Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Do we still believe there was a "steal"?
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 49
| visibility 1

Do we still believe there was a "steal"?


Mar 14, 2021, 7:55 AM

Trumpkins, do you still believe the election was "stolen" despite no real evidence. A video of a box under the table is not real evidence.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I believe there was fraud and lots


Mar 14, 2021, 7:58 AM

of it, but not enough to sway this election. I am afraid though in the future it could be replicated, expanded and change outcomes.

I also believe there was a coordinated effort by social media platforms to deplatform conservatives and Trump supporters. There was an all out effort to stop them from having a voice and helping their candidate(a) win an election.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I believe there was fraud and lots


Mar 14, 2021, 9:59 AM

Of course. You made that clear. That's why you wanted to be part of the insurrection on the US Capitol. Truth be told though, your cult leader was blown out and it confused you. Nothing more, nothing less.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I believe there was fraud and lots


Mar 14, 2021, 12:08 PM [ in reply to I believe there was fraud and lots ]

manac

What amounts to "lots of fraud" in your mind ??

And if there was lots of fraud, where is the evidence of it ??

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Exactly the narrative being pushed by right-wing media...


Mar 14, 2021, 5:05 PM [ in reply to I believe there was fraud and lots ]

and the GOP's reasoning for trying to attack voter rights in something like 40 states. They can't offer any evidence to support the narrative, so just realize they are playing you for a fool. I think you and those that pointed you are not fools, but you will certainly appear that way if you continue to follow that narrative.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Is that first sentence any more true


Mar 15, 2021, 7:36 AM [ in reply to I believe there was fraud and lots ]

for this election than it is for any election? There is always fraud, and it always has the potential to be expanded. So far, it hasn't happened, and we should remain vigilant to guard against it. And we are doing so, very well.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"?


Mar 14, 2021, 8:13 AM

Yes, you voted for the govt to steal money from me so that prisoners and illegals can have stimulus checks. I expect you to cover my losses. Venmo?

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Just FYI you also voted for a guy that gave


Mar 14, 2021, 7:22 PM

prisoners checks.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"?


Mar 14, 2021, 8:20 AM

Yes! The Supreme Court should have heard all of the cases on their merits rather than dismissing them due to technicalities of "standing." They were afraid that the evidence would be compelling, but to overturn an election would result in the burning of America by BLM, Antifa and other left-wing groups. No testicles!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"?


Mar 14, 2021, 9:12 AM

Bingo, anyone that thinks this was a fair election is an idiot.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"?


Mar 14, 2021, 12:11 PM

76

evidence, please - or YOU are the idiot.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"?


Mar 14, 2021, 10:16 AM [ in reply to Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"? ]

There were no merits. That was the problem and hence they were toast. They saw that and it was done. Your cult leader lost over 60 cases. The guy was a bum.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"?


Mar 14, 2021, 12:10 PM [ in reply to Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"? ]

raven

and the 60 lower court cases ???

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Yes! Tobias, Carlsbad, Catahoula, et al ... We do!


Mar 15, 2021, 8:43 AM

I couldn't respond to you yesterday, Tobias, because I actually had a life to live. Unlike you, Carlsbad, Tigerbalm, Catahoula and others, I don't spend all day, every day on Tigernet. But I did find the summary, below, that addressed all of the election lawsuits that every court punted on. All the lower courts yielded to the SCOTUS, and those cowards ... including DJT's appointees ... were afraid that they would be doxxed and harmed, and that Antifa and others would burn down American cities if the evidence was presented and they had voted to overturn the outcome of the election. I apologize for the length of the piece, as well as the big words the author uses, but there's a chance that even y'all might understand what really happened. You won't agree, of course, because it's not what leftists "feel." GOD bless!


Courts Repeatedly Refused To Consider Trump’s Election Claims On The Merits

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen after Nov. 3.

Bob Anderson

MARCH 11, 2021

On Monday, without comment, the Supreme Court ended the last of the 2020 election cases, rejecting Trump v. Wisconsin Election Commission in a one-line order. It was a quiet ending to a tumultuous election season, but like a football game with a contentious call at the end, the debate over who really won will likely go on much longer.

