trump "intellectual capacity" questioned

PostmodernProphet said:
but the potential demonstrates the fact it is unconstitutional.......of what value is an election which MAY be fraudulent?
Click to expand...
If you are sufficiently creative mind, you can find a path to any/every election being fraudulent, right?
......from our perspective we see Demmycrats claiming drop boxes left open and unsupervised 24/7 are "staffed" and that there is nothing wrong with people making multiple deposits of boxes full of ballots, based on the bold assertion they were all "family members"

.......you want us to be feel confident the election was fraud free?.......do better.......
Click to expand...
Yes, Georgia investigated all video claims of ballot harvesting shown on 2000 Mules. They found nothing. When Georgia tried to get further details from True the Vote, to further their investigation, TTV declined and eventually admitted they had nothing. Why do you think that is the case?

But, again, you are conflating fraudulent ballot and harvested ballots. You are making the assumption that legitimate ballots, completed by legally registered voters, would not be counted because they are harvested. There's no legal basis for that.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
blah blah blah.

it is true, cletus, ya dumb fuck.
Click to expand...
You stay ignorant and are proud of it. I volunteered for election polls and have seen how they work.
Have you ever voted in person? If you did, even you should have noted how voters are processed. You present ID. They check to see if your name is in the precinct logbook. Can you guess what happens if it is not? You are told you are in the wrong precinct. You cannot vote.
Drop boxes are done the same. When you process that vote, the first thing is to check the signature. You would be surprised to see how often it is not signed, or not dated. If it is early mail-in, the voter is sent a message and they can show up and sign. The number of votes in a precinct cannot surpass the number of people in the book.
I am trying to help you because you are stubbornly trapped in right-wing ignorance. So far, you show no ability to learn.
 
Nordberg said:
You stay ignorant and are proud of it. I volunteered for election polls and have seen how they work.
Have you ever voted in person? If you did, even you should have noted how voters are processed. You present ID. They check to see if your name is in the precinct logbook. Can you guess what happens if it is not? You are told you are in the wrong precinct. You cannot vote.
Drop boxes are done the same. When you process that vote, the first thing is to check the signature. You would be surprised to see how often it is not signed, or not dated. If it is early mail-in, the voter is sent a message and they can show up and sign. The number of votes in a precinct cannot surpass the number of people in the book.
I am trying to help you because you are stubbornly trapped in right-wing ignorance. So far, you show no ability to learn.
Click to expand...
But with harvesting and drop boxes it's all different, dumfuck.
 
ZenMode said:
What SPECIFICALLY would need to happen for the affidavits and videos to be refuted in your mind.
Click to expand...
Each sworn affidavit is unique and has its own refutation criteria based upon analysis of the affidavit in question.

ZenMode said:
I'm asking for specifics.
Click to expand...
Great. Let's go through all of the affidavits, one by one. Pick the one with which you wish to start.

Afterwards, we'll go through the videos.

Afterwards, we'll discuss the Supreme Court's refusal to uphold their oaths to the Constitution by not rejecting electors proceding from State Chiefs of Staff outside the manner directed by the State legislatures.

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
of course there's a connection between drop boxes and voter fraud.

drop boxes combined with harvesting enables voter fraud.

it's an enabling connection.
Click to expand...
And every court case was an utter failure because courts go on facts and don’t except drippings from ancient disgraced lawyers while they stand in the heat as facts
 
Nordberg said:
You stay ignorant and are proud of it. I volunteered for election polls and have seen how they work.
Click to expand...
Did you ever volunteer to work at election polls that intended to commit election fraud? If not, then none of your experience applies in the case of a stolen election.

Nordberg said:
Have you ever voted in person? If you did, even you should have noted how voters are processed.
Click to expand...
This only applies to polling stations that operating legitimately.

Nordberg said:
The number of votes in a precinct cannot surpass the number of people in the book.
Click to expand...
But there's no problem if the number of votes surpasses the number of people who voted.

