Serious thread about election fraud

Paradoxical wrote:

These unfounded claims are baseless.

Agree. It goes both ways. Their claims of no fraud are baseless. Twitter needs to be shut down for their censorship.

I will say this. Rudy said big things will come after Christmas. Don't tease us. Lay it out before the 6th.

Dems will not even look at any evidence. They have their mind made up and if there is fraud they'd be ok with it because the ends justify the means.

My hope is some of them will realise the sell out to foreign entities and the push for Marxism will bite them in the derriere. And Marxism is where the Dem's and some Rinos are taking us.

Baffled how rich dems still voted D. They think they'll be immune to the Marxist takeover? These people will lose their houses. Their retirement accounts will be confiscated. The dollar will be worthless. But yeah, Orange man bad and talks meanly, so let's screw ourselves.

johnny99 wrote:

Something about a boy and a wolf.

But is the boy really calling wolf if he publically tells the village that he will be crying wolf if he does not get the attention, admiration, and confirmation the following fall? Then follows through that fall by doing EXACTLY what he said he would do.

splitting hairs wrote:

Dems will not even look at any evidence. They have their mind made up and if there is fraud they'd be ok with it because the ends justify the means.

My hope is some of them will realise the sell out to foreign entities and the push for Marxism will bite them in the derriere. And Marxism is where the Dem's and some Rinos are taking us.

Baffled how rich dems still voted D. They think they'll be immune to the Marxist takeover? These people will lose their houses. Their retirement accounts will be confiscated. The dollar will be worthless. But yeah, Orange man bad and talks meanly, so let's screw ourselves.

What are you basing this on? It appears you are starting with an "R" after your name and working backward to justify that very "R".

The courts, most with GOP judges have looked at the so-called evidence and determined it was NOT there and a waste of court's time. The issue is when under oath, the GOP claims do not get presented because they know it is baseless and being presented for other reasons such as duping supporters out of $.

When will the Marxist takever begin? Right after Biden finishes taking everyone's guns that Obama missed? If you look at recent history, since Reagan, it has been the GOP that have caused a huge divide between rich and poor and hurt the dollar, retirement accounts outside the richest, and houses being lost. This is rhetoric of the "financially fiscal" GOp that I used to belong to, that has not been reality in some time.

Paradoxical wrote:

These unfounded claims are baseless.

The most recent case (ruled on today) that has been rejected is Michigan mailing ballots to every registered voter.

Now why would Trump & the GOP challenge making voting easier for people? You know why, voter suppression.

When you message is "only the richest in society are worthy," you better limit who gets to vote.

Trump is a genius.

He ran around the DEEP STATE and took the case straight to GOP APPOINTED judges in many states. There is no doubt these judges, who don't answer to the deep state, will see the obvious fraud and OVERTURN the election!

Anyway, I haven't kept up with news for about a month. All the above happened right?

Harambe wrote:

Trump is a genius.

He ran around the DEEP STATE and took the case straight to GOP APPOINTED judges in many states. There is no doubt these judges, who don't answer to the deep state, will see the obvious fraud and OVERTURN the election!

Anyway, I haven't kept up with news for about a month. All the above happened right?

It seems like the consensus is that if the courts aren't taking the cases, then the evidence of fraud must not be there, so it didn't happen. Right?

All I'm doing here is trying to find out what people think. I could offer LOADS of evidence, but if everyone thinks it doesn't matter because they are waiting for a judge to tell them there is a problem, then offering evidence is a waste of time.

I'm trying to create a basis for a reasonable discussion, as foolish as that sounds in this intellectual cesspool. But let's give it a shot.

DiscoGary wrote:

It seems like the consensus is that if the courts aren't taking the cases, then the evidence of fraud must not be there, so it didn't happen. Right?

All I'm doing here is trying to find out what people think. I could offer LOADS of evidence, but if everyone thinks it doesn't matter because they are waiting for a judge to tell them there is a problem, then offering evidence is a waste of time.

I'm trying to create a basis for a reasonable discussion, as foolish as that sounds in this intellectual cesspool. But let's give it a shot.

I figure the courts would good arbiters of the truth of this "evidence."

Considering Trump cases are like 1-50 in courts, many with GOP appointed judges, I'm going to assume this evidence is mostly BS?

Is that unreasonable?

You're misunderstanding what's been happening here.

The courts are taking the cases, and are then dismissing those cases mostly based on a lack of evidence supporting the claims. In many of the cases, Trump's lawyers haven't even bothered to claim fraud, probably due to the lack of evidence and the risk of getting sanctioned by a judge in federal court for maintaining a frivolous position.

You can offer LOADS of evidence? Go ahead, do it. I'd be shocked if an anonymous poster on an internet running website is able to produce evidence that Trump's elite strike force couldn't. Also, the state of Texas is willing to pay up to $1,000,000 for evidence of voter fraud, you should cash in if you really have the goods.

Harambe wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

It seems like the consensus is that if the courts aren't taking the cases, then the evidence of fraud must not be there, so it didn't happen. Right?

All I'm doing here is trying to find out what people think. I could offer LOADS of evidence, but if everyone thinks it doesn't matter because they are waiting for a judge to tell them there is a problem, then offering evidence is a waste of time.

I'm trying to create a basis for a reasonable discussion, as foolish as that sounds in this intellectual cesspool. But let's give it a shot.

I figure the courts would good arbiters of the truth of this "evidence."

Considering Trump cases are like 1-50 in courts, many with GOP appointed judges, I'm going to assume this evidence is mostly BS?

Is that unreasonable?

Oh, that's perfectly reasonable, but it still might be wrong.

Let's try this. Did you think Trump colluded with Russia? Did you think Trump cheated on his taxes? Do you think Trump is the most corrupt President this country has ever seen?

