Election Chatter Thread...

[jsmith6919]

They don't have the fucking balls to back up that shit. Fucking cunts.

Yes this person definitely will get me to lay down my arms peacefully

 

[Cujo]

I'd bet at least 80% of these fuckers saying this now have never even held a gun in their life

Easily. Over half of them have never been in a fight. First time they get hit in the mouth, they'll be crying like a fucking pussy.

 

[jsmith6919]

Easily. Over half of them have never been in a fight. First time they get hit in the mouth, they'll be crying like a fucking pussy.

They'll call the police while having "ACAB" and "Defund the police" in their bios

 

[Cotton]

If this is true...

 

[yimyammer]

If this is true...

prove it with sound evidence or STFU!

 

[Cowboysrock55]

prove it with sound evidence or STFU!

I agree, investigate and let's just see. Until then it's impossible to really know if any of this stuff is true, confusion or simply people not knowing what they are looking at.

 

[Cotton]

 

[yimyammer]

I agree, investigate and let's just see. Until then it's impossible to really know if any of this stuff is true, confusion or simply people not knowing what they are looking at.

its really frustrating, if there's legit fraud, then by all means expose it, prosecute whomever is guilty and make the case to the country but it needs to me a STRONG case not just Twitter conjecture

And I may be wrong but my current view is I STRONGLY oppose any process through the courts that is manipulated through political maneuvers to give Trump the victory.

I think if there was indisputable evidence with video, multiple people from the Democratic Party confessing and a variety of other evidence that was so convincing you'd have to be willfully ignorant to ignore that there was massive election fraud, we'd still have people across the country losing their minds, rioting, damaging shit, etc so the case has to be strong to justify enduring what would come

 

[yimyammer]

put them under oath and lets get this testimony in the public record

 

[Angrymesscan]

put them under oath and lets get this testimony in the public record

I'd rather see some actual proof than some under oath testimony, I really don't think the oath keeps people from lying...

 

[yimyammer]

I'd rather see some actual proof than some under oath testimony, I really don't think the oath keeps people from lying...

Agreed, but its better than some schmuck spouting off on Twitter, et al and more importantly, maybe people are willing to lie on Twitter, etc wont do so under threat of incarceration from lying under oath and effectively dry up many so called "sources"

I still cant make heads or tails out of postal boy, did he recant or not? Regardless of his veracity, he's been sufficiently obfuscated to where I currently don't perceive him as a reliable source (but I could be wrong)

on that note:

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Agreed, but its better than some schmuck spouting off on Twitter, et al and more importantly, maybe people are willing to lie on Twitter, etc wont do so under threat of incarceration from lying under oath and effectively dry up many so called "sources"

I still cant make heads or tails out of postal boy, did he recant or not? Regardless of his veracity, he's been sufficiently obfuscated to where I currently don't perceive him as a reliable source (but I could be wrong)

on that note:

We all know some election fraud happens in every election. It just becomes a question of the scale of it.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

And I may be wrong but my current view is I STRONGLY oppose any process through the courts that is manipulated through political maneuvers to give Trump the victory.

I don't even know what this means... how are the courts going to be politically manipulated?

I think if there was indisputable evidence with video, multiple people from the Democratic Party confessing and a variety of other evidence that was so convincing you'd have to be willfully ignorant to ignore that there was massive election fraud, we'd still have people across the country losing their minds, rioting, damaging shit, etc so the case has to be strong to justify enduring what would come

Sounds like you think if it's close we'd better let Biden win so the riots don't start. Which is exactly what they want you to think.

BTW -- I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Trump ends up winning. But that doesn't mean there wasn't massive cheating going on, either. OJ was found "not guilty."