The courts have always served as a pressure-relief valve on our internal disagreements. From the battle with an unscrupulous car dealer to a nasty divorce that requires discernment over how to split everything from the antique Corvette to the kids, wise judges can help to bring peace and healing. Surely, for a nation reeling after a tempestuous presidential election filled with strange occurrences, the courts were needed to bring us together.

We needed the steady hand of impartial jurists. Most of all, the losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn’t the outcome they wanted. That did not happen after Nov. 3. Despite a stack of cases that worked their way through the legal system, we remain bitterly divided.

A Rasmussen survey last month found that 61 percent of Republicans say Joe Biden did not win the election fairly. That number hasn’t changed much since early January, when 69 percent of GOP voters voiced the same concern. That 34 percent of all voters and 36 percent of independents agree with them is a strong signal that something went terribly amiss in the maelstrom of election cases.

The election is over. There has been an inauguration. So why did ABC’s George Stephanopoulos feel the need to berate a U.S. senator and his audience with the demand, “Can’t you just say the words: This election was not stolen?” Why must he shout, “There were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court. All were dismissed!”

Perhaps, the answer lies in the details of those cases, as much in how they were adjudicated as in the final rulings.


Taking Stock of the 2020 Election Case List

Let’s start with some clarity: The list of more than 80 cases includes both the same cases that were appealed through various courts and many that had no direct tie to the president’s legal team or the Republican Party. In reality, there were 28 unique cases filed across the six contested states by President Trump or others on his behalf.

Twelve were filed in Pennsylvania, six in Georgia, and two or three in each of the other states. Of course, there was also the lawsuit filed by the state of Texas against the state of Pennsylvania that had the potential to change the outcome. So let’s call it 29.

To be sure, that is still a lot of cases. Yet to understand why there is still widespread unease with the election, would it not be better to stop demanding conformity and instead dig deeper to see what the courts told us in those cases, and what they did not? A review of them shows that, contrary to a common narrative, few were ever considered on the merits.


Death by Technicalities

First of all, we can recognize that many of the cases produced no useful information relative to election integrity. We learned nothing from a lawsuit dismissed by a state judge in Georgia (Boland v. Raffensperger) on the basis that the plaintiff had sued an “improper party” rather than hearing the merits of why the ballot rejection rate allegedly dropped from 1.53 percent in 2018 to 0.15 percent in the 2020 general election.


Also, did 20,000 people vote who do not live in the state, when Georgia’s electoral votes were allotted by an approximately 12,000 margin to Biden? We never learned the answers to those questions nor even examined the evidence, because Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was not a candidate for office nor the election superintendent who conducted the election, and therefore per state law, was not liable.

Similarly, a Trump lawsuit in Michigan (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson) alleging state law was violated by the failure to allow access by observers, and seeking to stop counting, was ruled moot since it was not filed until 4:00 p.m. on Nov. 4, after votes were counted. The judge simultaneously relieved the secretary of state of responsibility for any wrongdoing because she had issued guidance requiring admission of credentialed challengers.

So we are left with the memory of the videos of vote counters clapping as Republican observers were evicted and of covers being placed over windows. The judge on this case also said Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson bore no legal responsibility for video monitoring of drop boxes nor of making video from such surveillance available, despite a recently passed law requiring surveillance of all drop boxes installed after Oct. 1.

A lawsuit in Pennsylvania, Metcalfe v. Wolf, claimed “approximately 144,000 to 288,000 completed mail-in and/or absentee ballots” in Pennsylvania may have been illegal based on testimony from a U.S. Postal Service contractor. The contractor said he was hired to haul a truck of what he believed to be this many completed mail-in ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. The complaint also alleged there was “evidence” of ballots that were backdated at a postal facility in Erie.

The judge tossed it since the state’s Election Code required their request to be filed within 20 days of the alleged violation, which was Nov. 23. They filed Dec. 4. We’ll never know if that truck brought in pallets of completed ballots—an amount sufficient to overturn the state’s Electoral College vote.

In Wisconsin, the Trump v. Evers suit alleged that violations of state election law had occurred in Milwaukee and Dane Counties as municipal clerks issued absentee ballots without the required written application, that they illegally completed missing info on ballots, that absentee ballots were wrongly cast by voters claiming “Indefinite Confinement” status (and for which no ID was provided), and that Madison’s “Democracy in the Park” event violated election laws.

