| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 01:18 - Sep 29 with 204537 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Who will be watching? First one kicks off in 24 hours time.
The Democrats have pulled Joe back from his campaign trail recently to get him prepared, so hopefully it will be a decent exchange.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to have great confidence as they have spent the last month looking for any dirt they can dig up so Joe can use if he gets stuck.
It’s no coincidence that this vote influencing Facebook algorithm story is being shamelessly and inaccurately made into a race issue on the eve of the debates. So transparent and disingenuous, it’s a shame politics has come to this on this level where black people are being used in this way to score political points. I would be furious if I was them, but it does seem a lot of people are not falling for this one and calling it out for what it is.
People finally seem to be getting wise to this political race baiting which is refreshing to see.
It’s also telling that in the week of the debate they try and paint Trump as a tax evasion offender. I think that’s what they wanted the tax returns to show, they seem to have got annoyed when it turns out his tax returns were fine in accordance to what his companies profits were - but decided to run with it anyway. Any news is good news in their mind as it’s another thing Joe can use when in a tricky spot.
But I hope the discussions remain political and doesn’t turn into some form of gossip peddling reality TV episode.
Although I think there should be some kind of drinking game involved if it does turn that way, how many times Biden completely loses his thread of thought and blurts out “I mean, think about it...” you have to take a shot. 
I will be watching with great interest anyway.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:35 - Nov 28 with 1353 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:08 - Nov 28 by Dr_Parnassus |
But it doesn’t.
Being able to vote by shouting out your window would increase it even more - but again it doesn’t increase democracy.
We are having a repeated discussion now for whatever reason you are wanting to.
Everyone who wants to vote and is entitled to vote - can. So they should conduct it in the safest and most democratic way - in person. Those that can’t for genuine reasons can request an absentee ballot.
If people don’t vote, then it means they couldn’t be bothered to. Those types of people should not shape an election because those types of people are the prime candidates to be swayed by mass media manipulation (of which I have never seen the like of before in terms of this election, it was shameless and sustained).
It’s simply giving the media more election power and becoming an unelected 4th branch of government. Those that want to vote already do. Those that have no interest will essentially be handing a blank ballot to the Democrat media to fill out.
That’s not democratic. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 15:29]
|
Fin. 👠|  | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:38 - Nov 28 with 1349 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:35 - Nov 28 by Gwyn737 |
Fin. 👠|
Well you can’t make comments like yours and expect people not to respond to them Gwyn.
That’s not realistic. Your bias creeps in from time to time, so it is important that perspective is put on it. Ignoring years of fruitless investigation and castigating a month of investigation where many glaring errors were found is just disingenuous. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:51 - Nov 28 with 1285 views | Groo |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 15:35 - Nov 28 by Gwyn737 |
Fin. 👠|
He won't accept the argument that this election had an increase in postal voters because of the Pandemic.
Apparently some expert said its perfectly safe to walk up voting station, therefore its OK.
The fact that there are several different pieces of advice from several expert sources all contradicting each other is no excuse, everyone should walk in and vote.
The simple fact is everyone has to make their own decision on this, based on how safe they feel regarding their own health, this resulted in many people taking the safety option.
The issues regarding USB's were in the main, not postal votes but from voting machines where people walked up to them. |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:39 - Nov 28 with 1253 views | majorraglan |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:51 - Nov 28 by Groo |
He won't accept the argument that this election had an increase in postal voters because of the Pandemic.
Apparently some expert said its perfectly safe to walk up voting station, therefore its OK.
The fact that there are several different pieces of advice from several expert sources all contradicting each other is no excuse, everyone should walk in and vote.
The simple fact is everyone has to make their own decision on this, based on how safe they feel regarding their own health, this resulted in many people taking the safety option.
The issues regarding USB's were in the main, not postal votes but from voting machines where people walked up to them. |
My personal take is that a postal vote is totally acceptable given the current climate. To date there’s been no evidence forthcoming of the large scale fraud as alleged by DT and RG. There may have been some shenanigans, but equally there may not have been. We are hearing lots of noise but the facts to back it up in short supply.
I am not going to listen to some conspiracy theorists from the margins, in the same way I don’t listen to Piers Corbyn or David Icke. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:51 - Nov 28 with 1249 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:39 - Nov 28 by majorraglan |
My personal take is that a postal vote is totally acceptable given the current climate. To date there’s been no evidence forthcoming of the large scale fraud as alleged by DT and RG. There may have been some shenanigans, but equally there may not have been. We are hearing lots of noise but the facts to back it up in short supply.
I am not going to listen to some conspiracy theorists from the margins, in the same way I don’t listen to Piers Corbyn or David Icke. |
You have written "there’s been no evidence forthcoming of the large scale fraud as alleged by DT and RG", you obviously haven't watched the videos that I posted.
Because I can't see any way you could say that having watched them.
We are talking 100s of thousands of manipulated votes. It is not voter fraud it is election fraud.
