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.
Based on prior history, it’s 2. How many times has he claimed to have evidence of something that he will release soon, and it never comes?Either one of two things, 1 he has nothing and is just brooding, or 2 he has actual evidence of fraud and is waiting to release it when it is complete.
Based on prior history, it’s 2. How many times has he claimed to have evidence of something that he will release soon, and it never comes?Either one of two things, 1 he has nothing and is just brooding, or 2 he has actual evidence of fraud and is waiting to release it when it is complete.
Hell, we are still waiting to hear from his Hawaii investigation.
You’re not being particularly accurate. Trump said there’d be a vaccine before the election. Pfizer said it will ask the FDA for approval later this month. Availability is TBD. Widespread availability is next year at best.Well, in his last debate he did say a vaccine would be available in the coming weeks. What do you know, the day after slow Joe declares victory, it is announced that a vaccine will be available this month.
That nose ring you lefties are being pulled by must be really sore by now.
You’re not being particularly accurate. Trump said there’d be a vaccine before the election. Pfizer said it will ask the FDA for approval later this month. Availability is TBD. Widespread availability is next year at best.Well, in his last debate he did say a vaccine would be available in the coming weeks. What do you know, the day after slow Joe declares victory, it is announced that a vaccine will be available this month.
That nose ring you lefties are being pulled by must be really sore by now.
Accuracy matters. Trump is rarely if ever accurate.
You think it is pure coincidence that this was announced the first business day after Biden declared victory? Seriously?
Based on prior history, it’s 2. How many times has he claimed to have evidence of something that he will release soon, and it never comes?Either one of two things, 1 he has nothing and is just brooding, or 2 he has actual evidence of fraud and is waiting to release it when it is complete.
Hell, we are still waiting to hear from his Hawaii investigation.
Sure. Always have cared. I just hope that it’s all reported. I hope that Trump’s accusations are fairly reported, especially by the media that the right wing and his supporters trust.The other question is if there is actually hard evidence of fraud, would you even care?
Sure. Always have cared. I just hope that it’s all reported. I hope that Trump’s accusations are fairly reported, especially by the media that the right wing and his supporters trust.The other question is if there is actually hard evidence of fraud, would you even care?
Beietbart published a story about error in votes being counted in Fulton. It was tweeted out by Trump. The article doesn’t mention that the error was not intentional. That it was picked up by the election workers. They rescanned a few thousand ballots and corrected the error. The governor send investigators to double check. Everything worked out fine and no evidence of fraud.
Oh, and Biden’s lead increased when the votes were rescanned after the error was caught.
I mean, why shouldn't we believe it was unintentional? It's not rational to think that we are going to count 140 million votes without errors on occasion. Since the system is redundant, errors are picked up and fixed. Transparency dictates that the errors are disclosed. Unless there's some reason to think it was malicious, I have no problem accepting that it was a mistake.One case, and of course they will say it's "unintentional".
If 1/2 the electorate doesn't trust the voting process are you just going to ignore the issue?
I mean, why shouldn't we believe it was unintentional? It's not rational to think that we are going to count 140 million votes without errors on occasion. Since the system is redundant, errors are picked up and fixed. Transparency dictates that the errors are disclosed. Unless there's some reason to think it was malicious, I have no problem accepting that it was a mistake.One case, and of course they will say it's "unintentional".
If 1/2 the electorate doesn't trust the voting process are you just going to ignore the issue?
I'm not ignoring the issue of lack of trust. But, it's not necessarily the fault of the process that the lack of trust is there. The narrative they're getting from their trusted media is to not trust the system, to believe that there was fraud, but the evidence is lacking and the context is not being covered. If the system is fair, but the people don't trust it because they're misled (just asking a hypothetical for now), who is at fault? The best anyone can do is try to counter a false narrative with facts. That's what I intend to do.
Nah. I'm just going to be fair and not jump to conclusions. Is that the wrong thing to do?Nah, you just intend to ignore any evidence of fraud and cluck like a fucking chicken that your guy won.
Go off and fucking die you SJW cuck.
Nah. I'm just going to be fair and not jump to conclusions. Is that the wrong thing to do?Nah, you just intend to ignore any evidence of fraud and cluck like a fucking chicken that your guy won.
Go off and fucking die you SJW cuck.
I mean, why shouldn't we believe it was unintentional? It's not rational to think that we are going to count 140 million votes without errors on occasion. Since the system is redundant, errors are picked up and fixed. Transparency dictates that the errors are disclosed. Unless there's some reason to think it was malicious, I have no problem accepting that it was a mistake.
I'm not ignoring the issue of lack of trust. But, it's not necessarily the fault of the process that the lack of trust is there. The narrative they're getting from their trusted media is to not trust the system, to believe that there was fraud, but the evidence is lacking and the context is not being covered. If the system is fair, but the people don't trust it because they're misled (just asking a hypothetical for now), who is at fault? The best anyone can do is try to counter a false narrative with facts. That's what I intend to do.
The head in the sand is you the second the "actual evidence" falls apart as spectacularly as Trump's lead in Michigan.Nah, head in the sand for you if actual evidence pops up. You will find ways to justify it.
Suck cock, soi boi.
You’re not being particularly accurate. Trump said there’d be a vaccine before the election. Pfizer said it will ask the FDA for approval later this month. Availability is TBD. Widespread availability is next year at best.
Accuracy matters. Trump is rarely if ever accurate.
They papered over a window with a rowdy protest crowd outside who were filming them against the rules. The observers and media always remained in the room. Just a bunch of nutty protestors had to remain out. There is no law against papering over a window with a bunch of Trump nutters on the other side. The workers need to work. This isn't helping:In Michigan they put paper over windows to stop people observing the count. In PA they just refused to let them enter the room or made them stand at least 60 feet away. Those are not mistakes, those are violations against the law. What did they see in those ballots they were so scared of that they didn't want observers watching over the count? They even have videos of poll workers actually filling out ballots.
I don't recall that. I remember him saying a vaccine out by the end of the year.
The head in the sand is you the second the "actual evidence" falls apart as spectacularly as Trump's lead in Michigan.Nah, head in the sand for you if actual evidence pops up. You will find ways to justify it.
Suck cock, soi boi.