A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear the lawsuit, sidestepping a decision on the merits of the claims and instead ruling the case must first wind its way through lower courts—an effective death sentence given the timing.


Absurdities: When ‘Shall’ Doesn’t Mean Shall

At times, judges resorted to Clintonian wordsmithing to relieve a word of its recognized meaning. A state Supreme Court judge in Pennsylvania was tasked with reviewing the eligibility of 2,349 mail-in ballots that were purportedly defective according to the state Election Code (Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections).

In the court’s decision, he noted “We agree with the Campaign’s observation that…the General Assembly set forth the requirements for how a qualified elector may cast a valid absentee or mail-in ballot … We further agree that these sections of the Election Code specifically provide that each voter ‘shall (emphasis added) fill out, date, and sign’ the declaration on the outside envelope. We do not agree with the Campaign’s contention, however, that because the General Assembly used the word ‘shall’ in this context, it is of necessity that the directive is a mandatory one …”

Indeed. Why even write laws? Perhaps the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would feel differently if their rulings were subjected to such an open interpretation.

A federal lawsuit in the same state (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar) included a claim that some Democrat counties implemented a “notice and cure” policy, allowing defective ballots to be fixed and counted, while Republican counties did not, thereby creating an equal protection issue.

The judge found that two individual plaintiffs had indeed been harmed by the denial of their votes, but that they lacked standing since the defendant (Democrat) counties “had nothing to do with the denial of Individual Plaintiff’s ability to vote” as their “ballots were rejected by Lancaster and Fayette [Republican] Counties, neither of which is a party to this case.”

So the judge effectively created a legal “Catch 22” in which one must show direct harm from an unrelated party in order to prevail. Logically, under this standard, no equal protection claim could ever be substantiated.

In a Nov. 5 filing (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections), Republicans alleged that the Philadelphia County Board was “intentionally refusing to allow any representatives and poll watchers for President Trump and the Republican Party … [and] continuing to count ballots, without any observation” by Republican poll watchers. The Commonwealth Court agreed on appeal that observers be allowed within six feet of vote counting while complying with COVID-19 protocols.

However, the state Supreme Court reversed that ruling, finding that the Election Code allows the board to make rules “for protecting its workers’ safety from COVID-19 and physical assault,” and that the only requirement is that “one authorized representative of each candidate in an election and one representative from each political party shall be permitted to remain in the room”— not necessarily within close-enough range to observe vote-counting (emphasis original in court decision). So what is the point of an observer who cannot observe anything?

In the case of Ward v. Jackson et al. in Arizona, an issue over election observers was ruled as “untimely” since “the observation procedures for the November general election were materially the same as for the August primary election, and any objection to them should have been brought at a time when any legal deficiencies could have been cured.” Lacking in that statement was an explanation as to why any Republican observers would have been needed in a Democrat-only party primary.


Judicial Blindness: See No Evil

In the same lawsuit (Ward v. Jackson et al.) the judge also rejected a claim of improper signature verification after allowing a review of 100 sample ballots. Plaintiff and defense experts found 6 and 11 percent of signatures, respectively, to be “inconclusive.”

On the same page of his opinion, the judge noted that out of the total 1.9 million mail-in ballots, only approximately 20,000 had been identified as having a signature issue, or 1 percent. There was no explanation as to why poll workers found six times fewer issues with signatures. The math would suggest either a bias to accept, despite signature issues, or that the sample examined was statistically invalid.

Further mystifying, he wrote that “there is no evidence that the manner in which signatures were reviewed was designed to benefit one candidate or another.” But surely fraud can easily benefit the offender alone, even with use of a uniform vote-count procedure. Fill out 1,000 ballots consisting of 500 for Trump and 500 for Biden, then mix in 100 more that are fraudulent for Biden and count them using any method. Who wins? It’s not a hard possibility to imagine, but the judge ignored it.

He also concluded “the evidence does not show illegal votes”—in a state in which an estimated 419,000 illegally present foreign citizens reside, and which went to Biden by a margin of just more than 10,000 votes out of a total of more than 3.2 million.

