- Thread starter
- #61
That's what they're told!
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
POLL: Trump supporters, is this possible?
- Thread starter Mac1958
- Start date
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Yes, it is possible.I was unable to get a straight answer from a Trump supporter in another thread, so I thought I would ask this question to all of you.
Is it possible, is there at least a 10% chance, that more people actually did vote for Biden because (a) of their own positions on the issues are different from his, (b) their own perspectives, (c) their own personal priorities, or (d) their own life experiences?
Pretty straightforward question. Please feel free to expand on your answer.
Is it possible that Trump actually beat Biden?
Now, is it possible that, although Trump got more votes than any other presidential candidate ever, Sleepy Joe Biden got 6-8 million more votes?
That's where I start to get suspicious.
Is it possible that, despite the fact that in 2016, Trump got 62.8 million votes and Hillary got 65.9 million votes, totaling 128.7 million votes, IN 2020 Trump got roughly 8 million more votes than 2016, but Biden got roughly FIFTEEN MILLION MORE VOTES THAN HILLARY???
No, Mac. I don't think that is possible. I don't think it is possible that we went from 128.7 million voters to 154 million voters in a 4-year stretch, especially given the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for Joe fucking BIDEN.
Couple that with the magic overnight ballot fairies that appeared AFTER certain counties in swing states stopped counting for the night, now somebody has some 'splainin' to do.
But, you won't acknowledge that. You're sitting here like this:
So, while it is possible that Joe Biden, a guy who couldn't get 10 people to show up to his campaign events, did in fact get more electoral votes than Trump, I do find it highly unlikely and the bullshit above gives me good reason to suspect that he didn't.
Is that reasonable?
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 55,604
- 48,034
- 3,645
and yet there is not one bit of evidence to support what trump is saying...hell pence and barr have deserted the ship
dupes don't care ... as long as they feel like they still have a shot at 'winning'.
look at the ' election defense fund ' that donny got set up to rake in all kindsa cash from his dupes.
Trump 2020
Updated
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
By Jarrett Renshaw, Joseph Tanfani
9 Min Read
(Reuters) - As President Donald Trump seeks to discredit last week’s election with baseless claims of voter fraud, his team has bombarded his supporters with requests for money to help pay for legal challenges to the results: “The Left will try to STEAL this election!” reads one text.
But any small-dollar donations from Trump’s grassroots donors won’t be going to legal expenses at all, according to a Reuters review of the legal language in the solicitations.
A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show.
The emailed solicitations send supporters to an “Official Election Defense Fund” website that asks them to sign up for recurring donations to “protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day.”
The fine print makes clear most of the money will go to other priorities.
[ they won't bother to read it]
A large portion of the money goes to “Save America,” a Trump leadership PAC, or political action committee, set up on Monday, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Under Federal Election Commission rules, both groups have broad leeway in how they can use the funds.
The Trump campaign, the RNC and Trump’s new Save America PAC did not respond to requests for comment.
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
$170,000,000 has been raised so far.... gotta say - donny found a way to make money off of his failure.
So the dems don't like Trump fighting back and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.
So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime.
^ 'So the dems don't like Trump fighting back'
lol... fighting back what? his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?
^ ' and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense...
it's not for his defense - it's for his congame.
^' ... hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.'
it's over. accept it. donny lost bigley. Q girl.
^ ' So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime '
you're certifiable.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
By BRIAN SLODYSKONovember 11, 2020 GMT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump’s chances of reelection dwindled last week, his campaign began blasting out a nonstop stream of emails and text messages that led to a website raising money for an “election defense fund” to contest the outcome.
Like many hallmarks of the Trump presidency, the messages contained all-caps lettering and blatant mistruths about voter fraud during the Nov. 3 election.
They also mislead supporters about where the money would go.
Trump has promised to contest President-elect Joe Biden’s win in court. But the fine print indicates much of the money donated to support that effort since
Election Day has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.
The unusual way the Trump campaign is divvying up the contributions has drawn scrutiny from election watchdogs, who say Trump and his family are poised to financially benefit from the arrangement.
“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” said Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign finance attorney with the good government group Common Cause. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”
The Democratic National Committee and Biden’s campaign are also raising money for a legal fight over the outcome of the election. Most of the money is for the DNC’s legal account, though some of it will be routed to the party’s general fund, which doesn’t face the same spending restrictions. It could then be used to pay for ads, for example, if Republicans try to get ballots tossed out with minor — and correctible — errors, according to a DNC official.
Trump’s approach is far different.
The first few days after the election, money that was purportedly for the legal fight primarily went to Trump’s campaign for debt payment, as well as the RNC, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal. But on Monday, Trump launched Save America, his new PAC, which is now poised to get the largest share in many cases.
Save America is a type of campaign committee that is often referred to as a “leadership PAC,” which has higher contribution limits — $5,000 per year — and faces fewer restrictions on how the money is spent. Unlike candidate campaign accounts, leadership PACs can also be tapped to pay for personal expenses.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
that's why donny loves you long time.
Canon Shooter
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2020
- 17,673
- 14,513
- 2,288
The question is flawed. Rather, the responses are.
Someone can't answer that they believe it was possible, but that they don't think it was...
Someone can't answer that they believe it was possible, but that they don't think it was...
remember yalls mantra in 2016....we won get over it.....well now is time to eat *&^( an move on...we won get over it
So you elected a corrupt career politician who is guilty of everything you accused President Trump and more and you think it's a win? And you call others stupid, lol.
Wanna see 'stupid'?
and yet there is not one bit of evidence to support what trump is saying...hell pence and barr have deserted the ship
dupes don't care ... as long as they feel like they still have a shot at 'winning'.
look at the ' election defense fund ' that donny got set up to rake in all kindsa cash from his dupes.
