What's new
By:
Filters

Dammit Trump, why are saying stupid shit/smdh/

dntsdad said:
So show me the evidence. What is so fucking hard? Its comical.
Click to expand...
Proof voting laws were changed in individual states, and the manner in which the changes were devised, and implemented violating that own states rules, laws, and procedures?

It was there, and it was presented to the court.

I don't think they are even denying it.

I ain't looking it up for you. Because it's been 4 years, and you won't believe anything presented, because it wasn't accepted by the court. And it wasn't accepted by the court due to standing. And not recognizing standing was a complete FUCK YOU to the country as a whole.














And I've said it before (but it's all been said before) ... I ain't mad at the democrats for cheating. They are going to do whatever it is they can get by with to win.

I ain't mad at the press. (disappointed, yeah...but I ain't mad) They are who they are.

I am PISSED at the courts. Fuckin livid. 1/3 of our governemnt , an entire branch, just turned their back on enforcing fair elections.

You can't fix voting, if you don't have a court system willing to enforce the rules.
And we haven't done anything to fix the courts since the 2020 election. Not a fuckin thing.
 
dntsdad said:
So show me the evidence. What is so fucking hard? Its comical.
Click to expand...
You need to learn how court proceedings work.
A recent example is when that crazy lady accused Trump of rape.
She had claimed in the past that he did not rape her.
She was on Madcow bragging about how she intended to spend the money she was going to win from Trump.
Trump's attorneys were not allowed to present evidence in his defense.
Guilty. Of course.
The judge made the decision rather than the jury, due to not allowing the defense to present evidence.

When state officials filed in court about the evidence of fraud they had and wanted to present, they were denied the opportunity.
Not being allowed to present evidence does not mean the evidence ceases to exist.

Here ya go:

They recently found over 6,000 illegals registered to vote in Virginia and in Texas. Nearly 2,000 of them have voted in the past.
The names have been removed from the rolls and they are now pursuing charges against them.
That's fraud right? Do you agree?

If you want to see more, read up on the fake addresses used in Nevada.
Empty lots, industrial areas, ballots showing addresses where the actual residents have never heard of the people, and addresses on streets that have no actual addresses on them. Locals knew they were bogus as soon as they saw the addresses.

Why would people kick out the republican poll watchers and ballot counters then continue to scan ballots? That happened.
There really were "mail-in" ballots that were not folded. Why would anyone scan them into the system when they are 100% certain they were fraudulent ballots?
How were hundreds more ballots scanned in some counties than registered voters? That happened.
The mass-mailing of unsolicited ballots was done for one reason -to cheat.
I lived in Tucson in 2020 and I know a guy who's MIL, a Mexican national staying with them, received not one, but two ballots in the mail.
She was entitled to ZERO ballots and did not register to vote. Somehow she was given the ability to fill out two ballots if she wanted.
Why would that be allowed? Katie Hobbs is why. She also oversaw her own election for governor.

You choose not to see fraud.
Admit it.
 
Sandy Johnson said:
If they've got all this damning data that would destroy the democratic party, it sure would be nice if they would release it so people can stop voting their asses into office and fawking up our country.
Click to expand...

We are dealing with the pro class of organized crime here. The data/information/proof will never point to anyone.

The 2000 mules movie shows people traveling from different locations to different ballot boxes multiple times. Sure looks like fishy shit going on to me.
Problem is, they can't prove which ballots got put into which drop boxes, they can't prove what went on between point A and point B, they can't prove where the ballots originated from, they can't prove what happened to the ballots between the original source and the collection locations, they can't prove who the votes were for. All they can prove is there were people stuffing the fuck out of ballot boxes, which there is a sliver of a chance that somehow it was all legal.

None of the people involved even worked for the same nonprofit. It's layers upon layers upon layers that all lead to nowhere on purpose. I'd be willing to bet that everyone was paid in cash, so you couldn't even follow the money. The 2000 mules people bought the phone ping data to make their case, I'd bet everyone of those phones were burners too.

So, I believe that 2000 Mules showed that there was a fuck ton of ballot box stuffing that went on. But no prosecutor would ever touch it and even if they wanted to, they'd end up with 5 women saying they raped them, or get hit by a car.
The Democrat party is no different than any other political party in most 3rd world shitholes...............they just have more money to work with.
The Democrats also have folks like Soros and a few others, who are all too happy to bankroll chaos in this country that falls in line with their own agenda of destroying the country.


So don't think that because nothing coming from this is proof that cheating didn't happen, it's just proof that the cheating was designed to never lead anywhere.

