Rasmussen: Evidence of election fraud

[Deluge]

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Not so interesting that you BUY THIS BULLSHIT. There were dozens of TIMELY BULLSHIT affidavits that MEANT NOTHING in COURT. Which is WHY Trump LOST 60+ legal challenges. Duh

Your ^OPINION means less than NOTHING, TOP TROLL.

 

roboshill likes to pretend that his posts actually mean something. lol

[West]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But it's a stretch to believe it happened in the totality, to the scale that would be required.

So there appears to be some limit, at least, to how much they would be able to rig the process.  Especially given that the Democrats haven't won every single case in every court either.

So, what I'm looking for is an idea of scale here, and what - to you - would be considered an "outlandish" claim as to how much power the Democrats have ?  Because outlandish claims happen, I'm sure you agree.

When you think about it they had 51 of quite possibly the most powerful people besides the president of the United States in the world openly lie about a laptop and then hide it under "classifications".

Why is it a stretch to believe they don't rig US elections? They do everywhere else

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

False equivalence. What Carroll claimed was EXACTLY what Trump BRAGGED ABOUT DOING on the Access Hollywood TAPE. Duh

It doesn't matter what I thought, the JURY CONVICTED Trump.

He never bragged about doing anything to Carroll on that tape.  AND - it's still that long ago so you didn't address that. 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Wow! ^TROLLING completely out of the blue.

Republicans are pushing the passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, otherwise known as the SAVE Act, which would amend the National Voter Registration Act, and require states to obtain proof of citizenship from voters for federal elections, as well as purge noncitizens from voter rolls. 

Democratic leadership is urging its House members to vote against the bill in the lead-up to the vote, saying it would place "an extreme burden [on] countless Americans" in order to vote. 

[User]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It is a JOKE. And you are a naive lDIOT.

Maybe it is a joke, mabye not. Me pointing out facts here doesn't make me naive or an ID10T. It makes you an extreme partisan who is a hypocrite and a liar. 

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

He bragged about doing it to MANY women.

"When you're a star, they let you do it." 🤮

"they... LET YOU"

Try to get some ability to comprehend words. 

[Deluge]

17 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Some context here. The above X post is a thread with pictures of an affidavit, signed by a poll worker in Wisconsin. The poll worker details unusual activity. Specifically that paper ballots were being tabulated AFTER poll watchers were sent home. Then, an email is included where (someone appearing to be managerial in nature) applauds a worker for getting just the right amount of ballots in.

 

 

Do these things have innocent intent? Possibly. But that is why we have investigations. That is why the certification should have been paused.

When we don't get it right and we ignore the possibility that we are being defrauded, we lose our country.

At the very least, this serves as a reminder of how desperate the democrats are to seize and hold power.

We need to be vigilant on election day. 

[gatomontes99]

Just now, Deluge said:

At the very least, this serves as a reminder of how desperate the democrats are to seize and hold power.

We need to be vigilant on election day. 

Sounds like the RNC is posting observers outised counting centers in key states to prevent late night trucks like this.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, West said:

You support election rigging. Sad

There's NO RIGGING, just some rando invented an affidavit. Duh

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...LOSER!

^Trumpian PROJECTION. LMAO

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, West said:

 Why is it a stretch to believe they don't rig US elections? They do everywhere else

Because it's a lot harder to hack over 50 electoral systems overseen by both parties, and each different from the next than to hide a laptop ?

I'm just speaking practically here - what are the limits to what you, West, believe ?  What would cause YOU to say "No, that's too much the Democrats couldn't pull that off ?"

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, West said:

From what's come out about the Democrats, it's not a stretch to believe they interfered in the election

Only if you STILL believe FOS LIES, after they had to pay $800M for LYING about the election. LMAO

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And you're just jealous as Hell...ain't ya.

Not at all. I always wait for her to kiss me.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. Those failed because there was no remedy. Basically, for a court to handle any law suit, the plaintiff must show harm, cause and propose a remedy. With all of our ballots deidentified to protect voter rights, it is impossible to show how illegal ballots effected the election.

Only impossible IF you have NO EVIDENCE. AKA, you have to catch them IN THE ACT.

Too bad your "affidavit" is suspicious as hell, AND there's NO REMEDIATION available 3 1/2 years later. LMAO

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Mike this argument is sick.