Trump 2020
Updated
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
By Jarrett Renshaw, Joseph Tanfani
9 Min Read
(Reuters) - As President Donald Trump seeks to discredit last week’s election with baseless claims of voter fraud, his team has bombarded his supporters with requests for money to help pay for legal challenges to the results: “The Left will try to STEAL this election!” reads one text.
But any small-dollar donations from Trump’s grassroots donors won’t be going to legal expenses at all, according to a Reuters review of the legal language in the solicitations.
A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show.
The emailed solicitations send supporters to an “Official Election Defense Fund” website that asks them to sign up for recurring donations to “protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day.”
The fine print makes clear most of the money will go to other priorities.
[ they won't bother to read it]
A large portion of the money goes to “Save America,” a Trump leadership PAC, or political action committee, set up on Monday, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Under Federal Election Commission rules, both groups have broad leeway in how they can use the funds.
The Trump campaign, the RNC and Trump’s new Save America PAC did not respond to requests for comment.
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
$170,000,000 has been raised so far.... gotta say - donny found a way to make money off of his failure.
So the dems don't like Trump fighting back and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.
So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime.
^ 'So the dems don't like Trump fighting back'
lol... fighting back what? his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?
^ ' and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense...
it's not for his defense - it's for his congame.
^' ... hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.'
it's over. accept it. donny lost bigley. Q girl.
^ ' So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime '
you're certifiable.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
By BRIAN SLODYSKONovember 11, 2020 GMT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump’s chances of reelection dwindled last week, his campaign began blasting out a nonstop stream of emails and text messages that led to a website raising money for an “election defense fund” to contest the outcome.
Like many hallmarks of the Trump presidency, the messages contained all-caps lettering and blatant mistruths about voter fraud during the Nov. 3 election.
They also mislead supporters about where the money would go.
Trump has promised to contest President-elect Joe Biden’s win in court. But the fine print indicates much of the money donated to support that effort since
Election Day has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.
The unusual way the Trump campaign is divvying up the contributions has drawn scrutiny from election watchdogs, who say Trump and his family are poised to financially benefit from the arrangement.
“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” said Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign finance attorney with the good government group Common Cause. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”
The Democratic National Committee and Biden’s campaign are also raising money for a legal fight over the outcome of the election. Most of the money is for the DNC’s legal account, though some of it will be routed to the party’s general fund, which doesn’t face the same spending restrictions. It could then be used to pay for ads, for example, if Republicans try to get ballots tossed out with minor — and correctible — errors, according to a DNC official.
Trump’s approach is far different.
The first few days after the election, money that was purportedly for the legal fight primarily went to Trump’s campaign for debt payment, as well as the RNC, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal. But on Monday, Trump launched Save America, his new PAC, which is now poised to get the largest share in many cases.
Save America is a type of campaign committee that is often referred to as a “leadership PAC,” which has higher contribution limits — $5,000 per year — and faces fewer restrictions on how the money is spent. Unlike candidate campaign accounts, leadership PACs can also be tapped to pay for personal expenses.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
View attachment 425154
that's why donny loves you long time.
"... his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?"
Let's check:
“Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
CAMPAIGN 2020
Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
Extremely suspicious.
Published
7 hours ago
on
Nov 22, 2020
By
Richard Moorhead
Top of Form
Susan Voyles identifies herself as a participant in Georgia’s post-election recount in the affidavit, filed in litigation against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger by Trump campaign attorney Lin Wood.
Voyles describes seeing ballots that differed considerably from the other ballots she was entrusted to count in the remix.
Voyles describes the batch of ballots as unusual in their texture and level of handling, and that she estimates 98% of them were cast for Joe Biden. Voyles even speculates that these ballots could’ve been processed through a ballot-marking device!
Voyles earlier described election recount supervisors as tasking them to process ballots in a “selective” fashion. Boxes of absentee ballots were signed by no one, without markings one might expect the Georgia Secretary of State to outfit absentee ballots with.
Another witness describes viewing election workers count 500 straight ballots for Joe Biden, all of which were marked with perfect black bubbles.”
Georgia Recount Worker Describes "Pristine" Batch of Ballots - 98% for Joe Biden! - Big League Politics
===============================================
Georgia:
Suitcases of ballots pulled out during the night when there were no witnesses:
….and run through counting machines, over and over.
=========================================================
Did everyone see this whistle blower who saw the machinations in Democrat Detroit?
Ballots altered, Republican poll watchers kept out....
This lady was an IT employee of Dominion voting machines.
When she saw what was going on, she notified her boss, who didn't want to hear it.
Sworn affidavits are considered as evidence.
"Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center
By: Jay Greenberg |@NeonNettle
on 5th November 2020 @ 7.00pm
© press
The widows were covered in opaque cardboard by election officials
Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of the ballot counting room, blocking poll watchers from witnessing the vote count."
Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center - Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of... | NEON NETTLE
neonnettle.com
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.6.6.pdf
Computer expert: impossible that machine processed this many votes in this short time.
Colonel Phil Waldron Statement - Hearing On Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania - Nov 25, 2020
Colonel Phil Waldron is a retired army colonel, who served in the United States Military for 30 years. He spent the first half of his military career as an o...
www.youtube.com
Is a sworn affidavit evidence?
An affidavit is admissible evidence, although some courts may require you to testify to the affidavit or they may consider it hearsay. Since hearsay is not admissible as evidence, your affidavit may not be used for evidence if someone objects to it unless you testify.
What Is An Affidavit And When Are They Used? | LegalNature
AFFIDAVIT OF MAYRA ROMERA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Mayra Romera, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
.1 am a registered Democrat. 4.1 was interested in the election process in this country and wanted to be an observer in the Georgia recount process. 5. On Monday, November 16, 2020, I presented myself to Cobb County Poll Precinct located at 2245 Callaway Road SW, Marietta, OA. I was able to be on the floor observing the recount process in Room C. I observed the poll workers not calling out verbally the names on each ballot. They simply passed each ballot to each other in silence. 6. It was of particular interest to me that hundreds of these ballots seemed impeccable, with no folds or creases. The bubble selections were perfectly made (all within the circle), only observed selections in black ink, and all happened to be selections for Biden. 7. It was also of particular interest to me to see that signatures were not being verified and there were no corresponding envelopes seen in site.
