Comments
-
@x2 6x 9 lol, I still hear a lot of conservatives complaining though?
-
@Runnin with scissors, I still see so much shjt about the election being stolen, like Christ... educate yourself. These are the people saying not to believe everything you’re told, too... it’s honestly just depressing at this point.
-
@Earth Chan, Meh, it’s like flat Earthers at this point, no amount of actual evidence (or proof of lack there of) will convince them because with the glory of the internet they can find baseless arguments that “back them” and don’t have to actually do research. Antivax, flat earth, reptilian conspiracies, stolen elections, jet fuel/steal beams, it’s all the same shjt. Though I suppose I do agree it’s alarming and depressing seeing the amount of people that believe that garbage when reliable information is widely available to those who actively seek it out and have the intelligence to discern it.
-
Coming from someone who somewhat believes that "garbage", you seem to be missing a ton of perspective from the other side. In 2016 the Democrats did the same thing about the election and many people still believe that to this day, is that "sad" too? As far as evidence goes, I haven't really seen any counter evidence since barely any exists. There were no audits done in places that needed them, the lawsuits weren't judged on their merits, and just based on normal ways of predicting elections like Bellwether states, it literally looks like Biden won a one-in-million election. Is there enough evidence to say he 'stole' the elction, no one knows but to look down on people without perspective is very ignorant. You don't have to agree but you cant just call 71 million Americans the equivalent to flat earthers for something that was never adequately debunked.
-
@owanobi, that is a very reasoned response that attacks no one but says all that needs to be said. To any one else, look apon these two, and understand the US divide. 1 inflammatory and insulting. The other calm and rational. Look to the counts. As I write, 7/9up 1down 9up 8down Look apon this to understand where people lay, not in calm reason but in partisan in fighting. I'm sick of the divide, and demand a redress of grievance by the right of the first Amendment. Dems had theirs, we get ours. We both want to secure our elections don't we?
-
@Earth Chan, Georgia Videos, Fake Addresses, The Constitution literally not followed in multiple states, Violation of state laws on voting, destruction of evidence, removal of poll watchers.. Just to name a few reasons that people know it was stolen. It's based off of facts, that you can look up with a little research. Instead of believing that a newspaper article or a news anchor is telling you the truth. When WaPo says "They didn't violate state laws in Wisconsin" but Wisconsin state laws says that you can only vote by mail if you meet specific requirements, and thousands didn't meet those requirements, but WaPo didn't give any fact to back up their claim, you cannot trust them.
-
@thatoneguymaybe, But wait, the government said it was the most secure election of all time. Why would they lie to us?
-
@owanobi, no. The democrats never claimed there was fraud or affected voter rolls in 2016. A few yoohoos claimed there could have been but it was never brought to courts and nobody seriously tried to push that narrative. The argument in 2016 was that Russian bots and social media farms influenced voter opinions by spreading misinformation and making lies about wedge issues to make Americans more angry and distrustful, which clearly succeeded considering you trust Donald Trump more than over 50 judges at this point many of which are stout conservatives
-
@thatoneguymaybe, Georgia videos showed nothing illegal. The only "poll watchers" removed were unofficial citizens who weren't required to be there, the two appointed by trump team were always there. All of those cases are things that look weird when taken out of context but when you understand the voting process don't support the notion of fraud.. But please tell me how Donald Trump is more trustworthy than over 50 judges including many he appointed that have concluded what they saw isn't evidence of fraud.
-
@jouze, Yes, when all major media outlets said the building was evacuated due to a water leak, the video shows several people stay behind, and pull containers out from under a table, then proceed to scan the same stack of "papers" 3 times? Nothing illegal, or suspicious about that. Nevermind the other videos from that same day showing how the very people in the video felt about the election, and they talked about what they could do to make sure it went their way. Right, forget about the videos of official poll watchers that were removed, or not let in. Don't forget the ones that were kept too far away to be able to do their job. Are you ignoring the violated state laws, and the Constitution? I thought you might bring up the case number. Fun fact less than 10 were filed by Trump's Team, and all but one case never made it to the evidentiary hearing. You know, where they see the evidence.
