DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

nixluva wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Here is the scenario... My immigrantion status is precarious. I know that breaking the law will expose me to deportation even under the Obama Administration — the "deporter-in-chief" as his critics call him. So I and a million others will risk exposing my status and becoming a criminal that could get me deported under any administration... because of Trump.

Doesn't pass muster with me.

What exactly is Obama saying here? He was asked about undocumented immigrants voting.

I don't ****ing know what they are talking about here exactly. It was a short clip which I listened to, and Inshut the video down after I heard that whoosh sound because I don't care about these talking heads 3 minute opinion on a sound bite.

But yes, that sound bite sounds bad and I don't like the implications. Look, I don't like the pandering that happens with this issue either. I would expect Canada to throw my ass out of I was up there under the radar.

So what. Show me evidence or shut up about it. Not to be rude but for ****'s sake with the innuendo. I'm getting tired of it. I have offered more than enough thoughts and arguments to be dealt with by your own words and not another ****ing inane YouTube clip.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say the President in that interview sounds bad, but you want evidence? Ok, it is circumstantial. But the case is still being created. Look for motive. Check A defense lawyer clearly agreed with the host saying The President was saying you can vote illegally and we won't go and check on you. I'll work on that evidence but we all should.

Didn't mean to touch a nerve but that is what cognitive dissonance can do. It is very damning what the President of the US said there and you admitted that. Maybe look for that full interview but that so called "clip", shows the full question as well as coming up to it and a long reply. Hmmmmmm....

It's pandering and ****ed up on his part if I grant you that was the intent. Did he understand what she was saying? Was his point just that the elections process isn't a part of a police state and mixed status families won't get hunted down? I can be generous but I give two ****s about this WB actress saying "I call them citizens" — that's nice, but poetic license isn't the law. So even if I grant you that Jane the Virgin has the power to instill fearlessness in the hearts of millions...

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

Don't get dragged into this BS distraction!!! This is just garbage BS being used to try and trick people into thinking there is something this this nonsense. There is no evidence that MILLIONS of People voted illegally.

It is the President answering a question. Seems quite clear. Don't attack a direct video interview of the President.
I would hardly call this a distraction. You asked for evidence, and the president saying you can illegally vote and not go to prison for it is pretty damning. Not a smoking gun but a nice start.
The study (Doc) is certainly something to look into further. It could lead us to a smoking gun though.

Gunsmoke or pettifog?

It is probably not going to be reported on MSM first. I think we could agree on that. So we have to connect some dots. But there are thousands looking into (and on both sides I'm sure).
So, I'll go with Gunsmoke.

Remember, the revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will definitely be live-tweeted, though.

LOL, the memories, but a bit before my time I think...

You know, that study is evidence now that I think more about it. I mean you have undocumented aliens admitting to being registered to vote. I'd love to know more about that study and as I alluded to before, lots of people working on this, sure more info will come out. Maybe after Trump gets in he looks into it more, or maybe sooner, when he isn't tweeting.

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

nixluva wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Here is the scenario... My immigrantion status is precarious. I know that breaking the law will expose me to deportation even under the Obama Administration — the "deporter-in-chief" as his critics call him. So I and a million others will risk exposing my status and becoming a criminal that could get me deported under any administration... because of Trump.

Doesn't pass muster with me.

What exactly is Obama saying here? He was asked about undocumented immigrants voting.

I don't ****ing know what they are talking about here exactly. It was a short clip which I listened to, and Inshut the video down after I heard that whoosh sound because I don't care about these talking heads 3 minute opinion on a sound bite.

But yes, that sound bite sounds bad and I don't like the implications. Look, I don't like the pandering that happens with this issue either. I would expect Canada to throw my ass out of I was up there under the radar.