… , I believe there was fraud was committed in the presidential election and question the validity of the Georgia recount process. [SIGNATURE AND OATH
AFFIDAVIT OF CQNSETTA S. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'SMOTTON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Consetta S, Johnson, declare imder penalty of pequiy that the following is true and correct;
. I was a volunteer audit monitor at the Jim R. Miller Park for the recount process on November 16,2020. 3. As a floor monitor, I could see by the markings that the ballots being audited were absentee ballots. 4. I witnessed two poll workers placing already separated paper machine receipt ballots with barcodes in the Trump tray, placing them in to the Biden tray. 5. I also witnessed the same two poll workers putting the already separated paper receipt ballots in the 'No Vote" and "Jorgensen" tray, and removing them and putting them inside the Biden tray. 6. They then took out all of the ballots out of the Biden tray and stacked them on the table, writing on the count ballot sheet. A copy of the video reflecting this is attached as Exhibit
AFFIDAVIT OF DEBRA J. FISHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF^S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Debra J. Fisher, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
On November 16,2020 I witnessed the various issues on military and overseas ballots. 3. All military and overseas ballots I reviewed were very clean. No bubbles were colored outside of the line. Not one ballot used an "x" or check mark. The ballots I observed were marked in black ink and were for Biden. Not one ballot had a selection crossed out to change the vote selection. 4. I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden. 5. I also observed that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate ballot and was due to the use of different printers. 6. Many ballots had markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot. This did not occur on any of the Trump ballots I observed. 7. Ballots were rejected because people chose 2 or more candidates. I found it odd that none of this happened with the military ballots. {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 4 8. The military ballots did not have one specific precinct code on them. Instead, they had multiple precincts printed on it (a "combo"), I challenged this as when this is done, you do not know what precinct the voter is registered in. 9. Based on my observations above and the fact that signatures on the ballots were not being verified, I believe the military ballots are highly suspicious of fraud. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. [SIGNATURE AND OATH ON NEXT PAGE] {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 55,604
- 48,034
- 3,645
and yet there is not one bit of evidence to support what trump is saying...hell pence and barr have deserted the ship
dupes don't care ... as long as they feel like they still have a shot at 'winning'.
look at the ' election defense fund ' that donny got set up to rake in all kindsa cash from his dupes.
Trump 2020
Updated
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
By Jarrett Renshaw, Joseph Tanfani
9 Min Read
(Reuters) - As President Donald Trump seeks to discredit last week’s election with baseless claims of voter fraud, his team has bombarded his supporters with requests for money to help pay for legal challenges to the results: “The Left will try to STEAL this election!” reads one text.
But any small-dollar donations from Trump’s grassroots donors won’t be going to legal expenses at all, according to a Reuters review of the legal language in the solicitations.
A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show.
The emailed solicitations send supporters to an “Official Election Defense Fund” website that asks them to sign up for recurring donations to “protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day.”
The fine print makes clear most of the money will go to other priorities.
[ they won't bother to read it]
A large portion of the money goes to “Save America,” a Trump leadership PAC, or political action committee, set up on Monday, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Under Federal Election Commission rules, both groups have broad leeway in how they can use the funds.
The Trump campaign, the RNC and Trump’s new Save America PAC did not respond to requests for comment.
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
$170,000,000 has been raised so far.... gotta say - donny found a way to make money off of his failure.
So the dems don't like Trump fighting back and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.
So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime.
^ 'So the dems don't like Trump fighting back'
lol... fighting back what? his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?
^ ' and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense...
it's not for his defense - it's for his congame.
^' ... hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.'
it's over. accept it. donny lost bigley. Q girl.
^ ' So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime '
you're certifiable.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
By BRIAN SLODYSKONovember 11, 2020 GMT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump’s chances of reelection dwindled last week, his campaign began blasting out a nonstop stream of emails and text messages that led to a website raising money for an “election defense fund” to contest the outcome.
Like many hallmarks of the Trump presidency, the messages contained all-caps lettering and blatant mistruths about voter fraud during the Nov. 3 election.
They also mislead supporters about where the money would go.
Trump has promised to contest President-elect Joe Biden’s win in court. But the fine print indicates much of the money donated to support that effort since
Election Day has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.
The unusual way the Trump campaign is divvying up the contributions has drawn scrutiny from election watchdogs, who say Trump and his family are poised to financially benefit from the arrangement.
“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” said Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign finance attorney with the good government group Common Cause. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”
The Democratic National Committee and Biden’s campaign are also raising money for a legal fight over the outcome of the election. Most of the money is for the DNC’s legal account, though some of it will be routed to the party’s general fund, which doesn’t face the same spending restrictions. It could then be used to pay for ads, for example, if Republicans try to get ballots tossed out with minor — and correctible — errors, according to a DNC official.
Trump’s approach is far different.
The first few days after the election, money that was purportedly for the legal fight primarily went to Trump’s campaign for debt payment, as well as the RNC, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal. But on Monday, Trump launched Save America, his new PAC, which is now poised to get the largest share in many cases.
Save America is a type of campaign committee that is often referred to as a “leadership PAC,” which has higher contribution limits — $5,000 per year — and faces fewer restrictions on how the money is spent. Unlike candidate campaign accounts, leadership PACs can also be tapped to pay for personal expenses.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
View attachment 425154
that's why donny loves you long time.
"... his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?"
Let's check:
“Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
CAMPAIGN 2020
Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
Extremely suspicious.
Published
7 hours ago
on
Nov 22, 2020
By
Richard Moorhead
A Fulton County, Georgia woman is describing handling a “pristine” batch of ballots that were marked “98%” of the time for Joe Biden in election recount duties, describing the suspicious phenomenon in a sworn affidavit.
