PA House Introduces a Resolution: The Election Process Shall Be Declared Improper.

[Faun]

And yet, when push comes to shove, not one is brought forward in the various courts of law. Let's say, for argument sake, they have the proof. If you just say you have the proof and never present it first hand then your Lawyer is an Idiot. Okay, Rudy is an idiot but if the old firms had that proof THEY

You should get a copy of Rudy's presentation in Arizona today and you'd see all the proof they have. It's still going on if you want to catch the end of it on OAN.

It's disgusting the lengths they went to Sin against Heaven and The 93 Million People who voted for President Trump.

I'm surprised to find out that I am only 7/10ths of a person, according to Democrat Fraud Machines used in The 6 states that cheated.

Dr Shiva from MIT just proved Vote Swapping Live on TV at The Arizona Hearing.

130% of Democrats voted for Biden vs. -30% voted for Trump.

If you are a Republican, you are only 7/10ths of a person.

Based on the revelation from MIT Scientist Dr. Shiva, that Dominion Machines swapped votes counting Trump votes at 7/10ths of a vote, and Biden votes as 1.3 votes, here are the actual legal vote totals for the 2020 Election

President Trump 98,028,452 votes
Joe Biden 56,161,000

LOL

93 million voted for Trump?? You said 98 million voted for Trump. Whassamatter? Can't make up your useless mind, Stumpy?

 

[Contumacious]

When asked for Evidence, Rudy didn't have a single one. So don't blame it on the courts. Blame it on the Party of the Rump 3 ring Circus. And it's not a tough call on the SC, the lower courts have done exactly what they should be doing and that leaves nothing for the SC to rule on.

Now, get ready for that walk of shame that some of us did over 2 years ago.

He demonstrated the fraud. They have over 250 signed affidavits (some from actual poll workers) of fraud they witnessed. He showed how one county got 1,800 absentee ballot requests, and 2,500 were returned. Instances of people going to the poll only to be denied their right to vote because somebody filled out a mail in ballot in their name and sent it in.

Like the one from the USPS who recanted his sworn affidavit the moment it colided with scrutiny? Those affidavits may be evidence but you're not proof.

he didnt recant,,

Liar...

"I didn't specifically overhear the whole story. I just heard a part of it," Hopkins said in the recording. "And I could have missed a lot of it."​

​

"My mind probably added the rest. I understand that," he said at another point, adding: "All it is is hearsay, and that's the worst part."​

​

When an agent asked Hopkins in the recording if he would still swear to the affidavit's claim that the postmaster "was back-dating ballots," he replied: "At this point? No."​

​

​

thanks for your edited version of events,,,

LOL

Those quotes from Richard Hopkins are all in that link I posted. He recanted. He admitted what he heard is hearsay and incomplete and his own mind probably filled in some details. Even worse, when asked if he still swears to the affidavit he signed, he said, "at this point, no."

HE DID NOT RECANT YOU STUPID DING-A-LING


Project Veritas Releases RAW and UNEDITED Audio of 2 Hour Coercive Interrogation of USPS Whistleblower Richard Hopkins by Federal Agents


.

LOLOL

It's not my problem you don't understand English. His affidavit claims, "Weisenbach and Locke discussed how on November 4, 2020, they had back-dated the postmark on all but one of the ballots collected on November 4, 2020 to make it appear as though the ballots had instead been collected on November 3, 2020."

Only in that "raw and unedited audio," he admits all he heard was, "fourth ballots picked up." And then I heard them saying something about the [post]markings being on the third. One was [postmarked] the fourth. That's it.

... he then continues, saying everything else in his affidavit was based on his own assumptions ... I would say the conversation, the fact that I heard that they're, you know, based on my assumption on what I could hear was that they were post-marking them the third that were picked up on the fourth.

He even admits he never heard the word, "back-date," despite claiming in his affidavit that they back-dated ballots...

Strasser: "Did you ever, ever, ever hear the word, back-date?"​

​

Hopkins: "No"​

Then he recants the meat of his affidavit as Strasser reads directly from paragraph 3 from Hopkins affidavit (keep in mind, Hopkins didn't even write the affidavit he signed, Project Veritas wrote it)...