Believe your lying eyes.:flipoff2::usa:
 
gt1guy said:
The 2000 mules movie shows people traveling from different locations to different ballot boxes multiple times. Sure looks like fishy shit going on to me.
Click to expand...
I watched 2000 mules all the way through as soon as it came out. It's easy to take a camera and show depictions of people doing things and make it look like whatever you want. That's why the cell phone location tracking data they claimed they had was so important: it was going to show proof that these people depicted in the film actually did travel to each location and returned to get more ballots from specific places and went back out again. When I first watched the movie I got really excited because this was the sort of concrete evidence that was needed to make people sit up and listen. Then they never released the cell phone tracking location data. Even if it's raw data, there are plenty of people on the internet (myself included), who could build something to sort through it all and show what needed to be shown. But they didn't release jack shit. So now all we have is documentary style hidden camera footage of people doing things while the narrator fills in the blanks. At that point with no data to back it up, it's purely for entertainment purposes. Look at the blair witch project if you want shaky documentary style footage that's not real. Shit, there's fake hidden camera stuff in porn these days. They needed to release the cell phone data they claimed they had and then they would have had irrefutable proof of what happened. No one could explain it away at that point.
 
Sandy Johnson said:
I watched 2000 mules all the way through as soon as it came out. It's easy to take a camera and show depictions of people doing things and make it look like whatever you want. That's why the cell phone location tracking data they claimed they had was so important: it was going to show proof that these people depicted in the film actually did travel to each location and returned to get more ballots from specific places and went back out again. When I first watched the movie I got really excited because this was the sort of concrete evidence that was needed to make people sit up and listen. Then they never released the cell phone tracking location data. Even if it's raw data, there are plenty of people on the internet (myself included), who could build something to sort through it all and show what needed to be shown. But they didn't release jack shit. So now all we have is documentary style hidden camera footage of people doing things while the narrator fills in the blanks. At that point with no data to back it up, it's purely for entertainment purposes. Look at the blair witch project if you want shaky documentary style footage that's not real. Shit, there's fake hidden camera stuff in porn these days. They needed to release the cell phone data they claimed they had and then they would have had irrefutable proof of what happened. No one could explain it away at that point.
Click to expand...
Are they just not releasing it, or were they told not to?
 
rockota said:
"my deceased wife got a ballot"
"there is no evidence of any fraud."

which then becomes

"you have no proof of fraud"
"the fraud wasn't enough to change the outcome!"
ignore what I said about my deceased wife getting a ballot - that has no impact and isn't any evidence of any fraud!

Question: Is your assertion that the ONLY person to get a fraudulent ballot is your wife?
Click to expand...
I guess I will have to talk to you in Kamala language.

Her ballot wasn't sent in.

It was shredded.

It was California

California isn't a swing state.

If it was sent in, it would have been a vote for Trump.

Was there fraud on the Trump side?

Using your logic there was.

There was a ballot sent to a dead Trump supporting household.
 
gt1guy said:
Are they just not releasing it, or were they told not to?
Click to expand...
I haven't heard of any sort of a ban on releasing the information, but it's always possible. Again, I really want to believe what was in the movie- it all makes sense, but it takes more than a convincing narration put people in jail.
 
gunracer1 said:
you denying it is just like CNN, you don't want to see it. there are 100 plus things out there showing they cheated. but anyone that can do math can see it was bullshit by counties won. but then again mr CNN you don't want to see it.
Click to expand...
Here we go boys!!!!!! Exactly what the world has been waiting for!!!!

gunracer from the internet has 100 points of proof!!!

Go ahead sir and post them here. I will wait for you to back up what you say. Somehow I feel it will turn into name calling and shit everyone already knows, which none of are proof the election was stolen.
 
dntsdad said:
I guess I will have to talk to you in Kamala language.

Her ballot wasn't sent in.

It was shredded.

It was California

California isn't a swing state.

If it was sent in, it would have been a vote for Trump.

Was there fraud on the Trump side?

Using your logic there was.

There was a ballot sent to a dead Trump supporting household.
Click to expand...

Fraud is fraud regardless on "which side." The fact that ballots went out to deceased people is and of itself FRAUD.

You're now sidestepping that with the "yeah, but it doesn't matter in CA.", "yeah, but I didn't fill it out, so it's no big deal," " yeah, but that's not enough fraud to change the outcome."

Fraud is fraud. It doesn't matter if there's a few instances or a few million instances... it's still fraud.

I'm not sure why you're arguing against that.
 
rockota said:
Fraud is fraud regardless on "which side." The fact that ballots went out to deceased people is and of itself FRAUD.
Click to expand...
If it was government incompetence that sent him his wife's ballot, is it still fraud?

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

1726172414861.png
 
Sandy Johnson said:
If it was government incompetence that sent him his wife's ballot, is it still fraud?

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

1726172414861.png
Click to expand...

I would argue yes… because government typically fights to not cleanse voter rolls, often illegally.

And the net result is the same… kind of one of those “you had one job to do” memes
 
I will concede that there was fraud if using your example. Proof is that my wife received a ballot. Again, using your definition.

That is a long road from the election was stolen. Sorry, but again, provide proof and I will be on your side. Again, I want there to be proof and for anyone to spend life in Pound Me in the Ass Prison.

These idiotic comments that I am a CNN junkie and the like are just stupid and just deflect that those people can't backup shit.
 
dntsdad said:
I will concede that there was fraud if using your example. Proof is that my wife received a ballot. Again, using your definition.

That is a long road from the election was stolen. Sorry, but again, provide proof and I will be on your side. Again, I want there to be proof and for anyone to spend life in Pound Me in the Ass Prison.