Top of Form
Susan Voyles identifies herself as a participant in Georgia’s post-election recount in the affidavit, filed in litigation against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger by Trump campaign attorney Lin Wood.
Voyles describes seeing ballots that differed considerably from the other ballots she was entrusted to count in the remix.
Voyles describes the batch of ballots as unusual in their texture and level of handling, and that she estimates 98% of them were cast for Joe Biden. Voyles even speculates that these ballots could’ve been processed through a ballot-marking device!
Voyles earlier described election recount supervisors as tasking them to process ballots in a “selective” fashion. Boxes of absentee ballots were signed by no one, without markings one might expect the Georgia Secretary of State to outfit absentee ballots with.
Another witness describes viewing election workers count 500 straight ballots for Joe Biden, all of which were marked with perfect black bubbles.”
Georgia Recount Worker Describes "Pristine" Batch of Ballots - 98% for Joe Biden! - Big League Politics
===============================================
Georgia:
Suitcases of ballots pulled out during the night when there were no witnesses:
….and run through counting machines, over and over.
=========================================================
Did everyone see this whistle blower who saw the machinations in Democrat Detroit?
Ballots altered, Republican poll watchers kept out....
This lady was an IT employee of Dominion voting machines.
When she saw what was going on, she notified her boss, who didn't want to hear it.
Sworn affidavits are considered as evidence.
"Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center
By: Jay Greenberg |@NeonNettle
on 5th November 2020 @ 7.00pm
© press
The widows were covered in opaque cardboard by election officials
Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of the ballot counting room, blocking poll watchers from witnessing the vote count."
Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center - Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of... | NEON NETTLE
neonnettle.com
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.6.6.pdf
Computer expert: impossible that machine processed this many votes in this short time.
Colonel Phil Waldron Statement - Hearing On Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania - Nov 25, 2020
Colonel Phil Waldron is a retired army colonel, who served in the United States Military for 30 years. He spent the first half of his military career as an o...
Is a sworn affidavit evidence?
An affidavit is admissible evidence, although some courts may require you to testify to the affidavit or they may consider it hearsay. Since hearsay is not admissible as evidence, your affidavit may not be used for evidence if someone objects to it unless you testify.
What Is An Affidavit And When Are They Used? | LegalNature
AFFIDAVIT OF MAYRA ROMERA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Mayra Romera, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
.1 am a registered Democrat. 4.1 was interested in the election process in this country and wanted to be an observer in the Georgia recount process. 5. On Monday, November 16, 2020, I presented myself to Cobb County Poll Precinct located at 2245 Callaway Road SW, Marietta, OA. I was able to be on the floor observing the recount process in Room C. I observed the poll workers not calling out verbally the names on each ballot. They simply passed each ballot to each other in silence. 6. It was of particular interest to me that hundreds of these ballots seemed impeccable, with no folds or creases. The bubble selections were perfectly made (all within the circle), only observed selections in black ink, and all happened to be selections for Biden. 7. It was also of particular interest to me to see that signatures were not being verified and there were no corresponding envelopes seen in site.
… , I believe there was fraud was committed in the presidential election and question the validity of the Georgia recount process. [SIGNATURE AND OATH
AFFIDAVIT OF CQNSETTA S. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'SMOTTON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Consetta S, Johnson, declare imder penalty of pequiy that the following is true and correct;
. I was a volunteer audit monitor at the Jim R. Miller Park for the recount process on November 16,2020. 3. As a floor monitor, I could see by the markings that the ballots being audited were absentee ballots. 4. I witnessed two poll workers placing already separated paper machine receipt ballots with barcodes in the Trump tray, placing them in to the Biden tray. 5. I also witnessed the same two poll workers putting the already separated paper receipt ballots in the 'No Vote" and "Jorgensen" tray, and removing them and putting them inside the Biden tray. 6. They then took out all of the ballots out of the Biden tray and stacked them on the table, writing on the count ballot sheet. A copy of the video reflecting this is attached as Exhibit
AFFIDAVIT OF DEBRA J. FISHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF^S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Debra J. Fisher, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
On November 16,2020 I witnessed the various issues on military and overseas ballots. 3. All military and overseas ballots I reviewed were very clean. No bubbles were colored outside of the line. Not one ballot used an "x" or check mark. The ballots I observed were marked in black ink and were for Biden. Not one ballot had a selection crossed out to change the vote selection. 4. I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden. 5. I also observed that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate ballot and was due to the use of different printers. 6. Many ballots had markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot. This did not occur on any of the Trump ballots I observed. 7. Ballots were rejected because people chose 2 or more candidates. I found it odd that none of this happened with the military ballots. {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 4 8. The military ballots did not have one specific precinct code on them. Instead, they had multiple precincts printed on it (a "combo"), I challenged this as when this is done, you do not know what precinct the voter is registered in. 9. Based on my observations above and the fact that signatures on the ballots were not being verified, I believe the military ballots are highly suspicious of fraud. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. [SIGNATURE AND OATH ON NEXT PAGE] {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17
Latest Fact-checks on Big League Politics
| PolitiFact
Big League Politics
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.
Share:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate Big League Politics Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
By
Carissa House-Dunphy -
December 2, 2020
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
& counting.
oh & uh ---- lyn wood?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
Last edited:
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,468
- 32,443
- 2,300
I was unable to get a straight answer from a Trump supporter in another thread, so I thought I would ask this question to all of you.
Is it possible, is there at least a 10% chance, that more people actually did vote for Biden because (a) of their own positions on the issues are different from his, (b) their own perspectives, (c) their own personal priorities, or (d) their own life experiences?
Pretty straightforward question. Please feel free to expand on your answer.
He likely won the popular vote, but that point is moot. the issue is with the questions regarding the voting in Democrat controlled areas that flipped the States late from Trump to Biden.
- Thread starter
- #70
And yet, you can't prove any of that.I was unable to get a straight answer from a Trump supporter in another thread, so I thought I would ask this question to all of you.