Strasser: "As discussed more fully below, I heard Weisenbach tell a supervisor at my office that Weisenbach was back-dating the postmarks on the ballots to make it appear as though the ballots had been collected on November 3, 2020 despite them in fact being collected on November 4 and possibly later."​

​

Hopkins: "Okay, that's definitely a lot more specific than what I would have"​

​

Strasser: "Would you agree with me that based on what you and I discussed today, that this paragraph, and I haven't read the rest of the affidavit, but this paragraph specifically, number three, has a significant amount of interpretation in it?"​

​

Hopkins: "Yes."​

​

Strasser: "And interpretation is not necessarily fact. Do you agree?"​

​

Hopkins: "Yes."​

In his affidavit, he swore, I overheard Weisenbach tell Locke that they “messed up yesterday.” But in the USPS office of IG, he changed that to, "I do not remember clearly if the words, "messed up," were used.

His 6th paragraph stated, my understanding of Pennsylvania law is that ballots cannot be counted unless they were mailed by 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. Weisenbach’s comments were deeply concerning to me and appeared to me to be an attempt by Weisenbach and/or Locke to improperly backdate ballots received after the legal deadline so these late ballots could be counted – something I understand to be illegal and against Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, I brought Weisenbach’s information to the public through Project Veritas.

He completely removed that entire paragraph from his claims.

Savvy?

He went from saying he heard them discussing how they backdated ballots on the 4th to be postmarked on the 3rd .... to saying he never heard them saying they backdated anything and that he "assumed" that's what they were discussing. And of course, there's...

Hopkins: "It [his affidavit] was written up by the Veritas' lawyer"​

​

Strasser: "That's fair, that's fair."​

​

Klein: "Okay. So, but, just so I'm getting this correct. As we sit here today, you wouldn't swear to that paragraph."​

​

Hopkins: "At this point? No."​

​

​

​

​

“USPS investigator Russell Strasser coerced Hopkins into doubting his original story, using psychological tactics to pretend there was a friendly and honest conversation taking place,” said James O’Keefe, the founder and CEO of Project Veritas.


James O’Keefe, and I , are going to night school in order to learn how to understand and speak English.

So bear with us.

 

[Contumacious]

You can't just say its legal and that makes it so.

It is against PA law to allow ballots to be "fixed." They are supposed to be discarded. The law says so.

View Document - Unofficial Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes from Westlaw

govt.westlaw.com

“No person observing, attending or participating in a pre-canvass meeting may disclose the results of any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls.”

The PA SC disagrees

They addressed this in their ruling.

Which, BTW, is made up of three Republican appointees. And the writer of the opinion was appointed by Trump.

Trump nominated a Judge to the PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


You are an ignorant piece of shit

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And yet, when push comes to shove, not one is brought forward in the various courts of law. Let's say, for argument sake, they have the proof. If you just say you have the proof and never present it first hand then your Lawyer is an Idiot. Okay, Rudy is an idiot but if the old firms had that proof THEY

You should get a copy of Rudy's presentation in Arizona today and you'd see all the proof they have. It's still going on if you want to catch the end of it on OAN.

I don't need to get a copy. How about the entire presentation.


This is actually more than they showed on OAN. Here is a bit more coming from the presentation directly from the OAN website.


One poll watcher testified she was certified to witness poll workers study questionable ballots, but was denied access to watch. The purpose of the public hearing was to collect evidence in the 2020 election, which would justify holding a special session for state lawmakers to investigate.

Meanwhile, retired Col. Phil Waldron also confirmed voting machines in Arizona used Smartmatic derivative software. He explained it’s a common software being used in the U.S. His testimony indirectly confirms the claims of potential Venezuelan and Iranian meddling in the election, which went through Scytl servers in Europe.

Waldron’s testimony confirmed foreign meddling was helping Joe Biden and switching votes away from President Trump. Attorney Sidney Powell said the Scytl server has since been seized and secure by who she called “the good guys.”