See where I'm going?

Many Democrats believe all of that and more, yet the cases against Trump are 0-50. The Mueller Report found nothing. He still stands. According to your own logic if the courts don't find him guilty then you have to conclude that there never was anything there in the first place.

Harambe wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

It seems like the consensus is that if the courts aren't taking the cases, then the evidence of fraud must not be there, so it didn't happen. Right?

All I'm doing here is trying to find out what people think. I could offer LOADS of evidence, but if everyone thinks it doesn't matter because they are waiting for a judge to tell them there is a problem, then offering evidence is a waste of time.

I'm trying to create a basis for a reasonable discussion, as foolish as that sounds in this intellectual cesspool. But let's give it a shot.

I figure the courts would good arbiters of the truth of this "evidence."

Considering Trump cases are like 1-50 in courts, many with GOP appointed judges, I'm going to assume this evidence is mostly BS?

Is that unreasonable?

Yes, you are being unreasonable at worst and uninformed at best.

Serious question. Do you know why the courts are not taking the cases?

Hint: It has nothing to do with the evidence. The evidence is beyond overwhelming if you took anytime to actually look at it.

This all is a catch 22.

Trump or anyone complains about an election.

The state officials (regardless of state or party) are either paid off, or don't want to admit to running a rigged or an election with tons of fraud (who ever admits to doing a crappy job when you don't have to). Only unbiased 3rd party auditors would ever come to that conclusion.

The Judges do not want to mess with an election. They believe that it is the job of the legislators to fix those issues. So they throw the cases out siting standing or filing too late etc.

So it goes back to the state officials.

Catch 22.

It's all Trump's fault anyways. If he wanted a clean election, he's the president, get it done. But like most things he ever does, he barks a lot with no actual bite.

DiscoGary wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I figure the courts would good arbiters of the truth of this "evidence."

Considering Trump cases are like 1-50 in courts, many with GOP appointed judges, I'm going to assume this evidence is mostly BS?

Is that unreasonable?

Oh, that's perfectly reasonable, but it still might be wrong.

Let's try this. Did you think Trump colluded with Russia? Did you think Trump cheated on his taxes? Do you think Trump is the most corrupt President this country has ever seen?

See where I'm going?

Many Democrats believe all of that and more, yet the cases against Trump are 0-50. The Mueller Report found nothing. He still stands. According to your own logic if the courts don't find him guilty then you have to conclude that there never was anything there in the first place.

Trump's as clean as they come.

“If we had had confidence that President Donald Trump clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Robert Mueller says in breaking his silence about his 22-month probe of the 2016 election.

And don't rest too easy on the tax fraud stuff until the NY DA gets done with Trump.

So... "it's a massive conspiracy and everyone is in on it except Trump" is still the party line here? Reasonable. Yeah.

Ah! I see. So if even AFTER there is a 3 year Mueller investigation with unlimited resources and access, and it finds no evidence of a crime, then you STILL think the process failed and the guilty might have gotten away with it.

In the case of Trump taxes you're saying that we won't really know if there's a crime there until we dig deep and investigate.

Fine. Let's apply the same standard to election fraud. There has been no government run investigation into fraud claims despite the fact that there is way more evidence than they had to begin the Mueller investigation. There will no Special Counsel. No unlimited funding of rabid Republican lawyers with years of access and subpoena power to get to the bottom of this. According to your logic, we will never know if crimes were committed until we dig deep and investigate.

Well I say let's do it.

You keep mentioning all this evidence of fraud, but you never actually show any of it.

To paraphrase the Trump-appointed judge in PA who dismissed one of his cases, "just saying that there's fraud does not make it so".

Rudy has promised a lot of things, but he doesn't deliver.

Why are you blaming Democrats for not looking at evidence? The way evidence of fraud is supposed to work is that you make specific allegations in a complaint filed with the court, and then you provide evidence to support your allegations. Trump's attorneys have been unable to do that. In fact, despite the detailed claims of election chicanery, the attorneys back off on the allegations in court because they know they don't have evidence. And folks at Fox and Newsmax who helped them push the allegations are having to walk them back.

We aren't even close to Marxism, although the money Trump shoveled at farmers hurt by his tariffs benefited from Trump's willing to be socialist. What we have under Trump is a crony kleptocracy, with taxpayer money directed to Trump businesses and family member, favors for friends and pardons for those who commit crimes for him. Kind of a national mafia.

baa baa wool wrote:

Maybe based on this “serious” thread that produced f!ck all support.

Precisely. Continually claiming “LOADS of evidence” doesn’t will such into existence.

2600 bro wrote:

So... "it's a massive conspiracy and everyone is in on it except Trump" is still the party line here?

Reasonable. Yeah.

I hate to break this to you, but the Republicans, Democrats and the political establishment HATE Trump.

Especially the old guard GOP.

Why do you think they can't get the Republican GA Gov to do a simple audit of the voting machines? Or a simple of audit of anything. He's a republican, so the least he could do is play along if he believes there wasn't any fraud. But I am sure you can explain why he would not allow any audit since his party lost the election being a non corrupt GOP politician that he is... I'll wait.

The people here that are defending old established politicians just shows how blue pilled and naïve you are and I realize nothing I can say will change that.

Trump sucks just as much as anyone, but to suggest this election wasn't stolen is tooo funny. People who say it wasn't as just happy with the results. And that is fine, until it goes against your guy of course. Nixon could have seen this coming as well I think :)

I'd like to see the "loads of evidence."

Wrong.

"An audit in Georgia confirmed a majority of voters endorsed Joe Biden for the next US president, state election officials said on Thursday. It reaffirms the result which gave the president-elect all 16 of the state's electoral college votes."

Your problem isn't that audits haven't been done, it's that they keep confirming Biden's victory.