REDUX: How Election Fraud Is Conducted By The Democrat/RINO (Uni)Party

It couldn't be Dominion, could it? How did I know.......
Everybody knows that you have an unfair advantage of being a genius. Nonetheless, you probably recognized that internet searches on the number of Dominion voting machines used in Venezuela's elections have highly suppressed results, such that all you get are responses of the nature "Dominion has no formal public business ties with Venezuela" or other articles that are completely unrelated.
 

One guess which company had the contract?

Voting machine contract under scrutiny following discrepancies in Puerto Rico’s primaries

"The problem stemmed from a software issue that caused machines supplied by Dominion Voting Systems to incorrectly calculate vote totals, said Jessika Padilla Rivera, the commission’s interim president.

While no one is contesting the results from the June 2 primary that correctly identify the winners, machine-reported vote counts were lower than the paper ones in some cases, and some machines reversed certain totals or reported zero votes for some candidates."
Dominion machines DO have security problems in their software. That has already been demonstrated. Smartmatic is no better.
 
"Mountainous are the piles of sworn affidavits to this effect."

With the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's immunity, I came across some info about 2020 election affidavits. When you say "mountainous", what do you mean? According to Trump's press secretary, it was 234 pages... not 234 affidavits. TOTAL pages.
Nothing to do with Trump or a press secretary. Pivot fallacy. You cannot make the evidence of election fraud by Democrats just disappear, Void.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the Trump campaign has evidence proving voting improprieties in the 2020 election.
There were a lot of them.
McEnany held up what she said were 234 pages of sworn affidavits alleging voting irregularities that could sway the presidential election in President Trump’s favor Tuesday on Hannity. Link

One of the affidavits I was reminded of is the story about the woman who claimed her dead son voted in 2016 and 2020. The problem is.... he didn't:

Dead ‘voter’ cited in Trump lawsuit never cast ballot, Michigan records show​

Michigan has no valid records concerning the 2020 election cycle.
....................................................

Rather than a dead voter, though, it appears to be a case of mistaken identity caused by confusion over "common names," said Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office.

The voter registration for a Mark D. Chase, who was listed as living at the same Warren address as his mother, was cancelled in 2016, according to state records, which show he last voted in 2014 and was born in 1978.

That birthday aligns with an online obituary for Chase, who died in July 2016.

There are two other Mark D. Chase listings in the state's Qualified Voter File. Both were born in different years than Anita Chase's son and live in different parts of the state: There is a Mark D. Chase is Ottawa County who is an active voter, and a Mark D. Chase in Barry County who has no recent voting history, Wimmer said.

Bridge was not immediately able to contact Anita Chase. In her affidavit, Chase said her son would be 42 years old if he were alive. A recent copy of the Qualified Voter File reviewed by Bridge did not include any listings for a Mark D. Chase born in 1978.
Irrelevance fallacy.
 
I did. I was looking up one thing, which lead to something else, that then reminded me of something else. You don't get to create reality.
Buzzword fallacy (reality). Learn what this word means and how it's defined.

You never saw any affidavits. You can't make them just disappear, either.
 
Nope. You did not come across any information about any affidavits.


Before you waste my time, what is the "it" to which you refer? Are you perhaps referring to a 234-page document of selected exerpts from selected affidavits that were relevant to a specific court case?

If so, the answer is that it is just a 234-page document of selected exerpts from selected affidavits that were relevant to a specific court case
Here are the two questions that were asked, with my response, and how my response answers the questions.

Q: Before you waste my time, what is the "it" to which you refer?

A: The total pages of affidavits is 234

- In other words, "it" is the pages of affidavits.

Q: Are you perhaps referring to a 234-page document of selected exerpts from selected affidavits that were relevant to a specific court case?

A: The total pages of affidavits is 234

- In other words, no, I'm not talking about excerpts from affidavits. I'm talking about total pages of affidavits - 234.
 
- In other words, no, I'm not talking about excerpts from affidavits. I'm talking about total pages of affidavits - 234.
Then you are mistaken and you are wasting time. The total number of pages of the prepared document in question is 234.

You are conflating two very different things.
 
Then you are mistaken and you are wasting time. The total number of pages of the prepared document in question is 234.

You are conflating two very different things.
I'm not mistaken or conflating. I'm reporting what Trump's press secretary claimed on Sean Hannity's show.

McEnany held up what she said were 234 pages of sworn affidavits alleging voting irregularities that could sway the presidential election in President Trump’s favor Tuesday on Hannity
 
What difference would that make? You'd still deny the truth anyhow.
Ok. I'll do the work....

Here are the two questions that were asked, with my response, and how my response answers the questions.

Q: Before you waste my time, what is the "it" to which you refer?

A: The total pages of affidavits is 234

- In other words, "it" is the pages of affidavits.

Q: Are you perhaps referring to a 234-page document of selected exerpts from selected affidavits that were relevant to a specific court case?

A: The total pages of affidavits is 234

- In other words, no, I'm not talking about excerpts from affidavits. I'm talking about total pages of affidavits - 234.
 
Ok. I'll do the work....

Here are the two questions that were asked, with my response, and how my response answers the questions.

Q: Before you waste my time, what is the "it" to which you refer?

A: The total pages of affidavits is 234

- In other words, "it" is the pages of affidavits.
Those are not affidavits.
Q: Are you perhaps referring to a 234-page document of selected exerpts from selected affidavits that were relevant to a specific court case?

A: The total pages of affidavits is 234
Those are not affidavits. Redefinition fallacy.
- In other words, no, I'm not talking about excerpts from affidavits. I'm talking about total pages of affidavits - 234.
Those are not affidavits. Redefinition fallacy.
 
Back
Top