This is the same attack that was used in Penn, MI, WI, GA and it failed miserably when the Judges began asking questions for clarification.

I also reviewed the OAN presentation for Nevada done today. Again, it's the same tired BS that has failed in at least 4 other states. You can make all sorts of claims but when you can't provide irrefutable proof then you are just wasting a Judges time.

 

[airplanemechanic]

You can't just say its legal and that makes it so.

It is against PA law to allow ballots to be "fixed." They are supposed to be discarded. The law says so.

View Document - Unofficial Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes from Westlaw

govt.westlaw.com

“No person observing, attending or participating in a pre-canvass meeting may disclose the results of any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls.”

The PA SC disagrees

They addressed this in their ruling.

Which, BTW, is made up of three Republican appointees. And the writer of the opinion was appointed by Trump.

The quote I put up is FROM the PA SC you numbnut LOL

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has every right to interpret the Pennsylvania Constitution. Unless you passed the state Bar examination in Pennsylvania, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do you keep bringing up the PA Constitution when it has nothing to do with that?

It has everything to do with it. Penn Laws apply.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That's not "evidence presented in court" Einstein

Anyone can say shit on the Internet

We know for an absolute fact that in heavily democrat counties they were allowed to "cure" their ballots. In the major republican strongholds they were NOT allowed to do so. This is factual and indisputable. This is also not fair or legal.

According to the latest District Court of Appeals, it certainly IS legal. Okay, maybe not fair but the Republican strongholds can make it fair and even any time this wish by allowing the same rights that the Dem Strongholds allow. The Republicans in Penn created this huge ClusterF**k and now they want to deny the Dems their right to vote.

You can't just say its legal and that makes it so.

It is against PA law to allow ballots to be "fixed." They are supposed to be discarded. The law says so.

View Document - Unofficial Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes from Westlaw

govt.westlaw.com

“No person observing, attending or participating in a pre-canvass meeting may disclose the results of any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls.”

Wrong. The Ballot can be fixed if it's something small that the machine is refusing it like a stray mark or something simple. And in the Dem areas, the ballot can be rejected back to the voter and the voter has a chance to correct it and return it to the polling place as long as it's within the allotted time. Just because the Rep areas don't allow that doesn't mean it's illegal. It just means that it's illegal in those districts. You lost Penn, it belongs to Biden. Get over it.

 

[Faun]

When asked for Evidence, Rudy didn't have a single one. So don't blame it on the courts. Blame it on the Party of the Rump 3 ring Circus. And it's not a tough call on the SC, the lower courts have done exactly what they should be doing and that leaves nothing for the SC to rule on.

Now, get ready for that walk of shame that some of us did over 2 years ago.

He demonstrated the fraud. They have over 250 signed affidavits (some from actual poll workers) of fraud they witnessed. He showed how one county got 1,800 absentee ballot requests, and 2,500 were returned. Instances of people going to the poll only to be denied their right to vote because somebody filled out a mail in ballot in their name and sent it in.

Like the one from the USPS who recanted his sworn affidavit the moment it colided with scrutiny? Those affidavits may be evidence but you're not proof.

he didnt recant,,

Liar...

"I didn't specifically overhear the whole story. I just heard a part of it," Hopkins said in the recording. "And I could have missed a lot of it."​

​

"My mind probably added the rest. I understand that," he said at another point, adding: "All it is is hearsay, and that's the worst part."​

​

When an agent asked Hopkins in the recording if he would still swear to the affidavit's claim that the postmaster "was back-dating ballots," he replied: "At this point? No."​

​

​

thanks for your edited version of events,,,

LOL

Those quotes from Richard Hopkins are all in that link I posted. He recanted. He admitted what he heard is hearsay and incomplete and his own mind probably filled in some details. Even worse, when asked if he still swears to the affidavit he signed, he said, "at this point, no."

HE DID NOT RECANT YOU STUPID DING-A-LING


Project Veritas Releases RAW and UNEDITED Audio of 2 Hour Coercive Interrogation of USPS Whistleblower Richard Hopkins by Federal Agents


.

