Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×

Why do rightwingers keep claiming they have a bunch of evidence to prove election fraud and get humiliated each time when asked to post it?


Recommended Posts

 

This has happened repeatedly over the last 4 months since the election.

Do they think Dems will forget to ask for the evidence each time they make this claim? 

I don't get the point......please explain it to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scout said:

 

This has happened repeatedly over the last 4 months since the election.

Do they think Dems will forget to ask for the evidence each time they make this claim? 

I don't get the point......please explain it to me.  

 

Not a republican peasant vs democrat peasant problem, A is for Aristocrats, P is for peasants.

 

Texas has various unanswered questions about the election, computer security experts advised Texas to not use the dominion smartmatic vote machines due to fraud problems, plus the idea that election rules can just be non constitutionally changed by a by a government worker any time someone claims we have an emergency along with questions about various other serious problems.

 

Put in a scum sucking prosecutor on our side or you are not going to get your billion dollars and we will not be getting our special aristocratic kickbacks, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scout said:

 

This has happened repeatedly over the last 4 months since the election.

Do they think Dems will forget to ask for the evidence each time they make this claim? 

I don't get the point......please explain it to me.  

Yeah it's funny as all fuck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scout said:

 

This has happened repeatedly over the last 4 months since the election.

Do they think Dems will forget to ask for the evidence each time they make this claim? 

I don't get the point......please explain it to me.  

 

In related news ... why does some fat retard dude keep pretending to be a female and posting as @Scout?

 

Get out of moms basement, and go eat a salad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scout said:

 

This has happened repeatedly over the last 4 months since the election.

Do they think Dems will forget to ask for the evidence each time they make this claim? 

I don't get the point......please explain it to me.  

 

It's basically the sunk cost fallacy.

 

They've invested so much time and energy into both Trump and the election fraud lie that they can't accept that it's never going to pay off, and they feel like they need to see it through to some conclusion that isn't going to arrive.

 

It's especially bad for people like Str8tedge and Elton Johnson who have been so loud and so obnoxious and so batshit crazy about it that they know they're going to have to eat a lot of shit if they ever admit that it's not true.

 

Of course, the RWNJ media will also keep feeding them reasons to believe it, making sure they don't give up on it... even though the reasons make zero sense. It doesn't matter though, because the thought of being wrong and having to admit that they're wrong is so painful for them that they'll basically accept anything that prevents it from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really in dispute that the PA governor, legislature and supreme court "changed the rules during the game" without following the established lawful process?

 

They essentially admitted this but said that the claim was brought too late.

 

It is unequivocal that the constitution was violated in PA. That is ONE example.  This is all without showing a single fraudulent vote.

 

I am not claiming to know how this should, or would, be decided and what counter measures could be taken, but it DID happen.

 

@Toldya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Is it really in dispute that the PA governor, legislature and supreme court "changed the rules during the game" without following the established lawful process?

 

You mean the law they changed in October 2019?

That's not exactly 'during the game', is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Is it really in dispute that the PA governor, legislature and supreme court "changed the rules during the game" without following the established lawful process?

 

They essentially admitted this but said that the claim was brought too late.

 

It is unequivocal that the constitution was violated in PA. That is ONE example.  This is all without showing a single fraudulent vote.

 

I am not claiming to know how this should, or would, be decided and what counter measures could be taken, but it DID happen.

 

@Toldya

Yes that is in dispute they changed the rules before the election which was the time to object.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Toldya said:

 

You mean the law they changed in October 2019?

That's not exactly 'during the game', is it?

Regarding that law, the PA constitution requires a process for those changes that was NOT followed. It had to be passed once, publicly posted and voted on again among other requirements, which did NOT happen.

 

The PA supreme court rulings regarding changing signature requirements and the dates at which ballots will be accepted, WAS "during the game".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, slideman said:

Yes that is in dispute they changed the rules before the election which was the time to object.

This was objected to before the election, in the PA supreme court.

