Donald Trump Just Told His Fans to "Watch" the Polls

[Cigar]

"And when I say 'watch,' you know what I'm talking about, right?​"http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/32/980x490/landscape-1470956909-donald-trump.jpg
At a rally in Akron, Ohio, Donald Trump essentially told his supporters that they need to vigilantly "watch" the polls for voter fraud, according to Toronto Star correspondent Daniel Dale (https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/767865164628713472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)—despite the fact that voter fraud has proven (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dc8feb8205ac4d73bafb0454f2098363/person-voting-fraud-rare-doesnt-affect-elections) to be very rare.

"You've got to get every one of your friends, you've got to get every one of your family, you've got to get everybody to go out and watch," he said. "And go out and vote."


He then made it sound as though he's not talking about "watching" whatsoever:



"And when say 'watch,' you know what I'm talking about, right? You know what I'm talking about. You've got to go out and you've got to watch."


What Trump was actually talking about is, arguably, bizarrely vague, his statement comes just weeks after he suggested that "Second Amendment people" "do" something (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a47491/donald-trump-hints-at-hillary-clinton-assassination/) about Hillary Clinton, and less than a week after Trump adviser Al Baldasaro claimed (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a47728/a-trump-adviser-clarified-that-clinton-should-be-executed-not-assassinated/) that he wants Clinton to be "executed."


Only 77 days until the election, folks! :thumbsup:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a47920/donald-trump-watch/

[I]So a good question would be, who going to be doing the watching in those neighborhoods that need watching?

[Mac-7]

The democrats do cheat in the hispanic and black neighborhoods and it often is the margin of victory for them

[FindersKeepers]

I don't really know how to "watch."

Perhaps, I'm supposed to see if the old ladies running the voting fill out a few ballots (ours are paper) and then drop them in the lock box?

Perhaps, I'm supposed to see if they hand out more than one ballot to a voter?

I've known some of the gals running the voting for years, and while one of them rubs me the wrong way, I don't think she'd stoop to that.

Perhaps in another precinct.

[Subdermal]

More votes cast than registered voters?

Not a single vote cast for Romney in 59 precincts?

Yeah: do keep your eyes open.

[maineman]

The democrats do cheat in the hispanic and black neighborhoods and it often is the margin of victory for them

any proof of that allegation?

[maineman]

More votes cast than registered voters?

Not a single vote cast for Romney in 59 precincts?

Yeah: do keep your eyes open.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

:yawn:

[Cigar]

More votes cast than registered voters?

Not a single vote cast for Romney in 59 precincts?

Yeah: do keep your eyes open.

So the answer is, you will be a Poll Watcher in those place where Donald Trump said there's Voter Fraud?

[Cigar]

I don't really know how to "watch."

Perhaps, I'm supposed to see if the old ladies running the voting fill out a few ballots (ours are paper) and then drop them in the lock box?

Perhaps, I'm supposed to see if they hand out more than one ballot to a voter?

I've known some of the gals running the voting for years, and while one of them rubs me the wrong way, I don't think she'd stoop to that.

Perhaps in another precinct.

When you look at the margin of victory in the last two (2) Presidential Elections (9.5 Million and 5 Million) you'd think there would have to be a lot of Voter Fraud going around to make up that type of margin.

[FindersKeepers]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

:yawn:



You probably should have read that Snopes piece. While it claims there was not a statistically improbability that 59 districts turned up with no votes for Mitt -- it verified that it happened.

:grin:

[maineman]

You probably should have read that Snopes piece. While it claims there was not a statistically improbability that 59 districts turned up with no votes for Mitt -- it verified that it happened.


and explained why it did. I guess you didn't read it all.

[Cigar]

You probably should have read that Snopes piece. While it claims there was not a statistically improbability that 59 districts turned up with no votes for Mitt -- it verified that it happened.

:grin:

Was it enough to make up a 5 Million Vote deficit?

[FindersKeepers]

and explained why it did. I guess you didn't read it all.

You do realize that their "explanation" falls into the realm of "opinion," don't you? LOL

And, how do you figure I didn't read it when I quoted their explanation that it wasn't a "statistical improbability?"

You seem flustered.

Forgetful.

Haven't had your coffee yet this fine morning?

[FindersKeepers]

Was it enough to make up a 5 Million Vote deficit?

Doubtful,

but -- it happened.

[Cigar]

Doubtful,

but -- it happened.

How many convictions?

What was their sentence?

