Courts Squash Democrats’ ‘Most Secure Election’ Lie:

[Lastamender]

The debate was not if they could overrule the state legislature, but how much power they had to enact changes. They still can change things, but their power to do so is now more limited.

None of these rulings have any impact at all on the 2020 election.

You mean the 71 electoral votes they stole stands. Tell us something we do not know.

 

[Lastamender]

Because Trump lost. That's all the evidence you need.

Evidence backed by the word of proven liars is not evidence.

 

[dblack]

Evidence backed by the word of proven liars is not evidence.

You can say that again. But I'm not sure anyone would believe you.

 

[Lastamender]

Has anyone been arrested yet for those?

The AG.is a RINO and did not press charges. You know that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You mean the 71 electoral votes they stole stands. Tell us something we do not know.

I mean they were not stolen. None of these court cases say they were stolen. All of these cases impact future elations and have nothing to do with the 2020 election.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The AG.is a RINO and did not press charges. You know that.

Everyone that does not kneel down and kiss Trump's huge ass is a RINO in your world.

 

[Lastamender]

Those courts rulings effects future elections and do not make the 2020 election any less secure, nor does it prove any amount of fraud.

It certainly does not do anything to disprove fraud, does it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Evidence backed by the word of proven liars is not evidence.

which is why everyone dismisses your every post, you are a proven liar

 

[BlindBoo]

Evidence backed by the word of proven liars is not evidence.

Exactly. That's why the Liar in Chief aka "Trumpyberra" was laughed out of most all the courts in every state his campaign tried to challenge in.

 

[westwall]

The ruling said nothing about the security of the election.

Yeah, it did. If there were no issues they wouldn't have made the ruling

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, it did. If there were no issues they wouldn't have made the ruling

The rulings were not about security of the election.

 

[westwall]

The rulings were not about security of the election.

Sure they were. If there were no issues, they wouldn't even have bothered to hear the case.

DURRRRRR

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It certainly does not do anything to disprove fraud, does it?

It is not their job to disprove anything.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sure they were. If there were no issues, they wouldn't even have bothered to hear the case.

DURRRRRR

The issues were not related to security of the elections.

 

[BlindBoo]

It certainly does not do anything to disprove fraud, does it?

Or lack of security for that matter.

 

[Esdraelon]

Pennsylvanians should think twice before passing a constitutional amendment for universal vote by mail.

I agree totally. Any citizen who is unwilling to be bothered to go to the polls on election day, doesn't need to be voting anyway. Of course, that excludes folks who actually cannot go due to lack of transportation or some debilitating physical illness. THAT situation is provided for with absentee ballots and until 2020, states required verification of who was voting. That was accomplished by having a record of a request from that citizen for an absentee ballot. Further, they had to sign their name on the cover envelope.

In 2020, the Dems used the virus, even though DC's finest were acknowledging that it was SAFE TO GO VOTE, as an excuse to mail out unrequested ballots in the millions. In the battleground states, there were numerous instances of those envelopes being "lost" or destroyed so that every one of those ballots should have been disqualified.

Once the Ds were firmly in control of a unified government the first thing they tried to do (after taking care of setting the dogs on Trump) was to attempt to codify the means used in 2020 by essentially nationalizing state elections, removing ANY REQUIREMENT to prove who was voting, and to allow unlimited drop boxes and ballot harvesting nationwide.

Had Manchin and Sinema not held the line - at significant personal and career jeopardy - the Left would have essentially pulled off a coup and taken permanent control of DC. Those here who argued that NOT passing that law amounted to "voter suppression" are either complicit or dimwitted, IMO. We've been chivvied into opposing camps by the media 5th column and even the concept of compromise has been lost. This ends BADLY.

I guess those on the Left will figure this out once they realize their media is going to be demanding more of them than they're willing to do to accomplish a Leftist/Marxist takeover of America. Only a fool would imagine that that is possible without massive chaos and violence. It's time for states who want constitutional rule to get together and have their own version of an Article V convention of states. We have to assume that DC and its media will never relinquish their stranglehold on the wealth and power of that cesspool BUT, if a couple of dozen or more states come together to negotiate a way forward while totally telling DC to F-O, then DC will have a sticky dilemma to solve. They can go ballistic and send in troops and lose parts of their own constituencies or they can try economic sanctions but if people are willing to do without luxuries and to dial back expectations in the pursuit of freedom, we would win.

The eurotrash that is paying to bring this about will settle for neutering our nation if they can't totally control it but they'd rather have our military as the top fighting force on earth AND under their control. By the time this nation becomes coming apart in earnest, that military will be a joke. It'll consist of a bunch of pansy-assed gender-confused, weak specimens that cannot fight a war even with their wonder weapons.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is digital evidence of wide spread fraud.

No there's not

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In 2020, the Dems used the virus, even though DC's finest were acknowledging that it was SAFE TO GO VOTE, as an excuse to mail out unrequested ballots in the millions. In the battleground states, there were numerous instances of those envelopes being "lost" or destroyed so that every one of those ballots should have been disqualified.

not a single battleground sent out unrequested ballots unless perhaps you consider NV to be a battleground state.

 

[westwall]

No there's not

Yeah, there is. You can choose to ignore it, but the phone tracking information is accurate enough for murder convictions, so it is accurate enough to prove the fraud that happened.

 

[Lastamender]

I mean they were not stolen. None of these court cases say they were stolen. All of these cases impact future elations and have nothing to do with the 2020 election.

All you are saying is they got away with stealing an election. The fact you do not care is on you.