Using the 6 Sigma rule, ALL incidents of voter fraud are statistically Republicans.

 Not true.  Six Sigma is a methodology aiming for extremely near-perfection, thus allowing for just 3.4 defects per million opportunities, which translates to a 99.99966% yield, not 100%.  Never 100%, thus not "ALL" by definition.  Its for reducing defects and returning a "virtual" 100% no-defect yield.   The historical case load is closer to 5Sig.

 Republicans statistically have higher court cases for election fraud, but there is no reason to use 6 Sigma to calculate this.  They for sure meet a high Sig level, but nobody is going to say 100% as  a flat statistical value.

 Also you never stated you are using 6 Sigma as a parameter so it should not be expected that anyone would assume this.  
 


I never said there was no corruption on the Dem side. Sure, there are corrupt Dems. The difference is when the Dems catch them, they're ostracized; when the MAGATs catch them, they get Cabinet seats.


 You did say not one Democrat or Independent exists in a legitimate voter fraud case: "EVERY legitimate case of voter fraud has been a GOP voter. NOT some--- EVERY one."  

 That means 100%.  EVERY means not one legitimate case involved a Democrat.  Not a single one.  This is sh!t you made up, and now you are trying to skirt around that definitive statement by claiming 6 Sigma would eliminate to a value of 0%, or "ALL".

 If I say EVERY pill in the barrel is Red.  Not SOME --- EVERY one is Red.  Then there is 1 blue out of 3.4 Million pills, nobody is going to say "ALL" pills are Red even if we use 6 Sigma to calculate that.  They will say my statement was wrong, not EVERY pill is Red.  Its that simple.

"Legitimate", as in, not an elderly Dem lady who didn't know she was not allowed to vote again because she moved. "Legitimate", because, statistically, there has NEVER been a Dem case that would have changed the election outcomes. "Legitimate", because NO DEM leader has even TOLD a Governor, "Just find me 11,xxx votes."

Just accept the fact that voter fraud is FORBIDDEN, but MAGATs use it as a technique to win elections, just like they use gerrymandering to make it look like they are a viable party that would have disappeared if gerrymandering was outlawed, since it's just another way to defraud voters. You've lost this one, no matter how many nits you pick nor hairs you split.

You lose.

Again.

Needles wrote on Yesterday at 14:37:24:


WOW !

That is very good,
Best LAUGH in a long time !!!!!!!

Eegore wrote on Yesterday at 16:07:31:




I don't make sh1t up, I just don't use lay-person misunderstanding of the laws to justify what I say under the pretense of being a lawyer. You may not have said you ARE a lawyer, but you had to be pinned down before you'd admit you're not, and have no more legal accumen than anyone else on this board. That is DISinformation, i.e., lying with intent to mislead.

I don't make sh1t up,


LEO "requires" a WARRANT to wear masks.

 The Senate is NOT a court. They are more like a grand jury, and only let him off because of the GOP majority. If the vote had been honest, he would be actually tried in a federal court. (And been found guilty.)
Made up.

 It's still crooked. Also, the "rancher" in question is actually a corporation.
Made up.

 Even if DIGGING the pond was independent of the wetlands, since it is a stock pond, which are filthy, the pollution has to drain somewhere. All he had to be to be illegal was to be in the same watershed"
Made up.

 You're saying that you never lie? Because anyone who says that IS a liar, and THAT is a lie."
Made up.  


 Bullshit. The US flags on Russian tanks are BECAUSE of the meeting.
Made up.  Happened before the meeting.

 Eegore is a billionaire.

Made up.


You may not have said you ARE a lawyer, but you had to be pinned down before you'd admit you're not, and have no more legal accumen than anyone else on this board. That is DISinformation, i.e., lying with intent to mislead.

 Not even close to being true.  I reference actual US law,, this in no way implies I am a lawyer.  Nobody here has ever thought I am a lawyer, this is just a weak defense, and amateur attempt to call me a liar,  while you literally make up laws in your head.  SCOTUS can change definitions in the Constitution by calling "not reviewable" - You made that up.  It's a lie.