[FindersKeepers]

When you look at the margin of victory in the last two (2) Presidential Elections (9.5 Million and 5 Million) you'd think there would have to be a lot of Voter Fraud going around to make up that type of margin.

Undoubtedly.

The only time I've heard that fraud affected the outcome of an election was in a local Missouri case.

But, that doesn't mean that we should tolerate any voting fraud.

[Subdermal]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

:yawn:

From your own link, from the disgraced snopes.

It is true that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded no votes for Mitt Romney, but given the voter composition of the Philadelphia area (and some Philadelphia wards in particular), and the number of voters in each division, that outcome was hardly a "mathematical and statistical impossibility."

You are the enemy; no one is surprised that you simply turn a blind eye to the impossible. That snopes claims it isn't is laughable. The actuaries I know laugh at your link: it is statistically impossible.

Evidence of that is that it also has never happened before in history.

Plug your ears, clown.

[FindersKeepers]

How many convictions?

What was their sentence?


Snopes doesn't mention any convictions whatsoever.

While it seems odd that 59 precincts report NO votes for Mitt, how would you go about proving fraud?

And, wouldn't it be counterproductive anyway, since those precincts were heavy Obama voters? It's not like a few votes would have changed the outcome, right?

But, fraud is not acceptable at the voting booth.

I'm sure you agree with that.

[Cigar]

Undoubtedly.

The only time I've heard that fraud affected the outcome of an election was in a local Missouri case.

But, that doesn't mean that we should tolerate any voting fraud.

Exactly ... if you find someone committing voter fraud, then turn them in.

People who commit Voter Fraud must be the smartest criminals in the world, because no one can ever catch them.

[Subdermal]

So the answer is, you will be a Poll Watcher in those place where Donald Trump said there's Voter Fraud?

I grew up in one of the toughest zip codes in the country, country club token.

[Cigar]

From your own link, from the disgraced snopes.

It is true that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded no votes for Mitt Romney, but given the voter composition of the Philadelphia area (and some Philadelphia wards in particular), and the number of voters in each division, that outcome was hardly a "mathematical and statistical impossibility."

You are the enemy; no one is surprised that you simply turn a blind eye to the impossible. That snopes claims it isn't is laughable. The actuaries I know laugh at your link: it is statistically impossible.

Evidence of that is that it also has never happened before in history.

Plug your ears, clown.

Looks like a good place for you to go watch ... let us know how it goes for yea ...

[FindersKeepers]

Exactly ... if you find someone committing voter fraud, then turn them in.

People who commit Voter Fraud must be the smartest criminals in the world, because no one can ever catch them.



They did catch them in the Missouri case I mentioned -- and they reversed the winner of the election based on that.

[maineman]

I grew up in one of the toughest zip codes in the country, country club token.

one of the toughest zip codes in the country is in WISCONSIN????

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Subdermal]

Was it enough to make up a 5 Million Vote deficit?

Red Herring.

The Presidency isn't won on the popular vote. It is won in the Electoral College, which takes far fewer votes to shift.

I'd say "but you knew that", but I don't think you know much at all.

[Subdermal]

one of the toughest zip codes in the country is in WISCONSIN????

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yes, moron. Perhaps you aren't informed about Milwaukee.

[maineman]

From your own link, from the disgraced snopes.

It is true that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded no votes for Mitt Romney, but given the voter composition of the Philadelphia area (and some Philadelphia wards in particular), and the number of voters in each division, that outcome was hardly a "mathematical and statistical impossibility."

You are the enemy; no one is surprised that you simply turn a blind eye to the impossible. That snopes claims it isn't is laughable. The actuaries I know laugh at your link: it is statistically impossible.

Evidence of that is that it also has never happened before in history.

Plug your ears, clown.

never before has a black American sitting president gone up against a magic underwear wearing uber elitist... and you really expect ANY black voter in a lower class black urban Philadelphia neighborhood to think that Mittens would have been a better choice? really?

[maineman]

Yes, moron. Perhaps you aren't informed about Milwaukee.

I have spent a considerable amount of time in that city in my youth. I'd put every zip code in south Chicago above it in toughness, every zip code in Manhattan above 85th street, every zip code in East LA, Compton, and about a hundred other urban areas as well.

[Subdermal]

never before has a black American sitting president gone up against a magic underwear wearing uber elitist... and you really expect ANY black voter in a lower class black urban Philadelphia neighborhood to think that Mittens would have been a better choice? really?

:facepalm:

Statistics isn't your thing - nor is it the dishonest leftist snopes.

