So courts can’t be beaten?
And as gsc said…Courts can’t have other reasons for not wanting to proceed with things?
My point was this “evidence” was never even brought to court.
I was pointing out GSC’s extremely liberal use of the word “evidence.” There is no evidence that proved massive election fraud.
No- in the public where it’s had a lot of resonance.
If people need to believe in something bad enough they’ll use whatever they can to justify it.
Luckily that’s not how the legal system works.
Resonance = Evidence. Got it.
Listen- I don’t get all the snark but that’s not my point.
My point is they presented evidence which resonated. I’m not saying the resonation is the evidence itself.
That wasn’t evidence they presented. Again, words have meanings…
It resonated with some people because they WANT to believe it…even when it doesn’t have merit.
So I’ll just use the inverse on you. It didn’t resonate with you because of your want to believe it’s not true.
Not at all. If there was evidence of widespread voter fraud that would have swung the election, I’d be all in to investigate it.
But there isn’t. Hence my position.
You see a biased movie that follows a (former) president who knows he lost but can’t admit it - and you believe them automatically. Never mind a lack of supporting evidence.
See racism, systmic
See spread, asymptomatic
See a flu season, capable of only killing like 4 people
See the slaughter of blacks in the streets by American streets (there was like 8 in a recent year, 11 the next ), etc…etc…
See a woman that is not really a “woman”
Gotcha…Indeed people can do what you just said.
Says a true beacon of integrity ^^^
LOL. Everyone knows there’s some fraud/attempted fraud in every election.
@GardenStateCane …This ^^ is pure comedy. There’s soooome ya know but not one… single… voter more than “sooooome”…canes51 official definition of soooommme…, and I’m sure he has drawn a cutoff point down a single vote that is the end of “some” voting fraud… Is there more than that mystical cutoff point. Nope!! No way!! Impossible!! Then it wouldn’t be “some” anymore. And we all know there can’t possibly be more than “Some”
Absolute fucking idiot
Why would anyone be ok with “some” and who gets to define “some”?
Some of these counties were damn close
Those counties magically, thankfully didn’t even have the “some” I guess right? Phewwww…
Thank you for displaying how resonance is meaningless!
It’s meaningless to you because you don’t like the implications of the movies conclusions.
It’s meaningless because it’s an opinion. That was your point against 51.
What I care about is evidence, not supposition.
still waiting for someone to tell me why soooome voter fraud is acceptable and how is the cunt51 defining sooooome
Any help appreciated. Thanks.
Nobody said some voter fraud was acceptable. I think every person on this board will say prosecute fraud.
You’re welcome.
See Canes 51statement below
Everyone knows there’s some fraud/attempted fraud in every election. Still not close to widespread
That magic word “some”…But there’s no way in an extremely close county that it was “ENOUGH” right? No POSSIBLE way right. And before you try to get ridiculously technical because he didn’t use the word “acceptable” (That would be more of an asshead 51 move than you to point on that nuance)…Can we both agree that the overall tone of that text is it’s accepted? It “happens” right? So when officially does “widespread” kick in. I don’t know, the point is…NEITHER…DOES…HE
And again my problem is someone stupid and hypocritcal enough to make a statement that SOME happens, but DEFINITELY not THIS MUCH! If you agree it happens, then it can happen.
It is hypocritical, ignorant, and in this case, CONVENIENT, for someone to COMPLETELY shut down and insult people for suggesting there was cheating…But then say well ya there’s a little cheating
I agree with 51 and have said the same thing. Every election since the beginning of time has had cheating. The important thing is that we keep vigilant of the cheaters, punish them when caught, and keep the system working as intended.
The reason for statements like this by 51 is because GSC used a case where a lady submitted 4 ballots for people, ballots that were counted and not deemed fradulent, and he uses this case to insinuate as proof that there was widespread fraud in a battleground state.
So yes, 51’s comment makes complete sense to anyone paying attention. Putting words in his mouth doesn’t help your case either.