-
@owanobi, Hi there. So not an American here but id like to add sth in here. Its like a rule I use to verify events that concur. If a subject is in the center of public attention, the amount of sources and information become oversaturated. As information, news and so on, are depicted and rendered in a manner that suits the person's side intention, it becomes impossible to see if sth is true or wrong. Especially because the information itself changes a persons perception of what can be be true or wrong. It sounds a bit overcomplicated but to simplify: It is like listening to someone that is telling you his side of an argument but already knows what the opposition may tell. Like a bit older kids after an argument. Now how can you verify sth? Its not simple. You need to observe the change in your perception regarding a topic that is considered being in the centre of attention. If an information tries to change your perception then it is afluent with a certain intention.
-
@thatoneguymaybe, if you watch the video from hours before you see those cases of official ballots arrive and be prepared and put under official seal all under watch of the conservative appointed challengers, they were there during that process and those were official ballots. They were staying behind to save what documents they could and scanning 3 times because some were waterlogged and the automatic system was not reading them. Even if they were read three times that wouldn't count them as 3 votes because the audit system compares a submitted ballot to voter rolls so if it ever matched a registered voter it would just be counted once. And no official poll watchers were ever removed. Not once, random citizens who called themselves poll watchers were. The official ones were there as was revealed in all the court cases about it. A number of states including ones trump won changed voter procedure in response to the pandemic, you can't focus on just the ones that didn't have trump wi
-
@thatoneguymaybe, all cases brought up by trump team that never went to evidentiary hearings did so because they never claimed to have evidence. If you look at the court filings they have such claims as "the fraud was so complete as to be undetectable". The ones that claimed to have "evidence" it was so flimsy as to not be anywhere near the level sufficient for their claims of relief.
-
@80think08, so what now? If there is a scandal and someone is reporting on it, it is changing my perception. This does not have anything to do with misinformation. The goal of this is a way of thinking that allows you to analyze it by the root. From there on out it is about finding the structure on which the information is build on. Are arguments more visually represented?, do they favor generalization of ethnicities or parties? Are the arguments apart from a date and/or location? Do the arguments sequentially match, do they cascade?
-
@80think08, I kind of drifted apart of what I wanted to say. The most possible outcome in this misinformation is to see what the source of the change of perception is which is Trump and then evaluate what his intentions are if you look at it on a human or game theoretical level.
-
@jouze, Yes, for hours things were just as they should be, no anomalies aside from the usual. Then after they shut down(At the same time as other swing states conveniently), a huge surge in Biden votes appeared. Just a coincidence that when evacuated, and a few unmonitored people stay behind, suddenly all the votes start going Biden. Also false, they were not scanning waterlogged ballots. The "leak" turned out to be an overflowed toilet which happened at 8 that morning, more than 12 hours before if I'm correct. The "leak" wasn't real, but they evacuated for it, and no ballots were waterlogged. I work with computers, the audit system can be toyed with easily, and it's not been shown to reflect what you claim. Instead, they have withheld the machines, destroyed them, wiped them, done everything they can to keep them from our eyes. Not suspicious of course, that's just normal procedure. In my state of PA, there were official poll watchers removed, on video, and with credentials. (1/2)
-
@jouze, You can parrot what the media says, but it doesn't change factual video, or facts in general. It was not revealed in court. In court they did win that poll watchers needed to be closer, but they were still kept too far away. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm against all fraud, and I know fraud happened in states that Trump won as well. Although based off of what we have seen everywhere else, is say it leans in favor of a particular party. I know of only one case that claimed that, and I'm not sure it was a Trump Team case, but they did bring evidence to their cases. The reality is that the cases were not seen on procedural grounds. There was always an excuse by the court. (It's Tuesday, my golf day, not case day(A joke, but hardly) ) There are court cases with thousands of Affadavits, with videos, with statistical experts, with the CONSTITUTION as evidence. They were not heard. I'm not expecting to change your view here, you will have an excuse for everything.