Both are leftists, so the 'not being good with math, and unwilling to demonstrate the integrity necessary to admit how suspicious this is' is not a strong suit.

Now pound sand.

[maineman]

Red Herring.

The Presidency isn't won on the popular vote. It is won in the Electoral College, which takes far fewer votes to shift.

I'd say "but you knew that", but I don't think you know much at all.

do you have any evidence that voter fraud has shifted the electoral college in any elections in your lifetime?

[Subdermal]

I have spent a considerable amount of time in that city in my youth. I'd put every zip code in south Chicago above it in toughness, every zip code in Manhattan above 85th street, every zip code in East LA, Compton, and about a hundred other urban areas as well.

One of the toughest zip codes in the country. There are hundreds of thousands of zip codes in this country.

Good job finding a hundred more, using your own bias to do so. There's a better way to challenge toughness, but you're not near man enough to try.

[maineman]

:facepalm:

Statistics isn't your thing - nor is it the dishonest leftist snopes.

Both are leftists, so the 'not being good with math, and unwilling to demonstrate the integrity necessary to admit how suspicious this is' is not a strong suit.

Now pound sand.

again... can you give me one good reason why ANY resident of a poor, all black neighborhood in Philly would vote for Romney?

[Subdermal]

do you have any evidence that voter fraud has shifted the electoral college in any elections in your lifetime?

I've posted it, twice. Search the forum for "How Democrats Plan to Steal the 2016 election".

Not one leftist touched it. You won't either.

[Cigar]

They did catch them in the Missouri case I mentioned -- and they reversed the winner of the election based on that.

Ok .. so what's the problem?

[Cigar]

I've posted it, twice. Search the forum for "How Democrats Plan to Steal the 2016 election".

Not one leftist touched it. You won't either.

:laugh: Wait, you mean Donald is not Leading?

[Subdermal]

again... can you give me one good reason why ANY resident of a poor, all black neighborhood in Philly would vote for Romney?

Because there have always been, willingly blind despicable leftist. You're late to pound that sand I ordered you to.

[maineman]

One of the toughest zip codes in the country. There are hundreds of thousands of zip codes in this country.

Good job finding a hundred more, using your own bias to do so. There's a better way to challenge toughness, but you're not near man enough to try.

I just love it when e-warriors flex their e-muscles on the internet! Do yo have ANY idea how pathetic you sound?

Here's the deal.... I live in a different country than you. I have absolutely no reason to want to prove anything to you mano y mano. The next time I go to the states, which will be the day after tomorrow, by the way, I will go to spend a few weeks with my kids. I wouldn't waste a nanosecond of my time rubbing your nose in your own macho bullshit during that trip. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire... that's how little your pathetic internet throw down challenge means to me, Pedro.

[maineman]

Because there have always been, willingly blind despicable leftist. You're late to pound that sand I ordered you to.

there have always been what? When was the last time an effete Mormon 1%er ran against a black man?

"ordered"???

I don't take orders from the likes of you, señor.... and I never have.

:rofl:

[Mac-7]

any proof of that allegation?

Its my opinion

i know liberals have to be told what to believe by a liberal authoritarian figure but conservatives think for themselves

[maineman]

You do realize that their "explanation" falls into the realm of "opinion," don't you? LOL

And, how do you figure I didn't read it when I quoted their explanation that it wasn't a "statistical improbability?"

You seem flustered.

Forgetful.

Haven't had your coffee yet this fine morning?

I never said you didn't read it, I said you didn't read it all. You need to read a bit more carefully going forward.

[maineman]

Its my opinion

i know liberals have to be told what to believe by a liberal authoritarian figure but conservatives think for themselves

you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts... so you have no FACTS that back up your opinion.... is that right?

[FindersKeepers]

Ok .. so what's the problem?

You indicated it was a problem by starting this thread -- not me.

[FindersKeepers]

I never said you didn't read it, I said you didn't read it all. You need to read a bit more carefully going forward.

I'm not the one making mistakes here.

LOL

[maineman]

I'm not the one making mistakes here.

LOL

nor I. You clearly missed the "all" portion of my post. I didn't miss a thing.

[maineman]

I've posted it, twice. Search the forum for "How Democrats Plan to Steal the 2016 election".

Not one leftist touched it. You won't either.

I copied that exact phrase into the search window.... only three threads came up... none with evidence from you.

[FindersKeepers]

nor I. You clearly missed the "all" portion of my post. I didn't miss a thing.



