The Trump strategy for winning. Voter fraud

Dr Dons cure all. Recommend by Trump supporters everywhere

Precisely

Well I would like it is fraudulent and illegal votes where not counted. But count all legal votes.

Here’s your proof

Counting all legal votes? Trump would have a problem with that.

Votes that come in after the limit (varies by state), or fraudulently casted would not be legal votes.

Double votes and votes casted in other peoples name in other peoples name would be fraud votes.

Illegally collected, bought, or people that where taken advantage of to artificially pump the vote cannot be separated out from legal votes.

I didn't ask for your definition, I asked for Trump's.XD
Apparently his definition is "Any vote for me!"

No, doesn't look like you want Trump's. Rather you want the lefts' strawman of Trump's.

No we want Trumps not the rights idealized idea of Trump.

No, you already proved you don't. Trump has sued to make should poll watchers get to watch the ballots being collect in order to reduce the chances of fraud. You are against this, so you're against election transparency and against basic checks that stop fraud.

Poll watchers also known as voter intimidation we don't need white supremacists to watch the polls we need professionals that are paid that's not what Trump wants.

And there are a very small amount of those.

And how exactly would you know?

It's a crime not many people would brake the law like that.

You just assumed your point is true while attempting to prove it is true.

Name on time fake ballots were found in large amounts.

So you're now going for a negative proof fallacy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf

The one in the basket were improperly filled out ballots and they weren't all for Trump.

LOL, WUT?

How am I talking in a circle my logic is consistent but not a circle.

A therefore B, B therefor A. That is a circle. Voter fraud is rare, so it is not an issue here. Then you fall back on it not being an issue here to backup the rare claim. Each one depends on the other being true in order for the argument to hold without no outside support.

Made by Trump its not going to be valid if its basically propaganda.

There is I'm just a bit to lazy to give it to you.

Here's something new: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/524749-nevada-republican-party-sends-criminal-referral-to-doj-alleging-thousands

I can understand, you where trying to prove a negative, which in this case is next to impossible and thus cannot really give a good argument even if it is true.

Anyway I remembers this, https://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-us-elections and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379414000973

Not the same type of fraud, but it is enough to swing close elections.

That's only a few cases its not a big deal its also a crime and that discourages people from doing something.

So you're back to that again. I don't see it, so it must not exist, so we don't need to look for it, so we don't have evidence of it...

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/ballot-chaser-raquel-rodriguez-boasts-judges-legislators-in-my-pocket-im/
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/texas-ballot-chaser-pressures-voter-to-change-vote-from-cornyn-to-hegar/

Trump kept talking about ballots in a basket that were not getting sent in and they were all with his name but that was a lie.

So instead of talking about the evidence, you decided to talk about something else entirely.

I'm sorry but its just not a big thing the election was going to turn out like this even without a very small amount of people committing voter fraud.

Yep, in a circle.

at least my logic has not changed.

Talking in a circle is a fallacy, not logic.

They are just court cases this is not evidence maybe I can get some but voter fraud is not as big a deal as Trump makes it out to be.

LOL, so convicting people in court of voter fraud is not evidence of voter fraud? Thanks for showing your willingness to ignore evidence.

No I'm talking about Trumps made up evidence.

But not the evidence given, so you really are talking something else entirely.

Yes the republican party that's not going to be a bias source.

Sorry, facts don't work that way, but thanks for admitting you judge by the source alone.

So you know nothing about the vote basket ok name three instances of a election fraud.

I already gave you a big list, that you don't want to talk about.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf

keep thinking that I can't save you your so stuck in your thinking.

You're the one talking in a circle.

Biden supporters are not interfering with the vote as much as Trump makes it out that's just a fact there is voter fraud but its not a big deal.

Sure it's just enough to swing close elections...

Trump was never going to win no amount of "voter fraud" is going effect that.

Well thanks for openly showing your intellectual dishonesty.

I literally gave you the definition.

But you don't understand it, I gave you an example that matches you ruse of it while explaining how you used the fallacy and you chose to ignore facts you don't like.

Are you saying that mail in ballots are election fraud.

No, I'm not.

If you give evidence from a faulty source I'm not going to take the information.

Thanks for saying you ignore facts because you don't like the source. https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/detroit-city-worker-blows-whistle-claims-ballots-were-ordered-backdated

So your a Ben Shipero type, I'm not even gonna try to spell his name right.

You admitting taking your conclusion as a fact, meaning no amount of evidence would ever converse you, thus you are not sticking to the fallibility principle and thus not debating honestly.

If you give me a biased source then the fact most likely are false.

Sorry, that is an AD Hominem. A.K.A. faulty reasoning.

Dude that was literally a google search.

how is saying that your information is from a bias source an insult.

That's not what you said, nor it is what I said, try being debating honestly.

You said its an ad hominem that's an insult saying that you were getting information from a faulty source is not an insult.

I see, you don't know what an ad hominem is. Nor did you get what I was calling ad hominem right either.

Then what were you calling a ad hominem if its not related to what I said.

"biased source then the fact most likely are false." This is actually an ad hominem. fairly classic form to, so it is related to what you said and shows you do not know the meaning of the term.

That's not an attack on you its an attack on your evidence.

Actually it isn't an attack on the evidence, it's an attack on the source and thus ad hominem. The problem is you do not know what that term means.

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. I attacked your source not you.

And you still do not understand what an ad hominem is even as you admit to using one. Attacking the source instead of the source's position is an ad hominem. I've clarified what I was referring to several times, so you have no reason not to understand.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

My source gave an argument, you attack an aspect of the source instead of the argument, much like example one.