-
@jouze, hereistheevidence.com
-
@thatoneguymaybe, as much as trump and co said FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD in public, they did not make that argument in court (aside from Sidney Powell and Lin Wood). They contained their complaints to just the “constitutional issues” that you brought up. These needed to be challenged much earlier in the election process as some of them had been used even as far back as trumps 2016 election. To put it another way that may make it easier to understand why trump and republicans are wrong not necessarily for the lawsuits, but for the relief they requested of invalidating the votes. If I live in Pennsylvania (I don’t) and my election officials are telling me it is ok to vote by mail, so I vote by mail, then trump says weeks after the vote that my vote was illegal bc I shouldn’t have been eligible for mail in voting, why should my vote not have been counted? I followed the voting rules that were communicated to me by election officials to the letter. (Part 1)
-
@thatoneguymaybe, were they wrong in their rules? Maybe, but if they wanted to challenge the rules as they have done in court so far, they needed to do so far earlier. You can’t wait until the election is over and you’ve lost, then target statewide laws in only democrat-leaning counties trying to find enough votes to invalidate so that you win the election. If they want to seek relief changing the rules in future elections, fine, but invalidating votes cast in good faith by voters “misled” by their election officials is not a valid relief. That is literally stealing the election. As far as many of the false claims going around concerning Georgia, a republican member of the election board released a point-for-point rebuttal of all of trumps claims of fraud in the state, whether they were charged in court or not. I’ll post the link below in a third response.
-
@thatoneguymaybe, https://youtu.be/dEYvOTvqlFs
-
@thejohan, but it's totally cool that I be disenfranchised because I made the mistake of following the constitutional rules of the vote, instead of voting several times on behalf people with getting degrees of existence. Since I only cast one vote, it was de facto invalidated by any person submitting 2. And yes, you're Georgian PowerPoint is very cool, but so are my literal reams of sworn testimony and video and audio evidence. We can all agree that career politicians are all sleezebags. I don't think that's in contention. They do nothing but make game moves, often ill-conceived, and always to perpetuate themselved. We're arguing the symptom here, not the sickness. So, I'd ask you this. Shall the rule of law stand for anything?
-
@owanobi, pretty much any evidence has been debunked, people refusing to believe it doesn't mean it isn't there. I saw a few reports of a little tomfoolery but it wasn't many and those votes were dismissed
-
@owanobi, even though I disagree with you I like how collected and respectful you were.
-
@Earth Chan, Just an FYI. I understand you are brain dead and all. A single judge in Texas had the guts to accept a election fraud case. From the voting machines “glitching” which would have gotten any Republican disqualified for cheating to actual examples? Joe Biden stole the election. We know cause he admitted it. It’s called a Freudian slip. But as usual, most people like yourself can’t get over your own hypocritical bias. Personally, I want justice. If all the votes were double checked, the fraudulent votes disqualified, and Biden still won? I’d be happy. I’d be fine. But people are either too scared to check the integrity of the votes. I WONDER WHY. It couldn’t be cause they are scared of the validity of the election!! Get a better opinion.
-
@Needless Contrarian, the rule of law stands for everything in this country, which is why people have been arrested for voting twice (specifically several republicans in PA). However, forgive me for not believing that there is widespread evidence of fraud when the Texas LT governor offers $1 million for evidence of fraud, and there are no people with evidence that is credible and can be used in court. Instead, Texas was reduced to arguing the same constitutional points that the trump campaign was making in courts. The fact that trump continued to shout FRAUD long after the election and it was clear that there was little to no evidence of widespread fraud, and definitely not enough to overturn the election, admitted to by Bill Barr himself, is the true breakdown of the rule of law. Just like shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, free speech should not protect the right to yell FRAUD from a position of authority without evidence.
-
@Needless Contrarian, and I just saw your username and am now unsure whether your response was serious or just being your username
-
@owanobi, It seems like an apt comparison to me, considering that it was adequately debunked over and over again but the people who don’t agree with it because they don’t like the outcome simply won’t accept the facts... that sounds exactly like flat earthers. The majority of the world used to believe that the Earth was flat, it still wasn’t. You can’t just say something is right because a lot of people believe it.