"Oh they cheated but not enough to change the election results."

NO CHEATING is acceptable Mike.!

A lot of individual RepubliCONS have been caught cheating, but you don't care about that.

Probably cause you never heard it reported on FOS LIES. LMAO

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

There's ALWAYS something to see when democrats are involved, and we need to find out whether these two were helping the hair sniffer get into office.  

Ok, hire a PI and get busy. Let us know when you find ANYTHING.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

roboshill likes to pretend that his posts actually mean something. lol

Someone has to tell you the TRUTH. You obviously only know BULLSHIT.

[West]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because it's a lot harder to hack over 50 electoral systems overseen by both parties, and each different from the next than to hide a laptop ?

I'm just speaking practically here - what are the limits to what you, West, believe ?  What would cause YOU to say "No, that's too much the Democrats couldn't pull that off ?"

I dont know Michael. 

All I know is there's alot of unexplained anomalies and an intelligence apparatus that was willing to lie. 

It's another one of those things where they don't want you to believe your eyes.

Edited July 9, 2024 by West

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

When you think about it they had 51 of quite possibly the most powerful people besides the president of the United States in the world openly lie about a laptop and then hide it under "classifications".

Why is it a stretch to believe they don't rig US elections? They do everywhere else

Quote

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails
purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time
serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a
Russian information operation.
We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec8on, and we
believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this. 

Quote the LIE. "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" is NOT a LIE.

 

Edited July 9, 2024 by robosmith

[Legato]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Quote the LIE. "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" is NOT a LIE.

 

Did you get those earmarks whilst waiting for that kiss.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, West said:

I dont know Michael. 

All I know is there's alot of unexplained anomalies and an intelligence apparatus that was willing to lie. 

It's another one of those things where they don't want you to believe your eyes.

But... there are limits as to what they can do right ?  You don't have to believe your eyes, if you trust someone will look into it on your behalf, look at the evidence and so on.  

[West]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Quote the LIE. "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" is NOT a LIE.

 

Right... and turns out they defamed a computer repair man

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But... there are limits as to what they can do right ?  You don't have to believe your eyes, if you trust someone will look into it on your behalf, look at the evidence and so on.  

There's too many anomalies and lies to trust the official narrative

[Deluge]

34 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Ok, hire a PI and get busy. Let us know when you find ANYTHING.

Oh, well it's right here, stupid - always there, always waiting for you...  

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

 

Edited July 9, 2024 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, West said:

 There's too many anomalies and lies to trust the official narrative

But that assumes that they're valid.  It's easy to throw smoke and "raise questions"... My question are to you - what constitutes a fake vs real issue ... you must certainly believe that some claims about the Democrats were not valid.  

[Deluge]

36 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Someone has to tell you the TRUTH. You obviously only know BULLSHIT.

You hate the truth, dumbass, remember? It's why you're always gaslighting everybody with woke propaganda.  

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Only if you STILL believe FOS LIES, after they had to pay $800M for LYING about the election. LMAO

Not at all. I always wait for her to kiss me.

Huh...no balls eh?

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

A lot of individual RepubliCONS have been caught cheating, but you don't care about that.

Probably cause you never heard it reported on FOS LIES. LMAO

That's certainly pure bullsh1t.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Only impossible IF you have NO EVIDENCE. AKA, you have to catch them IN THE ACT.

Too bad your "affidavit" is suspicious as hell, AND there's NO REMEDIATION available 3 1/2 years later. LMAO

It's not suspect. The poll worker's name is redacted, but it is an official affidavit. It doesn't prove anything, but the corresponding email makes it far more interesting.

[impartialobserver]

An aspect of this that gets ignored is that to have your court case heard.. you have to prove it. Well to prove it.. you have to have the micro data. To get that micro level data, you have to have proof beforehand. A bit of a catch 22. By being so strict in their adherence to the law, they open things up for conspiracy theories (glorified filling in the blanks). 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

An aspect of this that gets ignored is that to have your court case heard.. you have to prove it. Well to prove it.. you have to have the micro data. To get that micro level data, you have to have proof beforehand. A bit of a catch 22. By being so strict in their adherence to the law, they open things up for conspiracy theories (glorified filling in the blanks). 

It doesn't matter.  They will throw everything they have out there, which is why Giuliani and the Kracken lady are being disbarred.