."

And don't forget Giuliani's famous quote about rigged elections: "We have theories, but no proof." Everyone knows THAT.

I don't know who has been here longer, me or Lost, but I do know that he's right about you getting many of my posts, which made you look like the stinky wad of smegma that you truly are, removed. You even got the mods to remove some of your own posts, like the ones where you threatened people, because you realized you had gone too far.

 
Now take a couple of deep breaths, calm down, and tell me if any illegal Venezuelans have made it to your neck of NY state yet. Will you take them into your home?

Trump cant even find fraud even when he pays someone to find it. lol

Looks like RespectfulRobot will repeat DNC talking points verbatim. This, despite that I've already debunked this nonsense. There was no investigation into the legitimacy of the election.

If so, they were a Republican-picked group who, despite having no experience, were brought in to audit the election results in Arizona, despite the fact that said results had already been audited TWICE by the state.
The Cyber Ninjas DID change the vote count just a bit, actually adding to Biden's winning total.
Sucks when that happens, huh, Willy?

I think RR is talking about Simpatico Software Systems and Berkeley Research Group. Trump paid them almost $1 M each to find fraud. Neither company, working independently, found such fraud. (I wonder if Trump put "stop payment"s on the checks?)  
.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3977965-second-trump-hired-firm-found-2020-fraud-claims-were-all-false/
Second Trump-hired firm found 2020 fraud claims were ‘all false’
.
Meanwhile, it took three years for True The Vote (TTV) to answer a subpoena for their evidence of election fraud and it was finally complied with just a few days ago (Feb 2024).  
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/re-sorry-i-confused-you-cupcake-439247
http://www.huffpost.com/entry/true-the-vote-2000-ballot-mules-theory-evidence-court_n_65ce6a3be4b0f7fbe7b1e5fc
‘True The Vote’ Tells Judge It Doesn’t Have Evidence For ‘Ballot Mules’ Conspiracy Theory.
A court filing from the group is the latest acknowledgement that claims of widespread 2020 election fraud were baseless.
.
"The conspiracy theory-promoting group True the Vote says it has no evidence to back up its claims about widespread, systemic voter fraud during the 2020 elections. The group, which was heavily featured in Dinesh D’Souza’s viral documentary “2000 Mules,” claimed that ballot “mules” worked with a network of left-wing organizations to steal the election for Joe Biden. The film and its claims made a huge splash, and Donald Trump praised True the Vote for supposedly exposing “great election fraud.” ****But in responding to a subpoena for any evidence supporting those claims, the group came up empty-handed.**** ..."  
.
When Jenna Ellis and Giuliani showed up to meet face-to-face and present their evidence to Raffensberger and his team in late '23 or Jan '24, they claimed to have evidence of 5000 dead people who voted in GA. Raffensberger asked them for the list. Giuliani told Ellis to show him the list. Ellis ruffled a pile of papers and looked through more papers and said, ~'I must have left them in the hotel room.' It was a big, time-wasting joke.  [If I was there, I would have said, 'Let's take a break while you go back to the hotel and get the list.'] THERE IS NO SUCH LIST!

The following from the article linked below:

“By a margin of 52% to 40%, voters believe that “cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.” That’s per a Rasmussen Reports survey from this month. This stands in stark contrast to the countless news stories editorializing about “no evidence of voter fraud” and “the myth of voter fraud.”

It isn’t just Republicans who believe this cheating occurred. Even 34% of Democrats believe it, as do 38% of those who “somewhat” support President Biden. A broad range of Americans think this: men, women, all age groups, whites, those who are neither white nor black, Republicans, those who are neither Republicans nor Democrats, all job categories, all income groups except those making over $200,000 per year, and all education groups except those who attended graduate school.  

And with good reason. New research of mine is forthcoming in the peer-reviewed economics journal Public Choice, and it finds evidence of around 255,000 excess votes (possibly as many as 368,000) for Joe Biden in six swing states where Donald Trump lodged accusations of fraud. Biden only carried these states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by a total of 313,253 votes. Excluding Michigan, the gap was 159,065.

The point of this work isn’t to contest the 2020 election, but to point out that we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Americans must have confidence in future elections.