-
@thejohan, so are you upset that my vote didn't count, then? Or are you content with it since you've decided what my ballot must have looked like? "Fraud", let alone "widespread fraud", must be proven in a court. That's how things get resolved legally. If no court chooses to hear evidence, then no court can disprove evidence. As far as "widely disproven evidence" goes, how about Rachel Rodriguez, who is on audio and video happily claiming they she single-handedly flipped more votes than would have been needed to swing the the electoral vote margin in georgia? https://archive.vn/tnyek There doesn't need to be "widespread coordinated effort" to overturn the election. There needs to be two handfuls of people that all happen to have similar opinions. The legal definition of "fraud" precludes stand alone complexes.
-
@Needless Contrarian, don’t set up a straw man. I said the rule of law counts, which means every persons vote counts only once, including yours and including mine. As far as Raquel Rodriguez, she was literally arrested last week and is being charged with voter fraud in Texas based on a video made by project Veritas, which is currently being accused of making several deceptive videos and pushing unfounded conspiracy theories (not all about the election). As far as her video statement, she later recanted and said that it was a lie (which I see as highly suspicious given her indictment, more likely that she highly exaggerated her actions) and that she was trying to figure out what the group asking her questions was getting at. It is also not election fraud she is accused of, but ballot harvesting, which is basically go to people on the streets, get their vote, and turn it in as a third party. Part 1
-
@thejohan, part 2. Also, Bill Barr did not say no evidence of a widespread concerted effort. He said there was “no evidence of fraud widespread enough to affect the outcome of the election.” I interpret this as they looked into cases such as Raquel and they found some fraud, but no concentrated effort and no individual or sum of individual efforts that would have affected the outcomes in any of the swing states.
-
@thejohan, You should save your breath. Nothing you can say will change their minds. The underlying fact in this whole fiasco is this : To bring charges against someone or something, evidence is gathered and THEN a case is made, not the other way around. If one make allegations or accusations against another without proof ahead of time, they are open to the legal repercussions of either libel or slander. Imagine if someone accused you of a crime without credible evidence. The case would be thrown out because it had no merit. Trump was making claims of a "rigged election" BEFORE the election even took place both in 2016 and 2020. Then when he won in 2016 he said he didn't care if it was rigged because he won. If that's not hypocrisy I don't know what is.
-
@Funny Pics Janitor, I know. But the only way you can counter false claims/accusations is by respectfully presenting evidence/counterpoints. If you are silent, it just allows people to see their side without ever seeing the other side, leading to further radicalization. If you are rude, you just push them away without ever having any possibility of reconciliation. The true issue with our country as I see it is that people with differences of opinion are starting to see the other side as enemies rather than people with the same ideals of a better America, but with different ideas on how to get there.
-
@thejohan, The reason as I understand it, is that in order to maximize the chances to get anywhere in court, they kept it as apolitical as possible, by going by the merits of State Laws, and the Constitution. Then Powell came in to clean up with criminal charges. This makes perfect sense, and while they could have done it differently, they probably understand the legal process better. Why would it be okay to count an illegal vote, just to not "disenfranchise" some, when by counting an illegal vote it disenfranchises the legal ones? They were wrong, if they fought in court earlier, it would have been dismissed for "no injury", when they fight it later, they are told its too late. Come on, that's just not right, it's a lose/lose. I could care less who makes a video about it, it's been made clear that they are a Uni-party. It hasn't been debunked, the video is showing the problem.
-
@Funny Pics Janitor, it’s why I’ve at least read the articles/videos they sent/linked and can argue in good faith knowing I’m seeing exactly what they are seeing. I then dig into the claims they make in order to refute them with evidence, preferably from republican-leaning or centrist articles since they won’t listen to democrat-leaning media.