Is it possible, is there at least a 10% chance, that more people actually did vote for Biden because (a) of their own positions on the issues are different from his, (b) their own perspectives, (c) their own personal priorities, or (d) their own life experiences?
Pretty straightforward question. Please feel free to expand on your answer.
He likely won the popular vote, but that point is moot. the issue is with the questions regarding the voting in Democrat controlled areas that flipped the States late from Trump to Biden.
The Attorney General, Republican governors, and Trump-appointed judges agree with me.
The rest is just fantasy. Wishful thinking. Dreaming.
and yet there is not one bit of evidence to support what trump is saying...hell pence and barr have deserted the ship
dupes don't care ... as long as they feel like they still have a shot at 'winning'.
look at the ' election defense fund ' that donny got set up to rake in all kindsa cash from his dupes.
Trump 2020
Updated
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
By Jarrett Renshaw, Joseph Tanfani
9 Min Read
(Reuters) - As President Donald Trump seeks to discredit last week’s election with baseless claims of voter fraud, his team has bombarded his supporters with requests for money to help pay for legal challenges to the results: “The Left will try to STEAL this election!” reads one text.
But any small-dollar donations from Trump’s grassroots donors won’t be going to legal expenses at all, according to a Reuters review of the legal language in the solicitations.
A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show.
The emailed solicitations send supporters to an “Official Election Defense Fund” website that asks them to sign up for recurring donations to “protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day.”
The fine print makes clear most of the money will go to other priorities.
[ they won't bother to read it]
A large portion of the money goes to “Save America,” a Trump leadership PAC, or political action committee, set up on Monday, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Under Federal Election Commission rules, both groups have broad leeway in how they can use the funds.
The Trump campaign, the RNC and Trump’s new Save America PAC did not respond to requests for comment.
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
$170,000,000 has been raised so far.... gotta say - donny found a way to make money off of his failure.
So the dems don't like Trump fighting back and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.
So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime.
^ 'So the dems don't like Trump fighting back'
lol... fighting back what? his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?
^ ' and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense...
it's not for his defense - it's for his congame.
^' ... hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.'
it's over. accept it. donny lost bigley. Q girl.
^ ' So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime '
you're certifiable.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
By BRIAN SLODYSKONovember 11, 2020 GMT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump’s chances of reelection dwindled last week, his campaign began blasting out a nonstop stream of emails and text messages that led to a website raising money for an “election defense fund” to contest the outcome.
Like many hallmarks of the Trump presidency, the messages contained all-caps lettering and blatant mistruths about voter fraud during the Nov. 3 election.
They also mislead supporters about where the money would go.
Trump has promised to contest President-elect Joe Biden’s win in court. But the fine print indicates much of the money donated to support that effort since
Election Day has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.
The unusual way the Trump campaign is divvying up the contributions has drawn scrutiny from election watchdogs, who say Trump and his family are poised to financially benefit from the arrangement.
“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” said Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign finance attorney with the good government group Common Cause. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”
The Democratic National Committee and Biden’s campaign are also raising money for a legal fight over the outcome of the election. Most of the money is for the DNC’s legal account, though some of it will be routed to the party’s general fund, which doesn’t face the same spending restrictions. It could then be used to pay for ads, for example, if Republicans try to get ballots tossed out with minor — and correctible — errors, according to a DNC official.
Trump’s approach is far different.
The first few days after the election, money that was purportedly for the legal fight primarily went to Trump’s campaign for debt payment, as well as the RNC, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal. But on Monday, Trump launched Save America, his new PAC, which is now poised to get the largest share in many cases.
Save America is a type of campaign committee that is often referred to as a “leadership PAC,” which has higher contribution limits — $5,000 per year — and faces fewer restrictions on how the money is spent. Unlike candidate campaign accounts, leadership PACs can also be tapped to pay for personal expenses.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
View attachment 425154
that's why donny loves you long time.
"... his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?"
Let's check:
“Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
CAMPAIGN 2020
Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
Extremely suspicious.
Published
7 hours ago
on
Nov 22, 2020
By
Richard Moorhead
A Fulton County, Georgia woman is describing handling a “pristine” batch of ballots that were marked “98%” of the time for Joe Biden in election recount duties, describing the suspicious phenomenon in a sworn affidavit.
Top of Form
Susan Voyles identifies herself as a participant in Georgia’s post-election recount in the affidavit, filed in litigation against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger by Trump campaign attorney Lin Wood.
Voyles describes seeing ballots that differed considerably from the other ballots she was entrusted to count in the remix.
Voyles describes the batch of ballots as unusual in their texture and level of handling, and that she estimates 98% of them were cast for Joe Biden. Voyles even speculates that these ballots could’ve been processed through a ballot-marking device!
Voyles earlier described election recount supervisors as tasking them to process ballots in a “selective” fashion. Boxes of absentee ballots were signed by no one, without markings one might expect the Georgia Secretary of State to outfit absentee ballots with.
Another witness describes viewing election workers count 500 straight ballots for Joe Biden, all of which were marked with perfect black bubbles.”
Georgia Recount Worker Describes "Pristine" Batch of Ballots - 98% for Joe Biden! - Big League Politics
===============================================
Georgia:
Suitcases of ballots pulled out during the night when there were no witnesses:
….and run through counting machines, over and over.
=========================================================
Did everyone see this whistle blower who saw the machinations in Democrat Detroit?
Ballots altered, Republican poll watchers kept out....
This lady was an IT employee of Dominion voting machines.
When she saw what was going on, she notified her boss, who didn't want to hear it.
Sworn affidavits are considered as evidence.
"Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center
By: Jay Greenberg |@NeonNettle
on 5th November 2020 @ 7.00pm
© press
The widows were covered in opaque cardboard by election officials
Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of the ballot counting room, blocking poll watchers from witnessing the vote count."
Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center - Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of... | NEON NETTLE
neonnettle.com
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.6.6.pdf
Computer expert: impossible that machine processed this many votes in this short time.