LOLOL

It's not my problem you don't understand English. His affidavit claims, "Weisenbach and Locke discussed how on November 4, 2020, they had back-dated the postmark on all but one of the ballots collected on November 4, 2020 to make it appear as though the ballots had instead been collected on November 3, 2020."

Only in that "raw and unedited audio," he admits all he heard was, "fourth ballots picked up." And then I heard them saying something about the [post]markings being on the third. One was [postmarked] the fourth. That's it.

... he then continues, saying everything else in his affidavit was based on his own assumptions ... I would say the conversation, the fact that I heard that they're, you know, based on my assumption on what I could hear was that they were post-marking them the third that were picked up on the fourth.

He even admits he never heard the word, "back-date," despite claiming in his affidavit that they back-dated ballots...

Strasser: "Did you ever, ever, ever hear the word, back-date?"​

​

Hopkins: "No"​

Then he recants the meat of his affidavit as Strasser reads directly from paragraph 3 from Hopkins affidavit (keep in mind, Hopkins didn't even write the affidavit he signed, Project Veritas wrote it)...

Strasser: "As discussed more fully below, I heard Weisenbach tell a supervisor at my office that Weisenbach was back-dating the postmarks on the ballots to make it appear as though the ballots had been collected on November 3, 2020 despite them in fact being collected on November 4 and possibly later."​

​

Hopkins: "Okay, that's definitely a lot more specific than what I would have"​

​

Strasser: "Would you agree with me that based on what you and I discussed today, that this paragraph, and I haven't read the rest of the affidavit, but this paragraph specifically, number three, has a significant amount of interpretation in it?"​

​

Hopkins: "Yes."​

​

Strasser: "And interpretation is not necessarily fact. Do you agree?"​

​

Hopkins: "Yes."​

In his affidavit, he swore, I overheard Weisenbach tell Locke that they “messed up yesterday.” But in the USPS office of IG, he changed that to, "I do not remember clearly if the words, "messed up," were used.

His 6th paragraph stated, my understanding of Pennsylvania law is that ballots cannot be counted unless they were mailed by 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. Weisenbach’s comments were deeply concerning to me and appeared to me to be an attempt by Weisenbach and/or Locke to improperly backdate ballots received after the legal deadline so these late ballots could be counted – something I understand to be illegal and against Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, I brought Weisenbach’s information to the public through Project Veritas.

He completely removed that entire paragraph from his claims.

Savvy?

He went from saying he heard them discussing how they backdated ballots on the 4th to be postmarked on the 3rd .... to saying he never heard them saying they backdated anything and that he "assumed" that's what they were discussing. And of course, there's...

Hopkins: "It [his affidavit] was written up by the Veritas' lawyer"​

​

Strasser: "That's fair, that's fair."​

​

Klein: "Okay. So, but, just so I'm getting this correct. As we sit here today, you wouldn't swear to that paragraph."​

​

Hopkins: "At this point? No."​

​

​

​

​

“USPS investigator Russell Strasser coerced Hopkins into doubting his original story, using psychological tactics to pretend there was a friendly and honest conversation taking place,” said James O’Keefe, the founder and CEO of Project Veritas.

Coerced? If he was coerced to recant his story, that means he recanted it.

Oh, and even Hopkins admits he wasn't coerced ...

"I have read the acknowledgement of rights and/or had it read to me and I understand it as set forth above. No promises or threats have been made to me and no coercion of any kind has been used against me." ~ signed, Richard Alex Hopkins.

@ 14:00 --


​

 

[protectionist]

For anybody interested, turn on OAN. They have a software expert testifying in Arizona talking about the smartmatic software and how easily it's manipulated. His claim is they found malware and algorithms that shifted votes. He also claims that the software was connected to the internet.

This has also been shown of Newsmax, the First, the Blaze, and America's Voice. Liberals won't watch it. They want to live inside the little bubble of leftist media "news" that tells them what they WANT to hear.

 

[protectionist]

Smartmatic software was not used in any of the contested states.

