Joe Biden & Covid- the Perfect Election Fraud Duo

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Your description of those events  all exaggerated and distorted and aside from that even if we take your exaggerated descriptions at face value ITS A FACT THAT NONE OF IT IS ILLEGAL. PERIOD. 

OMG dude, she cheated, period. It's not even up for debate. I said she cheated and I proved that she cheated - she cheated. Then the Dems spent 4 years pimping fraud-friendly election policies. That's not up for debate either. They even took measures to make mail-in votes more susceptible to fraud. Again, ever single part of what I said is easily verifiable, none of it us even the topic of debate.

Quote

Any desperate straw-clutching excuse to defend the Russians lol. Crowdstrike and literally every security agency has said it was the Russians. Crowdstrike witnessed in real time not one but two Russian government entities active on the DNC sever. Saying “but but but they didn’t witness the data being exfiltrated” in some desperate way to think it must be some other hackers who left no trace.  

There's no straw-clutching, what I posted was the sworn testimony of the one person on planet earth with the most knowledge of the topic. 

Regardless of whether or not Hillary was involved in the election, Russians hack. It's what they do.

The fact remains that wikileaks got some leaked information about the DNC and Trump used it. Good for him. It was really important to have a decent president for a while. 

Quote

You come home to find a group of burglars in your home with safe-cracking equipment and you chase them off. You find your safe is cracked open and your valuables are missing but you didn’t see the burglars actually take your valuables. Republican conclusion:  there’s “no proof” the professional safe-cracking burglars cracked your safe and burgled your valuables,  it could have just as easily been the cleaning lady leaving absolutely no trace or maybe even a ghost!

That's a terrible analogy. 

Here's a better one:

"You're the leader of an unscrupulous political group who conspired against the most popular politician within the nerd demographic of your own group. Then the information on your server regarding that plot gets leaked.... by some nerds. So naturally you "BLAME THE RUSSIANS!" 

 

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG dude, she cheated, period. It's not even up for debate. I said she cheated and I proved that she cheated - she cheated.

If by “cheated” youam “broke the law” then no she didn’t cheat. It’s that simple. What definition of cheated are you using?  Remember you’re trying to claim that this perfectly legal “cheating”  proves that Democrats are capable of highly illegal and highly improbable election fraud 

 

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There's no straw-clutching, what I posted was the sworn testimony of the one person on planet earth with the most knowledge of the topic. 

LMAO OMG what you did is the textbook definition of straww-clutching!  You took one tiny fragment of his EXTENSIVE sworn testimony and completely ignored everything else he said in order to try and pretend that his testimony was the exact opposite of what he said   Focusing on one irrelevant grain of sand while pretending the mountain beside it doesn’t exist. Sums you up perfectly. 

 

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's a terrible analogy. 

Here's a better one:

"You're the leader of an unscrupulous political group who conspired against the most popular politician within the nerd demographic of your own group. Then the information on your server regarding that plot gets leaked.... by some nerds. So naturally you "BLAME THE RUSSIANS!" 

It’s a perfect analogy and its been confirmed by literally every single cyber security agency that it was the Russians. There’s ZERO evidence to suggest anyone else much less Bernie or other DNC was involved 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

If by “cheated” youam “broke the law” then no she didn’t cheat. It’s that simple. What definition of cheated are you using?  Remember you’re trying to claim that this perfectly legal “cheating”  proves that Democrats are capable of highly illegal and highly improbable election fraud 

You're pretending to not know what cheated means? 

You're pretending that Hillary didn't collude with Russians, or you don't think that's illegal? 

You're pretending that character flaws a mile wide and a passion for creating fraud-friendly election reforms is no big deal? You don't think it's weird that CNN was already pimping the 2020 election as "fraud-free" on election night after they spent 4 years chasing 2016 windmills? 

Quote

LMAO OMG what you did is the textbook definition of straww-clutching!  You took one tiny fragment of his EXTENSIVE sworn testimony and completely ignored everything else he said in order to try and pretend that his testimony was the exact opposite of what he said   Focusing on one irrelevant grain of sand while pretending the mountain beside it doesn’t exist. Sums you up perfectly. 

A fragment? It's literally the part where he says "what we have is inconclusive". IE, we have no proof of what you want us to pretend we have proof of. We can say almost though. Is that good enough? 

