« First « Previous Comments 90 - 129 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
Only hard proof will make me reconsider, and no one has any.
In 2000 we all were hyper focused on hanging chads in 1 state for a couple week. But at the end of the day it was a super close election and one person won and one person lost. And it has to be that way for the government to function.
In 2020, it wasn't anywhere near as close. But still the debate rages. And still the truth is it was a close election and one person won and one person lost and it has to be that way for the government to function.
Mell, it's not. Sorry. I have multiple hypotheses of people stacking ballots in piles and feeding them to machines by bins, and aggregating them that I outlined above. I don't know what happened there. I didn't investigate. But it is definitely not hard proof. It is circumstantial evidence that can be cast with allegation, or explained with no fraud.
Not really, this discussion is fairly easy. If you don't support changing the election from cheating banana republic style to in person, id-verified, ballot/paper supported elections only, you have lost the argument and support the cheating by the left. You can be left leaning without supporting the cheating by purposely obfuscating the election process.
mell says
Not really, this discussion is fairly easy. If you don't support changing the election from cheating banana republic style to in person, id-verified, ballot/paper supported elections only, you have lost the argument and support the cheating by the left. You can be left leaning without supporting the cheating by purposely obfuscating the election process.
Discussion here is about proving that Trump was screwed out of Presidency by election night shenanigans. Evidence is circumstantial yet (in my mind) compelling. Changing election process is a different issue and it seems that no one in zir right mind would oppose it unless they want to cheat, but opposing is not direct evidence of cheating again.
About vaxx and shutdowns there is plenty direct evidence.
DeficitHawk is a Democrat debating, so he's an existence proof of at least one.
But I agree that in general Democrats do not seem to be interested into digging into anything which might lead to an uncomfortable conclusion.
OK, @DeficitHawk do you think it is acceptable to mandate the injection of drugs with no long-term safety data into healthy people?
That is a loaded question.
I don't know how to get to the point more directly. It is the question I want to ask, because it is the essence of my complaint about mandates.
I want to see the reply of True The Vote
Huh, that video won't play for me.
the only way forward is to adopt stringent voter id laws with in person id-verified voting with paper ballots only to prevent cheating in the future and restore trust in fair elections. The fact that democrats oppose this underscores they have been and are actively cheating.
I'm anti deliberately-insulting speech.
If someone happens to be offended when you did not intend to offend them, that's their problem.
But if you're deliberately offending someone, then you're not debating at all, and in fact have just made it completely impossible to have a debate.
DeficitHawk says
Maybe a secretary can be corrupt, sure... But not 50.
How about just the four swing states that determined the outcome? Still impossible?
And even then, the government officials do not have to be corrupt except to the extent of allowing drop box voting and voting software from China, eg:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html
how will this address the concerns Patrick raised in his chart above?
But I voted for him.
I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.
Maybe be people are stealing them out of some grandma's mailbox and resubmitting them. Nit could happen. But I doubt this is a widespread occurrence, but you clearly think differently.
« First « Previous Comments 90 - 129 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.