* Evidense The Election WasStole*

[Kilroy2]

My only concern if there is this mountain of evidence why has it not been present in a court of law. Where they would have to provide the mountain of evidence. Instead of posting it on a website as if it is legitimate because they have a web site. Seems to me that it is the same thing that every right wing sources has been saying but now they have a website with a catchy name.

if they have this evidence, Trump has lawyers who would love to use it.

You can only introduce evidence into a court, if and when the court allows for you to do so.

And we know why the courts were unfavorable to Trump, it's because he was trying to fix them also (draining the swamp), and you know the courts wanted Trump gone because he was exposing their bullcrap also. I mean look at how bad the leftist judges were, and still are, where as they were and/or still are constantly making idiotic jaw dropping rulings that were steadily destroying this country's faith in the judicial system. Trump recognized the problem, and began fixing that too.

Oh yeah they hated Trump with a passion, but remember how Obama made the USSC justices feel in his disrespectful seating of them, uhhh during some event they had attended of his ?? I think his intent was to immediately break them down spiritually, and show them that he was in charge now. All very vague now, but I can remember it still.

Yeah Trump has appointed a number of judges. And they still did nothing for him. The supreme court threw his cases out even after appointing two of them along with the other conservatives on the court.

 

[Chuz Life]

My only concern if there is this mountain of evidence why has it not been present in a court of law. Where they would have to provide the mountain of evidence. Instead of posting it on a website as if it is legitimate because they have a web site. Seems to me that it is the same thing that every right wing sources has been saying but now they have a website with a catchy name.

if they have this evidence, Trump has lawyers who would love to use it.

You can only introduce evidence into a court, if and when the court allows for you to do so.

And we know why the courts were unfavorable to Trump, it's because he was trying to fix them also (draining the swamp), and you know the courts wanted Trump gone because he was exposing their bullcrap also. I mean look at how bad the leftist judges were, and still are, where as they were and/or still are constantly making idiotic jaw dropping rulings that were steadily destroying this country's faith in the judicial system. Trump recognized the problem, and began fixing that too.

Oh yeah they hated Trump with a passion, but remember how Obama made the USSC justices feel in his disrespectful seating of them, uhhh during some event they had attended of his ?? I think his intent was to immediately break them down spiritually, and show them that he was in charge now. All very vague now, but I can remember it still.

Yeah Trump has appointed a number of judges. And they still did nothing for him. The supreme court threw his cases out even after appointing two of them along with the other conservatives on the court.

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.

And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

 

[Care4all]

Sorry bout that,

1. The amount of, ***(unfounded)*** evidence is monumental.
2. To claim otherwise saying there is no evidence, makes you a *LIAR*.
3. You will regret that.
4. Here Is The Evidence

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

your composite link, first case ...went to link for it, in that link found the court case link....

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395

explains why Trump lost on all 4 of his charges/claims

it's an excellent read....very informative on how the law and judges work

YOUR GUY WHO PRODUCED YOUR CHART LIED ON THE VERY FIRST ONE'S DESCRIPTION....
He said,


Wisconsin SCOTUS rule Executive Branch misused "indefinitely confined"


when after reading the actual court case, they ruled the opposite.... leads me to not bother with the rest of this guy's list....

 

[JoeB131]

And he's so popular (the most votes for any candidate in history), that they can't have a public inauguration, are locking down DC, and are putting 25,000 troops on the street to keep order, right????

Why does that look suspicious????

I remember in 2016, they had to put Trump and his family in a bullet proof box.

And no one showed up on the mall, and he got angry more people attended Obama's Innaguration.

Obviously, you don't want to have a big public crowd when you are still having 4000 Covid Deaths a day.

And, yes, the troops are needed after you guys stormed the Capitol and there's still a lot of chatter you nuts will try something else.

 

[JoeB131]

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.

And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

The problem is you guys didn't have any "evidence". You had a lot of supposition, but no actual evidence.

That's why 60 courts rejected your claims.

 

[chesswarsnow]

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.
Sorry bout that,


And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

The problem is you guys didn't have any "evidence". You had a lot of supposition, but no actual evidence.

That's why 60 courts rejected your claims.

