Many of us still think the e******n w*s f********t.
nwtk2007 wrote:
And yet, like Ted Cruz, we are told that they are "false" claims. But they are not. They are unproven and untried claims. Calling them false claims implies that the evidence has actually been examined and tried/adjudicated before a court system, and it has not been.
If it had been proven that there was no fraud and no improprieties dealing with the e******n, then they might have a point, but it hasn't been proven.
Stop calling them "false" claims. They are very real claims.
And yet, like Ted Cruz, we are told that they are ... (
show quote)
How dare you use logic in your arguments!!!!! LOLOLOL
2008: Obama - 69.5MM v**es
2012: Obama - 65.9MM v**es
2016: Clinton - 65.9MM v**es
2020: Biden - 81.3MM v**es
C'mon, man.
woodguru wrote:
Your point is as backwards as your party...
You don't prove something didn't happen, failing to prove it did is the proof that it didn't. The right cites cases that outlined what could have happened, which is where you take that possibility and provide the hard evidence it did.
Can’t prove what can’t be allowed!
nwtk2007 wrote:
But you DO need to prove that it was legit and it needs to be done in a court. It isn't like being asked to prove Gawd doesn't exist.
And by the way, some evidence HAS been presented but it was never allowed to be heard in a court of law. That's a fact.
Lots of evidence! First rule of dictatorship is to own the media!!
woodguru wrote:
Dozens of courts did exactly that, courts gave the fraud pushers the chance to prove it and they failed.
Never got the chance! You won’t find it on f**e news owned by the perps!
nwtk2007 wrote:
And yet, like Ted Cruz, we are told that they are "false" claims. But they are not. They are unproven and untried claims. Calling them false claims implies that the evidence has actually been examined and tried/adjudicated before a court system, and it has not been.
If it had been proven that there was no fraud and no improprieties dealing with the e******n, then they might have a point, but it hasn't been proven.
Stop calling them "false" claims. They are very real claims.
And yet, like Ted Cruz, we are told that they are ... (
show quote)
It doesn't matter how many tens of millions of i***ts believe something, a lie is still a lie...lies, false claims, wh**ever
LogicallyRight wrote:
I agree.
They are no more False claims of Fraud then the opposite being called proven free and honest e******ns. They weren't proven fair and honest and they weren't proven False. No court has had the guts to take on the issue and lead to discovery and a laying out of the facts after real forensic audits. Then clean up the v**er rolls and ensure free an honest e******ns for all and only eligible v**ers as established by law.
Absolutely correct.
Several states violated their constitutions and implemented illegal v****g practices, yet the courts did not endeavor to review.
Throw in the collusion of the democrats, justice department and media with everything from Russian collusion to Ukrainian skullduggery, sprinkle with media censorship then dump W***n flu on it- that is the recipe for e******n chaos. It is impossible to “know” who won.
In our fallible system we look to the courts for finality, and rightly or wrongly, the courts chose to not hear the evidence, thus appointing Biden to be inaugurated.
The RNC tecently declared Biden the winner. What took them so long? It was s year ago.
The RNC recently declared Biden the winner. What took them so long? It was s year ago.
pegw wrote:
The RNC recently declared Biden the winner. What took them so long? It was s year ago.
And still waiting on dnc to acknowledge “Crooked Hillary” extorted billions from foreign sources in 2016 in her unsuccessful attempt to buy the presidency of the USA, orchestrated the Russian collusion delusion, plus the media censorship of the H****r Chronicles (there’s a kid in Arkansas crying, “Where’s my dad?”), and on and on.
nwtk2007 wrote:
And yet, like Ted Cruz, we are told that they are "false" claims. But they are not. They are unproven and untried claims. Calling them false claims implies that the evidence has actually been examined and tried/adjudicated before a court system, and it has not been.
If it had been proven that there was no fraud and no improprieties dealing with the e******n, then they might have a point, but it hasn't been proven.
Stop calling them "false" claims. They are very real claims.
And yet, like Ted Cruz, we are told that they are ... (
show quote)
Count me in. T***p w*n by a landslide but they used a twisted e******n to achieve what they’d tried to achieve for more than 4 years. Get rid of Trump. We may never have a free e******n again.
woodguru wrote:
Dozens of courts did exactly that, courts gave the fraud pushers the chance to prove it and they failed.
Only the courts with Obama appointed judges. The Supreme Court refused to hear it because the Obama courts wouldn’t. We’re caught on a trap.
woodguru wrote:
Dozens of courts did exactly that, courts gave the fraud pushers the chance to prove it and they failed.
Baloney. The courts want nothing to do with exposing the s****n e******n. Their excuse was No Standing, not No Evidence.
No judge wants to be the guy who upsets the rotten apple cart.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.