Upon what do you base that statement ? Or going you going to say the name was Sequoia ? (same thing) How many names do they have now > 19 ? 20 ?

 

[protectionist]

The Pennylvania Supreme Court disagrees with you,

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court are criminal, Democrat, Biden facilitators. After all is done, they'll be lucky to not be in a federal prison.

 

[BlindBoo]

More bovine excrement.

Clinton never tried to thwart the will of the Voters of any state by pretending there was wide spread fraud.

The Democrat party did. Russian collusion, phony impeachment, spying on Trump's associates........

The Democrats had no majority or power in Congress until 2019. Your guys just play a great victim.

 

[protectionist]

That's not what this Colonel is testifying to.

He’s far from the first person to pull this bait and switch.

What bait and switch? You should have watched it. Very interesting. Not easy to follow unless you're into the tech stuff, but I learned a little bit about it.

What he basically said is that the Dominion system can be easily manipulated because it was connected to the internet which it shouldn't have been. How to manipulate the system is even in the owners manual. The voting patterns are very similar to what happened in Venezuela where Chavez had the system rigged for him to win. The system was created for this reason--to provide a desired outcome. Even if there was nothing nefarious about what people in our government might have done, the malware they found gave "whoever" the ability to steal passwords the administrators used.

Bottom line is the Chinese could have gotten passwords to get into the system and rig the election for Biden. What he did find is that the votes in Arizona were uploaded to Germany. While we can get subpoenas to confiscate our machines and software for evaluation, changing the votes in another country and sending them back is harder to prove since we don't have international power to confiscate their technology for examination.

What this expert testified to should be on every MSM channel in the country, but we both know that will never happen. We are using technology that's can (and was in this election) easily manipulated.

They know all this. They're full of shit.

 

[protectionist]

The Democrats had no majority or power in Congress until 2019. Your guys just play a great victim.

That doesn't make the frauds OK, in any way.

 

[protectionist]

I told no lie.

What about THAT, right there ?

 

[BlindBoo]

The Democrats had no majority or power in Congress until 2019. Your guys just play a great victim.

That doesn't make the frauds OK, in any way.

There are no wide spread voter fraud schemes.

Unless of course it also involved the CIA and the FBI and the DOJ.......then....

Bee a Fred, Bee berry a Fred.

 

[Faun]

I told no lie.

What about THAT, right there ?

What about it, gramps?

 

[Faun]

When asked for Evidence, Rudy didn't have a single one. So don't blame it on the courts. Blame it on the Party of the Rump 3 ring Circus. And it's not a tough call on the SC, the lower courts have done exactly what they should be doing and that leaves nothing for the SC to rule on.

Now, get ready for that walk of shame that some of us did over 2 years ago.

He demonstrated the fraud. They have over 250 signed affidavits (some from actual poll workers) of fraud they witnessed. He showed how one county got 1,800 absentee ballot requests, and 2,500 were returned. Instances of people going to the poll only to be denied their right to vote because somebody filled out a mail in ballot in their name and sent it in.

Like the one from the USPS who recanted his sworn affidavit the moment it colided with scrutiny? Those affidavits may be evidence but you're not proof.

he didnt recant,,

Liar...

"I didn't specifically overhear the whole story. I just heard a part of it," Hopkins said in the recording. "And I could have missed a lot of it."​

​

"My mind probably added the rest. I understand that," he said at another point, adding: "All it is is hearsay, and that's the worst part."​

​

When an agent asked Hopkins in the recording if he would still swear to the affidavit's claim that the postmaster "was back-dating ballots," he replied: "At this point? No."​

​

​

thanks for your edited version of events,,,

LOL

Those quotes from Richard Hopkins are all in that link I posted. He recanted. He admitted what he heard is hearsay and incomplete and his own mind probably filled in some details. Even worse, when asked if he still swears to the affidavit he signed, he said, "at this point, no."

HE DID NOT RECANT YOU STUPID DING-A-LING


Project Veritas Releases RAW and UNEDITED Audio of 2 Hour Coercive Interrogation of USPS Whistleblower Richard Hopkins by Federal Agents


.

