your going to flip a lot more when drive off the fiscal cliff and our economy implodes.
This is the calm before the storm, when the credit crunch happens cali is fucked.
Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
your going to flip a lot more when drive off the fiscal cliff and our economy implodes.
This is the calm before the storm, when the credit crunch happens cali is fucked.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
I think we are that regardless. Name one company out there in america that isn't living off a poncy scheme and "Magic: aka bullhockey" Once people start demanding thier money back, everyones doomed people keep talking about the Great Reset, the great reset happened sometime ago. Anything from this point is just removing the curtain.
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Speaking of hiding trends as it feels like, we have the BidenCheated hashtag which had a substantial number of tweets pop up only to mysteriously disappear:
Megadeath
Well-known member
That standard of evidence isn't good enough for online vs debates. That kind of goal post shifting to proving the negative is not an acceptable standard for the US president. It's just sad.
EDIT; And seriously, does no one see the idiotic hypocrisy in asking "Why don't they want a recount/audit/investigation if the win was legit? Opposing it proves their guilt!" when compared to the leftist position they're so happy to attack that "Why do Trump and his allies so strongly oppose an investigation into Russian election interference? If he was innocent they ought to be happy to allow the investigation, and prove their legitimacy. Opposing it clearly proves there WAS collusion!"
Last edited:
Welcome new "Fraud not real! COPE TRump supporters. COPE!!!" doomer. Welcome to one of two thread where we have roughly 4 to 5 pages alone of evidence supporting voter fraud.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Trump has made the extraordinary claim that there was fraud. He has provided no meaningful evidence, let alone the necessary extraordinary evidence. Now ho says that his opponent must prove his extraordinary claim is false, rather than accept that he should prove it himself. Again, that shit wouldn't fly in a vs debate. Why should it suffice for the highest level of politics?
I don't give much of a shit how well you cope with it, but watching a bunch of adults whine that everyone isn't accepting baseless assertions made without evidence is just sad.
So over 400 people are going to go to federal prison for purgery? THe video evidence of various things not matching up, from ballots being put where they shouldn't, to people calling out the wrong name ON VIDEO. To the dominion system having ties with at least 2 major enemy countries and being hacked by 2 others?
Have you debunked the evidence? Can you prove it false? Because i doubt everyone of those people, some who know more about this stuff then you or me, would risk federal prison for something like this.
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
Megadeath
Well-known member
You realise, hopefully, none of the Trump cases actually even alleges fraud?
Oh, you poor thing. It stops when you grow the fuck up and accept honest reality, rather than imagining a new narrative or daydreaming about childish violence as a solution to political disagreement.Here we go again
Duke Nukem
Hail to the king baby
b-BuT iT's BeEn dEbOoNkEd!
Except they do voter fraud. As in dead people voting. Of course over 600k ballots that were never asked for winding up in the voting center is obviously not fraud and just happens to be that people cant count! Because if 2 million people did mail in and only 1.6 million asked for them. Obviosuly they meant that 2 million was the real number!
No, it's not hypocrisy. The right alleges that the institutions that would be responsible for such investigations, such as several intelligence agencies, are politically compromised, and will only act to promote the political agenda of Trump's opponents rather than conduct a truly impartial investigation. Do the democrats allege the same about the various courts and state governments that will be investigating the voter fraud issue? Not to my knowledge.
Megadeath
Well-known member
You've got people in this very thread saying they should allege fraud even if it's demonstrably untrue. You don't think you could find a few hundred others who'd agree with that out of the tens of millions who support Trump? Also, if they're so clearly true and accurate, why do you think they've been roundly rejected by every single judge whether Dem or GOP, or even Trump appointed, who's seen them? Why do you think they aren't even presented as evidence in most the court cases, and most the court cases make the specific effort to establish that they aren't alleging fraud? Even Giuliani isn't.
"'This is not a fraud case,' Giuliani later admitted."
“'Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?' To which Goldstein replied: 'To my knowledge at present, no.'"
"Trump’s attorneys signed a joint stipulation of facts that explicitly admits that they are not alleging fraud, despite the President and his lawyers’ repeated public claims"
"Trump campaign attorney Kory Langhofer told a judge, 'We are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. We are not alleging anyone stealing the election.'"
"Lawyers representing Trump’s campaign sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Nov. 5 alleging 'criminal voter fraud' in Nevada. But lawyers representing Trump never made that allegation in court filings. Instead, as in many of the other Trump campaign election cases, the Nevada filings focus on much smaller claims"
Last edited:
Megadeath
Well-known member
What has that got to do with it? Trump repeatedly decried the idea of investigating him at all. He outright said that the investigation was politically motivated, and that meant the people seeking it were treasonous criminals. But when it's on the other foot, and he's seeking a clearly politically motivated investigation into the legitimacy of an election, anyone who opposes it is somehow still a treasonous criminal, who only opposes it to cover it up? It's a blatant and pathetic attempt to have your cake and eat it too.
I've just outlined the reasons why the right-wing does not consider the investigation legitimate. Your response is a broken record. If you refuse to accept their reasoning then just say so instead of going off on a rant.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Whether the investigation was legitimate or not, if there was no evidence of wrongdoing to uncover, Trump should have welcomed the opportunity to prove it by having it investigated.
It's exactly the same argument as "Wether the claims of fraud are legitimate or not, if there's no evidence of fraud to uncover the left should welcome the opportunity to prove it by having it investigated."
If your argument is that various official agencies can't be trusted to conduct one of those investigations but other official agencies can be trusted to conduct the other investigation, I'd love to see what you're basing that on other than your precious feelings.
Things appear to be swinging in Trumps favor last time i checked, then again the left/right have both perfected the art of making a kick to the balls seem like a part of the plan so i dunno. I'm trying to just sit back and let things play out instead of refreshing and checking my news sources but it's been difficult as nothing seems to distract me for long. It's like the longest case of blue balls ever.
Indeed. The big thing on the board now is Sidney Powell and the lawsuits against Dominion voting. If she has the evidence then this whole thing is over and a lot of people are likely going to prison. If she doesn't then her career is over. But given her performance in the Mike Flynn fiasco, I'm liable to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Given the absolutely dreadful filing, with everything from spelling and grammar errors, through repeating claims already rejected by other courts, to her attempts to "hide" her evidence and making claims unrelated to the filing and entirely unsubstantiated by even the evidence she claims to have?
I mean, she presents as evidence a duck duck go search, and articles from the associated press. I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone here just how unreliable the AP is as a source?