Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I edited. It is not sad or pathetic when there is actual widespread evidence of cheating. Pathic would be accepting a loss when you've actually won, which is what really happened.If there wasn't so much widespread evidence of cheating then I would admit that Trump lost fair and square. That's not what happened though.
Even if you believe this it would be counter productive to spend the next 4 years complaining about it like progressives have done.
Originally posted by Surtur
Even if you believe this it would be counter productive to spend the next 4 years complaining about it like progressives have done.
Nah, it wouldn't be. It is exactly what should be done. F*** accepting an election loss when your side has actually won. Talk about cuckery lol.
We need to know that our country has not become a banana republic and letting this fraudulent election stand will show that we are one. F*** that.
And of course I actually believe it lol. I mean, I've actually seen the evidence with my own eyes so why wouldn't I? Am I supposed to believe it's all an illusion?
Besides all of the evidence I've already seen, I just heard a retired Air Force general on OAN talking about CIA vote hacking done to steal votes from Trump and given to Biden using the software that was used in several battlegeound states. You think he's lying? I don't.
If the evidence is so strong then why are they not presenting it in their court cases?
One of the running themes of all these court cases is that the lawyers for Trump, multiple times, have to admit in court that they aren’t making allegations of voter fraud because they have no actual evidence to support the claims that would stand up to judicial scrutiny.
Originally posted by BackFire
If the evidence is so strong then why are they not presenting it in their court cases?One of the running themes of all these court cases is that the lawyers for Trump, multiple times, have to admit in court that they aren’t making allegations of voter fraud because they have no actual evidence to support the claims that would stand up to judicial scrutiny.
^dude making great arguments for why the russian storyline for the last 4 years was BS
Originally posted by BackFire
If the evidence is so strong then why are they not presenting it in their court cases?One of the running themes of all these court cases is that the lawyers for Trump, multiple times, have to admit in court that they aren’t making allegations of voter fraud because they have no actual evidence to support the claims that would stand up to judicial scrutiny.
How do you know they're not? Assuming they are presenting it in court how do you know it's not being thrown out by people who want a Biden presidency at all costs?
And we still have a ways to go yet. You can expect much more evidence to come out in the following weeks. I heard a congresswoman saying that so much evidence of fraud and sworn testimonies of it is coming in that it's like water rushing thru a firehose.
You know that whistleblower general I mentioned above? Well, so far OAN is the only channel I've seen him allowed to come on and say those things. FOX (except for Tucker Carlson) has become just as much of a joke as CNN at this point.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
How do you know they're not? Assuming they are presenting it in court how do you know it's not being thrown out by people who want a Biden presidency at all costs?And we still have a ways to go yet. You can expect much more evidence to come out in the following weeks. I heard a congresswoman saying that so much evidence of fraud and sworn testimonies of it is coming in that it's like water rushing thru a firehose.
You know that whistleblower general I mentioned above? Well, so far OAN is the only channel I've seen him allowed to come on and say those things. FOX (except for Tucker Carlson) has become just as much of a joke as CNN at this point.
Because it’s public record. They aren’t even arguing fraud in most of the cases once they get in front of a judge because then they have to produce valid evidence beyond rumor and hearsay.
Several judges, many of them Republican, by the way, have flat out said they’re ruling against them precisely because they are not presenting any evidence.
Originally posted by BackFire
Because it’s public record. They aren’t even arguing fraud in most of the cases once they get in front of a judge because then they have to produce valid evidence beyond rumor and hearsay.Several judges, many of them Republican, by the way, have flat out said they’re ruling against them precisely because they are not presenting any evidence.
Well, yeah, of course they're gonna say that. That's not surprising when so many of them are a part of the deep state.
What is surprising though is that you actually expect me to just believe everthing they say simply because some of them call themselves "republicans".
Fyi, just because someone calls themself a republican doesn't mean I like them or trust them. I was no fan of Bush. In fact, I hate all of the Bush's almost as much as I hate the Clintons.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Well, yeah, of course they're gonna say that. That's not surprising when so many of them are a part of the deep state.What is surprising though is that you actually expect me to just believe everthing they say simply because some of them call themselves "republicans".
Fyi, just because someone calls themself a republican doesn't mean I like them or trust them. I was no fan of Bush. In fact, I hate all of the Bush's almost as much as I hate the Clintons.
Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004?
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Well, yeah, of course they're gonna say that. That's not surprising when so many of them are a part of the deep state.What is surprising though is that you actually expect me to just believe everthing they say simply because some of them call themselves "republicans".
Fyi, just because someone calls themself a republican doesn't mean I like them or trust them. I was no fan of Bush. In fact, I hate all of the Bush's almost as much as I hate the Clintons.
Disliking the Clintons and Bushes for the same reasons is rather reasonable.
Most normal people don't like warmongering. Or cronyism. Or plutocracy.