You place an extremely high burden of proof for there being voter fraud. Observation is not proof but if observation is directly opposite of the supposed conclusion then something is wrong. The election results contradict what I and almost everyone else has observed. A logical person would ask why that is so. A logical person would not simply conclude that there could not possibly have been widespread voter fraud as you have done. A logical person would not make statements about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny
You have no proof there was NOT widespread voter fraud. Just say you don't know. It is more honest. It is more logical.
A logical person would not in the first instance assume a massive nationwide conspiracy involving thousands of people who secretly act in concert in order to commit a fraud. A logical person would first look for a simple explanation to explain personal observations and then move on to more elaborate schemes only when the simple explanations fail.
I too saw long lines to vote at my precinct and I assumed a record turnout based upon those observations. When our Republican Congressman lost, I too sensed that something was fishy given the voter turnout in a traditionally Republican district. The reality, however, according to a Republican poll watcher (who happens to be my neighbor) is that there were a small number of highly motivated voters who couldn't wait to vote who all showed up at the same time first thing in the morning. The line at 6:30 am was much longer then at 8:00 am when I normally vote and so I incorrectly assumed a record turnout based upon my observations. But according to my neighbor the pollwatcher, the lines were significantly shorter than usual as the day dragged on and when the polls closed at 9:00 pm, the number of voters was way down from previous years. A logical person looks for the simple and obvious explanations first before assuming vast left-wing conspiracy that would be nearly impossible to carry out without leaving a trail of objective, uncontroverted evidence.
You have no proof there was NOT widespread voter fraud. Just say you don't know. It is more honest. It is more logical.
I have no proof that Romney doesn't beat his wife either, so that must logically mean that he beats his wife, right?
A logical person would not in the first instance assume a massive nationwide conspiracy involving thousands of people who secretly act in concert in order to commit a fraud. A logical person would first look for a simple explanation to explain personal observations and then move on to more elaborate schemes only when the simple explanations fail.
I too saw long lines to vote at my precinct and I assumed a record turnout based upon those observations. When our Republican Congressman lost, I too sensed that something was fishy given the voter turnout in a traditionally Republican district. The reality, however, according to a Republican poll watcher (who happens to be my neighbor) is that there were a small number of highly motivated voters who couldn't wait to vote who all showed up at the same time first thing in the morning. The line at 6:30 am was much longer then at 8:00 am when I normally vote and so I incorrectly assumed a record turnout based upon my observations. But according to my neighbor the pollwatcher, the lines were significantly shorter than usual as the day dragged on and when the polls closed at 9:00 pm, the number of voters was way down from previous years. A logical person looks for the simple and obvious explanations first before assuming vast left-wing conspiracy that would be nearly impossible to carry out without leaving a trail of objective, uncontroverted evidence.
You have no proof there was NOT widespread voter fraud. Just say you don't know. It is more honest. It is more logical.
I have no proof that Romney doesn't beat his wife either, so that must logically mean that he beats his wife, right?