Importantly, the judge noted at the outset that “the Plaintiff in an election contest has a high burden of proof and the actions of election officials are presumed to be free from fraud and misconduct.” It’s a fair statement of the law. It’s also an indication of the difficulty in prevailing, even when issues exist. Every case across the nation was evaluated under a similar high hurdle, with the status quo treated as sacrosanct.


Too Early and Too Late

Republicans also often found themselves in an impossible “###### if you do, ###### if you don’t” situation on the timing of challenges to election laws.

In Georgia Republican Party, Inc. et al. v. Raffensperger et al, candidates Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue sued prior to their U.S. Senate run-offs, alleging harm would occur from unconstitutional election procedures. Their counsel noted (on appeal) that the court “dismissed the case for lack of standing, reasoning that ‘the Supreme Court instructs that a theory of future injury is too speculative to satisfy the well-established requirement that threatened injury must be certainly impending.’” Filed too early.

In the same state, a federal judge dismissed Sidney Powell’s lawsuit (Pearson v. Kemp), in part citing that it was filed too late—it should have been filed before the election. As another example, in Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, a judge dismissed the president’s suit saying it involved “issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred.”

Together, it demonstrated the hurdle that many election cases faced—denied before the election as “speculative,” or afterward as too late.


The Clock Ran Out: January 6

Several lawsuits were resolved not by a weighing of merits, but as a practical consequence of the electoral vote on Jan. 6 that certified Biden as the winner of the presidency.

Trump had filed suit on Dec. 4 in Georgia (Trump v. Raffensperger) alleging violations of state election law and the inclusion of specific ineligible votes: 66,247 underage votes, 2,423 persons not registered, 15,700 who had changed address, 1,043 who illegally listed a P.O. box address as their address, 8,718 who died prior to their votes being cast, 92 absentee ballots counted prior to the date those voters requested a ballot, 217 ballots shown as applied for and sent out and received on the same day, and 2,560 votes from felons with uncompleted sentences. These were significant numbers in an election that was decided by fewer than 12,000 votes.

The suit had also noted that 305,701 had applied for an absentee ballot more than 180 days prior to election, thereby violating state law.
The suit had also noted that 305,701 had applied for an absentee ballot more than 180 days prior to election, thereby violating state law. Importantly, it also took issue with the secretary of state’s Consent Decree with Democrats, which allowed signature matching on envelopes and applications, but not versus registration rolls. And it cited the low 0.34 percent rejection rate of mail-in ballots, a tenth of the rate of prior elections, despite a six-fold increase in number of such ballots cast.

The suit was withdrawn on Jan. 7, with none of the issues resolved, the day after Congress met and the matter was rendered moot.

Another Georgia suit (Still v. Raffensperger) alleged that Coffee County Board had been unable to replicate electronic recount results, and that the error was sufficient to put the outcome of that county in doubt, with a potentially similar issue in others across the state. It noted that Raffensperger had forced an arbitrary Dec. 4 deadline to certify the results despite the county’s letter of the same date saying the results “should not be used.”

The legal battle continued, and the state’s counsel eventually demanded in a Jan. 3 letter that all lawsuits against Kemp, Raffensperger, and the State Elections Board be dropped in order to “cooperatively share information.” Otherwise, they would remain in a “litigation posture”—quite a telling comment. Why was cooperation ever resisted?

Trump’s counsel accepted the offer of dismissal to get information they had requested, but it came as the timeframe to use it ended on Jan. 6. The suit was withdrawn on Jan. 7.


The Supreme Court Punted

The nation’s highest court showed some early inclination for involvement in the brewing election issues, such as Justice Samuel Alito’s order to separate certain late ballots in Pennsylvania in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar. Yet it soon took a different tone. A petition to expedite a hearing was denied and later the court refused the case.

In December, the court rejected a key lawsuit filed by the state of Texas (Texas v. Pennsylvania), and joined by 18 other state attorneys general, alleging that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin violated the U.S. Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means. The justices ruled that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of the election held by another state.

The court could have held these claims up to the objective light of justice, and either exposed it all as painfully true or wildly false, but it didn’t.
In Kelly v. Pennsylvania, Rep. Mike Kelly claimed that the recently enacted Act 77 to expand mail-in balloting violated the state constitution, as amended in 1967, that “allowed for absentee ballots to be cast in the four (4) exclusive circumstances authorized under Article VII, Section 14.”