And like I said before, many times, whether or not Russians hacked the server at some point doesn't prove how data was taken from it, how they knew that there was anything there worth retrieving, or how they got into it in the first place.

It's also odd that the DNC server was hacked after Bernie was cheated, when at least 50% of the nerds in the DNC are Bernie supporters.

The DNC server, which was never actually turned over to the FBI - they just copied it, is just a fart in the wind anyways. The FBI have never come within a country mile of ever proving that Trump made any kind of deal with the Russians. You were sucked in. Stooged. For the 100th time in a row. 

Quote

It’s a perfect analogy and its been confirmed by literally every single cyber security agency that it was the Russians. There’s ZERO evidence to suggest anyone else much less Bernie or other DNC was involved 

Oh yeah, all those other cyber-security agencies that never had access to the server somehow confirmed it. They had a big high-tech seance. Literally every one. It's on tinfoilhat.com 

There's AMPLE evidence that no one ever checked into whether or not the files were leaked (and they were). That's because the FBI and the Dems were busy breaking laws to try and frame Trump with collusion. They weren't breaking laws in a crimely way though, just in a perfectly legal colluding-with-Russians way and then a lying-to-judges way.  (Dang, I'm getting good at libspeak)

 

[BeaverFever]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're pretending that Hillary didn't collude with Russians, or you don't think that's illegal? 

Hilary didn’t collude with Russians, the Trump campaign did. 
 

Eveything else in your post is just a repetition of the same lies and exaggerations that I’ve already addressed. Repeating your failed claims is not the same as debating or rebutting an argument. Did you know that?  Of course you didn’t. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by BeaverFever

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Hilary didn’t collude with Russians, the Trump campaign did. 
 

Eveything else in your post is just a repetition of the same lies and exaggerations that I’ve already addressed. Repeating your failed claims is not the same as debating or rebutting an argument. Did you know that?  Of course you didn’t. 

Hillary is absolutely known to have colluded with Russians.

She gave money to a law firm which surreptitiously funneled money to a British ex-spy, who used some of it to get intel from Russians. Does it somehow make a difference if they're hackers or if they're computer-illiterate? 

If you found out tomorrow that Trump gave money to a law firm that secretly gave some of it to a British ex-spy who sent it to Russians for intel on the Demonrats would you call that collusion? 

Of course you would, but when Hillary did it you call it "a proper investigation into an election opponent's sordid past" lol. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hillary is absolutely known to have colluded with Russians.

She gave money to a law firm which surreptitiously funneled money to a British ex-spy, who used some of it to get intel from Russians. Does it somehow make a difference if they're hackers or if they're computer-illiterate? 

If you found out tomorrow that Trump gave money to a law firm that secretly gave some of it to a British ex-spy who sent it to Russians for intel on the Demonrats would you call that collusion? 

Of course you would, but when Hillary did it you call it "a proper investigation into an election opponent's sordid past" lol. 

Ffs no I’ve addressed this idiotic and hypocritical argument multiple times already. I’m not doing it again 

 

Hilarious that you use the fact that Trump was never convicted to “prove” he never colluded….them you go right on to say Hillary was “proven” to have colluded ….was she convicted?  You probably don’t even realize what sloppy hypocrite you are 

 

And your definition of what “collusion” means is so ridiculously broad and stretched for Hilary but so ridiculously narrow for Trump. WHOSE STAFF ACTUALLY MET WITH THE RUSSIANS FACE TO FACE IN TRUMP TOWER 

And for the final time you’re completely making up the claim that Russians were paid. 

AGAIN: SIMPLY REPEATING YOUR DEBUNKED BULLSHIT AFTER ITS BEEN DEBUNKED IS NOT DEBATING OR REBUTTING AN ARGUMENT 

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Ffs no I’ve addressed this idiotic and hypocritical argument multiple times already. I’m not doing it again 

 

Hilarious that you use the fact that Trump was never convicted to “prove” he never colluded….them you go right on to say Hillary was “proven” to have colluded ….was she convicted?  You probably don’t even realize what sloppy hypocrite you are 

 

And your definition of what “collusion” means is so ridiculously broad and stretched for Hilary but so ridiculously narrow for Trump. WHOSE STAFF ACTUALLY MET WITH THE RUSSIANS FACE TO FACE IN TRUMP TOWER 

And for the final time you’re completely making up the claim that Russians were paid. 

