Davin News Server

Show us where TRUMP said not to count military ballots. Your article says "POTENTIALLY", not that it would actually happen. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/trump-is-telling-florida-ignore-military-ballots-happy-veterans-day/

The times "military ballots" were mentioned.

Heritage also noted that Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas both filed unsuccessful bills in 
2008 to EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF OVERSEAS MILITARY BALLOTS to election offices, under which "thousands of ballots that were rejected in 2008 
would have counted."

EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF OVERSEAS MILITARY BALLOTS - not count them.

If Minnesota had followed rules such as Florida's, THE HERITAGE RESEARCHERS argued, "a vast majority (if not all) of the late arriving 
military ballots would have been counted - potentially changing the outcome of one of the closest Senate races in the state's history." - 
THE HERITAGE RESEARCHERS

"Trump Is Telling Florida To Ignore Military Ballots" - Washington Post article title, not Trump

No... Trump never said ANYTHING about "military ballots", did he... liar?

Nope.

===============================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline 

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and 
add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the 
original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin. Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one post 
to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or 
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the liberals.

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your Source:

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is 
right wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts 
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road (there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. 
Go back to the facts.

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea 
what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an 
attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, 
LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even 
something as innocuous as "I am a chef". They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention from the original lost 
argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet to be refuted.

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more 
insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, 
they will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number 
of rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and 
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and 
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at them. Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid 
point (Dutch did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial 
statement of facts that established your victory are for entertainment and educational purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand 
the topic remain on the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find someone else that will engage them on their 
terms.

Now, go away, Snowflake.