Some Trump allies, such as attorney Sidney Powell, who famously promised to “Release the Kraken” and then provided no evidence, have helped to discredit these concerns.

Courts have rejected challenges to the 2020 presidential vote, generally citing the lack of evidence that any alleged fraud would have altered the outcome in a particular state. The Republican plaintiffs argued that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote counts or were prevented from seeing other evidence, they couldn’t provide such proof without investigations backed by subpoena power. Still, while some judges have agreed that irregularities occurred in 2020, they weren’t willing to grant discovery in the absence of evidence that fraud could reverse the election results. Republicans thus faced a Catch-22 situation.

Recounts haven’t been useful in resolving fraud concerns, as they merely involve recounting the same potentially fraudulent ballots.

Signature verification is far from perfect, as election employees have as little as five seconds to check a signature. Amidst unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, many states didn’t even try to verify signatures. If someone mailed in multiple ballots, there was virtually no way to catch them. And without tamper-resistant photo IDs, fraud is difficult to prove. Unless someone tries voting multiple times in the same precinct, there is no way to catch them.

My research provides three tests of vote fraud.

First, I compared precincts in a county with alleged fraud to adjacent, similar precincts in neighboring counties with no fraud allegations. Precincts tend to be small, homogeneous areas, and many consist of fewer than a thousand registered voters. When comparing President Trump’s absentee ballot vote shares among these adjacent precincts, I accounted for differences in Trump’s in-person vote share and in registered voters’ demographics in both precincts.

While precincts count in-person votes, central county offices are responsible for counting absentee or mail-in ballots. A county with systemic fraud may count absentee or mail-in ballots differently from a neighboring county. We can try to detect this fraud by comparing the results in bordering precincts that happen to fall on opposite sides of a county line. These precincts will tend to be virtually identical to each other – voters may simply be on the other side of the street from their precinct neighbors.

In 2016, there was no unexplained gap in absentee ballot counts. But 2020 was a different story. Just in Fulton County, Georgia, my test yielded an unexplained 17,000 votes – 32% more than Biden’s margin over Trump in the entire state.

With the focus on winning the state, there is no apparent reason why Democrats would get out the absentee ballot vote more in one precinct than in a neighboring precinct with similar political and demographic characteristics.

Next I applied the same method to provisional ballots in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Contrary to state law, voters were allegedly allowed to correct defects in absentee ballots by submitting provisional ballots on Election Day. My analysis found that such permissions in Allegheny County alone contributed to a statistically significant 6,700 additional votes for Biden – in a state decided by fewer than 81,000 votes.

Finally, artificially large voter turnouts can also be a sign of vote fraud. This fraud could come in the form of filling out absentee ballots for people who didn’t vote, voting by ineligible people, or bribing people for their votes.

Republican-leaning swing state counties had higher turnouts relative to the 2016 election. Democratic-leaning counties had lower turnouts, except for the Democratic counties with alleged vote fraud, which had very high turnouts.

My estimates likely understate the true amount of fraud with absentee ballots, as I didn’t attempt to ascertain possible in-person voting fraud. Allegations have arisen of many ineligible in-person voters in Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In Fulton County, Georgia, 2,423 voters were not listed as registered on the state’s records, and 2,560 felons voted even though they had not completed their sentences.

Vote fraud erodes trust in elections, and makes people less motivated to vote. Compared to Europe and other developed countries, America is unique in its lax approach to vote fraud. When all demographic and political groups in the U.S. support voter photo IDs and even 46% of Democrats believe that mail-in voting leads to cheating, ignoring Americans’ concerns won’t make the problem go away.”

From the article:  

“ Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail.

States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed – and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency’s survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason.

Although there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security.

These questions are particularly relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing states across the country to rapidly expand vote-by-mail operations in an election year. Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ron Wyden have proposed the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020, a bill that would allow every eligible voter the opportunity to vote by mail, regardless of state laws governing mail-in ballots.

A significant increase in mail-in voting this fall could greatly incentivize “ballot harvesting,” where third parties collect mail-in ballots on behalf of voters and deliver them to election officials. There’s long been a consensus that such a practice incentivizes fraud, and ballot harvesting is illegal in most of the country. Public debate over the issue has intensified in recent years after a GOP operative in North Carolina was indicted for crimes related to ballot harvesting in 2018.

