Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 59,408
- 44,651
- 3,615
Does George Stephanopoulos consider himself a "journalist"? Sure seems desperate to get Rand Paul to play along
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See video below. Straight out of the jackass's mouth.Conservatives will never accept that Trump lost in 2020.
Conservatives will never accept that Trump lost in 2020.
Gaslighting yourself again, conservative?This Election Was Not Stolen, Do You Accept That Fact?
The absence of proof of guilt does not translate to innocence. At this point, more than a year later from that election there is as yet no definitive proof of illegal voter fraud that shows the election was stolen. Nothing that has been accepted by a federal judge in a court of law according to the rules of evidence. But that does not mean the election was not stolen, only that it hasn't been proved. Yet.
Conservatives will never accept that Trump lost in 2020.
This isn't a left/right issue.Conservatives will never accept that Trump lost in 2020.
This Election Was Not Stolen, Do You Accept That Fact?
The absence of proof of guilt does not translate to innocence. At this point, more than a year later from that election there is as yet no definitive proof of illegal voter fraud that shows the election was stolen. Nothing that has been accepted by a federal judge in a court of law according to the rules of evidence. But that does not mean the election was not stolen, only that it hasn't been proved. Yet.
See video below. Straight out of the jackass's mouth.
Gaslighting yourself again, conservative?
Ok, so we can say the same about 2016, right?This Election Was Not Stolen, Do You Accept That Fact?
The absence of proof of guilt does not translate to innocence. At this point, more than a year later from that election there is as yet no definitive proof of illegal voter fraud that shows the election was stolen. Nothing that has been accepted by a federal judge in a court of law according to the rules of evidence. But that does not mean the election was not stolen, only that it hasn't been proved. Yet.
What if there was wide scale fraud in 2016?This isn't a left/right issue.
This is about the oligarchical establishment, versus the people.
The establishment will never, ever prove that there was not wide scale fraud. And the left is just fine with that. . . they don't even have a clue what is really going on. Hell, a lot of folks on the right don't even know what is really going on at this point.
The establishment, worked with corporate voting administration companies, with proprietary technologies, to make sure the process was opaque, and thus, the whole thing, became a, "known unknown."
It is something everyone knows that we don't know, and this is why no court wanted to here it. IT CAN'T BE PROVED.
Ok, so we can say the same about 2016, right?
They're not conservatives.Conservatives will never accept that Trump lost in 2020.
You will never be able to prove it was NOT stolen because they will not accept it. They will just come up with yet one more bit of “evidence” that it was stolen. The only acceptable answer is that Trump won. Period.At some point you should come up with the likelyhood that it wasn't stolen. In fact, almost every time a discrepancy was found, it went against the Republican Candidates at all levels. Multiple recounts, Courts and more, it all said that, although there was a tiny, tiny bit there, there wasn't enough found to overthrow anything. Rump lost. In fact, he lost even more than the real count showed.
Does George Stephanopoulos consider himself a "journalist"? Sure seems desperate to get Rand Paul to play along
He's determined to "lead the witness." I object, your honor.My reply to Stephanopoulos would have been to ask him on what does he base his claim that an unstolen 2020 election is now a "fact?" When did it become one? How? By what standard of proof? Before you can proceed in answering a question, you must first establish the veracity of the QUESTION, and had Paul just asked him that, he could have shot down the entire question because anytime you ask anyone the basis of considering the 2020 election a "closed case"--- factually debunked in every regard, they CAN'T. The presumption is always based on assumed truths rather than actual proof.