Colonel Phil Waldron Statement - Hearing On Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania - Nov 25, 2020
Colonel Phil Waldron is a retired army colonel, who served in the United States Military for 30 years. He spent the first half of his military career as an o...
Is a sworn affidavit evidence?
An affidavit is admissible evidence, although some courts may require you to testify to the affidavit or they may consider it hearsay. Since hearsay is not admissible as evidence, your affidavit may not be used for evidence if someone objects to it unless you testify.
What Is An Affidavit And When Are They Used? | LegalNature
AFFIDAVIT OF MAYRA ROMERA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Mayra Romera, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
.1 am a registered Democrat. 4.1 was interested in the election process in this country and wanted to be an observer in the Georgia recount process. 5. On Monday, November 16, 2020, I presented myself to Cobb County Poll Precinct located at 2245 Callaway Road SW, Marietta, OA. I was able to be on the floor observing the recount process in Room C. I observed the poll workers not calling out verbally the names on each ballot. They simply passed each ballot to each other in silence. 6. It was of particular interest to me that hundreds of these ballots seemed impeccable, with no folds or creases. The bubble selections were perfectly made (all within the circle), only observed selections in black ink, and all happened to be selections for Biden. 7. It was also of particular interest to me to see that signatures were not being verified and there were no corresponding envelopes seen in site.
… , I believe there was fraud was committed in the presidential election and question the validity of the Georgia recount process. [SIGNATURE AND OATH
AFFIDAVIT OF CQNSETTA S. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'SMOTTON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Consetta S, Johnson, declare imder penalty of pequiy that the following is true and correct;
. I was a volunteer audit monitor at the Jim R. Miller Park for the recount process on November 16,2020. 3. As a floor monitor, I could see by the markings that the ballots being audited were absentee ballots. 4. I witnessed two poll workers placing already separated paper machine receipt ballots with barcodes in the Trump tray, placing them in to the Biden tray. 5. I also witnessed the same two poll workers putting the already separated paper receipt ballots in the 'No Vote" and "Jorgensen" tray, and removing them and putting them inside the Biden tray. 6. They then took out all of the ballots out of the Biden tray and stacked them on the table, writing on the count ballot sheet. A copy of the video reflecting this is attached as Exhibit
AFFIDAVIT OF DEBRA J. FISHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF^S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Debra J. Fisher, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
On November 16,2020 I witnessed the various issues on military and overseas ballots. 3. All military and overseas ballots I reviewed were very clean. No bubbles were colored outside of the line. Not one ballot used an "x" or check mark. The ballots I observed were marked in black ink and were for Biden. Not one ballot had a selection crossed out to change the vote selection. 4. I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden. 5. I also observed that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate ballot and was due to the use of different printers. 6. Many ballots had markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot. This did not occur on any of the Trump ballots I observed. 7. Ballots were rejected because people chose 2 or more candidates. I found it odd that none of this happened with the military ballots. {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 4 8. The military ballots did not have one specific precinct code on them. Instead, they had multiple precincts printed on it (a "combo"), I challenged this as when this is done, you do not know what precinct the voter is registered in. 9. Based on my observations above and the fact that signatures on the ballots were not being verified, I believe the military ballots are highly suspicious of fraud. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. [SIGNATURE AND OATH ON NEXT PAGE] {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17
Latest Fact-checks on Big League Politics
| PolitiFact
Big League Politics
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.
Share:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Big League Politics - Media Bias/Fact Check
- Overall, we rate Big League Politics Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
By
Carissa House-Dunphy -
December 2, 2020
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
& counting.
oh & uh ---- lyn wood?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://bipartisanreport.com/2020/12/02/judge-hands-trump-40th-court-loss-with-embarrassing-rebuff/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?
text=Judge+Hands+Trump+40th+Court+Loss+With+Embarrassing+Rebuff&url=https://bipartisanreport.com/2020/12/02/judge-hands-trump-40th-court-loss-with-embarrassing-rebuff/&via=Bipartisan+Report
Sign in - Google Accounts
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
Questionable source?????
How ironic.
"On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"
sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.
Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.
PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?
But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:
For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.
On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.
Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.
That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."
This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.
There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.
VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way
This bias is evident in:
1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate
PolitiFact examination;2
2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;
and
3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis
and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.
http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf
Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."
The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,
PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com
The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ
"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.
Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias
PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a w...
www.redstate.com
Last edited:
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,468
- 32,443
- 2,300
And yet, you can't prove any of that.I was unable to get a straight answer from a Trump supporter in another thread, so I thought I would ask this question to all of you.
Is it possible, is there at least a 10% chance, that more people actually did vote for Biden because (a) of their own positions on the issues are different from his, (b) their own perspectives, (c) their own personal priorities, or (d) their own life experiences?
Pretty straightforward question. Please feel free to expand on your answer.
He likely won the popular vote, but that point is moot. the issue is with the questions regarding the voting in Democrat controlled areas that flipped the States late from Trump to Biden.
The Attorney General, Republican governors, and Trump-appointed judges agree with me.
The rest is just fantasy. Wishful thinking. Dreaming.
Because people who commit fraud just leave the evidence behind for everyone to find the second the fraud is done.
Hell they could probably have done that because people like you would ignore it anyway. You got rid of Trump, no matter what the cost.
I want all election materials put under court order to be preserved, including ballots and shipping envelopes with signatures and postmarks. All hardware and software put under court order to be preserved. Examples of hardware and software seized and put under court control for later analysis. I want lists of all election workers requested under court orders and that they be compelled to provide affidavits on the process.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 55,604
- 48,034
- 3,645
and yet there is not one bit of evidence to support what trump is saying...hell pence and barr have deserted the ship
dupes don't care ... as long as they feel like they still have a shot at 'winning'.
look at the ' election defense fund ' that donny got set up to rake in all kindsa cash from his dupes.