1. Dare yourself to go click on the link in the OP.
2. So much evidence, you are riding the tide of a stolen election, and say, "There is no proof the election was stolen, it was kicked out of court 60 times."
3. The proofs there you need to ask yourself why isn't the courts looking at it?

Regards,
SIrJamesofTexas

 

[August West]

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.
Sorry bout that,


And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

The problem is you guys didn't have any "evidence". You had a lot of supposition, but no actual evidence.

That's why 60 courts rejected your claims.

1. Dare yourself to go click on the link in the OP.
2. So much evidence, you are riding the tide of a stolen election, and say, "There is no proof the election was stolen, it was kicked out of court 60 times."
3. The proofs there you need to ask yourself why isn't the courts looking at it?

Regards,
SIrJamesofTexas

I clicked on the link and saw the same nonsense that`s been pushed for 2 months. If a ballot was received on November 4 or 5 and it had a Nov. 3rd postmark it`s a legitimate ballot. If any of that nonsense was valid the Trump appointed judges wouldn`t have thrown the trump lawyers out on their asses. The courts aren`t looking at it because they have legitimate issues to deal with. They are Judges and helping trump steal an election isn`t in their job description.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Keep up the bullshit, you will regret it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Kilroy2]

My only concern if there is this mountain of evidence why has it not been present in a court of law. Where they would have to provide the mountain of evidence. Instead of posting it on a website as if it is legitimate because they have a web site. Seems to me that it is the same thing that every right wing sources has been saying but now they have a website with a catchy name.

if they have this evidence, Trump has lawyers who would love to use it.

You can only introduce evidence into a court, if and when the court allows for you to do so.

And we know why the courts were unfavorable to Trump, it's because he was trying to fix them also (draining the swamp), and you know the courts wanted Trump gone because he was exposing their bullcrap also. I mean look at how bad the leftist judges were, and still are, where as they were and/or still are constantly making idiotic jaw dropping rulings that were steadily destroying this country's faith in the judicial system. Trump recognized the problem, and began fixing that too.

Oh yeah they hated Trump with a passion, but remember how Obama made the USSC justices feel in his disrespectful seating of them, uhhh during some event they had attended of his ?? I think his intent was to immediately break them down spiritually, and show them that he was in charge now. All very vague now, but I can remember it still.

Yeah Trump has appointed a number of judges. And they still did nothing for him. The supreme court threw his cases out even after appointing two of them along with the other conservatives on the court.

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.

And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

Sorry when they dismiss the case then it is a sure sign that they had no case. Sorry that they did not call and tell you why. Yet courts with conservative majority still shot him down. So those conservative majority judges hate Trump?


So when a number of courts from state level to the supreme court rule against Trump then your defense is they hated trump. Sorry hate has nothing to do with it.


The supreme court denial him because the lower court was correct in it judgment but the losers wanted to take it to the supreme court. , the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late.

It doesn't mean that he had a case, it just means that it is too late and too bad. IF they wanted to question the legality of the mail in ballot then they should have done it before the election instead of waiting after the election. Meaning don't waste our time because of being a cry baby. If you thought the law was invalid then you should have challenged it a year ago.


But , But , But

Arguments were heard by the judges at the lower level and they rejected the arguments of Trump lawyers and ruled in favor of the winners.

That is an explanation that the claims were not court worthy

Weak cases do not need to go thru the whole process. When Trump lawyers are using the coronavirus pandemic as a claim that voting rules were unconstitutional then that is not proving voter fraud. This case did not even make a claim of voter fraud. They just wanted the whole election of that state erased based on constitutional concerns which had already been litigated in the past.

lower courts had ruled that Trump and company lacked legal standing to pursue the case as well as any specific allegation or evidence.

Arizona Supreme Court upholding a lower court's finding that there was no misconduct, fraud or illegal voting in the general election.

at the lower level the court heard testimony and oral arguments, but all the lawyers could prove was a couple of local government mistakes that were done and corrected.

The state supreme court found that the challenge failed to present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes, or that biden did not get the most votes. or that there was sufficient error rates that could change the vote. Meaning irregularities have to be sufficient in numbers to show that it caused Trump to lose.

Thus Trump calls the state of Georgia and wants them to find 11,780 votes. Why because Trump lost Georgia by 11,779 vote

Now did what Trump did count as election fraud?