That same election cycle California legalized ballot harvesting, and observers say the practice played a key role in ousting several Republican congressmen in Orange County in 2018, a longstanding GOP stronghold in a state that has become very liberal in recent decades.  

The fact that millions of unused mail-in ballots are floating around in every election cycle “is not a secret type data here – it's sitting there on the Internet, and you're paying for the server cost,” notes Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for PILF. “So what do people that really focus on the election process do about that? They go into ballot harvesting. If there's so many ballots out there in the wind unaccounted for by election officials, surely some manpower could be dedicated to go bring them in. And that's another part of the system where you have weaknesses and risk.”

To illustrate the risk, Churchwell notes that in 2016 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by garnering over 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump. But nearly 6 million unaccounted mail-in ballots were never counted in 2016, more than twice her margin in the popular vote. The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted – using methods that may or may not be legal – is great.

There’s little doubt that as the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud. A 2012 report in The New York Times noted that voter fraud involving mail-in ballots “is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say. In Florida, absentee-ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork around election time.” According to a Wall Street Journal report on voter exploitation in Hispanic communities in Texas, mail-in ballots have “spawned a mini-industry of consultants who get out the absentee vote, sometimes using questionable techniques.” Poor, elderly, and minority communities are most likely to be preyed upon by so-called ballot “brokers.”

Concerns about fraud in mail-in ballots were serious enough that a 2008 report produced by the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project recommended that states “restrict or abolish on-demand absentee voting in favor of in-person early voting.”

“The convenience that on-demand absentees produces is bought at a significant cost to the real and perceived integrity of the voting process,” the report added. “On the face of it, early voting can provide nearly equal convenience with significantly greater controls against fraud and coercion.” Similarly, another academic study done in 2008 from Reed College flagged various concerns related to absentee voting and conceded there is a “great deal of literature on turnout” but when it comes to mail-in ballots there is “a dearth of research on campaign effects, election costs, ballot quality, and the risk of fraud.”

Despite these concerns, five states – Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii – now do all elections exclusively by mail. Supporters point to smooth elections in these states as proof that it works. But PILF obtained voter data from Oregon, the first state to adopt voting by mail exclusively, for the 2012 and 2018 elections and checked it against census data. Of the 7 million ballots the state sent out in those two elections, some 871,000 ballots are totally unaccounted for.

Losing only one of eight ballots, as opposed to the national average of one in five, may be the result of Oregon having a more accurate listing of voters’ addresses than many other states, but that’s still a very high percentage of missing ballots, and Oregon would not reveal its data for the 2014 and 2016 elections for reasons the state would not disclose.

Regardless, U.S. Census data confirms that 11% of Americans move every year, and voters on the lower end of the economic scale are especially transient. Without implementing some extensive, and likely problematic, government surveillance program, there’s no way for election administrators to reliably get ballots to tens of millions of Americans every election cycle without a large percentage of ballots going to the wrong address. This problem is compounded by states that mail ballots automatically. (The author of this piece is from Oregon, where ballots with his name on them were sent to his parents’ address for years after he graduated from college and moved out of state -- despite repeated contacts with the county clerk telling them he had moved.)

The inherent problems of mail-in voting are being widely ignored, however. Use of mail-in ballots more than doubled from 24.9 million in 2004 to 57.2 million in 2016, and around 40% of U.S. votes are now done by mail. Along with this dramatic increase there have been virtually no new safeguards, scrutiny, or additional research on the risks of vote by mail. If the current pandemic is going to force the issue during a presidential election, proponents of voting by mail may have to address obvious risks that come with proposing that more than 200 million ballots be mailed out this fall.

“I really think the only reason vote-by-mail problems are not getting more attention on a regular basis, is that it's kind of an embarrassing problem and people just aren’t paying attention,” says Churchwell. “These numbers of missing ballots demonstrate large voter list maintenance failures and security gaps within the broader mail voting process.”

END OF MESSAGE

Did anybody read this shit?