Trump 2020
Updated
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
By Jarrett Renshaw, Joseph Tanfani
9 Min Read
(Reuters) - As President Donald Trump seeks to discredit last week’s election with baseless claims of voter fraud, his team has bombarded his supporters with requests for money to help pay for legal challenges to the results: “The Left will try to STEAL this election!” reads one text.
But any small-dollar donations from Trump’s grassroots donors won’t be going to legal expenses at all, according to a Reuters review of the legal language in the solicitations.
A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show.
The emailed solicitations send supporters to an “Official Election Defense Fund” website that asks them to sign up for recurring donations to “protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day.”
The fine print makes clear most of the money will go to other priorities.
[ they won't bother to read it]
A large portion of the money goes to “Save America,” a Trump leadership PAC, or political action committee, set up on Monday, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Under Federal Election Commission rules, both groups have broad leeway in how they can use the funds.
The Trump campaign, the RNC and Trump’s new Save America PAC did not respond to requests for comment.
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
$170,000,000 has been raised so far.... gotta say - donny found a way to make money off of his failure.
So the dems don't like Trump fighting back and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.
So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime.
^ 'So the dems don't like Trump fighting back'
lol... fighting back what? his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?
^ ' and now trying to get Trumps supporters to not donate to his defense...
it's not for his defense - it's for his congame.
^' ... hoping that lack of money will stop trump from fighting to keep the presidency.'
it's over. accept it. donny lost bigley. Q girl.
^ ' So damn tired of the libs/chinese attempts at manipulation playtime '
you're certifiable.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
By BRIAN SLODYSKONovember 11, 2020 GMT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump’s chances of reelection dwindled last week, his campaign began blasting out a nonstop stream of emails and text messages that led to a website raising money for an “election defense fund” to contest the outcome.
Like many hallmarks of the Trump presidency, the messages contained all-caps lettering and blatant mistruths about voter fraud during the Nov. 3 election.
They also mislead supporters about where the money would go.
Trump has promised to contest President-elect Joe Biden’s win in court. But the fine print indicates much of the money donated to support that effort since
Election Day has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.
The unusual way the Trump campaign is divvying up the contributions has drawn scrutiny from election watchdogs, who say Trump and his family are poised to financially benefit from the arrangement.
“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” said Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign finance attorney with the good government group Common Cause. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”
The Democratic National Committee and Biden’s campaign are also raising money for a legal fight over the outcome of the election. Most of the money is for the DNC’s legal account, though some of it will be routed to the party’s general fund, which doesn’t face the same spending restrictions. It could then be used to pay for ads, for example, if Republicans try to get ballots tossed out with minor — and correctible — errors, according to a DNC official.
Trump’s approach is far different.
The first few days after the election, money that was purportedly for the legal fight primarily went to Trump’s campaign for debt payment, as well as the RNC, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal. But on Monday, Trump launched Save America, his new PAC, which is now poised to get the largest share in many cases.
Save America is a type of campaign committee that is often referred to as a “leadership PAC,” which has higher contribution limits — $5,000 per year — and faces fewer restrictions on how the money is spent. Unlike candidate campaign accounts, leadership PACs can also be tapped to pay for personal expenses.
Money to support Trump court fight could flow to president
View attachment 425154
that's why donny loves you long time.
"... his ridiculous claims of voter fraud & the fact that he is a looooooooooser?"
Let's check:
“Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
CAMPAIGN 2020
Georgia Recount Worker Describes “Pristine” Batch of Ballots – 98% for Joe Biden!
Extremely suspicious.
Published
7 hours ago
on
Nov 22, 2020
By
Richard Moorhead
A Fulton County, Georgia woman is describing handling a “pristine” batch of ballots that were marked “98%” of the time for Joe Biden in election recount duties, describing the suspicious phenomenon in a sworn affidavit.
Top of Form
Susan Voyles identifies herself as a participant in Georgia’s post-election recount in the affidavit, filed in litigation against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger by Trump campaign attorney Lin Wood.
Voyles describes seeing ballots that differed considerably from the other ballots she was entrusted to count in the remix.
Voyles describes the batch of ballots as unusual in their texture and level of handling, and that she estimates 98% of them were cast for Joe Biden. Voyles even speculates that these ballots could’ve been processed through a ballot-marking device!
Voyles earlier described election recount supervisors as tasking them to process ballots in a “selective” fashion. Boxes of absentee ballots were signed by no one, without markings one might expect the Georgia Secretary of State to outfit absentee ballots with.
Another witness describes viewing election workers count 500 straight ballots for Joe Biden, all of which were marked with perfect black bubbles.”
Georgia Recount Worker Describes "Pristine" Batch of Ballots - 98% for Joe Biden! - Big League Politics
===============================================
Georgia:
Suitcases of ballots pulled out during the night when there were no witnesses:
….and run through counting machines, over and over.
=========================================================
Did everyone see this whistle blower who saw the machinations in Democrat Detroit?
Ballots altered, Republican poll watchers kept out....
This lady was an IT employee of Dominion voting machines.
When she saw what was going on, she notified her boss, who didn't want to hear it.
Sworn affidavits are considered as evidence.
"Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center
By: Jay Greenberg |@NeonNettle
on 5th November 2020 @ 7.00pm
© press
The widows were covered in opaque cardboard by election officials
Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of the ballot counting room, blocking poll watchers from witnessing the vote count."
Detroit Officials Cover-Up Windows During Ballot Count, Voters Outraged
Poll watchers blocked from witnessing vote count at TCF Center - Chaos has erupted at the TCF Center in Detroit after election officials covered-up the windows of... | NEON NETTLE
neonnettle.com
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.6.6.pdf
Computer expert: impossible that machine processed this many votes in this short time.
Colonel Phil Waldron Statement - Hearing On Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania - Nov 25, 2020
Colonel Phil Waldron is a retired army colonel, who served in the United States Military for 30 years. He spent the first half of his military career as an o...
Is a sworn affidavit evidence?