So what. Show me evidence or shut up about it. Not to be rude but for ****'s sake with the innuendo. I'm getting tired of it. I have offered more than enough thoughts and arguments to be dealt with by your own words and not another ****ing inane YouTube clip.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say the President in that interview sounds bad, but you want evidence? Ok, it is circumstantial. But the case is still being created. Look for motive. Check A defense lawyer clearly agreed with the host saying The President was saying you can vote illegally and we won't go and check on you. I'll work on that evidence but we all should.

Didn't mean to touch a nerve but that is what cognitive dissonance can do. It is very damning what the President of the US said there and you admitted that. Maybe look for that full interview but that so called "clip", shows the full question as well as coming up to it and a long reply. Hmmmmmm....

It's pandering and ****ed up on his part if I grant you that was the intent. Did he understand what she was saying? Was his point just that the elections process isn't a part of a police state and mixed status families won't get hunted down? I can be generous but I give two ****s about this WB actress saying "I call them citizens" — that's nice, but poetic license isn't the law. So even if I grant you that Jane the Virgin has the power to instill fearlessness in the hearts of millions...

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

Don't get dragged into this BS distraction!!! This is just garbage BS being used to try and trick people into thinking there is something this this nonsense. There is no evidence that MILLIONS of People voted illegally.

It is the President answering a question. Seems quite clear. Don't attack a direct video interview of the President.
I would hardly call this a distraction. You asked for evidence, and the president saying you can illegally vote and not go to prison for it is pretty damning. Not a smoking gun but a nice start.
The study (Doc) is certainly something to look into further. It could lead us to a smoking gun though.

Gunsmoke or pettifog?

It is probably not going to be reported on MSM first. I think we could agree on that. So we have to connect some dots. But there are thousands looking into (and on both sides I'm sure).
So, I'll go with Gunsmoke.

Remember, the revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will definitely be live-tweeted, though.

LOL, the memories, but a bit before my time I think...

You know, that study is evidence now that I think more about it. I mean you have undocumented aliens admitting to being registered to vote. I'd love to know more about that study and as I alluded to before, lots of people working on this, sure more info will come out. Maybe after Trump gets in he looks into it more, or maybe sooner, when he isn't tweeting.

Ha! Sometimes the stuff you say... I wonder if you are the most devious troll on this board! I mean, are you saying that with a hint of irony or what? I can't read you, man... other than you are in Trump's Jeep 100%!

You don't have to wait for any one to tell you what this means. You can read that WashPost article and all six of the related ones that go back and forth debunking and defending it. But it's really just so you have a link to fire off that symbolizes what you want to believe.

Anyhoo... good tennis match. You serve out of bounds the entire time and yet you won! How is that always happening? Did the rules change?

arkrud wrote:One candidate won the elections.
Supporters of loser than insist that he would won if the system will be different.
Then the supporters of winner insist that he would win regardless because many votes are illegal or he will run campaign differently.
This level of conversation is like kinder-gardeners arguing who broke the send-tower in the send-box.
It is clear to every reasonable adult that the President position defines what the person who became the President will do not the other way around. There are many more chances for somebody to stop the moving train with bare hands that change the course of the country as big as US. The success or failure of the President defined by how good he and his team can catch the winds of destiny and run with them pretending that they are the makers of it.

Oh for ****s sake with your pseudo-intellectual inscrutable 5-millenia wide view for once. Don't you have a Junior Elders of Sion meeting to go to with George Soros?

I've come around to you, but god... you are pompous as **** sometimes. But I'm just a mud person in kindergarten in awe of your rational dispassionate point of view.

Shut up and get a spellchecker.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:One candidate won the elections.
Supporters of loser than insist that he would won if the system will be different.
Then the supporters of winner insist that he would win regardless because many votes are illegal or he will run campaign differently.
This level of conversation is like kinder-gardeners arguing who broke the send-tower in the send-box.
It is clear to every reasonable adult that the President position defines what the person who became the President will do not the other way around. There are many more chances for somebody to stop the moving train with bare hands that change the course of the country as big as US. The success or failure of the President defined by how good he and his team can catch the winds of destiny and run with them pretending that they are the makers of it.