LOLOL

It's not my problem you don't understand English. His affidavit claims, "Weisenbach and Locke discussed how on November 4, 2020, they had back-dated the postmark on all but one of the ballots collected on November 4, 2020 to make it appear as though the ballots had instead been collected on November 3, 2020."

Only in that "raw and unedited audio," he admits all he heard was, "fourth ballots picked up." And then I heard them saying something about the [post]markings being on the third. One was [postmarked] the fourth. That's it.

... he then continues, saying everything else in his affidavit was based on his own assumptions ... I would say the conversation, the fact that I heard that they're, you know, based on my assumption on what I could hear was that they were post-marking them the third that were picked up on the fourth.

He even admits he never heard the word, "back-date," despite claiming in his affidavit that they back-dated ballots...

Strasser: "Did you ever, ever, ever hear the word, back-date?"​

​

Hopkins: "No"​

Then he recants the meat of his affidavit as Strasser reads directly from paragraph 3 from Hopkins affidavit (keep in mind, Hopkins didn't even write the affidavit he signed, Project Veritas wrote it)...

Strasser: "As discussed more fully below, I heard Weisenbach tell a supervisor at my office that Weisenbach was back-dating the postmarks on the ballots to make it appear as though the ballots had been collected on November 3, 2020 despite them in fact being collected on November 4 and possibly later."​

​

Hopkins: "Okay, that's definitely a lot more specific than what I would have"​

​

Strasser: "Would you agree with me that based on what you and I discussed today, that this paragraph, and I haven't read the rest of the affidavit, but this paragraph specifically, number three, has a significant amount of interpretation in it?"​

​

Hopkins: "Yes."​

​

Strasser: "And interpretation is not necessarily fact. Do you agree?"​

​

Hopkins: "Yes."​

In his affidavit, he swore, I overheard Weisenbach tell Locke that they “messed up yesterday.” But in the USPS office of IG, he changed that to, "I do not remember clearly if the words, "messed up," were used.

His 6th paragraph stated, my understanding of Pennsylvania law is that ballots cannot be counted unless they were mailed by 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. Weisenbach’s comments were deeply concerning to me and appeared to me to be an attempt by Weisenbach and/or Locke to improperly backdate ballots received after the legal deadline so these late ballots could be counted – something I understand to be illegal and against Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, I brought Weisenbach’s information to the public through Project Veritas.

He completely removed that entire paragraph from his claims.

Savvy?

He went from saying he heard them discussing how they backdated ballots on the 4th to be postmarked on the 3rd .... to saying he never heard them saying they backdated anything and that he "assumed" that's what they were discussing. And of course, there's...

Hopkins: "It [his affidavit] was written up by the Veritas' lawyer"​

​

Strasser: "That's fair, that's fair."​

​

Klein: "Okay. So, but, just so I'm getting this correct. As we sit here today, you wouldn't swear to that paragraph."​

​

Hopkins: "At this point? No."​

​

​

​

​

Aww, poor, demented progressive hunter. The best he can do is mark my post with disapproval because he can't refute a word of it.

 

[Coyote]

get pretty tired of this "will of the people" when neither extreme viewpoint seems to give a damn about "the will of the people" - it's simply a phrase they use to try and gain sympathy for THEIR viewpoint.

When we have a record turn out election, with both candidates getting a record number of votes, EVER in our history, and an interesting mixture of results that send out some pretty strong messages, then yes, I think we can honestly call this a reflection of the electorate’s feelings.

What did they say?

1. This isn’t a referendum on either party’s platform. It is a referendum on Trump personally with strong feelings for and against.

2. Take away for the Dems: you still aren’t getting it right.

3. Take away for the Republicans: Trump May control your base, but your base isn’t enough to win a Presidential election.

The people could not have been more clear.

this is not a legitimate election. the entire mail out ballot scenario were never tested, never secured, and so on. your assuming all is well. how come you're OK with totally redoing our voting process in favor of YOUR candidate yet suddenly are worried about THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

It absolutely was legitimate and your claims are false.

