Much like 2020, no winner has so far emerged from last week's Presidential election. Should the proper and lawful votes be retained and the unlawful and illegal ones thrown out, and then the resultant winner certified by the States, you may well hear cries from the left that the election has been taken from them...trouble is, nothing has been awarded yet, so there's nothing to take from either side...There is just no winner yet, but what there IS a lot of is emerging allegations, and now several factual proofs of mistakes, miscues, fraudulent activities before, during and after the election...therefore, it will take some time to go through and weed out the chaff from actual lawfully executed ballots that should count, and fraudulent, illegal ballots that should, of course, not count.
There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
(11-10-2020 12:20 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
If there's nothing, you have no problem letting them investigate
(11-10-2020 12:20 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
How's the view inside there? Recto-cranial inversion....
"There's been no proven mass voter fraud like this before therefore there's no mass voter fraud now"
Seems right.....
If only 32 cases of election fraud have been found, explain the 134 cases one social worker in Texas is currently charged with.
(11-10-2020 12:20 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
lol...Then why all the resistance to looking into these allegations? I would suggest that if there really is only 32 case of election fraud over 20 years (which sounds unlikely), it is because we dont really look for voter fraud. I have absolutely zero doubt that we could find 32 cases of voter fraud in a week in one county during this election. The Georgia head of elections basically admitted as much last night when he said when we do the recount and look for fraud---we will find fraud. I would also point out that France eliminated mail in ballots in 1975 because of wide spread fraud issues. It remains banned in France for the same reason.
Is the amount of fraud enough to swing the election? Probably not--but no reason not to check and see--after all, this is most wide spread use of mail in ballots that we have ever seen--so its absolutely
possible that fraud might be MUCH higher in this election (see France) than any other elections this century. The reality? The idea election fraud doesnt exist is false on its face and the policy of simply ignoring election fraud guarantees you will see more of it as time goes on.
(11-10-2020 12:25 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 12:20 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
If there's nothing, you have no problem letting them investigate
Lol. Yup.
Hillary paid to have Jill Stein look into a recount in 2016 in WI and MI and I didn’t hear lots of complaining then.
The more the left freaks about this the more I wonder.
(11-10-2020 12:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 12:25 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 12:20 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
If there's nothing, you have no problem letting them investigate
Lol. Yup.
Hillary paid to have Jill Stein look into a recount in 2016 in WI and MI and I didn’t hear lots of complaining then.
The more the left freaks about this the more I wonder.
If they were 100% confident Biden won they wouldn't be so dang jumpy..
(11-10-2020 12:45 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 12:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 12:25 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 12:20 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
If there's nothing, you have no problem letting them investigate
Lol. Yup.
Hillary paid to have Jill Stein look into a recount in 2016 in WI and MI and I didn’t hear lots of complaining then.
The more the left freaks about this the more I wonder.
If they were 100% confident Biden won they wouldn't be so dang jumpy..
They know there is a lot of fraud. Everyone knows Philly and Detroit are dirty.
I couldn't care less if they investigate.
At some point, you have to present evidence to back up your claims in court.
(11-10-2020 12:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 12:20 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]There is not one piece of actual evidence that has yet stood up to examination. Over 1,000,000,000 votes have been cast this century and 32 cases of actual election fraud.
Wild allegations continue.
lol...Then why all the resistance to looking into these allegations? I would suggest that if there really is only 32 case of election fraud over 20 years (which sounds unlikely), it is because we dont really look for voter fraud. I have absolutely zero doubt that we could find 32 cases of voter fraud in a week in one county during this election. The Georgia head of elections basically admitted as much last night when he said when we look do the recount and look for fraud---we will find fraud. I would also point out that France eliminated mail in ballots in 1975 because of wide spread fraud issues. It remains banned in France for the same reason.
Is the amount of fraud enough to swing the election? Probably not--but no reason not to check and see--after all, this is most wide spread use of mail in ballots that we have ever seen--so its absolutely possible that fraud might be MUCH higher in this election (see France) than any other elections this century. The reality? The idea election fraud doesnt exist is false on its face and the policy of simply ignoring election fraud guarantees you will see more of it as time goes on.
I recall reading Texas prosecutes many every year. Mostly on local elections.
And we know JFK stole Illinois in the 1960 election, if not the whole election. We know LBJ stole his first election to Senate.
(11-10-2020 01:13 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]I couldn't care less if they investigate.
At some point, you have to present evidence to back up your claims in court.
Not for recounts.. If you claim fraud then yes. Currently they have whistleblowers for some.. Refresh my memory... That was good enough to get impeached in the House right?
(11-10-2020 01:13 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]I couldn't care less if they investigate.
At some point, you have to present evidence to back up your claims in court.
The court cases are just getting started regarding fraud. You DO know that evidence is presented IN COURT not on social media or message boards (like any of us really know anything other than what we read in the media).
(11-10-2020 01:36 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2020 01:13 PM)JMU2004 Wrote: [ -> ]I couldn't care less if they investigate.
At some point, you have to present evidence to back up your claims in court.
The court cases are just getting started regarding fraud. You DO know that evidence is presented IN COURT not on social media or message boards (like any of us really know anything other than what we read in the media).
The majority have been thrown out so far as you must present evidence for a lawsuit to continue.
"But in Michigan, Georgia and Nevada, lawsuits either filed or hyped by the campaign were rejected for presenting no serious evidence of the issues they claimed.
A Nevada judge said on Friday: “Why do I grant extraordinary relief if you don’t have evidence to show the likelihood of success on the merits?”
https://www.ft.com/content/4942e1b5-e445...51777939a9