[Steve Van Doorn]

50% election turn out over the average vs the next best being 7%.
It's so unbelievable that it really doesn't hit people. After Obama election 7% it was so high of a turn out that many believed there was mass cheating. Which I know there was.

[thecodont]

50% election turn out over the average vs the next best being 7%.

It's so unbelievable that it really doesn't hit people.

After Obama election 7% it was so high of a turn out that many believed there was mass cheating. Which I know there was.

I think people have been conditioned to be insensitive to statistics. Or maybe it's a matter of scale; if the lie is THAT BIG then it becomes overwhelming.

It's so unbelievable that it really doesn't hit people.

And maybe that's what it was: to make the lie so big that the populace could be rendered insensate.

For BO to have a 7% over average voter turnout in 2008, is believable to me. I believe he really won that election. The one after that, was fraud.

The Dems have been scientifically tuning their fraud machine.

Question: how would one go about educating the public to understand the scale of the fraud? There would have to be fraud "in-betweeners" (borrowing a term from animation) to help people understand, to give people the mental hooks upon which to hang these concepts.

[rodguy911]

Some say elections have been massively cheated in for 50 years. I think they have been electronically cheated,massively, since 2004 at least. As for the other who knows its gonna vary from state to state.