Inside Trump’s Plan to Rig 2024

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Find... how?

You are presuming something nefarious there that was not said.

It didn't matter to Trump or he would have said how.

 

5 minutes ago, User said:

Just like Gore wanted his team to find more votes by recounting. 

See, Gore's method was STATED. Duh

5 minutes ago, User said:

Of course everyone wanting a recount is doing it for their specific side. There is nothing nefarious about that. And they all know by how much they lost and how many more votes they need to win, pointing that out is not nefarious. 

My thinking is just fine. 

Your "thinking" is confused. That's what happens when you start with an agenda and try to shoehorn facts to fit it.

Recount is NOT demanding a specific result. Duh

[User]

Just now, robosmith said:

It didn't matter to Trump or he would have said how.

YOU are the one presuming something nefarious here. It matters what YOU think it means and why you think it is something nefarious. I am asking YOU to defend your assertions. 

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

See, Gore's method was STATED. Duh

And? So you admit Trump said nothing nefarious. 

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Your "thinking" is confused. That's what happens when you start with an agenda and try to shoehorn facts to fit it.

Recount is NOT demanding a specific result. Duh

How is my thinking confused?

A recount is in fact trying to get a specific result, enough votes to win. 

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, User said:

YOU are the one presuming something nefarious here. It matters what YOU think it means and why you think it is something nefarious. I am asking YOU to defend your assertions. 

And? So you admit Trump said nothing nefarious. 

"Finding" votes with a THREAT of legal sanctions is completely nefarious whether you understand that or not.

10 minutes ago, User said:

How is my thinking confused?

A recount is in fact trying to get a specific result, enough votes to win. 

Trying within legitimate limitations of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (vote counts) is NOT demanding a specific result.

Are you really that dense, or just delusional refusal to face REALITY? LMAO

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

But you LOVE Trump's attempts to change the vote count with threats of legal sanctions even AFTER losing the contest in court. 🤮

What I like...is watching you freaks panic.

[West]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What I like...is watching you freaks panic.

The Democrat propagandists may be next 

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What I like...is watching you freaks panic.

This may be your summer  

[User]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Finding" votes with a THREAT of legal sanctions is completely nefarious whether you understand that or not.

Give me the exact quote from Trump where you are sitting here saying he was threatening them if they didn't find the votes. You are changing the claim now. 

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trying within legitimate limitations of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (vote counts) is NOT demanding a specific result.

Are you really that dense, or just delusional refusal to face REALITY? LMAO

Where was Trump asking them to find votes through an illegitimate process? 

What reality am I refusing to see here?

It is you who are presuming something nefarious with no evidence. 

[sharkman]

23 hours ago, robosmith said:

Inside Trump’s Plan to Rig 2024

 Trump's plan: no more Raffenspergers who will stand behind the vote count. 🤮

Wow, the paranoia runs deep.  Let's see.  He's convicted of sex crimes and what was the other one again?  34 counts of something or other.  He's fighting off a financial judgement that he was not allowed to appeal, or had to put up the money first in order to appeal, kind of like you have to sign the bill to find out what's inside(That's a Pelosi special).

But wait, there's more!  The dude is also rigging the presidential election, just LIKE LAST TIME!!!  2016 was fixed!  2020 was as pure as the driven snow even though Trump was involved, but watch out!  We hear this time he's really going to fix it!  Unless of course, he loses, in which case it was pure as the democrat snow again.

You people should really just listen to your paranoia, it's jaw dropping.

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Wow, the paranoia runs deep.  Let's see.  He's convicted of sex crimes and what was the other one again?  34 counts of something or other. 

He was never convicted of sex crimes. The recent conviction for felony accounting was his only conviction. 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What I like...is watching you freaks panic.

No panic here. But there is plenty of panic by RepubliCONS over Trump's 34 FELONY convictions.

So much they're threatening to trash the US justice system, which is really exceptional given their former pretense of favoring "law & order."

Edited June 12, 2024 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

No panic here. But there is plenty of panic by RepubliCONS over Trump's 34 FELONY convictions.

So much they're threatening to trash the US justice system, which is really exceptional given their former pretense of favoring "law & order."

Robo, you've been desperately and frantically posting the most ridiculous anti-trump stories you possibly can find every single day. You are in full blown panic mode  

I imagine this just keeps getting worse till we get to November

[sharkman]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He was never convicted of sex crimes. The recent conviction for felony accounting was his only conviction. 

I was speaking in generic terms of the E. Jean Carrol defamation ruling that awarded 83 million.  And yes I know that's not a conviction.  Since that's your only response to my comment then you obviously can't see the big picture here.  Why don't you go chase after Robo's tail some more.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, sharkman said:

I was speaking in generic terms of the E. Jean Carrol defamation ruling that awarded 83 million.  And yes I know that's not a conviction. 

Soooo  you lied.  You knowingly said something that's not true. In fact the judge was very blunt and direct that this was not a case involving sex offense nor was that proven.  but  you claim he's a convicted sex offender. 

I knew you were wrong, disappointing you see you deliberately lied. 

Quote

Since that's your only response to my comment then you obviously can't see the big picture here.  

You start off with a lie and then wonder why people aren't looking at the rest of your argument?

Buddy  if you top a steak with dog poo, nobody is going to care how well the steak is cooked.  Try being an honest person and making real arguments. I mean, are you saying there aren't enough REAL bad things to say about trump that you have to make crap up?

You can pass that on to Robo too if you like    

[Fluffypants]

24 minutes ago, sharkman said:

I was speaking in generic terms of the E. Jean Carrol defamation ruling that awarded 83 million.  And yes I know that's not a conviction.  Since that's your only response to my comment then you obviously can't see the big picture here.  Why don't you go chase after Robo's tail some more.

You mean the defamation ruling where the judge determined that not finding him liable for rape is really rape and him just saying he never raped her was defamation.

Edited June 12, 2024 by Fluffypants

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

You mean the defamation ruling where the judge determined that not finding him liable for rape is really rape and him just saying he never raped her was defamation.

LOL  well that's a little unfair but kinda yea  

Saying she made a false statement without being able to prove it is defamation (in this case according to the judge) 

But the trial wasn't about sexual assault at all. It was about defamation, and it wasn't a criminal case so there was no conviction of any kind. He was found liable for damages, not 'convicted' or anything. 

But the left frequently refers to it as 'trump's rape conviction"