 

[Chuz Life]

My only concern if there is this mountain of evidence why has it not been present in a court of law. Where they would have to provide the mountain of evidence. Instead of posting it on a website as if it is legitimate because they have a web site. Seems to me that it is the same thing that every right wing sources has been saying but now they have a website with a catchy name.

if they have this evidence, Trump has lawyers who would love to use it.

You can only introduce evidence into a court, if and when the court allows for you to do so.

And we know why the courts were unfavorable to Trump, it's because he was trying to fix them also (draining the swamp), and you know the courts wanted Trump gone because he was exposing their bullcrap also. I mean look at how bad the leftist judges were, and still are, where as they were and/or still are constantly making idiotic jaw dropping rulings that were steadily destroying this country's faith in the judicial system. Trump recognized the problem, and began fixing that too.

Oh yeah they hated Trump with a passion, but remember how Obama made the USSC justices feel in his disrespectful seating of them, uhhh during some event they had attended of his ?? I think his intent was to immediately break them down spiritually, and show them that he was in charge now. All very vague now, but I can remember it still.

Yeah Trump has appointed a number of judges. And they still did nothing for him. The supreme court threw his cases out even after appointing two of them along with the other conservatives on the court.

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.

And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

Sorry when the dismiss the case it is a sure sign that they had no case. Sorry that they did not call and tell you why. Yet courts with conservative majority still shot him down. So those conservative majority judges hate Trump.


So when a number of courts from state level to the supreme court your defense is they hated trump. Sorry hate has nothing to do with it.


The supreme court denial him because the lower court was correct in it judgment but the losers wanted to take to the supreme court. , the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late.

It doesn't mean that he had a case it just means that it is too late and too bad. IF they wanted to question the legality of the mail in ballot changes they should have done it before the election instead of waiting after the election. Meaning don't waste our time because of being a cry baby. If you thought the law was invalid then you should have challenged it a year ago.


But , But , But

Arguments were heard by the judges at the lower level and they rejected the arguments of Trump lawyers and ruled in favor of the winners.

That is an explanation that the claims were not court worthy

Weak cases do not need to go thru the whole process. When Trump lawyers are using the coronavirus pandemic as a claim that voting rules were unconstitutional then that is not proving voter fraud. This case did not even make a claim of voter fraud. They just wanted the whole election of that state erased based on constitutional concerns which had already been litigated in the past.

lower courts had ruled that Trump and company lacked legal standing to pursue the case as well as any specific allegation or evidence.

Arizona Supreme Court upholding a lower court's finding that there was no misconduct, fraud or illegal voting in the general election.

at the lower level the court heard testimony and oral arguments, but all the lawyers would prove was a couple of local government mistakes were done

The state supreme court agreed " the challenge failed to present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes or that biden did not get the most votes. or that there was sufficient error rates that could change the vote. Meaning irregularities have to be sufficient in numbers to show that it caused Trump to lose.

Thus Trump calls the state of Georgia and wants them to find 11,780 votes. Why because Trump lost Georgia by 11,779 vote

Now did what Trump did count as election fraud?

Sorry I don't do speaking the gibbrish bullshitz you did spoken.

 

[Kilroy2]

My only concern if there is this mountain of evidence why has it not been present in a court of law. Where they would have to provide the mountain of evidence. Instead of posting it on a website as if it is legitimate because they have a web site. Seems to me that it is the same thing that every right wing sources has been saying but now they have a website with a catchy name.

if they have this evidence, Trump has lawyers who would love to use it.

You can only introduce evidence into a court, if and when the court allows for you to do so.

And we know why the courts were unfavorable to Trump, it's because he was trying to fix them also (draining the swamp), and you know the courts wanted Trump gone because he was exposing their bullcrap also. I mean look at how bad the leftist judges were, and still are, where as they were and/or still are constantly making idiotic jaw dropping rulings that were steadily destroying this country's faith in the judicial system. Trump recognized the problem, and began fixing that too.

Oh yeah they hated Trump with a passion, but remember how Obama made the USSC justices feel in his disrespectful seating of them, uhhh during some event they had attended of his ?? I think his intent was to immediately break them down spiritually, and show them that he was in charge now. All very vague now, but I can remember it still.

Yeah Trump has appointed a number of judges. And they still did nothing for him. The supreme court threw his cases out even after appointing two of them along with the other conservatives on the court.

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.

And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

Sorry when the dismiss the case it is a sure sign that they had no case. Sorry that they did not call and tell you why. Yet courts with conservative majority still shot him down. So those conservative majority judges hate Trump.


So when a number of courts from state level to the supreme court your defense is they hated trump. Sorry hate has nothing to do with it.


The supreme court denial him because the lower court was correct in it judgment but the losers wanted to take to the supreme court. , the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late.

It doesn't mean that he had a case it just means that it is too late and too bad. IF they wanted to question the legality of the mail in ballot changes they should have done it before the election instead of waiting after the election. Meaning don't waste our time because of being a cry baby. If you thought the law was invalid then you should have challenged it a year ago.


But , But , But

Arguments were heard by the judges at the lower level and they rejected the arguments of Trump lawyers and ruled in favor of the winners.

That is an explanation that the claims were not court worthy

Weak cases do not need to go thru the whole process. When Trump lawyers are using the coronavirus pandemic as a claim that voting rules were unconstitutional then that is not proving voter fraud. This case did not even make a claim of voter fraud. They just wanted the whole election of that state erased based on constitutional concerns which had already been litigated in the past.

lower courts had ruled that Trump and company lacked legal standing to pursue the case as well as any specific allegation or evidence.

Arizona Supreme Court upholding a lower court's finding that there was no misconduct, fraud or illegal voting in the general election.

at the lower level the court heard testimony and oral arguments, but all the lawyers would prove was a couple of local government mistakes were done

The state supreme court agreed " the challenge failed to present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes or that biden did not get the most votes. or that there was sufficient error rates that could change the vote. Meaning irregularities have to be sufficient in numbers to show that it caused Trump to lose.

Thus Trump calls the state of Georgia and wants them to find 11,780 votes. Why because Trump lost Georgia by 11,779 vote

Now did what Trump did count as election fraud?

Sorry I don't do speaking the gibbrish bullshitz you did spoken.

well said but could you repeat it again. because you really didn't provide any evidence of voter fraud that did cost Trump the election.

 

[Chuz Life]

My only concern if there is this mountain of evidence why has it not been present in a court of law. Where they would have to provide the mountain of evidence. Instead of posting it on a website as if it is legitimate because they have a web site. Seems to me that it is the same thing that every right wing sources has been saying but now they have a website with a catchy name.

if they have this evidence, Trump has lawyers who would love to use it.

You can only introduce evidence into a court, if and when the court allows for you to do so.

And we know why the courts were unfavorable to Trump, it's because he was trying to fix them also (draining the swamp), and you know the courts wanted Trump gone because he was exposing their bullcrap also. I mean look at how bad the leftist judges were, and still are, where as they were and/or still are constantly making idiotic jaw dropping rulings that were steadily destroying this country's faith in the judicial system. Trump recognized the problem, and began fixing that too.

Oh yeah they hated Trump with a passion, but remember how Obama made the USSC justices feel in his disrespectful seating of them, uhhh during some event they had attended of his ?? I think his intent was to immediately break them down spiritually, and show them that he was in charge now. All very vague now, but I can remember it still.

Yeah Trump has appointed a number of judges. And they still did nothing for him. The supreme court threw his cases out even after appointing two of them along with the other conservatives on the court.

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.

And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

Sorry when the dismiss the case it is a sure sign that they had no case. Sorry that they did not call and tell you why. Yet courts with conservative majority still shot him down. So those conservative majority judges hate Trump.


So when a number of courts from state level to the supreme court your defense is they hated trump. Sorry hate has nothing to do with it.


The supreme court denial him because the lower court was correct in it judgment but the losers wanted to take to the supreme court. , the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late.

It doesn't mean that he had a case it just means that it is too late and too bad. IF they wanted to question the legality of the mail in ballot changes they should have done it before the election instead of waiting after the election. Meaning don't waste our time because of being a cry baby. If you thought the law was invalid then you should have challenged it a year ago.


But , But , But

Arguments were heard by the judges at the lower level and they rejected the arguments of Trump lawyers and ruled in favor of the winners.

That is an explanation that the claims were not court worthy

Weak cases do not need to go thru the whole process. When Trump lawyers are using the coronavirus pandemic as a claim that voting rules were unconstitutional then that is not proving voter fraud. This case did not even make a claim of voter fraud. They just wanted the whole election of that state erased based on constitutional concerns which had already been litigated in the past.

lower courts had ruled that Trump and company lacked legal standing to pursue the case as well as any specific allegation or evidence.

Arizona Supreme Court upholding a lower court's finding that there was no misconduct, fraud or illegal voting in the general election.

at the lower level the court heard testimony and oral arguments, but all the lawyers would prove was a couple of local government mistakes were done

The state supreme court agreed " the challenge failed to present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes or that biden did not get the most votes. or that there was sufficient error rates that could change the vote. Meaning irregularities have to be sufficient in numbers to show that it caused Trump to lose.

Thus Trump calls the state of Georgia and wants them to find 11,780 votes. Why because Trump lost Georgia by 11,779 vote

Now did what Trump did count as election fraud?

Sorry I don't do speaking the gibbrish bullshitz you did spoken.

well said but could you repeat it again. because you really didn't provide any evidence of voter fraud that did cost Trump the election.

/iggy

Troll B Gone

 

[Kilroy2]

My only concern if there is this mountain of evidence why has it not been present in a court of law. Where they would have to provide the mountain of evidence. Instead of posting it on a website as if it is legitimate because they have a web site. Seems to me that it is the same thing that every right wing sources has been saying but now they have a website with a catchy name.

if they have this evidence, Trump has lawyers who would love to use it.

You can only introduce evidence into a court, if and when the court allows for you to do so.

And we know why the courts were unfavorable to Trump, it's because he was trying to fix them also (draining the swamp), and you know the courts wanted Trump gone because he was exposing their bullcrap also. I mean look at how bad the leftist judges were, and still are, where as they were and/or still are constantly making idiotic jaw dropping rulings that were steadily destroying this country's faith in the judicial system. Trump recognized the problem, and began fixing that too.

Oh yeah they hated Trump with a passion, but remember how Obama made the USSC justices feel in his disrespectful seating of them, uhhh during some event they had attended of his ?? I think his intent was to immediately break them down spiritually, and show them that he was in charge now. All very vague now, but I can remember it still.

Yeah Trump has appointed a number of judges. And they still did nothing for him. The supreme court threw his cases out even after appointing two of them along with the other conservatives on the court.

No reasons or explanations to indicate that any of the evidence and testimony was ever considered.

And some still act surprised by the uprising in DC.

Sorry when the dismiss the case it is a sure sign that they had no case. Sorry that they did not call and tell you why. Yet courts with conservative majority still shot him down. So those conservative majority judges hate Trump.


So when a number of courts from state level to the supreme court your defense is they hated trump. Sorry hate has nothing to do with it.


The supreme court denial him because the lower court was correct in it judgment but the losers wanted to take to the supreme court. , the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late.

It doesn't mean that he had a case it just means that it is too late and too bad. IF they wanted to question the legality of the mail in ballot changes they should have done it before the election instead of waiting after the election. Meaning don't waste our time because of being a cry baby. If you thought the law was invalid then you should have challenged it a year ago.


But , But , But

Arguments were heard by the judges at the lower level and they rejected the arguments of Trump lawyers and ruled in favor of the winners.

That is an explanation that the claims were not court worthy

Weak cases do not need to go thru the whole process. When Trump lawyers are using the coronavirus pandemic as a claim that voting rules were unconstitutional then that is not proving voter fraud. This case did not even make a claim of voter fraud. They just wanted the whole election of that state erased based on constitutional concerns which had already been litigated in the past.

lower courts had ruled that Trump and company lacked legal standing to pursue the case as well as any specific allegation or evidence.

Arizona Supreme Court upholding a lower court's finding that there was no misconduct, fraud or illegal voting in the general election.

at the lower level the court heard testimony and oral arguments, but all the lawyers would prove was a couple of local government mistakes were done

The state supreme court agreed " the challenge failed to present any evidence of misconduct, illegal votes or that biden did not get the most votes. or that there was sufficient error rates that could change the vote. Meaning irregularities have to be sufficient in numbers to show that it caused Trump to lose.

Thus Trump calls the state of Georgia and wants them to find 11,780 votes. Why because Trump lost Georgia by 11,779 vote

Now did what Trump did count as election fraud?

Sorry I don't do speaking the gibbrish bullshitz you did spoken.

well said but could you repeat it again. because you really didn't provide any evidence of voter fraud that did cost Trump the election.

/iggy

Troll B Gone

Never whenever there be liars I will shine a light on it

 

[Flash]

Damn!

Joe Biden once joked about China helping him become president

Say it ain’t Joe. Joe Biden once joked in 2013 about accepting Chinese help to seek the Oval Office, and the moment was caught on video still viewable on the Obama White House YouTube page. T…

nypost.com

Joe Biden once joked about China helping him become president

 

[Flash]

 

[JoeB131]

1. Dare yourself to go click on the link in the OP.
2. So much evidence, you are riding the tide of a stolen election, and say, "There is no proof the election was stolen, it was kicked out of court 60 times."
3. The proofs there you need to ask yourself why isn't the courts looking at it?

Hey, stupid, if there was so much "evidence", then why wasn't it presented in court? Oh, yeah, because if you lie in court, it's called Perjury, and you go to jail for that.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Read the evidence, it stands on its own, whether you want to regard it or not.
2. Go into denial all you want, but it won't change things.
3. Calling others derogatory names is the first sign you lost the debate.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Flash]

1. Dare yourself to go click on the link in the OP.
2. So much evidence, you are riding the tide of a stolen election, and say, "There is no proof the election was stolen, it was kicked out of court 60 times."
3. The proofs there you need to ask yourself why isn't the courts looking at it?

Hey, stupid, if there was so much "evidence", then why wasn't it presented in court? Oh, yeah, because if you lie in court, it's called Perjury, and you go to jail for that.

You are confused Moon Bat.

You little Moon Bat shitheads all know that the Democrats stole the Presidential and Senate elections the same as we Americans do. You know the that unverified mail in ballots were fraudulently created in the swing Democrat controlled districts. The evidence for that is overwhelming. If you somehow don't know then you are dumber than a door knob.

There was no audit to prove that the ballots were legit, despite the overwhelming evidence. The Democrats and the Swamp resisted having an audit of the contested district and got away with it. The greatest thievery in the history of the Republic. In fact it was a thievery of the Republic.

However, because you pathetic Useful Idiots want this country to be a Socialist shithole you are parroting the Democrat's dishonest narrative that there was no election fraud.

Like all Socialist revolutions you destructive little bastards think that the end justifies the means.

It will destroy this country but you stupid greedy Moon Bats don't give a shit because you assholes think you are entitled to have your welfare.

 

[August West]

More "evidense" of voter fraud.
South Park man charged with casting ballot in dead wife's name | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (post-gazette.com)

 

[JoeB131]

You little Moon Bat shitheads all know that the Democrats stole the Presidential and Senate elections the same as we Americans do. You know the that unverified mail in ballots were fraudulently created in the swing Democrat controlled districts. The evidence for that is overwhelming. If you somehow don't know then you are dumber than a door knob.

Guy.. nobody wanted Trump in 2016.
Nobody wanted him last year.

That's why he lost. He only won because we have this bizarre system for picking presidents we are stuck with because the delegates got tired and wanted to go home.

There was no audit to prove that the ballots were legit, despite the overwhelming evidence. The Democrats and the Swamp resisted having an audit of the contested district and got away with it. The greatest thievery in the history of the Republic. In fact it was a thievery of the Republic.

That's not true, either. For instance, in Georgia, the ballots were counted three times, and they came up with the same result. Wisconsin did just a recount of two urban counties, and Biden gained votes as a result.

It will destroy this country but you stupid greedy Moon Bats don't give a shit because you assholes think you are entitled to have your welfare.

Uh, guy, did you miss the whole last year. Plagues, massive unemployment, race riots... Trump already destroyed the country, now Biden has to fix it. Kind of like Obama had to do after Baby Bush and Clinton had to do after Poppy Bush.

Here's the American Political Cycle-
Republicans fuck things up for average Americans to benefit the rich.
Democrats come in and fix things.
Average Americans forget how bad Republicans fucked things up last time they were in.
Republicans find some bullshit cultural issue to get them to vote against their own economic issue.
Republicans fuck things up for average Americans to benefit the rich
Wash- Rinse- Repeat.