You posted a link that substantiated another poster's claim, rather than refuted it. But, go ahead, pat yourself on the back, anyway.

Fascinating.

[maineman]

You posted a link that substantiated another poster's claim, rather than refuted it. But, go ahead, pat yourself on the back, anyway.

Fascinating.

His claim alleged voter fraud. My link did not support that allegation.

fascinating indeed.

[MisterVeritis]

never before has a black American sitting president gone up against a magic underwear wearing uber elitist... and you really expect ANY black voter in a lower class black urban Philadelphia neighborhood to think that Mittens would have been a better choice? really?
Are the black urban poor better off after eight years of the IslamoNAZI supporter in the White Mosque? Are they better off without school choice? Are they better off on food stamp programs instead of having jobs in a vibrant economy? Are they better off now that men can shower and piss with their daughters?

Will blacks make the same mistake again and vote for more of the same with Lyin' Hidin' Hillary?

[MisterVeritis]

:laugh: Wait, you mean Donald is not Leading?
Not in the polls. Not yet.

[FindersKeepers]

His claim alleged voter fraud. My link did not support that allegation.

fascinating indeed.



He claimed there were 59 precincts with no Mitt votes.

Your link substantiated that.

You're going to need a bigger shovel if you're going to keep digging that hole.

[maineman]

He claimed there were 59 precincts with no Mitt votes.


in a discussion about voter fraud. I have absolutely no problem believing that 59 precincts in north philly had no Mitt voters.... and see no evidence of voter irregularity in the vote counts in those 59 precincts. You do....

and ya know.... if there HAD been a handful of Mittens voters in those precincts, don't you think they themselves would have raised a ruckus when the vote counts were announced? Don't you think they would have held press conferences and demanded that City Hall investigate this obvious voter fraud that they, themselves were absolute proof of?

[Subdermal]

I just love it when e-warriors flex their e-muscles on the internet! Do yo have ANY idea how pathetic you sound?

Here's the deal.... I live in a different country than you. I have absolutely no reason to want to prove anything to you mano y mano. The next time I go to the states, which will be the day after tomorrow, by the way, I will go to spend a few weeks with my kids. I wouldn't waste a nanosecond of my time rubbing your nose in your own macho bull$#@! during that trip. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire... that's how little your pathetic internet throw down challenge means to me, Pedro.

:biglaugh:

You should not attempt to question toughness if you have none. Note, please, that Cigar insinuated something that I answered. No one asked you to butt in at all, so you shouldn't be surprised when you are rebuffed.

[Subdermal]

you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts... so you have no FACTS that back up your opinion.... is that right?

Neither did you.

[FindersKeepers]

in a discussion about voter fraud. I have absolutely no problem believing that 59 precincts in north philly had no Mitt voters.... and see no evidence of voter irregularity in the vote counts in those 59 precincts. You do....

and ya know.... if there HAD been a handful of Mittens voters in those precincts, don't you think they themselves would have raised a ruckus when the vote counts were announced? Don't you think they would have held press conferences and demanded that City Hall investigate this obvious voter fraud that they, themselves were absolute proof of?

Just keep diggin'...

[maineman]

Just keep diggin'...

keep tap dancin'.

do you have an answer as to why not one single Mittens voter stepped up and pointed to what, for him, would be obvious voter fraud?

nothin'?

I understand.

[Subdermal]

I copied that exact phrase into the search window.... only three threads came up... none with evidence from you.

Twice. Now three times.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/how-democrats-plan-to-steal-the-14995362/

Exhaustively documented.

You won't touch this.

[AZ Jim]

The democrats do cheat in the hispanic and black neighborhoods and it often is the margin of victory for themCredible Link or STFU!

[Subdermal]

Credible Link or STFU!

The link above is credible.

Oh. Did you mean credible to a liberal?

That doesn't mean the same thing to the rest of humanity: that's because the remainder is actually mostly honest.

[maineman]

Twice. Now three times.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/how-democrats-plan-to-steal-the-14995362/

Exhaustively documented.



You won't touch this.

documented with conjecture. No one can show who any of the improperly cast votes were cast for. sorry.

when your "exhaustively documented" hit piece contains tripe like THIS:

"Under Minnesota law, convicted felons are only permitted to vote once they have completed probation following their prison sentences, yet hundreds illegally did.

And 90% of the estimated 1,099 who did voted for Franken."

We have a system of secret ballots here in the US. NO ONE can know that 90% of those voters voted for Franken.... pure partisan conjecture.