Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

CapnSteve

(406 posts)

6. It is very misleading to use "no widespread voter fraud..."

Reply to Rhiannon12866 (Original post)

Thu May 27, 2021, 09:24 AM

May 2021

Those of us with brains can make the leap to what that means - not enough fraud to overturn the election. But, it implies that there was significant voter fraud.

Folks the reality is every study. Every. Study. Shows voter fraud rates less than 0.0025%.

So when the GOP meat puppet asked: "Are you 100% certain that there was no (insert list of wackadoodle voting conspiracy theories here!)?" She should have answered: "No, I am 99.9975% certain, based on the billion ballots audited over the last two decades."

99.9975%

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CNN Reporter vs Arizona Senate President Over Election Audit - NowThis News [View all] Rhiannon12866 May 2021 OP

you don't think OAN is credible Skittles May 2021 #1

I know! Rhiannon12866 May 2021 #2

it's like they assume everyone is as stupid and racist as they are Skittles May 2021 #3

And that this obviously well informed and experienced reporter wouldn't know?? Rhiannon12866 May 2021 #4

The reporter really didn't do much good here. Merlot May 2021 #5

It is very misleading to use "no widespread voter fraud..." CapnSteve May 2021 #6