Rasmussen: Evidence of election fraud

[reason10]

4 hours 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.

 

Whenever in !diot loses an argument (which you seem to do all the time here) that !diot trots out the word TROLL.

You don't even know what it means, you simple minded fruit.

[West]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

No I'm saying there's been so many lies and disinformation spewed over the past 10 years or so that to say "just trust me bro" isn't gonna cut it

[reason10]

5 hours ago, Legato said:

What's odd is the people who claim they would never cheat in elections are horrified by a stop cheating in elections bill.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Ohio tried to pass a bill requiring a photo ID at polling places. Already there have been legal challenges.

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/01/10/ohios-photo-voter-id-law-already-facing-legal-challenge/

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, West said:

No I'm saying there's been so many lies and disinformation spewed over the past 10 years or so that to say "just trust me bro" isn't gonna cut it

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anyone is. I'm just asking what the limits are to you believing this plot.

[CdnFox]

1 hour 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). 

In the actual court yes, but in the court of the public people tend to accept a lower burden of proof. And that's where we run into trouble. 

Things have to be redone in such a way that it's not just a matter of there being no proof, but rather that it's implausible for it to happen without proof and that's not the case now

[West]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anyone is. I'm just asking what the limits are to you believing this plot.

I don't know why Rudy Guiliani would blow up his entire reputation over a lie. Seems implausible

[Hodad]

10 hours 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

Lol. You hold a fantastically high opinion of the power of retirees. Retirees who didn't even work for the FBI, no less.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Hodad

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

Remember those clowns waving around stacks of paper they promised were evidence? 

But, they sure were taking advantage of the rubes, and not shy about it. 

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, Legato said:

Did you get those earmarks whilst waiting for that kiss.

Did you strain your TROLL brain to come up with ^this BULLSHIT?

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, West said:

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

See you can't even quote the LIE you claim exists. LMAO

10 hours ago, West said:

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

You wouldn't know a LIE if it bit you in the ass. After all you believe the PATHOLOGICAL LIAR Trump. 

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, Deluge said:

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

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

 

Ok, in 2020 CA had 8 criminal convictions out of 22 MILLION registered voters.

That's NOTHING, lDIOT.

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

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.

None of the numerous affidavits PROVED ANYTHING which is why Trump LOST his 60+ cases.

No one is going to investigate this one, either.

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, reason10 said:

Whenever in !diot loses an argument (which you seem to do all the time here) that !diot trots out the word TROLL.

You don't even know what it means, you simple minded fruit.

No, just you and Legato, because you're the TOP TROLL, but Legato is more prolific lately.

[Nationalist]

This is comical.

More and more of this comes out plus Hunter's laptop, and the public becomes more and more convinced that the Democrats cheated.

[Deluge]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Ok, in 2020 CA had 8 criminal convictions out of 22 MILLION registered voters.

That's NOTHING, lDIOT.

I'm sorry, dumbass, but those are just the known cases of fraud - it doesn't account for all the shitbags that are still out there. 

Only a dumbf*ck, like yourself, believes there is ZERO wrong doing outside of what's been recorded. lol

[impartialobserver]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In the actual court yes, but in the court of the public people tend to accept a lower burden of proof. And that's where we run into trouble. 

Things have to be redone in such a way that it's not just a matter of there being no proof, but rather that it's implausible for it to happen without proof and that's not the case now

Well, if the courts of law would open their gates a bit.. the court of public opinion would follow. The court of public opinion sees the restrictive laws (wrongfully so, might I add) as a conspiracy against them. Like it or not... there are government employees who follow the law to the letter.  I think that they need to open the doors just a bit and hopefully satiate some of these types that believe in a grand conspiracy against them. 

[Michael Hardner]

19 hours ago, West said:

I don't know why Rudy Guiliani would blow up his entire reputation over a lie. Seems implausible

To satisfy his boss?  Maybe he had enough hubris to think he was going to win.

 

But back to my question about the purported Democrat interference...

I still don't have a sense from you that there's anything like "too much" in any claim.  The fact that there were a lot of claims was, to my mind, a tactic.  I mean, it makes sense to create the appearance of a lot of claims.

But... (And this is as much about your claims of the power of the Democratic Party as it is about panicked Democrats who think Trump can "destroy" democracy)... There ARE limits.

 

Trump's own supreme Court refuses to hear the election fraud cases.  The same court that overturned Roe v Wade.

So, yes our options are depressing, but NO there's no credible risk of takeover or some such.

[User]

12 hours ago, robosmith said:

None of the numerous affidavits PROVED ANYTHING which is why Trump LOST his 60+ cases.

No one is going to investigate this one, either.

They were not all Trump's cases nor were they all "lost". Most were never even heard because of standing issues and the vast majority of them were either not heard from standing issues or outright dismissed. 

 

[West]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

To satisfy his boss?  Maybe he had enough hubris to think he was going to win.

 

But back to my question about the purported Democrat interference...

I still don't have a sense from you that there's anything like "too much" in any claim.  The fact that there were a lot of claims was, to my mind, a tactic.  I mean, it makes sense to create the appearance of a lot of claims.

But... (And this is as much about your claims of the power of the Democratic Party as it is about panicked Democrats who think Trump can "destroy" democracy)... There ARE limits.

 

Trump's own supreme Court refuses to hear the election fraud cases.  The same court that overturned Roe v Wade.

So, yes our options are depressing, but NO there's no credible risk of takeover or some such.

The issue was standing. There's never been a hearing because they claim they can't bring it. 

It's also the same argument Trump used and resulted in Democrat sycophants taking away law licenses of people and trying to imprison them. This is standard in the soviet union

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, West said:

The issue was standing. There's never been a hearing because they claim they can't bring it. 

It's also the same argument Trump used and resulted in Democrat sycophants taking away law licenses of people and trying to imprison them. This is standard in the soviet union

What do you mean standing? I don't know the details, but are you saying that the supreme Court did not think it had standing to rule on electoral fraud?

[Rebound]

On 7/9/2024 at 10:22 AM, User said:

And of course, you thought the same thing with E Jean Carroll coming out some 20 years later?

 

Because witnesses testified that Carroll told them at the time of the rape that it had happened.  
 

This allegation is pure nothing.  Was it filed with a court? Under oath? Was there any other corroborating witness?  

[User]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Because witnesses testified that Carroll told them at the time of the rape that it had happened.  

Yeah, amazing how they all waited until well into Trump's Presidency to come forward right when she was selling her book. 

Oh yeah... she couldn't remember what year it happened.