-
@thatoneguymaybe, I’m sorry, which court cases did they file beforehand that were dismissed by the court for no injury? Injury is only required to be shown/demonstrated when seeking injunctive relief, not for the court to take the case in whether a law/policy is unconstitutional or not. If they had gone to court before the election, there would have been no injury, but they also would not have needed to seek injunctive relief as no election under the new laws would have occurred. Below, I’m going to quote directly from the republican judge’s opinion regarding one of the cases filed by the trump campaign regarding the laws in question where a case was judged on its merits: part 1
-
@thatoneguymaybe, “in this action, the trump campaign and the individual plaintiffs seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners-from Greene county to pike county, and everywhere in between. In other words, the plaintiffs ask this court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens (cont below)
-
@thejohan, (cont) this has not happened. Instead, this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, implied in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.” Judge Brann- conservative/centrist judge nominated by Obama as a compromise candidate with republican controlled senate.
-
@jouze, The mainstream media ran with that narrative though and regardless some still claim the election was sponsored by Vladimir Putin.
-
@thejohan, I figured you would bring up that case. The problem is still that the case never reached the evidentiary hearing. Thus, the evidence was not truly seen. The judge would rather allow the disenfranchise of legal voters, without viewing the evidence that may disenfranchise a smaller number of voters. The courts have refused to even give it light of day, which is theost concerning. If they actually ruled on the merits, after seeing the evidence, they could have saved themselves. Even SCOTUS refused to see the cases. That is irresponsible. Regardless of the evidence, and what you agree with. The laws violated, and the Constitution being violated is more than enough to remove votes.
-
@thatoneguymaybe, that’s the thing though, the constitutional arguments being argued are not good arguments. when the courts have heard the constitutional arguments from the trump campaign, they have ruled overwhelmingly in favor that the rules instituted for the election were not unconstitutional. That trump and his lawyers keep saying that they are unconstitutional rules does not make them so. Here is a compilation of both conservative and liberal judges in regards to trumps arguments: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-courts-election-results-e1297d874f45d2b14bc99c403abd0457
-
@thatoneguymaybe, I don’t think either of us is going to change the others minds, so I’m going to stop here. Thanks for being respectful and have a good weekend.
-
@Captain Magma, the department of Homeland security specifically said that. They said this was the most secure election they've seen in a long time.
-
@Earth Chan, I agree. People who still claim the election was rigged all while criticizing the left when they were claiming that the 2016 election was rigged due to Russian collusion for the past four years have no credibility. Likewise, those who cried Russian collusion have no right to criticize the right for claiming that the 2020 election was rigged.
-
@thejohan, Look, I could care less what judges say. The Constitution was written in plain English for a reason. You can read it, and it's pretty clear what it says. For example Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof Arizona violated that, by changing the date of Voter Registration, without the Legislature. If judges can't read that, and understand it. They need to be re-educated. I agree we may not change either mind, but I'm always wiling to try. If I don't talk to you, have a great weekend!
-
@owanobi, sure we can it’s been accepted by everyone involved. If Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, two of the most partisan people, say their candidate lost, then their candidate lost. 2016 is a thing because there was extensive evidence. The man was impeached. And Trump tried his very hardest to get anyone to look at this. He was laughed out of court every single time. And plenty of counter evidence exists, you just don’t hear it everywhere because “things happened like they were supposed to” isn’t news. Even if there wasn’t, you have to supply evidence before anyone needs counter evidence. This is exactly like flat earthers, uneducated people deciding that what they want to be right is right despite the overwhelming evidence saying they are wrong.
-
@SteveTheAlpaca, wait, are you legitimately trying to tell me Mitch is on Trumps side?? Man you really don't pay attention to political history. Mitch will side with whoever he think will get him more power or money. Trump was also only impeached in the house..which is controlled by the democrats, sooo it means literally nothing. They could say he farted wrong and impeach him on that because they have a majority in the house. You say "laughed out of court" but what you mean is that all of his cases were thrown put due to process not lack of evidence or whatever. You keep saying counter evidence exists and it is so fvcking obvious but like everyone else you have yet to actually provide me counter evidence other than just, "you're wrong and basically a flat earther". At this point though it doesn't matter, we wanted some investigations into the elections and nothing happened. Biden is still president and nothing at this point will change that.