He also noted that “the legislature first recognized their constitutional constraints and the need to amend the constitution in order to enact mail-in voting, sought to amend the constitution to lawfully allow for the legislation they intended to pass, and subsequently abandoned their efforts to comply with the constitution and instead enacted Act 77 irrespective of their actual knowledge that they lacked the legal authority to do so unless and until the proposed constitutional amendment was ratified by approval of a majority of the electors …”

A Commonwealth Court judge agreed on Nov. 25 and ordered that any action to certify the election be stopped, pending an evidentiary hearing two days later. However, on Nov. 28, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed that decision, saying the “Petitioners sought to invalidate the ballots of the millions of Pennsylvania voters who utilized the mail-in voting procedures established by Act 77 and count only those ballots that Petitioners deem to be ‘legal votes.’”

Yes, that is exactly what the plaintiffs sought—the counting of only legal votes. But again, like many other courts, this one relied on a philosophy that excluding any ballots would disenfranchise voters. So they set aside the state constitution for their own preference.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to expedite an appeal on this case when it would have mattered, then recently refused to hear it at all, a decision Justice Clarence Thomas called “inexplicable” in his dissent.

The Supreme Court also refused to hear any of Sidney Powell’s cases—in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan—and in doing so, deprived Americans of the chance to hear evidence for and against very serious claims that electronic voting machines could be manipulated. Of all of the allegations, perhaps none more so instilled fear into voters as the possibility that our votes could be tampered with and changed, thwarting democracy itself.

Did the machines really show decimal totals for votes rather than integers? Were they designed to flip votes, and in such a way that no audit could trace it? Were these machines connected to the internet on election night, and did data show that foreign actors accessed it? Voters will never know. The court could have held these claims up to the objective light of justice, and either exposed it all as painfully true or wildly false, but it didn’t.

When most needed, the court that once took the time to render a decision on whether a tomato is a fruit or vegetable chose to punt on each of the key presidential election cases. American voters are worse off for it as confidence in elections erodes.


Lessons Learned

President Trump always had a very uphill climb to prevail. This wasn’t a one-state battle as in the George W. Bush versus Al Gore contest. Trump was effectively required to play six-dimensional chess, in six states, all in the span of a few months. Trump was effectively required to play six-dimensional chess, in six states, all in the span of a few months. As Andy McCarthy noted, “a brutally tight time frame took effect [upon contesting the election], imposed by state and federal deadlines. It is a drastic departure from the normal litigation pace of investigation, legal research, and the formulation of cognizable claims.” Indeed, it was a nearly impossible task. It was even harder when Trump’s attorneys were influenced and threatened.

In the end, should we be surprised that voters retain a strong sense of skepticism over the outcome of the presidential election? That a man who largely campaigned from his basement, who exhibited signs of age-related mental decline, could handily defeat a vigorous incumbent who drew immense crowds is naturally hard to believe.

The election of 2020, which included more than 155 million votes, was decided by approximately 300,000 votes in six states, or 0.2 percent of the electorate, all of which came by an unnatural flip of results late on election night. Despite judges’ repeated hand-wringing that any court action would disenfranchise millions of voters, the reality is that millions of others may have been disenfranchised, and they instinctively suspect so.

The one thing many voters seem to have learned through the legal chaos is that it’s easier to commit election violations than to stop them. So the electorate remains divided—even after “86 election cases.”

Bob Anderson is a partner and CFO of a hotel development company and a former aerospace engineer who worked on the International Space Station and interned in Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) at the Pentagon. He is also a licensed commercial pilot.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"Standing" is not a technicality.


Mar 15, 2021, 7:37 AM [ in reply to Re: Do we still believe there was a "steal"? ]

Standing is a critical aspect of a case, and foundational to our legal system.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent


Mar 14, 2021, 9:25 AM

election. There is plenty of evidence but you haven't seen it because it hasn't been on TV.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent


Mar 14, 2021, 10:00 AM

Lay it out for us.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent


Mar 14, 2021, 10:20 AM



This has been very interesting for you house libs. One of you will start this same thing up on a weekly basis. I’m not sure what the goal is- maybe it’s your version of an echo chamber, maybe you’re not convinced your media sources are trustworthy, it’s most likely your basic white cotton pantie, but maybe it’s something new I don’t even know about.