Oh for ****s sake with your pseudo-intellectual inscrutable 5-millenia wide view for once. Don't you have a Junior Elders of Sion meeting to go to with George Soros?

I've come around to you, but god... you are pompous as **** sometimes. But I'm just a mud person in kindergarten in awe of your rational dispassionate point of view.

Shut up and get a spellchecker.

We discussed it with him briefly.
He said I am busy but asked me to confuse everybody with spelling mistakes.
So I am just following the leader...
Its a message board for god sake... why are you so serious?

BRIGGS wrote:This thread needs to die. Its done--lets move on.

No until you comment on my Swamp Creatures Updates!!!

BRIGGS wrote:This thread needs to die. Its done--lets move on.

i agree.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=55420

earthmansurfer wrote:More circumstantial evidence of voter fraud...
12 of the 20 States Clinton won require NO voter ID.

Big issue in this election was pre-election voter suppression, not fraud. If you don't know this you're showing some major ignorance.

Might want to stay away from the Alex Jones, Info Wars, Breitbart, Daily Caller, and Der Stormer stuff...and also avoid those fake news sites coming from teenagers out of Macedonia.

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:More circumstantial evidence of voter fraud...
12 of the 20 States Clinton won require NO voter ID.

You're using a graphic with that F'n Neo Nazi Pepe character...?? Might want to keep the "Alt-Racist" stuff out of here, no? I find it offensive.

Big issue in this election was pre-election voter suppression, not fraud. If you don't know this you're showing some major ignorance.

Might want to stay away from the Alex Jones, Info Wars, Breitbart, Daily Caller, and Der Stormer stuff...and also avoid those fake news sites coming from teenagers out of Macedonia.

That is a frog dressed in plain clothes. There is no racist, Nazi stuff on him that I saw. I would not post something like that. To be offended by a frog... where have we gone?
And let's not miss the real point here instead of making this both a personal attack and a red herring. Is the information true? Did Obama really say what he did in that video I posted? Why no comments on that? You want MSM and I give it to you from the horses mouth. What about the study showing illegal voting? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.59a10ceb0f18 Seems more important than a frog dressed in peoples clothes.

Depends on your perspective, sure voter suppression took place, but to me and millions of others, the fake polls had a similar effect. You ignore one thing, and others ignore something else.
Have you not noticed that here, or in America in general? To think you have the "right perspective", that is ignorance. We must remain open to all perspectives.
Have you not seen the videos of Trump supporters getting beat up? Sounds like a strong form of suppression. It seems the racism and violence is being done by the side that keeps talking about Trump doing it. Ironic...

MSM is pretty getting worse and worse (their financial problems and declining ratings show that). So, we must look to other sources. I do not judge a book by it's cover, rather look at the information.

Edit - I had to look up that Pepe symbol as I honestly didn't know what you were talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_the_Frog
The bolded clearly applies here for me. I love people, all people, all colors, illegals, etc.

Pepe the Frog is a fictional character from Matt Furie's comic series Boy's Club. It became an internet meme when its popularity steadily grew across Myspace, Gaia Online and 4chan in 2008. By 2015, it had become one of the most popular memes used on Tumblr. Beginning in 2016, his image has increasingly been appropriated as a symbol of the controversial alt-right political movement. Because of the use of Pepe by the alt-right, the Anti-Defamation League added Pepe the Frog to their database of hate symbols in 2016, adding that not all Pepe memes are racist.[2] Since then, Pepe's creator, Matt Furie, had publicly expressed[3] his dismay at Pepe being used as a hate symbol, and is currently attempting to return a more positive connotation to the meme through various means, including a Twitter campaign called #SavePepe.

earthmansurfer wrote:More circumstantial evidence of voter fraud...
12 of the 20 States Clinton won require NO voter ID.

EMS, this is hot garbage not circumstantial evidence of anything. My god man you truly bring the level of intelligence on this topic way way down.