 

They were not allowed to change the rules in the way that they did according to the PA constitution. Relaxing signature requirements and the dates at which ballots would still be accepted is indeed changing the rules by someone other than the state legislature as explicitly stated in the US constitution.

 

Does that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, superds77 said:

This was objected to before the election, in the PA supreme court.

 

They were not allowed to change the rules in the way that they did according to the PA constitution. Relaxing signature requirements and the dates at which ballots would still be accepted is indeed changing the rules by someone other than the state legislature as explicitly stated in the US constitution.

 

Does that matter?

What did the Pennsylvania supreme Court say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, superds77 said:

Regarding that law, the PA constitution requires a process for those changes that was NOT followed. It had to be passed once, publicly posted and voted on again among other requirements, which did NOT happen.

 

They had over a year.

 

3 minutes ago, superds77 said:

The PA supreme court rulings regarding changing signature requirements and the dates at which ballots will be accepted, WAS "during the game".

 

More like "during the pandemic".

And they're not the only state that did it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scout said:

 

This has happened repeatedly over the last 4 months since the election.

Do they think Dems will forget to ask for the evidence each time they make this claim? 

I don't get the point......please explain it to me.  

they are making a claim that there were millions of fraudulent votes; that should be easy to point out where the fraud occurred.

they have no evidence at all they just think if they repeat the lie enough times enough people will believe it that they can use that as an excuse to change the laws to suppress minority votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chongo said:

 

Not a republican peasant vs democrat peasant problem, A is for Aristocrats, P is for peasants.

 

Texas has various unanswered questions about the election, computer security experts advised Texas to not use the dominion smartmatic vote machines due to fraud problems, plus the idea that election rules can just be non constitutionally changed by a by a government worker any time someone claims we have an emergency along with questions about various other serious problems.

 

Put in a scum sucking prosecutor on our side or you are not going to get your billion dollars and we will not be getting our special aristocratic kickbacks, etc.

 

 

So you still have no evidence of fraud?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toldya said:

 

It's basically the sunk cost fallacy.

 

They've invested so much time and energy into both Trump and the election fraud lie that they can't accept that it's never going to pay off, and they feel like they need to see it through to some conclusion that isn't going to arrive.

 

It's especially bad for people like Str8tedge and Elton Johnson who have been so loud and so obnoxious and so batshit crazy about it that they know they're going to have to eat a lot of shit if they ever admit that it's not true.

 

Of course, the RWNJ media will also keep feeding them reasons to believe it, making sure they don't give up on it... even though the reasons make zero sense. It doesn't matter though, because the thought of being wrong and having to admit that they're wrong is so painful for them that they'll basically accept anything that prevents it from happening.

 

Perhaps they need to look inward to find why they believe they are failures rather than trying to blame it on blacks, Jews, women, and immigrants, eh?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Scout said:

 

 

So you still have no evidence of fraud?

 

 

What is your evidence for anything? Have you ever drawn up a witness affidavit signed it and had it notarized?

 

Texas had evidence that they wanted to present but were said-claimed to have no standing, evidence with witnesses but no standing.  when a state has no ability to present evidence the individual is also going to be ignored.

 

Der freaking individual can just get run over out in the street protest trying to stop cars with their body.

 

"This is not only a denial of due process but the civil rights of everybody in the country".

 

This means you, not the imaginary aristocratic person/persons that you may believe you have somehow become via group affiliation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chongo said:

 

What is your evidence for anything? Have you ever drawn up a witness affidavit signed it and had it notarized?

 

Texas had evidence that they wanted to present but were said-claimed to have no standing, evidence with witnesses but no standing.  when a state has no ability to present evidence the individual is also going to be ignored.

 

Der freaking individual can just get run over out in the street protest trying to stop cars with their body.

 

"This is not only a denial of due process but the civil rights of everybody in the country".

 

This means you, not the imaginary aristocratic person/persons that you may believe you have somehow become via group affiliation.

 

 

So, present this evidence from Texas if it is so convincing.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...