AGAIN: SIMPLY REPEATING YOUR DEBUNKED BULLSHIT AFTER ITS BEEN DEBUNKED IS NOT DEBATING OR REBUTTING AN ARGUMENT 

Your post was pure idiocy.

1) Hillary actively hid money that was funnelled to Russians, and she solicited them for intel.

There's evidence of clandestine activity, consideration for services rendered which were illegal (if colluding is illegal), and she initiated the contact with Russians. Those are all very important legal considerations. 

2) A Russian told Trump's people that they had evidence of a crime, and it's not a crime to go listen to evidence. There was no money exchanging hands for services rendered. The meeting wasn't done covertly because there were a lot of people there. Again, all very important legal considerations. The fact that the woman was Russian doesn't make a lick of difference. If someone has actual evidence of a crime and they want to give it to you, it's almost a civic duty to listen. 

 

You can read English, so you have to be smart enough to understand all of this, and you must realize how foolish you look by now. You just choose to live a lie. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by WestCanMan

[BeaverFever]

On 9/2/2021 at 12:36 AM, WestCanMan said:

Your post was pure idiocy.

1) Hillary actively hid money that was funnelled to Russians, and she solicited them for intel.

There's evidence of clandestine activity, consideration for services rendered which were illegal (if colluding is illegal), and she initiated the contact with Russians. Those are all very important legal considerations. 

2) A Russian told Trump's people that they had evidence of a crime, and it's not a crime to go listen to evidence. There was no money exchanging hands for services rendered. The meeting wasn't done covertly because there were a lot of people there. Again, all very important legal considerations. The fact that the woman was Russian doesn't make a lick of difference. If someone has actual evidence of a crime and they want to give it to you, it's almost a civic duty to listen. 

 

You can read English, so you have to be smart enough to understand all of this, and you must realize how foolish you look by now. You just choose to live a lie. 

The only idiocy here is the hypocritical drivel that oozes out of your brainwashed uneducated mind. 
 

Like I said you’re completely inventing the claim that Russians were paid or that anything illegal happened with Hilary. 
 

Meanwhile the Trump team lied about their many Trump tower meetings and they should have alerted the US authorities when approached by the Russians instead of trying to collude with them. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by BeaverFever

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The only idiocy here is the hypocritical drivel that oozes out of your brainwashed uneducated mind. 

 

Like I said you’re completely inventing the claim that Russians were paid or that anything illegal happened with Hilary. 
 

Meanwhile the Trump team lied about their many Trump tower meetings and they should have alerted the US authorities when approached by the Russians instead of trying to collude with them. 

The only idiocy here is the hypocritical drivel that oozes out of your brainwashed, uneducated 'mind'. 

Like I said - you’re completely inventing the claim that Russians weren't paid, and your claim that everything Hillary did was somehow legal yet it was illegal when Trump committed a lesser version of the same act is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Meanwhile the Trump team should have alerted the same US authorities that decided not to prosecute Hillary for her crimes, and who granted immunity to Hillary's acquaintances for nothing in return, when approached by the Russians, instead of merely listening to them. 

If you gave 7 monkeys 7 keyboards for 7 minutes they would eventually recreate every intelligent & accurate comment you ever posted. 

[BeaverFever]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The only idiocy here is the hypocritical drivel that oozes out of your brainwashed, uneducated 'mind'. 

Like I said - you’re completely inventing the claim that Russians weren't paid, and your claim that everything Hillary did was somehow legal yet it was illegal when Trump committed a lesser version of the same act is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Meanwhile the Trump team should have alerted the same US authorities that decided not to prosecute Hillary for her crimes, and who granted immunity to Hillary's acquaintances for nothing in return, when approached by the Russians, instead of merely listening to them. 

Copying my post, how childish. All you have to say now  “I know you are but what am I?”  Guess that’s proof I owned you again 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Copying my post, how childish. All you have to say now  “I know you are but what am I?”  Guess that’s proof I owned you again 

I actually copied your style and tone for two reasons: 1) because you deserve to be talked to like that, because it's accurate, and 2) it would be nice if something happened here to deter people from talking like you do, so I kept it going in hopes that people take notice of it. I'm not the original author of such language, just a person who's talking in a manner that seems to be allowed here, for now. 