These idiotic comments that I am a CNN junkie and the like are just stupid and just deflect that those people can't backup shit.
Click to expand...
Gotta stop moving the goal posts...

Fraud is binary...

You've gone from "doesn't exist" (except for my late wife) to "not enough to change the outcome" to "stolen."

If there's fraud, there's fraud... and that calls into question the entire election...

EDIT: Re your last sentence... It's no more idiotic than you ignoring any and all evidence that does exist... because you claim that it hasn't been proven....
 
I have found.... that the more pronouns in a story the more likely it is bullshit.

If there is a lot of 'they told him to be quiet' 'things were said' 'There were lots of people who said it and saw it'

The documents in question were never found but they knew what were in them.

if fraud is binary is it a 'they them'?
 
rockota said:
Gotta stop moving the goal posts...

Fraud is binary...

You've gone from "doesn't exist" (except for my late wife) to "not enough to change the outcome" to "stolen."

If there's fraud, there's fraud... and that calls into question the entire election...

EDIT: Re your last sentence... It's no more idiotic than you ignoring any and all evidence that does exist... because you claim that it hasn't been proven....
Click to expand...
The elections are safe and effective.™
 
rockota said:
most secure election ever! circle-r
Click to expand...
®

Hold down the ALT key and on the numeric keypad type 0 1 7 4

ALT Codes for Windows

International Keyboard Codes | Windows Character Map | Mac Accent Codes This page list codes for accented letters and other characters. In order to use these codes, your computer should have a sepa…
sites.psu.edu

:Þ
 
MChat said:
®

Hold down the ALT key and on the numeric keypad type 0 1 7 4

ALT Codes for Windows

International Keyboard Codes | Windows Character Map | Mac Accent Codes This page list codes for accented letters and other characters. In order to use these codes, your computer should have a sepa…
sites.psu.edu

:Þ
Click to expand...
Geek! :flipoff2:
 
Sandy Johnson said:
I watched 2000 mules all the way through as soon as it came out. It's easy to take a camera and show depictions of people doing things and make it look like whatever you want. That's why the cell phone location tracking data they claimed they had was so important: it was going to show proof that these people depicted in the film actually did travel to each location and returned to get more ballots from specific places and went back out again. When I first watched the movie I got really excited because this was the sort of concrete evidence that was needed to make people sit up and listen. Then they never released the cell phone tracking location data. Even if it's raw data, there are plenty of people on the internet (myself included), who could build something to sort through it all and show what needed to be shown. But they didn't release jack shit. So now all we have is documentary style hidden camera footage of people doing things while the narrator fills in the blanks. At that point with no data to back it up, it's purely for entertainment purposes. Look at the blair witch project if you want shaky documentary style footage that's not real. Shit, there's fake hidden camera stuff in porn these days. They needed to release the cell phone data they claimed they had and then they would have had irrefutable proof of what happened. No one could explain it away at that point.
Click to expand...
In the movie they say how they gave everything to the FBI.

What would happen if the FBI treated this like J6 and started arresting these people?

Well, the FBI investigated them about how they got this data......

The FBI never investigated the guy that went to 37 drop boxes and 10 non-profits in 1 night across several counties. I bet if faced with J6 style prosecution he would start talking.

If that does not tell you all you need to know............

Buy yeah, Google says it is debunked........
 
Outahand said:
In the movie they say how they gave everything to the FBI.

What would happen if the FBI treated this like J6 and started arresting these people?

Well, the FBI investigated them about how they got this data......

The FBI never investigated the guy that went to 37 drop boxes and 10 non-profits in 1 night across several counties. I bet if faced with J6 style prosecution he would start talking.

If that does not tell you all you need to know............
Click to expand...

IF they gave everything to the FBI… and the FBI did nothing.


But….


The fbi used the same type of data to send people exercising their 1st amendment rights to protest….

Then… any honorable journalist should expose the hypocrisy.


Nevermind… no such thing. My bad.
 
rockota said:
IF they gave everything to the FBI… and the FBI did nothing.


But….


The fbi used the same type of data to send people exercising their 1st amendment rights to protest….

Then… any honorable journalist should expose the hypocrisy.


Nevermind… no such thing. My bad.
Click to expand...
or.... it is all bullshit and Sidney whats her name is a dumb crazy ****.

not sayin' but, it is possible.
 
Outahand said:
The FBI never investigated the guy that went to 37 drop boxes and 10 non-profits in 1 night across several counties. I bet if faced with J6 style prosecution he would start talking.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, and it would be awesome if that's the way it went. They also claimed in the movie they would make the data publicly available and they did not. Even if the FBI ignored it, publishing their findings for everyone to review would get enough people.talking that the FBI would have no choice but to publicly address the matter. Why did they not do this?
 
Sandy Johnson said:
I agree with that, and it would be awesome if that's the way it went. They also claimed in the movie they would make the data publicly available and they did not. Even if the FBI ignored it, publishing their findings for everyone to review would get enough people.talking that the FBI would have no choice but to publicly address the matter. Why did they not do this?
Click to expand...
200 copy 2.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh