The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Ingomike]

You didn't bother to read the transcript, else you wouldn't bother repeating something that was litigated and found to be false.

The opinion of a democratic machine judge is not a fact.

 

[Ingomike]

Perhaps I prefer not to see the Chief Justice libeled on INGO from the same group who continuously attempt to undermine the results of a presidential election.

At a certain point, sedition becomes a crime.

I thought all whistleblowers were to be believed? That a leak of the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas heated conversation is out there and we have never had resolution to if Roberts was on the Lolita Express is very reasonable to discuss in light of highly unexpected decisions, decisions that align with the deep state.

 

[drillsgt]

On a positive note, it looks like the SC did the right thing regarding illegal immigrants and the census. That will put a bit of hurt on CA.

 

[Ingomike]

On a positive note, it looks like the SC did the right thing regarding illegal immigrants and the census. That will put a bit of hurt on CA.

Actually this is far from decided, they just said no harm had occurred yet. Just kicking the can down the road again...

 

[OneBadV8]

The opinion of a democratic machine judge is not a fact.

According to the courts it is, until it's appealed to a higher court and overturned. That's sort of how the system works.


It can be your opinion that the court got it wrong, but unless overturned it kind of becomes precedent. No?

 

[IndyDave1776]

According to the courts it is, until it's appealed to a higher court and overturned. That's sort of how the system works.


It can be your opinion that the court got it wrong, but unless overturned it kind of becomes precedent. No?

The point of contention is that one individual keeps parroting that the decision of a judge makes a claim truth even in the cases where the court decision did not even consider the merits of the case. Also is correct that the decisions happened but it is not tenable to take the position that such an event makes the rest of us factually incorrect. Practical application is very much determined by the court but the court does NOT have any power to change objective truth.

 

[foszoe]

Whistleblowers should be heard.

I guess we could continue down this road of they did it so we can do it. Eventually we will end up where nothing is out of bounds.

Why keep letting them be first?

It seems kinda masochistic.

 

[Alpo]

The line from A Few Good Men comes to mind.

 

[Ingomike]

Votes were assigned at a rate several times the speed of which the tabulating machines are capable of operating. That happened. It is not open to interpretation. Thousands of dead people were caught red-handed voting. That is not subject to debate. The Dominion machines were examined and found capable of being connected to the internet. That is not subject to interpretation and is further addressed by sworn statements off seeing the machines connected. We have videos of the same ballots being run through the tabulating machine repetitively. We have people proven to have voted in more than one state.

How do you account for this, and how do you argue that further investigation and resolution are unnecessary?

Oh, and yes, I am saying quite clearly that at minimum a solid majority of the dismissals happened for reasons that don't have Jack **** to do with the law.

According to the courts it is, until it's appealed to a higher court and overturned. That's sort of how the system works.


It can be your opinion that the court got it wrong, but unless overturned it kind of becomes precedent. No?

In a perfect world it would work that way, but we are not in a perfect world, by any imagination. The courts are corrupt as evidenced by rulings like this that go against physical evidence.

When do we get to where the people (juries) make decisions not judges?

 

[Alpo]

Whistleblowers should be heard.

I guess we could continue down this road of they did it so we can do it. Eventually we will end up where nothing is out of bounds.

Why keep letting them be first?

It seems kinda masochistic.

Would you consider Q to be a whistleblower or a conspiracy advocate?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The line from A Few Good Men comes to mind.

Unit, Corps, God, Country?

 

[OneBadV8]

The line from A Few Good Men comes to mind.

Where’s my bat? I think better with my bat

 

[Alpo]

Where’s my bat? I think better with my bat

Winner!

 

[T.Lex]

The line from A Few Good Men comes to mind.

"Maybe he didn't have any friends." ?

 

[OneBadV8]

Winner!

we all know the correct line, but thanks for humoring us

 

[Route 45]

The line from A Few Good Men comes to mind.

The line about "truth" from the guy who ignores the law, doctors evidence and lies to achieve what he believes is "right?"

 

[foszoe]

The line from A Few Good Men comes to mind.

Leave the room, so we can

talk about you behind your back.

 

[BugI02]

When will there be enough dirt for some of you guys? How long are we going to pretend that these people are not criminals?

Revealed: Former Kemp Staffer Helped Dominion Land $107 Million Contract with Georgia –QUITE the Deal!

His name is Jared Thomas.

According to USA Today — Dominion lobbyists have also included Republicans, namely Jared Thomas, a former campaign manager and elections staffer for Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp when he served as secretary of state, overseeing elections, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

https://spectator.org/election-democrats-blue-dress-proof/
Blue Dress Proof
What it takes to get the media to believe a Democrat did wrong.

For a damaging story about a Democrat to be true, DNA must be found on a blue dress. There must be Blue Dress Proof™. It’s not enough to have a witness and a victim. It’s not enough to have a computer, a cache of validated emails, thousands of affadavits signed under the threat of perjury. There must be actual DNA, videotaped evidence. If the bad guy is a Democrat, there must be Blue Dress Proof.

Any bad action by Democrats, in contrast, is instantly viewed as innocent. Joe Biden being beholden to China and using his son to pimp his name for money, giving communists easy access to U.S. information? Why, this is just a father helping out and trying to protect his son — when the exact opposite explanation is far more sensible and has witnesses, emails, corroboration evidence — PROOF — that shows Joe Biden was and is a man willing to use his fragile, drug-addicted son to get money trading on the family name. It’s disgusting, and it’s being swept away by an incurious media. At least he’s not a president who says mean things on Twitter!

There are lots of motives to look the other way if there was significant enough election fraud. But knowing the truth is imperative not just because half the country feels disenfranchised, but because faith in our voting systems and our system of governance is imperiled. Without the confidence of the people governed, how long does a Republic last? Is it still a Republic? One way or another, the truth must come out.

Time to either get Blue Dress Proof™ and convince the jaded and craven. Or, if no proof exists because the election was fair enough and fraud didn’t change the outcome, it’s time to clean up the process to restore faith in future elections, and move on. Moving on comes after the evidence is examined and not before. Moving on comes after putting in vote integrity processes. Faith returns when transparency builds trust.

 

[BugI02]

Do you actually read you magazines or do you just clip through them?

This is likely a fruitless discussion as likely no one under 30 even knows what a magazine is, whether on a ship in a firearm or being read on the john

 

[BugI02]

So rather than admit your case doesn't have merit, you attack the character of the Chief Justice?

Why am I reminded of junior high?

Because it was the high water mark of your life/prestige?

Why can't you admit your election doesn't have merit?