1. It was never tested.

Yes, it has been tested. A number of states have had no-excuse absentee ballots and mail in ballots for years as have members of the military.

2. “Never secured”
Also untrue. States utilize a number of procedures (varying by state) to secure the integrity of the ballot. These include signature verification, ballot tracking procedures, etc.

3. How come...blah blah blah. I never questioned the results of the 2016 election when “your guy won”, despite it totally upending the polls, with Trump winning some states with even more narrow margins than Biden and Trump, and, when he thought he might lose, seeding the field with allegations of rigging and fraud, just like he did this time. “How come” you never questioned the results?

Conclusion: we have a system for adjudicating election disputes. Each candidate has every right to dispute it, ask for recounts, apply to the courts. As we have seen, Trump has done that,and over and over, NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD has materialized. The election is only illegitimate because “your guy” lost, and is taking it to the Court of Public Opinion, since he lacks the evidence to win in court. His own lawyers even had to admit they couldn’t show fraud.

My opinion: Trump and his supporters are hoping to run out the clock on the certification through endless lawsuits, and have electors chosen by (the mostly Republican) state legislatures who would, of course vote Trump.

My question to you: is the above acceptable to you?

My claims are not false, you just don't like them.

And since 5his is YOUR OPINION, what difference does it make if I find it acceptable?

The left spent 3 years chasing RUSSIA when they created most of the evidence. They felt it valid to look into.

Great. Now the right finds this worth looking into and should be given the opportunity.

I want to make sure our elections and TRUE will of the people isn't being danced around cause you really really really really hate Trump.

Your claims are unsubstianted and laughed out of the courts of law.

But but but Russia!

Deflection.

here we go again.

no point in talking to you because you do this *every single time*. i try to establish what we're talking about and your clear opinion and you tell me i'm trolling and choose to ignore me for a week.

"deflection"? not at all. in 2016, "precedent" was set that if you question an election you can go nuts to attack the winner and make accusations. you can't allow 1 side to do something and the other NOT to do it as well. this is where we get our divides. different sets of rules for people based on "feelz".

i've tried to take out the "but whatever" and for a brief moment, we BOTH agreed to not do that anymore. you went right back to doing it and got mad at me for calling you on it.

now i try to do it and you again get mad.

in fact, i reply, you get mad. maybe it's not me.

Oh good grief Iceberg. You are an intelligent man. I just don’t get why you keep resorting to these type highly personal arguments. Get over it. I'm trying to. Can you?

You and I have some very distinct and different perspectives. You see Trump as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one. I don’t. I see Obama as uniquely and viciously attacked from day one (and on throughout Trump’s presidency). We do not agree here. That should be ok. I am ok with it.

When I answered your post I made a real effort to address the claims (not get personal) you made about legitimacy. From my perspective, 2016 was legitimate. Yes, the Russians attempted and did interfere, but they did not alter voting machines and there is no way to quantify what effect their disinformation might have had on the electorate. Fast forward to 2020. Trump starts seeding fraud claims as soon as it starts to look like he really might lose. None of those claims hold up in our courts. The fact that you, and others continue to push those claims is, IMO, disturbing.

We have a process of settling election disputes. And that is through our courts. But what I seem to be hearing is...the courts are wrong.

When you involve the judiciary in those evergrowing conspiracy...where does it stop Iceberg? You have a populist president, unwilling to accept defeat, slowly but surely destroying public trust in our very institutions of democracy.

In my view, even though it is highly unlikely, I find it incredibly disturbing that Trump and other Republicans would even attempt to have state legislatures override the vote and pick electors favorable to Trump hugely disturbing. Don’t you? This time it is Republican...next time it could be Dems. Precedents are set.

 

[protectionist]

Look at the anti-American Trump cultists

Trying to overturn the sovereign will of the people and steal an election

That's what you are advocating, and what Democrats are DOING. The the "sovereign will of the people" on November 3rd, was to re-elect Donald Trump. by a landslide. Everybody knows it.