Ballot harvesting with bribes
Dominion irregularities
Mail-Ins from dead people
Mail-Ins from non-residents
Mail-Ins from non-existing addresses
Very irregular polling activities with obvious bias and fraud

It’s possible that any one of these things wouldn’t change the outcome and thus they don’t qualify to be heard in court. I also believe that combined- there was plenty of evidence to prove a possibility of changed outcome, but the Pub lawyers couldn’t put it all together in the allotted time limits. I do think it will come out one day in court... just not today.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Ballot harvesting


Mar 14, 2021, 10:28 AM

something I do not know much about, but I do feel like it’s under reported. I need to do more research.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Face it, Trump has never won the popular vote. Clinton had


Mar 14, 2021, 11:55 AM

more than 2 million popular votes over Trump in 2016, and Biden had over 7 million votes over Trump in 2020.

Thankfully, Trump's days in federal office will soon be eliminated as he has at least three federal probes before him. Trump will likely be convicted in at least two of those probes. Any federal conviction will eliminate him from ever holding another federal position.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Not to mention >100% voter turnout in several key


Mar 14, 2021, 10:37 AM [ in reply to Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent ]

precincts that just also happened to be where they forced poll watchers to leave. I'm sure there was nothing going on there....


First and foremost: bureaucrats and appointed officials changed election laws in the states rather than the state legislatures. That alone makes the election invalid. That should be the end of it.

But you're right, there's a ton of evidence of all sorts of fraud. They tried everything to steal this election and Trump was still winning. Then, in a few strategically picked precincts in democrat controlled population centers in key swing states, they decided to amp it up a notch and just invent enough votes for Biden to win those states. There's ample evidence of this but the evidence is not needed, because they kicked out the election observers. That alone makes the elections in those precincts invalid.

Anyone who can't see this is just a brain-damaged partisan moron. Most democrats do see this, they don't care, and they pretend it didn't happen as a pretense to de-personing their opposition.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Well, the 60 cases claiming voter fraud were tossed out


Mar 14, 2021, 12:01 PM

by multiple Republican judges across the Country, including a few cases decisions involving "Trumps" Supreme Court siding against his claims.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


the corrupt government investigated themselves and found no


Mar 14, 2021, 12:51 PM

wrongdoing. Shocker.

This isn't a partisan issue, unless you are brain-damaged.

This is the corrupt government doing what it does. Republicans love vote rigging just as much as Democrats. Spoiler: this is because they are both the same thing in reality: the war party. They rig primaries to get their selected corporate ###### into power who will launch new wars against whatever (they don't care) which leads to trillions of dollars in sweet new federal cash. That's all they care about.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Wow, now I think I have heard everything. You guys


Mar 14, 2021, 1:46 PM

blame everything on the Democrats, but if a bunch of Republican judges throw out frivolous "fraud" cases against Trump is OK.


You guys are too funny!!

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I think your partisan brain-damage is preventing you from


Mar 14, 2021, 1:54 PM

understanding what I wrote.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I voted Republican my whole life as a adult from 1980


Mar 14, 2021, 2:08 PM

until 2016. In 2016, both Clinton and Trump were terrible candidates,. for different reasons . It was so bad, I didn't vote for either.

By 2020, I would have voted for any Democratic Candidate, or Republican Candidate not named Donald Trump. He is/was nothing but a former reality TV showman. He had no business being in politics, and hopefully his federal convictions will eliminate him from any future federal positions.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Let me guess


Mar 15, 2021, 8:00 AM [ in reply to the corrupt government investigated themselves and found no ]

You're one of those people who thinks the federal government is completely inept and incompetitent, but yet somehow can orchestrate a massive fraud to steal an election from an incumbent.

At this points, anyone who still thinks Trump was robbed of the election is an absolute imbecile. You can't provide any evidence that he was robbed, and your logic remains that of a third grader. Somehow there was only fraud in the states he lost, right? Yeah.