It's not journalism, it's "commentary."  And who is this commentary by?  John R. Lott Jr.

 
Some of Lott's views:
Allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America.
This POV was debunked by the National Academy of Sciences and the RAND Corporation, among others.

 
Lott published a study that argued that liberalization of abortion laws led to higher murder rates.
It was applauded by racists like willy wonka who said liberal abortion laws would lead to the birth of more "thugs" who would commit more murders while burning down half of America.

 
Lott has non-peer-reviewed research that purports to show that undocumented immigrants are more crime-prone than U.S. ctitizens.   Lott lumped together both legal and illegal immigrants in prison into a category for illegal immigrants, leading to an elevated crime rate for illegal immigrants.  The Washington Post fact-checker wrote that this was a "significant flaw in Lott's study that undercuts his conclusion."  Lott's flawed claims were heavily promoted by the Trump administration to justify its anti-immigration policies, in particular their attempts to end DACA.

 
Lott blamed women getting the right to vote for more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives.

 
 Lott has claimed there was voter fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election.  He argued there was "irregularities" in the absentee ballots in Missoula County, and later wrote a paper claiming there was evidence of fraud in the absentee ballots in Georgia and Pennsylvania.  A 2021 PNAS study by political scientists at Stanford University and the University of Chicago rebutted Lott's paper as being not even remotely convincing, writing that his analysis was "entirely dependent on the completely arbitrary order in which pairs of precincts in other counties are entered in the dataset" and that his conclusions about voter fraud were "utterly baseless."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

 
willy also lies in the subject line of his post by claiming Lott's research is "peer reviewed."  Bullshit!  The journal Public Choice IS peer reviewed but Lott's work is "forthcoming."  Until it's actually published it's NOT "peer reviewed."

But he can’t. You can think whatever you like about Lott but he’s one of the most respected criminologists in the country. You’re not a scientist, Big Moron. Don’t even try.

The report doesn't cover changes made after 2018.  
The report describes ballots that were unaccounted for.
   Some people who vote in person just throw away the mail-in ballot.
   The report does not say that the unaccounted ballots were used fraudulently.
The report does not say anything about election count verification (Registered Voter A; Voter A voted by mail. Reg Voter B; voter B voted in-person, etc.)  
.
The MIT report found that a majority of people surveyed who voted in-person or were dropping  off ballots in person encountered people trying to deter voters and disrupt the election process. The MIT report, to which they refer, did not measure election FRAUD, it measured people's BELIEFS about election fraud.  
.
Some people believe some pretty weird shit: Italian Satellites changing Trump votes to Biden votes, Jewish Space Lasers changing Trump votes to Biden votes, voting machines pre-loaded with 40,000 Dem votes, paper ballots being counted multiple times, 5000 dead people voting in GA, 18,000 dead people voting in MI, ...

Re-read the first sentence: "By a margin of 52% to 40%, voters ***believe*** that “cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.” "  
.
It is a story about BELIEFS, not election facts.  Not one allegation of outcome determinative election fraud has been verified. Team Trump has provided ZERO evidence of outcome determinative fraud in court, to the press, to election officials, ... to the public.  
.
So why do people believe this way? Because they are wrapped up in the Trump - QAnon cult. "Trump told me and I believe Trump over everything. Over family, over clergy, over my own eyes, ..."

Love how you whinge about Willy’s long post but never about imps… 🤔 why is that?

NO PROOF NO PROOF NO PROOF!!!!!!!!

The manner in which you do this 100% regurgitation of the extra dark blue koolaid is the icing on the cake.  

Of course there’s “no proof” says you.

The proof is everywhere but you won’t look at it.

Steven crowder found Ass loads of fake address in Las Vegas that “voters” supposedly lived at but were actually empty parking lots. 🙄

Everyone I know in Northern Nevada who checked the states voting website showed that not only did they not vote but that their voting history was deleted. 😳

Everyone I know that had moved out of the state of Arizona prior to the 2020 election checked that states election website and lo and behold… they had voted in Arizona! WTF?

There’s enough smoke to warrant crying fire! And with the rabid screaming down (by you lefties) anyone’s questioning if it  tells me, fuck yes you stole an election!  

