mrttao
Well-known member
there was overwhelming voter fraud, and a massive coverup. It was so blatant as to be pathetic.
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
Please don't try to gaslight us about what we've seen and the evidence that has come out.
We know it was a stolen election, both through electoral fraud and the glowies who caused Jan 6th to turn out the way it did.
You mean that cases SCOTUS punted, both before and after the election, because Roberts is coward who hated Trump?
Yeah, if you count that bullshit, sure 'the courts ruled'.
Oh, but there is, and no amount of gaslighting is going to change what people here have seen.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I vote to avoid fighting if that's pointless why not just skip straight to being gang chiefs and warlords all hail the new Kahn and all that jazz?
DarthOne
☦️
How sad it is that you think that.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Bombshell Voter Fraud Information Surfaces From Wisconsin - ThePalmieriReport
The media wants the 2020 election steal to go away. Luckily state legislators around the country are still exposing it. More bombshell voter fraud revelations surfaced during a Wisconsin Election integrity hearing. Trump’s spokeswoman Liz Harrington sent out a tweet thread explaining what was...
thepalmierireport.com
Judge Rules Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes Not Allowed in Wisconsin
www.theepochtimes.com
Courts Rule States Did Not Follow Their Own Election Laws In 2020
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated their own laws in 2020, emphasizing the necessity of the rule of law in elections.
thefederalist.com
I spent a couple minutes digging things up from my stockpile of links.
If you want more, we have a whole thread for this.
Yinko
Well-known member
Grammatically, do you mean to say that this: "is fraud but is not enough to budge the needle" or "this is fraud that could have budged the needle"?
He is saying it isn't fraud, and it is not enough to budge the needle- I'd wager.
Yinko
Well-known member
Uh, that's the worst possible option. English may have an imposed mathematical grammar, but it still makes double negatives intrinsically incorrect, since they are completely unintuitive when recursive. No one would likely make that mistake due to lack of education, attention or being a native of a foreign language, it would have to be due to malice, being a smartass.
I am pretty sure it is two single negatives, and not a double negative. Further, I am 90% sure this is just a mistake in missing a connecting word or punctuation that the right spot- which is not just an ESL problem, but a general problem with the average internet user.
Just, because you do not agree with an article, does not make it an attempt to bilk people out of money. It seems people (mostly on the left) have a bad habit of calling -those they disagree with- grifters.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
How much and what kind of evidence, specifically, would it take to change your mind?
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Dude's a willfully ignorant goalposts shifter. Don't waste your time.
mrttao
Well-known member
@Proxy 404
Also, here are things I personally saw:
1. voter turnout over 100% in various counties. followed by the govt shutting down the reporting sites
2. open source app to scrape gov official registers for registered voters and finding tens of thousands of voters over 120 years old had voted... until the sites were shut down hours later to destroy the evidence.
3. supreme court ordered the states to not destroy the voting machines until they are investigated. they ignored it and destroyed the voting machines, thus destroying evidence.
4. countless videos of blatant fraud. The worst one was where they pretended to shut down for the night, sent away the inspectors... then turn around, dragged hidden boxes from the under the table (hidden by table clothe) and then ran each one of those ballots 3-4 times so they can multi count said ballots.
5. court rulings. I read them myself, they fell into the following categories for reasons for dismissal:
A. our court is too lowly, it needs to go to a higher court
B. too early. the crime has not been committed until the votes are ratified. sue then
C. too late. you should have sued before the votes were ratified. now its too late to do anything
D. no cause. you are a voter and thus have no cause. only the states/president may sue
E. no cause. you are the states. only the president/voters have cause to sue
F. no cause. you are the president. only the states/voters have cause to sue.
Lack of evidence was not why it was dismissed in any of the courts.
6. Blatant intimidation. Multiple assassinations, doxing, and threats to families. For example that muslim immigrant from 3rd world who was on the board of certification of elections who so proudly publicly doxed and then publicly threatened the children of the other members of the certification board to make them cave in.
7. military marching into the capital and "securing" congress with tens of thousands of soldiers just before the final confirmation election. to "protect" them... from the public.
and much more. The election was beyond pathetic banana republic tier circus. Something I expected from south america not USA.
Also, here are things I personally saw:
1. voter turnout over 100% in various counties. followed by the govt shutting down the reporting sites
2. open source app to scrape gov official registers for registered voters and finding tens of thousands of voters over 120 years old had voted... until the sites were shut down hours later to destroy the evidence.
3. supreme court ordered the states to not destroy the voting machines until they are investigated. they ignored it and destroyed the voting machines, thus destroying evidence.
4. countless videos of blatant fraud. The worst one was where they pretended to shut down for the night, sent away the inspectors... then turn around, dragged hidden boxes from the under the table (hidden by table clothe) and then ran each one of those ballots 3-4 times so they can multi count said ballots.