And somehow Republican controlled states with GOP officials running the elections robbed Trump. Right.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Re: Not to mention >100% voter turnout in several key


Mar 14, 2021, 12:21 PM [ in reply to Not to mention >100% voter turnout in several key ]

Tom

If the change in election procedures was illegal, why didn't the courts rule them so ?

If there is ample evidence of inventing votes, where is it ?

Despite this total void of supporting evidence, you want to Dems cheaters and/or brain-damaged morons - all because we will not just take your word on this election. Brilliant !

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

How come you can't show that evidence?


Mar 15, 2021, 7:58 AM [ in reply to Not to mention >100% voter turnout in several key ]

How come all of you who claim this can't? You go on and on about evidence, but when challenged for it, you can't produce it.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent


Mar 14, 2021, 10:51 AM [ in reply to Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent ]

I am kind of a moderate. That said, long story short you have nothing. That stuff you believe is bat shyatt crazy. Yikes. Are you Q?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Please provide credible links. We've asked before.


Mar 14, 2021, 11:03 AM [ in reply to Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent ]

The burden of proof is on you. Show evidence of your claims and show that only Democrats did this and in massive numbers.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent


Mar 14, 2021, 11:12 AM [ in reply to Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent ]

Not a single one of these cases stood up in court.

Not. A. Single. One.

How do you explain that? And a good many of those were kicked out with extreme irritation...by judges Trump himself appointed. It wasn't that they "ran out of time". It was that they didn't have a shred of freaking evidence.

The sad reality was, if you go through the court minutes, a lot of times, Rudy and his "elite strike team" weren't really even arguing fraud. They'd go into a Court - often utterly unprepared - argue some monkeyshines yahoo argument they'd thrown together in the hotel room the night before about observers being too far or too close or this procedure or that procedure or whatnot, argue and hem or haw or whatnot, and drag and stall and basically just gum things up for awhile until the judge finally had enough and tossed the case. It happened pretty much across the board.

Everywhere.

Rudy and Elite Legal Strike Team weren't really even there to win. They were just there to "appear in court." Then they'd go on outside, and, free of the burden of actual proof, and with cameras rolling, proceed to tell the credulous good viewers of Fox News and OAN and NewsMax cockamamie conspiracy theories that had absolutely nothing with whatever ambulance-chaser Jethro crap they'd just gotten thrown out of the courtroom. And of course, Fox and Newsmax and OAN would pick it right up and run with those conspiracy theories while the actual reporters on hand just shook their heads in sheer disbelief at how blatantly this stupid was being sold to their viewing audiences.

That's the world we're living in right now.

Again, there's a reason Team Trump was basically 0-for-60 in court cases. Because, you know, evidence. When your team is 0-for-60 in actual court that requires actual evidence, you might want to look at the story your so-called "media" is telling you, you know?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent


Mar 14, 2021, 1:29 PM

There was evidence, the evidence was not presented due to standing. At least be factual. 1000’s of sworn affidavits, never heard in court. Not, that they didn’t exist...NEVER HEARD.

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent


Mar 14, 2021, 12:15 PM [ in reply to Re: Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent ]

elwyn

Ballot harvesting with bribes - evidence, please
Dominion irregularities - evidence, please
Mail-Ins from dead people - evidence, please
Mail-Ins from non-residents - evidence, please
Mail-Ins from non-existing addresses - evidence, please
Very irregular polling activities with obvious bias and fraud -evidence, please

You seem to be taking all of these suspicions and innuendoes and granting them gravitas without any supporting evidence. Why would you do that ?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No, it wasn't.


Mar 14, 2021, 1:50 PM [ in reply to Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent ]

And no, there isn't any evidence there was. Plain and simple.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


If you're going to keep saying stupid stuff on here....


Mar 15, 2021, 7:59 AM [ in reply to Not a Trump voter, but it was obviously a fraudulent ]

can you at least TRY to back it up?

