The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Ingomike]

I think that’s denying reality. Nobody voted FOR Biden. Except maybe Alpo. It’s an old people thing. Anyway who would vote FOR an obviously senile old creep who sniffs little girls’ hair? How many people bought the media hype and voted Hitler out of office? A **** ton. I don’t know why that’s so hard to see.

My point is that in political history the anti-vote is not a record setting vote total, and when viewed with all the surrounding data and circumstances the Biden total is improbable if not impossible...

 

[foszoe]

My point is that in political history the anti-vote is not a record setting vote total, and when viewed with all the surrounding data and circumstances the Biden total is improbable if not impossible...

You are mixing metaphors...just as electoral votes win not the popular vote, the anti-vote matters in how it affects the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

 

[KG1]

I think the distinction that the election fraud naysayers are trying to make is not that it could happen. They want hard evidence that it did happen.

 

[Ingomike]

I think that’s denying reality. Nobody voted FOR Biden. Except maybe Alpo. It’s an old people thing. Anyway who would vote FOR an obviously senile old creep who sniffs little girls’ hair? How many people bought the media hype and voted Hitler out of office? A **** ton. I don’t know why that’s so hard to see.

So you believe without any reservations that Biden blasted the record votes of Trump and Obama because "orange man bad"? And then question my ability to see, the whole picture. But my belief in this is also tempered with the knowledge of the available cheats that have been uncovered, cheats, I don't know why that's so hard to see.

 

[Alpo]

You are going to blow a gasket Mike. Relax.

 

[Ingomike]

I think the distinction that the election fraud naysayers are trying to make is not that it could happen. They want hard evidence that it did happen.

We have plenty of evidence available, including analytics evidence that would shut down a casino, witnesses testimony, thousands of affidavits, ample evidence of the complete lack of security in voting systems, and all that does not include unconstitutional changes to election law by bureaucratics. What specifically were you looking for?

What "hard evidence" do you want to see?

 

[KG1]

We have plenty of evidence available, including analytics evidence that would shut down a casino, witnesses testimony, thousands of affidavits, ample evidence of the complete lack of security in voting systems, and all that does not include unconstitutional changes to election law by bureaucratics. What specifically were you looking for?

What "hard evidence" do you want to see?

Where in my post did you see me referring to myself as a naysayer?

 

[jamil]

My point is that in political history the anti-vote is not a record setting vote total, and when viewed with all the surrounding data and circumstances the Biden total is improbable if not impossible...

Never in history have I seen the press create a narrative like this as openly hostile to a president. Nixon wasn’t even maligned like this by the press and he deserved it.

 

[Alpo]

Different times. Nixon wasn't subject to the internet. You actually had to write an op-ed or march in a protest. And there were plenty of those.

But there wasn't 24/7 world-wide opinion posts by anyone with a keyboard and internet connection. Trump used the net. It was also used against him.

 

[Ingomike]

Vote Switching, 6min video

https://ugetube.com/watch/vote-switching_DU7RBpycwPyBH9R.html

Great video. Any of you naysayers got an explanation for all the negative vote tallies election night? Vote counting is a additive process why are votes visibly swapping or dropping?

 

[Alpo]

It's over Mike.

No democrat needs to respond to these accusations any more. You've lost in court close to 60 times. All the way to the Supremes and back.

It's over.

 

[Ingomike]

Where in my post did you see me referring to myself as a naysayer?

Sorry, misread. What do you believe the naysayers want to see? I truly have not figured that out?

Reminds me of a concept that prosecuting attorneys brought up some years ago, called the CSI affect. The juries expected the real world prosecutors and forensic team to produce the flashy type results like they saw on TV, the stuff that lead to plaintiffs surrender, not real world imperfect evidence that requires discernment...

 

[Ingomike]

It's over Mike.

No democrat needs to respond to these accusations any more. You've lost in court close to 60 times. All the way to the Supremes and back.

It's over.

If you have something to add please add it...

 

[Alpo]

I haven't responded in a couple of days precisely because you cannot see the forest any more.

It. Is. Over.

 

[KG1]

Sorry, misread. What do you believe the naysayers want to see? I truly have not figured that out?

Reminds me of a concept that prosecuting attorneys brought up some years ago, called the CSI affect. The juries expected the real world prosecutors and forensic team to produce the flashy type results like they saw on TV, the stuff that lead to plaintiffs surrender, not real world imperfect evidence that requires discernment...

I'm starting to think that anything you say will not appease them.

 

[buckwacker]

It's over Mike.

No democrat needs to respond to these accusations any more. You've lost in court close to 60 times. All the way to the Supremes and back.

It's over.

Translation: I don't care if we won by cheating, only that we won.

 

[indyblue]

I haven't responded in a couple of days precisely because you cannot see the forest any more.

It. Is. Over.

If "It" is the U.S. Constitutional Republic, then you are right.

 

[printcraft]

I haven't responded in a couple of days precisely because you cannot see the forest any more.

It. Is. Over.

Nope, sorry not over... Get ready for 4 years of investigations and impeachment proceeding of bidet.
It's how business is done now, you set the precedent.

 

[KG1]

It's over Mike.

No democrat needs to respond to these accusations any more. You've lost in court close to 60 times. All the way to the Supremes and back.

It's over.

This is what the naysayers are judging this on. Lack of court victories. In their eyes it has to be proven in a court of law. That's what I was trying to get at in my previous post.

 

[Ingomike]

This is what the naysayers are judging this on. Lack of court victories. In their eyes it has to be proven in a court of law. That's what I was trying to get at in my previous post.

And no court has heard a case on merits, just for quick injunctions so far. And Texas was a quick Hail Mary...