Election Influence and Fraud - What we know, what we don't know

[canitpro]

You can provide whatever links you want. I've no interest in seeing when states started counting what. I've seen the statistical impossibilities. I've saw video footage I've heard testimony of affidavits. Nothing you can say or ever show me will prove that this election was not riddled with fraud. Georgia's consent decree changed election rules. SOS is not allowed to do this. All states are required to allow poll watchers. It didn't happen in multiple states. Voter machine alleged glitches occurred, without allowing a forensic audit of machines. Pennsylvania did not follow their own rules as it pertains to mail in ballot. No chain of custody on ballot drop boxes. Voter rolls not matching voting registry. I won't try to convince you. Don't waste your time trying to convince me.

oh, I’m not trying to convince you -- I’m simply demonstrating for everyone else who reads this that you and others who peddle these claims choose not to support the arguments with any evidence; if you want to claim coordinated systemic fraud ran rampant during a democratic election, unfounded speculation doesn’t really measure up to the historical gravity of such an accusation

 

[GSD82]

The American people voted (correctly) that’s my claim. Seems that is not a lie as Biden will be sworn in as your president in January. Anything else is noise from a loser.

That worthless ************ will never my president I hope very bad things for him and his slut

 

[tnmarktx]

oh, I’m not trying to convince you -- I’m simply demonstrating for everyone else who reads this that you and others who peddle these claims choose not to support the arguments with any evidence; if you want to claim coordinated systemic fraud ran rampant during a democratic election, unfounded speculation doesn’t really measure up to the historical gravity of such an accusation

Ok, explain counting votes in Georgia video without a poll watcher. The guy from SOS office don't count. Explain how postal contractor took hundreds of thousands of ballots across state line. His trailer disappears. Explain how a batch of 600k ballets 3200 for Trump and the rest for Biden. A virtual impossibility. Explain how down ballot republicans killed But Biden somehow wins. Has never happened before. Explain adfidavits that stated all of the underaged voters, voters that didn't live in the state, dead voters. I'm sure I'm forgetting plenty.

 

[Septic]

Once again. Changes were made by others then the state legislatures. Even in Pennsylvania. All are unconstitutional.

 

[Septic]

Not my words. It's from the suit. Multiple affidavits and actual factual things that happened.

You keep parroting this stuff, making statements of declaration - the problem is that screeching it over and over doesn't make evidence for it suddenly appear where it counts, in a court room.

Winning on Twitter or the VN PF court of public opinion may make you feel good, but it doesn't change reality, just your perception of it.

 

[MontyPython]

That worthless ************ will never my president I hope very bad things for him and his slut

Relax, bro. 4 years will fly by. You'll be OK.

Now come down off the edge of that cliff and join the rest of us, eh.

 

[tnmarktx]

You keep parroting this stuff, making statements of declaration - the problem is that screeching it over and over doesn't make evidence for it suddenly appear where it counts, in a court room.

Winning on Twitter or the VN PF court of public opinion may make you feel good, but it doesn't change reality, just your perception of it.

Are courts ever wrong? Is the justice system always just? I would guess the courts think all that submitted affidavits are lying. That denying poll watchers access is not against the law. I would surmise from what I saw, that you can't challenge an election at all. I would hate to be on the bad side of said court. You'd be guilty with little chance of being proved innocent.

 

[MontyPython]

Are courts ever wrong? Is the justice system always just? I would guess the courts think all that submitted affidavits are lying. That denying poll watchers access is not against the law. I would surmise from what I saw, that you can't challenge an election at all. I would hate to be on the bad side of said court. You'd be guilty with little chance of being proved innocent.

 

[Roustabout]

He’s right. It’s just doesn’t seem to matter. The court didn’t rule, they just refused to hear. I’d watch the testimony on the problems with mail in balloting. It’s a danger to your vote.

My suggestion is that conservatives embrace it and go at with all they have.

 

[Septic]

Are courts ever wrong? Is the justice system always just? I would guess the courts think all that submitted affidavits are lying. That denying poll watchers access is not against the law. I would surmise from what I saw, that you can't challenge an election at all. I would hate to be on the bad side of said court. You'd be guilty with little chance of being proved innocent.

LOL, no child. No one is saying that at all, everyone should have their day in court. It's that after dozens and dozens of failed challenges one would think that adults would start to question the validity of the claims. Yet you guys keep doubling down, stomping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears because every court, in every challenge finds the legal motions lacking validity - up to the Supreme Courts in at least PA and now in the U.S. S.C.

Trump started blaming the refs before the game because the writing was on the wall. You bought in and are too invested, hate Biden and Harris too much - and you now believe what you want to believe even as reality crashes down around you.