Otherwise, it's pretty boring.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not stolen


Mar 14, 2021, 10:28 AM

A little home cooking here and there? Probably
Enough to change the election? No (not even close)
Would I have supported much less tried to attend an insurrection? Hayul no
Were some flaws of our election process exposed? Yes
Make a limit on vote differential to allow a challenge of the results


Make a National holiday to give people the opportunity to get out and vote
Requests for absentee ballots
Don’t continue counting votes after Election Day
Maybe next time we won’t have two chit candidates

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Not stolen


Mar 14, 2021, 10:53 AM

They can't understand why the yachting community parades didn't sway the election.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Each election reminds me of this quote, and every time it


Mar 14, 2021, 11:35 AM [ in reply to Not stolen ]

becomes more and more true:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Trump definitely fits the "moron" category. Only a moron


Mar 14, 2021, 12:21 PM

would call the Georgia Secretary of State asking for the Secretary to "find" 11,800 votes for Trump so he could win the 2020 Georgia nomination for President. This is one of Trump's two federal cases that he will most definitely lose. Every word of the call was recorded by the Georgia Secretary of State, and just about everyone in the U.S. has heard the tape.

Only a "moron" would do something that stupid.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


They lost the ballots. The remedy to losing something is


Mar 14, 2021, 12:52 PM

to find it. You should stop believing everything you see on TV.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: They lost the ballots. The remedy to losing something is


Mar 14, 2021, 1:05 PM

Link to proof they lost ballots?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Of course he can't. The courts had already told Trump


Mar 14, 2021, 1:58 PM

there were no fraud cases in the Georgia election.


The call to the Georgia Secretary of State is a huge worry for Trump right now. That, along with the New York Tax Fraud case that is also a federal case. Trump admitted to friends he is worried about conviction on one or more of these cases.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Have you not heard the call? Trump called after the Courts


Mar 14, 2021, 1:51 PM [ in reply to They lost the ballots. The remedy to losing something is ]

threw out the poor effort from Trump's council.

On the phone call recorded by the Republican Georgia Secretary of State was to protect himself from Trump's illegal attempt to move votes.

Again, some of you guys are too much.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: They lost the ballots. The remedy to losing something is


Mar 14, 2021, 6:26 PM [ in reply to They lost the ballots. The remedy to losing something is ]

Tom

I'll stop believing everything I see on TV if you will tell me the source of your info. Deal ?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The combination 0 for 60 and trumps credibility


Mar 14, 2021, 7:59 PM

makes anyone who believes that Trump really won the election a complete dishonest sore loser fraud, or a very naïve unintelligent person.

I am going to repeat what I have repeated many times in posts on this forum. But it bears repeating because it’s so important. First, Trump has never admitted to lose anything in his entire life. When he lost to Cruz in the Iowa primary, (don’t go there with biased media because Cruz of course is a Republican as well) he claimed there was voter fraud repeatedly over Twitter. He started suggesting the election was rigged a few weeks before 2016 election with Hillary because he thought he was going to lose. He won the EC vote, and he claimed he would’ve won the popular vote if it weren’t for voter fraud. He set up a commission and they found nothing.

How can you not see the pattern here? If you can’t see it,you’re an idiot. You just are, I’m sorry. Trump has no credibility as it relates to the truth. That is just a fact. His credibility combined with him losing all these court cases with many Republican judges that he appointed should shut everyone up. Amazing to me that it doesn’t.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Prove that they lost them.***


Mar 15, 2021, 7:57 AM [ in reply to They lost the ballots. The remedy to losing something is ]



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Do you believe Joe Biden got 11,770,408 more votes


Mar 15, 2021, 8:42 AM

Than Saint Barack Obama ever did ?

The oldest crustiest white guy ever to run?

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Do you believe Joe Biden got 11,770,408 more votes


Mar 15, 2021, 9:11 AM

You don't understand how he did? It's pretty straightforward. Trump was polarizing and it got people to vote him and his cult out. Kind of surprising that you can't see the obvious. They were voted against Trump. Of course Biden isn't as smooth as Obama. People wanted Trump gone. They were voted against Trump.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So that's the best you got?


Mar 15, 2021, 9:33 AM [ in reply to Do you believe Joe Biden got 11,770,408 more votes ]

You don't BELIEVE it could have happened so therefore fraud?

Y'all completely embarrass yourselves when people ask you for real evidence.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

[Catahoula] used to be almost solely a PnR rascal, but now has adopted shidpoasting with a passion. -bengaline

You are the meme master. - RPMcMurphy®

Trump is not a phony. - RememberTheDanny


Replies: 49
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic