What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Maricopa County Presidential Election Fraud Confirmed. It's a Disgrace!

TheDefiantOne

Gold Member
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
455
Points
173
Of course you are done, I am sure you can't rehash that tired rant of yours.

You were all up on your high horse going on about Benghazi until I used your link to show you are wrong.

So easily wrong about benghazi, after trying to show proof, shows me and everyone else you don't know anything about that which post.

Now how about another great rant how when I quote your link that is somehow a SOS.

Later I will requote. Just to make sure you can't miss the fact that I can use your links to show how you can't comprehend what you link to

Benghazi, your link proved you wrong.
Wrong again, genius Maricopa County Presidential Election Fraud Confirmed. It's a Disgrace!

Carry on.
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,812
Reaction score
2,235
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
As usual, your intellectual dishonesty/myopia and general bias interferes with your ability to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY. Here is the other part of the link that you ignored:

In response, the administration and its defenders often note that House Republicans repeatedly cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for diplomatic security in the two years before the attack. Moreover, two of the four people killed during the attack were defending the CIA annex about a mile away from the mission, and American personnel were also forced to withdraw from that more heavily fortified annex.

In short: counterfactuals are always hard, so it’s tough to say whether or not the State Department could have stopped this specific attack had it better fortified the mission or been better funded.


Got that, genius? I hope so, because your laughable predictions and threats to "...exhaust all info in your link" should be most entertaining if what you posted above is any indication of your intelligence (or intellectual impotence, to be more precise). And remember, YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT I PROVIDED NO LINKS TO BACK UP WHAT I STATE. Clearly, you were wrong, but like Cheeto Jeezus, being adult enough to admit error isn't in your DNA. Carry on.
Obama went into libya with our military, nato, and the United nations approval. He attacked and destroyed ghadaffi, who was fighting a war that had led up to the terrorists being in their last stronghold, benghazi. There was never ever any security in benghazi.

The repot does state that Obama could of fortified the consulate and he should of.

From your link. Proving you wrong.

”found the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the US Mission.” The report focuses much of the blame on the State Department, suggesting its officials in charge of diplomatic security should have followed the CIA’s lead and fortified its Benghazi outpost."
 

TheDefiantOne

Gold Member
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
455
Points
173
TheDefiantOne said:
As usual, your intellectual dishonesty/myopia and general bias interferes with your ability to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY. Here is the other part of the link that you ignored:

In response, the administration and its defenders often note that House Republicans repeatedly cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for diplomatic security in the two years before the attack. Moreover, two of the four people killed during the attack were defending the CIA annex about a mile away from the mission, and American personnel were also forced to withdraw from that more heavily fortified annex.

In short: counterfactuals are always hard, so it’s tough to say whether or not the State Department could have stopped this specific attack had it better fortified the mission or been better funded.


Got that, genius? I hope so, because your laughable predictions and threats to "...exhaust all info in your link" should be most entertaining if what you posted above is any indication of your intelligence (or intellectual impotence, to be more precise). And remember, YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT I PROVIDED NO LINKS TO BACK UP WHAT I STATE. Clearly, you were wrong, but like Cheeto Jeezus, being adult enough to admit error isn't in your DNA. Carry on.



Obama went into libya with our military, nato, and the United nations approval. He attacked and destroyed ghadaffi, who was fighting a war that had led up to the terrorists being in their last stronghold, benghazi. There was never ever any security in benghazi.

The repot does state that Obama could of fortified the consulate and he should of.

From your link. Proving you wrong.

”found the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the US Mission.” The report focuses much of the blame on the State Department, suggesting its officials in charge of diplomatic security should have followed the CIA’s lead and fortified its Benghazi outpost."
So you just ignore the information in the link that you don't like....especially the summation....and just double down on your previous rhetoric to make a false claim that the article wholly supports your opinion.

:rolleyes:
Anyone with a G.E.D. in reading comprehension can clearly see the major flaw in your "logic". My previous assessment of you stands, as you have proven here. So unless you've got something other than the insipidly stubborn parroting of the SOS, I'd say we're done here.
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,812
Reaction score
2,235
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
So you just ignore the information in the link that you don't like....especially the summation....and just double down on your previous rhetoric to make a false claim that the article wholly supports your opinion.

:rolleyes:
Anyone with a G.E.D. in reading comprehension can clearly see the major flaw in your "logic". My previous assessment of you stands, as you have proven here. So unless you've got something other than the insipidly stubborn parroting of the SOS, I'd say we're done here.
I quoted your link. Here it is again, from your link.

”found the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the US Mission.” The report focuses much of the blame on the State Department, suggesting its officials in charge of diplomatic security should have followed the CIA’s lead and fortified its Benghazi outpost."
 

TheDefiantOne

Gold Member
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
455
Points
173
TheDefiantOne said:
So you just ignore the information in the link that you don't like....especially the summation....and just double down on your previous rhetoric to make a false claim that the article wholly supports your opinion.

:rolleyes:
Anyone with a G.E.D. in reading comprehension can clearly see the major flaw in your "logic". My previous assessment of you stands, as you have proven here. So unless you've got something other than the insipidly stubborn parroting of the SOS, I'd say we're done here.