At least we've finally come to the inevitable point where you realize that all of your arguments have been eviscerated, so you've just cut your post down to the snotty insults and abandoned the BS. Kudos BF. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by WestCanMan

[BeaverFever]

38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I actually copied your style and tone for two reasons: 1) because you deserve to be talked to like that, because it's accurate, and 2) it would be nice if something happened here to deter people from talking like you do, so I kept it going in hopes that people take notice of it. I'm not the original author of such language, just a person who's talking in a manner that seems to be allowed here, for now. 

At least we've finally come to the inevitable point where you realize that all of your arguments have been eviscerated, so you've just cut your post down to the snotty insults and abandoned the BS. Kudos BF. 

No you cut it down to snotty insults with your childish post copying my last argument that you can’t rebut.   I don’t think you’ve deterred anyone. You’ve just shown what it looks like when an ignorant  uneducated cult follower like yourself gets totally owned by someone with actual intelligence 

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Avoid trolling and thread derailment.  None of you are the topic of discussion in this thread. 

[ironstone]

Democrats tend to claim any election they lose is due to the Republicans cheating in some manner. The 2020 election results raised a lot of suspicions because of the "unusual" way it went down(Biden exceeding Obama's vote count by millions and yet the Dems lose seats in the House). Democrats say it's not possible that this election was rigged.

This HBO documentary was made before the 2020 election. Basically they say how easy it was to hack the US election but I guess that vulnerability magically vanished during the 2020 election.

Kill Chain: HBO doc's disturbing revelations about election security (fastcompany.com)

Biden is President but can anyone honestly say they're happy with his performance to date?

[BeaverFever]

23 hours ago, ironstone said:

Democrats tend to claim any election they lose is due to the Republicans cheating in some manner

Democrats claims of various Republican underhandedness and “legal cheating” are wholly different from  Trumps false, completely baseless and evidence-fee claims of systemic fraud and vast conspiracy that suggests the entire US system of democracy leaders is a third-world style rigged sham election. 
 

23 hours ago, ironstone said:

The 2020 election results raised a lot of suspicions because of the "unusual" way it went down(Biden exceeding Obama's vote count by millions and yet the Dems lose seats in the House).

Nothing at all unusual about that at all. Total votes nationwide doesn’t meant winning more seats.  That happens sometimes.  But it happens now more often since the Great Republican Gerrymander of 2010 that specifically aimed to create more Republican seats by favourably redrawing voting districts in red states.  
 

23 hours ago, ironstone said:

Democrats say it's not possible that this election was rigged.

Which Democrats say that?

 

 

REMEMBER we’re fast approaching a year after the election and still nobody has produced even a shred of evidence suggesting there was even a SLIGHT increase in the amount of fraud beyond the usual isolated crackpots acting on their own  (most of which happened to be for Trump in 2020 BTW),  much less on the impossibly grandiose scale needed to rig the entire election 

Edited September 7, 2021 by BeaverFever

[Galloway]

On 8/31/2021 at 11:23 AM, WestCanMan said:

Then the Dems spent 4 years pimping fraud-friendly election policies. That's not up for debate either.

 

Except Trump lost what, 60+ court cases claiming fraud?  Many of those losses before Trump appointed judges.

Without any evidence demonstrating significant fraud occured, it is fair to say the current laws being passed to "prevent fraud" are actually intended to disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible. 

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, Galloway said:

it is fair to say the current laws being passed to "prevent fraud" are actually intended to disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible. 

Only if it's true that "poor white people" are somehow smart enough to get ID but "poor black people" and "poor hispanic people" are too stupid. That's kinda racist though, don't ya think? 

[Galloway]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Only if it's true that "poor white people" are somehow smart enough to get ID but "poor black people" and "poor hispanic people" are too stupid. That's kinda racist though, don't ya think? 

1.  It will affect the black community far more than the white community.   

2.  Based on the systemic racism in many of the states introducing these laws, the "poor white" is going to have a lot better chance of getting a day off to go and get voter ID than blacks and hispanics.   