It’s the worst crime in American history and you lefties support it!!!

-- Modified on 2/20/2024 11:17:25 PM

A record amount of word vomit for this board. Did. you actually read both of them? If you say "yes," you're lying.

I’ll save you from the copy pasta. You can click the link if you want. I just wished that IMP would give us that option instead of pretending that he wrote the shit he posts. Notice that I have the decency not to plagiarize. When I’m quoting from someone else, I show it.

In fact, he is a brilliant scientist.  He has developed a machine that can read brainwave BELIEFS and convert them into election FACTS.  I hear he's been nominated for a Nobel Prize.  It's his second nomination; he almost won his first for his breakthrough invention - horse paste suppositories:

Of course I read them, I’m not the absolute backstabbing weasel dick that you are. You have a long history of trying to denigrate others by saying “who read that shit?”  

You delusional narcissistic personality disorder is on full display as per the usual.  

PS 🖕🏻🖕🏻

I’m not a scientist, but I do read their research. And I know enough that the typical Democrat character assassination is not peer review. You see, in science, to refute a person’s ideas you have to do it on the actual merits of the person’s argument. Just saying “this person is shit” doesn’t work.  

 
You, Big Moron, think you can falsify someone’s research just by yelling about how much someone is a “bad person”. Hey, I heard that once John Lott made a taco truck joke. His research must be wrong, huh? This is why you’re a moron.

Re-read the first sentence: "By a margin of 52% to 40%, voters ***believe*** that “cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.” "  
.
It is a story about BELIEFS, not election facts.  Not one allegation of outcome determinative election fraud has been verified. Team Trump has provided ZERO evidence of outcome determinative fraud in court, to the press, to election officials, ... to the public.  

END OF MESSAGE

I think he is talking about the forthcoming John Lott article rather than the Rasmussen poll. So if this true, Willy is correct we do have according to Lott  a “peer reviewed” article showing voter fraud.  But Willy falls for Lott’s caption and assumes that Lott’s findings have indeed been validated  by “peer review.”

 
     Lott’s findings have been peer reviewed once. What Lott does not tell us, however,  is that Lott FAILED  peer review. Words like “absurd,” “arbitrary,” and “flawed,” and “unsupported” were used:  

 
"The research design for such a claim appears to be plausible on its face, but the matching was flawed. As Eggers, Garro, and Grimmer (Citation2021, pp. 24–26) point out, in matching units in adjacent counties where Trump won, it is arbitrary which unit we list first, and they show that reversing the order overturns the conclusion that there was fraud benefiting Biden. Second, they show that when one runs a more straightforward statistical test on the same data, the conclusions about fraud again fail to be supported.
Moreover, differences in Trump share of in-person and not in-person votes can be expected to vary with the size of the Trump vote in the unit, since Trump strongly discouraged voting absentee or by mail. Thus, the more Trump supporters in the unit, the more likely it is that Trump’s support will be higher among the in-person voters than among those who do not vote in-person. This fact makes it absurd to conclude that the differences between in-person and not in-person voting that Lott found demonstrate fraud, since the units being compared differ in their vote for Trump and thus can be expected to differ in the relative levels of in-person and not in-person support for Mr. Trump."

             Ouch. Having seen some of Lott’s research on gun violence, I am not surprised. But give Willy some credit – he accurately reported what Lott said and had no basis to know that, at least according to the peer review, Lott is wrong.

Correcting my post about this:

It wasn't Giuliani and Ellis visiting Raffensberger; it was with Rusty Bowers in AZ.
.
That is what happened when Giuliani and Ellis (and others on the team) visited Rusty Bowers (hardcore Rep and Trump supporter), Speaker of the House in Arizona, on the days around December 1, 2020. Here is Bowers being interviewed on video:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y44fyh4ap7k
Skip to section 6, from 51:21 to 1:01:15 (Do you have 10 minutes to listen to hard right Republican Bowers?)
.
The written transcript of his Jan 6th Testimony is here:
http://archive.org/details/january-6th-committee-witness-testimony-20220619-russell-bowers/mode/1up
(See mostly pages 26-30.)
.
Does this officially make Bowers a RINO? A Never Trumper?