Happy Fraud 2017

[Bajo_cero2]

Now it is a fact the current administration made an electoral fraud. So, what's next?

 

[Gringoboy]

Since you claim it's a fact, would you please provide a source or is that also a professional secret?

 

[ben]

Secret. Definitely secret.

http://cheezburger.com/4253157376/one-of-our-best-kept-secrets

 

[wineguy999]

Since you claim it's a fact, would you please provide a source or is that also a professional secret?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[EJLarson]

Now it is a fact the current administration made an electoral fraud. So, what's next?

Another one, I'd guess. If it's working for you, why change?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Since you claim it's a fact, would you please provide a source or is that also a professional secret?

According to the Cámara Nacional Electoral CFK won but meanwhile Mr. President...
https://www.youtube....h?v=CyTaOcGKzUA

There was a difference of 5 points and it is also a notorious fact that they stop counting the Mesas where CFK was winning. Also now we know that there were many Mesas where zero people voted her, because there was fraud.

By the way, notorious facts does not need to be probed

 

[ben]

OK, so:

1) "Notorious" is not used in normal English the way you're trying to use it. "Well-known" is what people will understand without having to stop and think.

2) Of course, prodded for a link regarding this fraud, you provide none, resorting to the cheap shot of it being so well-known that no proof is needed. The problem is that by all accounts, it appears to just not be true.

The reality, of course, is that you provided no link to anything, because there was none. Certainly there was none at the time you wrote.

The link to Macri's speech - which you did happily link to - was from 13 August; the result of the recount which confirmed CFK won was on the 28th.

As regards the margin, you seem to be off by a factor of 10 if not 20. The difference was not 5% (which arguably would still have been impressive), but rather 0,4% - essentially a rounding error. This, according to the aforelinked infobae article: according to La Nacion, the margin as 0,21%.

Don't have time to analyze the underlying numbers and see why infobae gives it as 0.4 vs. LN's 0.2 - if someone can tell me, please post it here. At any rate, 5% margin sounds like a bajo delusion.

So we are left with what was presumed to be a loss for CFK by a tiny margin, that a recount turned into a win - again, by the tiniest of margins.

If this was the actual election we would understand the hysteria, because whatever the margin is, the result determines who is put into office. But these were primaries - just to gauge which way the wind is blowing. And a virtual tie is way worse for CFK than all the forecasts, which had CFK winning by between 5 and 10 percent. And precisely because this is well-known, it's easy to document: examples here, here, and here. The smallest difference I could find in the pre-election news had her winning by a margin of 1.8 percent.

Are you that desperate to put "Macri" and "fraud" in the same sentence?

3) And btw - speaking of fraud, when called out on your own, you tend to run away with your tail between your legs. What of the Diario Registrado forgery you linked to, that claimed to have the NYT saying stuff about Macri that turned out to be total BS - and with a clumsily doctored photo to boot? Don't remember you ever responding about that one.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Sorry Ben, I do not read you.

 

[ben]

Sorry Ben, I do not read you.

Smart move.
Keeps life more cheerful, doesn't it?

 

[Somewhereinba]

Smart move.
Keeps life more cheerful, doesn't it?

When faced with opposition to lies 'Sorry sir, not listening'... Very professional lol.