3,  Based on systemic racism, access to government offices to get ID is statistically easier for white people.

4.  Based on systemic racism, access to transportation to get ID is statistically easier for white people.

I'm sure there's lots of little things I haven't thought of that will add a 0.1% less likely here, and a 0.8% less likely there.    That's the whole point of systemic racism after all.

So little to do with intelligence, but everything to do with systemic racism.

 

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, Galloway said:

1.  It will affect the black community far more than the white community.   

 

Nope. See below

Quote

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200476/us-poverty-rate-by-ethnic-group/

There's a higher poverty rate among blacks and hispanics, but there are far more white people than blacks or hispanics as well. There are more poor white people than poor black people, and that means more disenfranchised whites. 

Quote

2.  Based on the systemic racism in many of the states introducing these laws, the "poor white" is going to have a lot better chance of getting a day off to go and get voter ID than blacks and hispanics. 

3,  Based on systemic racism, access to government offices to get ID is statistically easier for white people.

4.  Based on systemic racism, access to transportation to get ID is statistically easier for white people.

I'm sure there's lots of little things I haven't thought of that will add a 0.1% less likely here, and a 0.8% less likely there.    That's the whole point of systemic racism after all.

So little to do with intelligence, but everything to do with systemic racism.

Yeah ok. You tell the black people outside of the 'government offices' that 'they can't go in' lol. I'll bring the popcorn. 

Do you know how much harder it would be to keep black people out of 'government offices' for four straight years, to deny them access to ID, than it would be to just keep them away from the polling booths for a few hours? That's the worst conspiracy theory ever. 

 

[Galloway]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah ok. You tell the black people outside of the 'government offices' that 'they can't go in' lol. I'll bring the popcorn. 

I never said that.   Try again.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Galloway said:

I never said that.   Try again.

Can you explain what you meant to say then? Because that's how it reads. 

[Galloway]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you know how much harder it would be to keep black people out of 'government offices' for four straight years, to deny them access to ID, than it would be to just keep them away from the polling booths for a few hours? That's the worst conspiracy theory ever. 

 

WTF, you think systemic racism is "a conspiracy theory"?  That's messed up, especially when everyone has access to the internet.    

Use your brain for Christ sake, it's all about discouraging one person here, and two people there.   Surely you  noticed that lots of elections are decided by very thin margins?  So you just need to discourage enough people to swing the election in your favour.  

Here's an article from Rice University that covers racism in public transit.  They use lots of data, feel free to dispute it.

https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2020/08/24/transportation-racism-has-shaped-public-transit-america-inequalities

[Galloway]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Can you explain what you meant to say then? Because that's how it reads. 

See the previous post.  It explains how systemic racism makes it harder for black people to travel on public transit than white people. 

Government offices are placed to make access easy for white people.   And the racists in public office, and there are lot in the USA, particularly the South,  must take special pleasure  in closing down a government office in a black neighbourhood.   That's the way systemic racism works.

So sure, black people can get to the public office.   But extra hurdles mean fewer people make it.   Any decent statistician can take the demographics and tell you exactly how many people you need to discourage in any given area to swing an election, and what sort of obstacles would discourage the required number of people.  And that is exactly what the laws in each area are designed to do. .   

Edited September 8, 2021 by Galloway

[Galloway]

On 9/1/2021 at 9:36 PM, WestCanMan said:

2) A Russian told Trump's people that they had evidence of a crime, and it's not a crime to go listen to evidence. There was no money exchanging hands for services rendered.

So you must be privy to all communications between all parties involved to know there was no money (or other benefit) exchanged for services rendered.   

How did you come by this treasure trove of information?  Any chance you could share it with us?

[Galloway]

On 9/3/2021 at 12:01 PM, BeaverFever said:

The only idiocy here is the hypocritical drivel that oozes out of your brainwashed uneducated mind. 
 

Like I said you’re completely inventing the claim that Russians were paid or that anything illegal happened with Hilary. 
 

Meanwhile the Trump team lied about their many Trump tower meetings and they should have alerted the US authorities when approached by the Russians instead of trying to collude with them. 

That's a brave accusation.  Perhaps WestCoastMan has access to all communications that occured between Hillary and the Russians, and he's planning on sharing the transcripts with us on this very forum.