 

[Septic]

He’s right. It’s just doesn’t seem to matter. The court didn’t rule, they just refused to hear. I’d watch the testimony on the problems with mail in balloting. It’s a danger to your vote.

My suggestion is that conservatives embrace it and go at with all they have.

The US SC?

Which one of the dozens are you referring to? The PA SC did hear the argument and then ruled against the challenge.

 

[Roustabout]

The US SC?

Which one of the dozens are you referring to? The PA SC did hear the argument and then ruled against the challenge.

Yes, different case. The USSC refused to hear a couple of cases.

 

[Septic]

Yes, different case. The USSC refused to hear a couple of cases.

If his golden egg was to get them to usurp the will of the American electorate, talk about an all-time backfire.

 

[Roustabout]

If his golden egg was to get them to usurp the will of the American electorate, talk about an all-time backfire.

sorry, but those states were acting of their own accord. I think months and years later we will start to see how flawed the disjointed the election process is. This was about equal protection under the law. Just four years ago the left side as screaming about interference. Now we have the cleanest election in history. I guess we owe that to four years of Trump??

 

[Septic]

sorry, but those states were acting of their own accord. I think months and years later we will start to see how flawed the disjointed the election process is. This was about equal protection under the law. Just four years ago the left side as screaming about interference. Now we have the cleanest election in history. I guess we owe that to four years of Trump??

Acting on their own accord? They were following the law initially and many were upheld on appeal, including by the PA SC. Four years ago, there was interference, that's not debatable. Don't conflate that with collusion, which is absolutely debatable.

Trotting out claims of fraud before the election and now after the election with anecdotal quips are fine on social media but when they didn't hold water in dozens in dozens of court challenges across numerous jurisdictions and States, it may be time to reconcile that what you thought you knew about the purported "fraud" may be just more of the fakenews 'you've' been lecturing e'rryone about for four years.

 

[AM64]

Are courts ever wrong? Is the justice system always just? I would guess the courts think all that submitted affidavits are lying. That denying poll watchers access is not against the law. I would surmise from what I saw, that you can't challenge an election at all. I would hate to be on the bad side of said court. You'd be guilty with little chance of being proved innocent.

I've said for a long time that the US judicial branch is the branch closet to dictatorship that we have. They pick and choose fights. They legislate from the bench. They overturn and replace legislation. They rule against presidents. In short the judicial branch wields more power than the other two "equal" branches of our government. When you get down to it the SC is both judge and jury.

 

[AM64]

sorry, but those states were acting of their own accord. I think months and years later we will start to see how flawed the disjointed the election process is. This was about equal protection under the law. Just four years ago the left side as screaming about interference. Now we have the cleanest election in history. I guess we owe that to four years of Trump??

Made up rule in spite of directions for how to legally change and a refusal by the courts to hear the objections simply means that the electoral process is broken and can become a free for all. Not a good state of affairs.

 

[lostsheep]

That worthless ************ will never my president I hope very bad things for him and his slut

 

[Septic]

I've said for a long time that the US judicial branch is the branch closet to dictatorship that we have. They pick and choose fights. They legislate from the bench. They overturn and replace legislation. They rule against presidents. In short the judicial branch wields more power than the other two "equal" branches of our government. When you get down to it the SC is both judge and jury.

It's hilarious when the same people who bitch about legislation from the bench also cheer about Trump getting to install three Justices.

Pick a lane.

 

[Roustabout]

It's hilarious when the same people who bitch about legislation from the bench also cheer about Trump getting to install three Justices.

Pick a lane.

You ought to have a new appreciation for non activist justices. You literally have no idea.

 

[1972 Grad]

You ought to have a new appreciation for non activist justices. You literally have no idea.

I would bet all I have that if the situation was reversed that the 3-1/2 libs on the court would have voted for Biden's position, no matter what it was.

 

[508mikey]

 

[Vol Main]

Trump's lawsuits were exposed as frauds, wild allegations with no evidence that held up under examination in court. But his cult still believes every bit of it, like the gullibly brainwashed idiots Trump relies on them to be.

 

[Vol Main]

I would bet all I have that if the situation was reversed that the 3-1/2 libs on the court would have voted for Biden's position, no matter what it was.

That is because your mind is so reduced to entertaining bad thoughts that you believe whatever allows you to think something bad about the other folks.

 

[Vol Main]

oh, I’m not trying to convince you -- I’m simply demonstrating for everyone else who reads this that you and others who peddle these claims choose not to support the arguments with any evidence; if you want to claim coordinated systemic fraud ran rampant during a democratic election, unfounded speculation doesn’t really measure up to the historical gravity of such an accusation

Guys like that believe whatever bull hock right wing machines make up for them.