5. court rulings. I read them myself, they fell into the following categories for reasons for dismissal:
A. our court is too lowly, it needs to go to a higher court
B. too early. the crime has not been committed until the votes are ratified. sue then
C. too late. you should have sued before the votes were ratified. now its too late to do anything
D. no cause. you are a voter and thus have no cause. only the states/president may sue
E. no cause. you are the states. only the president/voters have cause to sue
F. no cause. you are the president. only the states/voters have cause to sue.
Lack of evidence was not why it was dismissed in any of the courts.
6. Blatant intimidation. Multiple assassinations, doxing, and threats to families. For example that muslim immigrant from 3rd world who was on the board of certification of elections who so proudly publicly doxed and then publicly threatened the children of the other members of the certification board to make them cave in.
7. military marching into the capital and "securing" congress with tens of thousands of soldiers just before the final confirmation election. to "protect" them... from the public.
and much more. The election was beyond pathetic banana republic tier circus. Something I expected from south america not USA.
Last edited:
My god, you are actually taking the bullshit from the Jan 6th Committee seriously?
I can only feel pity for you.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I'm open on the idea of whether or not there was fraud, but this position doesn't make a lot of sense. Do you think Dredd Scott was a good decision? That was what the courts said. How about abortion? Was it not a constitutional right until the 1960s, then became constitutional until the 2020s when it quit being constitutional again?
Courts are a really, really bad standard of evidence due to how they work. First, a court isn't allowed to even look at a case unless there's proper standing. It can be blatantly obvious to everybody with mountains of video evidence and a signed confession that X crime happened but if the DA declines to press charges, the courts have nothing to say and aren't allowed to touch the case.
Do you feel that this would mean the crime actually didn't happen, despite the video and confession, if the DA decided not to prosecute?
Secondly, courts have to follow extremely formalized rules of precedence and policy that don't allow them to make rulings at all in many situations. F'rex there's a well-publicized case of police abuse in Baxter vs. Bracey where a suspect surrendered and sat on the ground with his hands up, after which the police had a dog attack the suspect. While the courts agreed this was clearly illegal, the only precedent they had for punishing a police officer was if they had a dog attack a suspect who was lying on his belly. The court decided that was different enough that they were not allowed to make any judgment and dismissed the case entirely.
Do you feel the police officers did not actually have their dog attack? Or do you feel the police having their dog attack a surrendered suspect with his hands in the air was justified because the courts did not hand down a punishment?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
None of those are edge cases and they're all highly relevant.
The first two ask the question:
Do you think the courts are always automatically right?
The second asks:
Do you think the courts are able to judge everything or can they be prevented from doing so by issues such as standing?
The third asks:
Do you believe the courts always pick justice or can they be hamstrung by procedure?
Each of these questions is specifically relevant to the question of whether the courts were able to perfectly judge election results.
Are you capable of answering these questions honestly? Or will you deflect and try to avoid giving an honest answer?
Last edited:
Ixian
Professional Gatekeeper
Yeah, I'm sure the elderly woman is a "flight risk", but they guy who murdered a teenage republican and got bail was clearly not a flight risk.
Lets be honest, 11 unarmed old people aren't "blockading" jack shit. This is tyrannical overreach by a rogue government. They are arresting old people and fringe individuals now, how long before they come for the rest of us?
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I mean, they aren't blockading if you're fine with the clinic hiring bully boys to shove them aside. I would guess you aren't, but maybe I'm wrong?
As for the one elderly woman in particular, there's a difference between out on bail and in a different country on bail. Are you suggesting she was denied bail? I didn't think that was the case but I would be inclined to agree with your outrage if she was. Or are you saying that the guy who ran over that kid (I assume you mean) in fact fled the jurisdiction?
Ixian
Professional Gatekeeper
I mean there is a clear double standard being applied under this Government, and they are making innocent citizens suffer, and history is pretty clear about how this stuff progresses.
But no, I don't believe 11 elderly people can blockade anything, thats just an excuse to violate their 1st amendment rights because of their political beliefs.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
That's not what begging the question is. Begging the question requires circular reasoning that isn't supported. What I did was provide support with examples ahead of time, literally the polar opposite of begging the question.
So based on your answers:
1) I find this answer reasonable, but it does in fact open up the question of how much the courts can be trusted in this specific situation. "On average right" is a terrible way to try to figure out "in this situation right." A doctor whose advice kills his patients 40% of the time and heals them 60% is "On average right" but I wouldn't go to him for treatment.
2) This is a poor answer. That's not what lack of standing is. Further, it leads to the greater question, based on your answer can we conclude that you think any questioning of the election is so ill-founded that the courts cannot address it with any level of seriousness?
3) This is irrelevant to the situation at hand. "We might change the rules later" has no bearing on whether this specific situation was fairly judged or not.
All three of your answers suggest that you're committing an Appeal to Authority fallacy, in this case "Trust the Courts" when you can't establish why the courts are trustworthy.
You were literally presented with proof they didn't blocking the entrance and agreed that was the case in your post 7,699 of this thread.