I am trying to help you because you are stubbornly trapped in leftist ignorance. So far, you show no ability to learn.
 
www.buzzfeednews.com

16 Photos Of Rudy Giuliani In A Hot Room

At a press conference Thursday, Rudy Giuliani was <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/giuliani-voter-fraud-lies-trump-lawsuit-michigan" target="_blank">feeling the heat to come up with evidence</a> to support Trump's baseless and unhinged election conspiracies. And we mean...
www.buzzfeednews.com www.buzzfeednews.com
 
IBDaMann said:
Did you ever volunteer to work at election polls that intended to commit election fraud? If not, then none of your experience applies in the case of a stolen election.


This only applies to polling stations that operating legitimately.


But there's no problem if the number of votes surpasses the number of people who voted.

I am trying to help you because you are stubbornly trapped in leftist ignorance. So far, you show no ability to learn.
Click to expand...
Your brain is owned by Putin


Your as good as dead
 
evince said:
And every court case was ...
Click to expand...
Your king is tipped. You dishonestly pivoted from the shown enablement of election fraud to what was supposedly unable to be proved in a court of law, i.e. completely different things.

giphy.webp
 
IBDaMann said:
Each sworn affidavit is unique and has its own refutation criteria based upon analysis of the affidavit in question.
Click to expand...
Sure, who would you want to investigate them?

Great. Let's go through all of the affidavits, one by one. Pick the one with which you wish to start.

Afterwards, we'll go through the videos.
Click to expand...
Who would you want reviewing the videos? The magical suitcase video in Georgia, for example.
Afterwards, we'll discuss the Supreme Court's refusal to uphold their oaths to the Constitution by not rejecting electors proceding from State Chiefs of Staff outside the manner directed by the State legislatures.

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're referring to, but it doesn't sound like voter fraud.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Sure, who would you want to investigate?
Click to expand...
You and I can review the affidavits, so that you have me right there in the conversation in order to effect the convincing that you seek to accomplish.

ZenMode said:
Who would you want reviewing the videos?
Click to expand...
You and I can review the videos.

ZenMode said:
I don't know what you're referring to, but it doesn't sound like voter fraud.
Click to expand...
Correct. It's overarching election fraud.
 
IBDaMann said:
You and I can review the affidavits, so that you have me right there in the conversation in order to effect the convincing that you seek to accomplish.


You and I can review the videos.


Correct. It's overarching election fraud.
Click to expand...
You and I discussing individual situations isn't going to resolve anything because we probably aren't going to agree. We haven't agreed on the one video and one affidavit we've discussed. For example, you look at the Georgia suitcase video and see something completely different than what I, the FBI, GBI and Georgia election officials see. So, who would you want to investigate that to make the final call?
 
ZenMode said:
You and I discussing individual situations isn't going to resolve anything because we probably aren't going to agree. We haven't agreed on the one video and one affidavit we've discussed. For example, you look at the Georgia suitcase video and see something completely different than what I, the FBI, GBI and Georgia election officials see. So, who would you want to investigate that to make the final call?
Click to expand...
A non liar would be good.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
Nope. You're a genocidal maniac
Click to expand...
yeah, that's it. You are a special kind of stupid.
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
no.

corrupt judges don;t care to actually look into things.
Click to expand...
Judges do not look into things. They hear suits that are presented to them. It is the job of the lawyers who present the suit to provide evidence. That is how it works. That is so basic and you do not even understand that much. That is a third-grade understanding of how court cases work. That explains why you are befuddled. The judges asked Trump's lawyers for their evidence of the corruption they said happened, and they did not have it. They were in the same position you are, making claims without evidence. They threw the cases out and your posts should be thrown out too.
 
Nordberg said:
yeah, that's it. You are a special kind of stupid.

Judges do not look into things. They hear suits that are presented to them. It is the job of the lawyers who present the suit to provide evidence. That is how it works. That is so basic and you do not even understand that much. That is a third-grade understanding of how court cases work. That explains why you are befuddled. The judges asked Trump's lawyers for their evidence of the corruption they said happened, and they did not have it. They were in the same position you are, making claims without evidence. They threw the cases out and your posts should be thrown out too.
Click to expand...
Judges do look into things if they're good judges.

You're thinking of shitty judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top