 

[bbgun]

totally not biased

 

[yimyammer]

I don't even know what this means... how are the courts going to be politically manipulated?

lol, I'm not sure I do either, I was thinking of the following section of an article I read recently when I wrote that word jumble:

Graham has laid some groundwork for the strategies that might remain even after rebuffs both at the polls and in court. In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News last Thursday, as it became clear that Biden would soon be declared the winner, Graham signalled his approval of the idea that Republican-controlled state legislatures might appoint electors who would cast votes for Trump, even though Biden won those states’ popular votes. Referring to Article II of the Constitution, which provides that a state “shall appoint” its electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” Governor Ron DeSantis, of Florida, also urged people in battleground states to push their Republican legislatures to override popular-vote results.


It would be outlandish for a state legislature to deviate from the wishes of the state’s voters. But states have the power to determine that fraud affected the vote count and choose Presidential electors who do not reflect that supposedly faulty result. States with Republican legislatures that could, theoretically, override a popular vote in favor of Biden include Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This possibility remains far-fetched in any of these states, perhaps particularly Pennsylvania, where last month, the Republican majority leaders of the state Senate and House wrote, in an op-ed, “The only and exclusive way that presidential electors can be chosen in Pennsylvania is by the popular vote. The legislature has no hand in this process whatsoever.” The majority leaders reaffirmed that commitment on Friday. But, on Tuesday, a group of Pennsylvania lawmakers announced that it wants the legislative committee to conduct a “comprehensive examination” of “irregularities and inconsistencies” in the election “prior to the certification of the election results and the empanelment of Pennsylvania’s electors to the Electoral College.”

If several states’ electors were to diverge from the popular vote, in theory, on December 14th, the Electoral College vote could result in a win for Trump, and, on January 6th, the newly seated Congress tabulating the electoral votes could declare Trump reëlected. Alternatively, neither candidate might garner a majority of the electoral votes, in which case the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution says that “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.” Because Democrats retain a majority of the House, one might assume that would mean a Biden Presidency. But the Twelfth Amendment specifies that each state delegation gets one vote, meaning that a state that has more Republican than Democratic representatives would likely vote for Trump. Though there will be more Democratic than Republican members, there will be more Republican than Democratic state delegations in the House. Trump could well be the House’s choice for President.

Sounds like you think if it's close we'd better let Biden win so the riots don't start. Which is exactly what they want you to think.

BTW -- I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Trump ends up winning. But that doesn't mean there wasn't massive cheating going on, either. OJ was found "not guilty."

It does sound like that but what I am trying to convey is I believe there needs to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt where one would have to be as willfully ignorant as those who think OJ was innocent to conclude enough fraud didn't effect the outcome of this election resulting in the wrong candidate declared the winner

At this point I don't see that level of evidence....but I'm all ears

 

[NoDak]

There could be irrefutable, rock solid, undeniable proof and it wouldn’t matter. If Donald Trump ultimately is named the winner of this election, this country will burn. That shit was already preordained. Even if Trump had won in a landslide, riots were what we had to look forward to. And you can take that shit to the bank.

 

[yimyammer]

There could be irrefutable, rock solid, undeniable proof and it wouldn’t matter. If Donald Trump ultimately is named the winner of this election, this country will burn. That shit was already preordained. Even if Trump had won in a landslide, riots were what we had to look forward to. And you can take that shit to the bank.

I agree which is why I want to be able to stand on top of outstanding evidence so I can confidently be part of the fight

 

[boozeman]

That darn fake news again.

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[yimyammer]

That darn fake news again.

Is this a 3rd party that audits the election systems and processes and then issues a statement?

If its merely the government making a claim about itself then it loses meaning because its like a Wall Street company issuing a financial report for investors and declaring it trustworthy but thats not what happens, they're required to be audited by an independent accounting firm responsible for issuing a report on the accuracy of the financial statements as well as the companies operations.

The statement made could be 100% true but just because they make the claim shouldn't give anyone confidence unless they are a qualified 3rd party, have extensive procedures they follow to test and analyze the systems and are independent so they can issue an unbiased report and/or statement