-
@owanobi, they threw put the court cases on ground because they either presented no evidence or presented extremely flimsy evidence. All of the evidence on hereistheevidence.com never made it to court not because they tried to and the courts rejected it, but they didn't actually present it in court because it is such flimsy crap based largely on hearsay and not understanding the voting process. Look more closely at the court filings, they don't purport to have evidence. And bringing up this whataboutism of the 2016 election is really not helping your case. So are you admitting the 2016 election was compromised to say that the 2020 election could also be compromised? Because if you dont thing the 2016 election could've been compromised then how would this one be so completely compromised with no effective evidence
-
@jouze, you can say it's flimsy evidence all you want but that doesn't mean anything to me, at least without counter evidence. Just saying it doesn't make it true. However when it comes to the 2016 election there is pretty much 0 evidence other than a few russian bots I think but it doesn't even compare to the discrepancies during this election.
-
@thatoneguymaybe, literally every single thing on hereistheevidence.com never made it to court. Not because they tried to bring it to court and they refused to see it, no. They never actually brought it to court, why? Because its all crap that is picked apart with the simplest Google search or understanding of the voting process. Look closely at the court filings. The majority of them claim they will find evidence in the discovery period, but never claim to start out with any evidence. Its really just a case of occams razor at this point. It's either the case that the democrat coalition to elect Joe Biden involves literally millions of people at the state, national, and local level Including conservatives who voted for trump all so effectively as to not have a single name or case of fraud stick. Or that trump is lying and his lawyers are going along with it to make money and fleece his supporters who are donating to the legal fees. Trumps own appointed judges denied any fraud my dude
-
@thatoneguymaybe, affidavits aren't proof or really valid evidence for anything. If a sworn affidavit is meant to be taken as valid testimony then that means trump raped a 14 year old because someone went on sworn affidavit about that. I'm not going by what the media says I don't watch any major media outlets, im going by what the courts say. The fact that every single judge to see these cases shut them down makes the case for it so laughably bad. Even if it were a massive swamp conspiracy to kick trump out, a lot of these judges trump himself appointed. That means he's so ineffective at fighting the swamp he shouldn't be trusted to do it in the first place
-
@owanobi, you can't produce counter evidence if theres no evidence for fraud in the first place. One of the first claims on the website is that 42000 people voted in Nevada twice but there is no evidence for that. No names were produced that stuck, no voter rolls which have paper copies ever showed someone's name showing up twice. The case for it was dismissed because there is no evidence, its a claim without any backing
-
@jouze, Well, that is not accurate, but let's just assume none of it was brought into court. Why? Why wouldn't they bring evidence into court, very clear evidence? Videos, photos, witnesses? Do you really believe that they didn't bring it to court? Since you can see they have it? I would love to see what searching on Google does to "pick apart the crap", and I mean facts. Not just a journalist saying it's not true. I'm not saying millions, but I'd wager thousands are of the same mind in the Democratic Party, they band together to do quite a lot, why not this? I once again, could care less who appointed the judge. It doesn't change if they are wrong, or change their ability to be corrupt. Affadavits are valid evidence, and you can summon the person to court even. If it's brought as evidence, and they lied, they go to jail. It's simple. No, that's a false equivalency. One testimony without additional evidence is hardly enough to convict someone of rape. (1/2)
-
@jouze, That's a lowsy argument "a lot of these judges Trump himself appointed. That means he's so ineffective.." You can't know if someone is already corrupt, or easily corrupted off the bat. Especially being new to politics. I'm not sure about the specific 42,000, so I can't speak to it. Because of people like yourself, ai try to shy away from those evidence-based arguments, and stick to the Constitution, since it's the most important. You know, legislatures like mine in PA called to decertify, but their speakers refused to call the session. They wanted more time to consider what happened. The speakers refused. When all of this happens, like SCOTUS refusing to look at it, when they fast track the certification of electoral votes with pathetic excuses, it all seems to be planned. PA despite taking several extra days to count votes, certified electors almost a month earlier in comparison to last election. That is not at all strange right? (2/2)
-
@jouze, Except you’re completely wrong. If the evidence was so awful as you say, a court would accept the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision for all to see. Your logical fallacies don’t explain why not a single court has taken the case seriously. If the RESULTING RULING by the judge would end up in your favor, WHY would you run away from the case and reduce credibility. You could prove your point and make yourself credible. It’s because you are a hypocrite, and the courts are terrified of what they are going to find. They had no issues investigating Trump any time they wanted. So why is everyone terrified of investigating Biden? How fast people forget Kamala Harris openly chastised Biden for rape accusations. How interesting Biden is immune to Quid pro quo that got Trump impeached. Biden was caught red handed first. Biden beat Barack Obama’s voting numbers (obvious indication of fraud just FYI). Almost like
-
@jouze, Oh and one other insult to you. Every case of voter fraud has been purposely protected. Like how judge’s ordered mail in votes to be separate from in person votes. The judges order was ignored without penalty So strange that your side of the argument is so hypocritical and does nothing but hide everything. NEWS FLASH. You are wrong. You need to consider what the implications would be if you are wrong, and they all line up perfectly. Get a better opinion and stop being a hypocrite. Transparent elections are fair elections. You’d have to evil or stupid to want otherwise. Both of those are a possibility!
-
@owanobi, lol sure 0 evidence just multiple convictions based on what happened. Blindly believing what your camp says is what makes you as ridiculous as a flat earther not what separates you from them. Enjoy imagining yourself into victim hood.
-
@ Michishige Shou, do you understand how courts work? Because that is the single dumbest take i have heard regarding the court cases. No, if evidence is flimsy they should not take a court case just to prove it so that would be a massive waste of time and everyone's tax dollars. If a case is presented and the evidence is not sufficient for the relief requested then it is rejected on basis which is what happened to those cases meaning the judges are making a pretty clear statement the evidence is crap. If courts had to take every case to prove evidence valid they would be so tied up in crap cases they could never function. Nobody is terrified of investigating Biden the trump administration has been doing it for the past 8 months, remember the hunter Biden laptop story that went nowhere? Judges ordered mail in votes to be counted separately so they could be easily distinguished from other votes for audit purposes, this was a request by Republicans
-
@Earth Chan, yeahhhhh have fun being a sheep
-
@jouze, Except that the court cases aren’t even getting to the discovery stage where you get evidence. As usual you are completely wrong. For example on your stupidity. The courts ordered that ALL mail in ballots are counted but separate from the in person ballots. Do you think the court order was followed/obeyed? No. It wasn’t. So. Why would mail in ballots defy the court order and be tossed together with Normal votes? Why weren’t the votes checked for fraud? Legitimate votes have nothing to fear. Nobody is persecuting anyone for voting Biden. So why are people hiding the votes? It’s cause you are wrong, and blatantly an idiot. Get a better opinion.
-
@jouze, hilarious. Just like the democrats, you are literally retiring history
-
Fvck essentially all of you commenting on this meme
-
@Medic135, would you please?
-
@Medic135, I thought it was just a funny coincidence and wanted to post....
-
@Needless Contrarian, ugh. Fine, but you need to buy me dinner first
-
@Mr poopy bunghole, the meme is funny, the comments for whatever reason are big gae
-
@Medic135, I'll treat you right baby. You can even order something that isn't on the value menu
-
@Medic135, I won't treat you right. I'm gonna treat you like all these commentors treated this post
-
He’s a pedophile to that’s why he ran to another country when Epstein got snatched
-
@BearMooseKnuckle, Tom Hanks is great and wholesome until proven otherwise
-
@BearMooseKnuckle, the amount of downvotes you got for telling the truth scares me.
-
@BearMooseKnuckle, is he in Epstein's black book?
-
The only better option would have been robin williams
The babies got their binky, now they are quite.