Difference between revisions of "Talk:Voter fraud"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
:Do you have references to back up such a claim? And what about Republican voter fraud? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 12:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:Do you have references to back up such a claim? And what about Republican voter fraud? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 12:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
::Then cite it, and cite it extensively. If there's "a lot of evidence" then it shouldn't be hard. The wording is also deeply biased--it's not like Republicans are innocent on the matter. International voter fraud would also be useful. --[[User:John|John]] 12:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
::Then cite it, and cite it extensively. If there's "a lot of evidence" then it shouldn't be hard. The wording is also deeply biased--it's not like Republicans are innocent on the matter. International voter fraud would also be useful. --[[User:John|John]] 12:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
OK, well if that is the standard I will remove the Chicago reference since that isn't cited and seems pretty biased. --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:27, March 16, 2007

Not sure why you changed my edits. Isn't there a lot of evidence about the democrats carrying out voter fraud? --Raytrotter 12:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you have references to back up such a claim? And what about Republican voter fraud? ColinR 12:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Then cite it, and cite it extensively. If there's "a lot of evidence" then it shouldn't be hard. The wording is also deeply biased--it's not like Republicans are innocent on the matter. International voter fraud would also be useful. --John 12:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, well if that is the standard I will remove the Chicago reference since that isn't cited and seems pretty biased. --Raytrotter 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)