I quoted your link. Here it is again, from your link.

”found the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the US Mission.” The report focuses much of the blame on the State Department, suggesting its officials in charge of diplomatic security should have followed the CIA’s lead and fortified its Benghazi outpost."
And there you have it, dear readers....Another Maga blowhard reduced to blinders wearing parroting. The chronology of the posts shows my exposing his intellectual dishonesty/impotence and now desperate parroting. Once I've reduced these Maga minions to this level, I just dump them in the IA bin for a month or so....clears my board, doesn't give them a platform and is amusing to watch them dog my posts and threads like a bitch in heat.
And the beat goes on.
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,812
Reaction score
2,235
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
And there you have it, dear readers....Another Maga blowhard reduced to blinders wearing parroting. The chronology of the posts shows my exposing his intellectual dishonesty/impotence and now desperate parroting. Once I've reduced these Maga minions to this level, I just dump them in the IA bin for a month or so....clears my board, doesn't give them a platform and is amusing to watch them dog my posts and threads like a bitch in heat.
And the beat goes on.
Yet, you can not get by the truth? Your link is all I quote yet you claim I am wrong. You posted the link as a credible source.

As far as me responding to your comment, at this point it is just as easy to say you are attempting to get the last word in, as if that is a declaration of victory.

You blamed the GOP for benghazi and used a link about a report to prove your point. The link clearly states they had reason to fear benghazi and that it needed to be more secure.

Dog me all you like. That won't change the fact that Obama/Biden got our Ambassador to Libya murdered when it was easily preventable.

From thedefiantone's "proof", link. (And stop with your overly dramatic crying for me to quit responding with facts).

”found the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the US Mission.” The report focuses much of the blame on the State Department, suggesting its officials in charge of diplomatic security should have followed the CIA’s lead and fortified its Benghazi outpost."
 

Samofvt

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
353
Reaction score
286
Points
168
CYBER NINJAS: There were 9,041 mail-in voters who “were mailed one ballot but somehow two ballots were received, which I do not know how you would have one ballot sent and two received.”

THE FACTS: This isn’t unusual, and it’s not a sign of wrongdoing. The file Logan consulted, known as EV33, shows two returned ballot entries whenever a voter’s mail-in ballot has a signature discrepancy that gets fixed.

It would be helpful if you could state your position and experience level. You sound like you are talking as an "expert". I don't believe you understand what was reported in the forensic audit regarding the discrepancies between the Early Voter reports. Your statement above does not account for the discrepancies, even if what you say is true.

When a voter mails in a ballot with a blank or mismatched signature, election officials contact the voter. If the discrepancy is resolved, they enter a second record in the EV33 file, election officials said.

This clearly needs to be corrected, if it is true. They were not following AZ state election rules if they made a double entry for the same ballot.

“The appropriate conclusion to draw from this finding is that the early voting team was performing their statutory-required responsibility by reviewing signatures on all returned mail-in ballots,” Maricopa County tweeted in response to Logan’s claim.

If they were "performing their statutory-required responsibility by reviewing signatures", why are thousands of ballots clearly stamped "Approved for processing", even though there is no signature in the signature box? The above statement was debunked and whoever tweeted it should be under extreme scrutiny, if not in jail. Everyone knows the story about how after the polls closed, the managers got frustrated and told the workers not to even bother confirming signatures at all, even though the statute says they need "27 point" confirmation.

The legit press debunks each of CYBER NINJAS' claims.

AP is FAR from "legit". It was in years bygone, it used to seem unbiased and covered all sides of an issue. These days, they are a bought and paid for service of big tech media. By 2007, it was in deep trouble because they had invested hugely in online publications to try to keep up with technology (their print revenue had fallen by 70%) and couldn't find a way to pay the 100's of Millions it cost them. They ended up turning to companies like Microsoft's MSN (clearly a government funded mouth piece) and Google.

The AP's multi-topic structure has resulted in web portals such as Yahoo! and MSN posting its articles, often relying on the AP as their first source for news coverage....In 2007, Google announced that it was paying to receive Associated Press content, to be displayed in Google News

As a matter of fact, AP's main portal server (main home page website) (apnews (dot) com) is OWNED BY google. Remember who google is? They keep a low profile now that the majority of their people work in Inida, right next to Microsoft buildings.

I can see why the multi-billionaires would want to invest in AP if they wanted to "help out" with politics a little bit:

The AP has been tracking vote counts in U.S. elections since 1848, including national, state and local races down to the legislative level in all 50 states, along with key ballot measures. The AP collects and verifies returns in every county, parish, city and town across the U.S., and declares winners in over 5,000 contests.

I believe your a good person, Otis Mayfield. You made an effort to try to understand what's going on with these elections, and by God I respect that. More than most it seems.
 

DrLove

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
37,675
Reaction score
19,761
Points
1,915
Location
Central Oregon Coast

Jim H - VA USA

LET'S GO BRANDON!
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
3,469
Points
1,938
193dab401ba05615e7214e5c0b4f5df6e8ae93014abf5ed7570da9fdad142f99.jpg
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top