An affidavit is admissible evidence, although some courts may require you to testify to the affidavit or they may consider it hearsay. Since hearsay is not admissible as evidence, your affidavit may not be used for evidence if someone objects to it unless you testify.
What Is An Affidavit And When Are They Used? | LegalNature
AFFIDAVIT OF MAYRA ROMERA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Mayra Romera, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
.1 am a registered Democrat. 4.1 was interested in the election process in this country and wanted to be an observer in the Georgia recount process. 5. On Monday, November 16, 2020, I presented myself to Cobb County Poll Precinct located at 2245 Callaway Road SW, Marietta, OA. I was able to be on the floor observing the recount process in Room C. I observed the poll workers not calling out verbally the names on each ballot. They simply passed each ballot to each other in silence. 6. It was of particular interest to me that hundreds of these ballots seemed impeccable, with no folds or creases. The bubble selections were perfectly made (all within the circle), only observed selections in black ink, and all happened to be selections for Biden. 7. It was also of particular interest to me to see that signatures were not being verified and there were no corresponding envelopes seen in site.
… , I believe there was fraud was committed in the presidential election and question the validity of the Georgia recount process. [SIGNATURE AND OATH
AFFIDAVIT OF CQNSETTA S. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'SMOTTON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Consetta S, Johnson, declare imder penalty of pequiy that the following is true and correct;
. I was a volunteer audit monitor at the Jim R. Miller Park for the recount process on November 16,2020. 3. As a floor monitor, I could see by the markings that the ballots being audited were absentee ballots. 4. I witnessed two poll workers placing already separated paper machine receipt ballots with barcodes in the Trump tray, placing them in to the Biden tray. 5. I also witnessed the same two poll workers putting the already separated paper receipt ballots in the 'No Vote" and "Jorgensen" tray, and removing them and putting them inside the Biden tray. 6. They then took out all of the ballots out of the Biden tray and stacked them on the table, writing on the count ballot sheet. A copy of the video reflecting this is attached as Exhibit
AFFIDAVIT OF DEBRA J. FISHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF^S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I, Debra J. Fisher, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
On November 16,2020 I witnessed the various issues on military and overseas ballots. 3. All military and overseas ballots I reviewed were very clean. No bubbles were colored outside of the line. Not one ballot used an "x" or check mark. The ballots I observed were marked in black ink and were for Biden. Not one ballot had a selection crossed out to change the vote selection. 4. I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden. 5. I also observed that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate ballot and was due to the use of different printers. 6. Many ballots had markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot. This did not occur on any of the Trump ballots I observed. 7. Ballots were rejected because people chose 2 or more candidates. I found it odd that none of this happened with the military ballots. {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 4 8. The military ballots did not have one specific precinct code on them. Instead, they had multiple precincts printed on it (a "combo"), I challenged this as when this is done, you do not know what precinct the voter is registered in. 9. Based on my observations above and the fact that signatures on the ballots were not being verified, I believe the military ballots are highly suspicious of fraud. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. [SIGNATURE AND OATH ON NEXT PAGE] {00584029.} Ex. K to TRO Motion: Fisher Affidavit Case 1:20-cv-04651-SDG Document 6-11 Filed 11/17
Latest Fact-checks on Big League Politics
| PolitiFact
Big League Politics
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.
Share:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Big League Politics - Media Bias/Fact Check
- Overall, we rate Big League Politics Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
By
Carissa House-Dunphy -
December 2, 2020
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
& counting.
oh & uh ---- lyn wood?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://bipartisanreport.com/2020/12/02/judge-hands-trump-40th-court-loss-with-embarrassing-rebuff/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?
text=Judge+Hands+Trump+40th+Court+Loss+With+Embarrassing+Rebuff&url=https://bipartisanreport.com/2020/12/02/judge-hands-trump-40th-court-loss-with-embarrassing-rebuff/&via=Bipartisan+Report
Sign in - Google Accounts
Judge Hands Trump 40th Court Loss With Embarrassing Rebuff
Questionable source?????
How ironic.
"On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"
sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.
Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.
PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?
But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:
For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.
On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.
Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.
That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."
This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.
There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.
VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way
This bias is evident in:
1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate
PolitiFact examination;2
2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;
and
3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis
and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.
http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf
Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."
The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,
PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com
The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ
"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.
Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias
PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a w...
^^^
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20 A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf
Nelson Ha Ha Original YouTube
www.youtube.com
I was unable to get a straight answer from a Trump supporter in another thread, so I thought I would ask this question to all of you.
Is it possible, is there at least a 10% chance, that more people actually did vote for Biden because (a) of their own positions on the issues are different from his, (b) their own perspectives, (c) their own personal priorities, or (d) their own life experiences?
Pretty straightforward question. Please feel free to expand on your answer.
Sure, it's possible. Especially considering the way that the media and social media lied to the American people.
Hell, what percentage of America actually believes the nonsense that the President said that ws are "very fine people"?
With that lie being made part of the Conventional Wisdom, right there it is possible the election was stolen right there.
Of course a decision made based on purposefully lies, is not a binding or legit decision. Theft by deception, is what they call it, when it is a non official con man.
Democrats constantly evade positive voter ID so that only legal ballots are counted because Dems know they can't win a fair election because most of us do not want their weird ideas to be compulsory law. If we had fair elections it would become immediately clear that you guys are nothing more than a bunch of fringe radicals.I was unable to get a straight answer from a Trump supporter in another thread, so I thought I would ask this question to all of you.
Is it possible, is there at least a 10% chance, that more people actually did vote for Biden because (a) of their own positions on the issues are different from his, (b) their own perspectives, (c) their own personal priorities, or (d) their own life experiences?
Pretty straightforward question. Please feel free to expand on your answer.
If you doubt this, support positive voter ID and see if you can still win if you don't cheat.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 357
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 169
- Replies
- 148
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 114
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 207
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 107
- Replies
- 94
- Views
- 396
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-