So watch all 4 videos and then tell us there "is no evidence". | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:53 - Nov 28 with 1247 views | majorraglan |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:51 - Nov 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
You have written "there’s been no evidence forthcoming of the large scale fraud as alleged by DT and RG", you obviously haven't watched the videos that I posted.
Because I can't see any way you could say that having watched them.
We are talking 100s of thousands of manipulated votes. It is not voter fraud it is election fraud.
So watch all 4 videos and then tell us there "is no evidence". |
See my last paragraph. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:57 - Nov 28 with 1243 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:53 - Nov 28 by majorraglan |
See my last paragraph. |
How about a Judge then, seeing as you have decided to deliberately ignore the absolute experts in their fields of forensic investigations.
Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld.
ps the old saying "there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see" suits you down to a T. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 21:09]
| | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 21:10 - Nov 28 with 1237 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 19:51 - Nov 28 by Groo |
He won't accept the argument that this election had an increase in postal voters because of the Pandemic.
Apparently some expert said its perfectly safe to walk up voting station, therefore its OK.
The fact that there are several different pieces of advice from several expert sources all contradicting each other is no excuse, everyone should walk in and vote.
The simple fact is everyone has to make their own decision on this, based on how safe they feel regarding their own health, this resulted in many people taking the safety option.
The issues regarding USB's were in the main, not postal votes but from voting machines where people walked up to them. |
What do you mean I won’t accept it? Of course it was increased due to Covid.
My point is that wasn’t the reason for it, it was the excuse for it.
It’s as simple as that. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:11 - Nov 28 with 1219 views | majorraglan |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:57 - Nov 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
How about a Judge then, seeing as you have decided to deliberately ignore the absolute experts in their fields of forensic investigations.
Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld.
ps the old saying "there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see" suits you down to a T. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 21:09]
|
The action relates to the the introduction of legislation regarding postal voting. In short it’s being alleged that a postal ballot which doesn’t require an excuse for example on account of work, illness etc is unconstitutional. No mention of fraud.
The judge who made the order is a Republican, the order has been blocked while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court consider the matter. The legislation to allow postal votes was introduced last year and the 180 day period during which the introduction of the legislation could be challenged lapsed in April. Still no mention of fraud.
The focus is on the “unconstitutional” act of allowing people to vote by ballot as opposed to turning up in person. Voting by post is something many other countries permit including and instances of fraud are relatively few and far between.
I’d have thought that allowing as many people as possible to have their say on the future of their country is a good thing, regardless of what party they support. More votes than ever cast in this years presidential election surely has to be good news. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:19 - Nov 28 with 1209 views | Groo |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 20:57 - Nov 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
How about a Judge then, seeing as you have decided to deliberately ignore the absolute experts in their fields of forensic investigations.
Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld.
ps the old saying "there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see" suits you down to a T. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 21:09]
|
This was noithing to do with Trumps team, it was local Republicans.
"McCullough, a Republican, said the GOP was likely to succeed in establishing that the procedure by which Pennsylvania’s GOP-controlled legislature instituted new mail-in voting methods as part of the 2019 Act 77 violated the state’s constitution. The judge didn’t say whether she thinks that means that any votes cast by mail-in ballot must be disqualified."
Its not against any specific claim of fraud either, it an action against how the mail in voting was expanded via GOP controlled legislature.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-28/pennsylvania-judge-backs-trum | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:24 - Nov 28 with 1202 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:11 - Nov 28 by majorraglan |
The action relates to the the introduction of legislation regarding postal voting. In short it’s being alleged that a postal ballot which doesn’t require an excuse for example on account of work, illness etc is unconstitutional. No mention of fraud.
The judge who made the order is a Republican, the order has been blocked while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court consider the matter. The legislation to allow postal votes was introduced last year and the 180 day period during which the introduction of the legislation could be challenged lapsed in April. Still no mention of fraud.
The focus is on the “unconstitutional” act of allowing people to vote by ballot as opposed to turning up in person. Voting by post is something many other countries permit including and instances of fraud are relatively few and far between.
I’d have thought that allowing as many people as possible to have their say on the future of their country is a good thing, regardless of what party they support. More votes than ever cast in this years presidential election surely has to be good news. |
Spot on.
The more people who are able to vote the better. If there are issues with postal voting that have impacted on the election result then that result should should be overturned.
If not, lessons should be learnt and improvements made for next time and the result should stand.
At the moment the lawsuits are based on technicalities and NOT fraud. Obviously there are loads of videos out there produced by the likes of InfoWars and if their proved to be true (as Dr. P. said) will end up as part of the evidence. I find this hard to believe at the moment as again, fraud is not part of the current law suits.
Someone more knowledgeable than me may be able to point to fraud actions - I don’t count the Sidney Powell kort kace. In the meantime. It’s like a football team winning 6 - 0 and the losers complaining the corner flags were the wrong colour. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:03 - Nov 28 with 1188 views | majorraglan |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:24 - Nov 28 by Gwyn737 |
Spot on.
The more people who are able to vote the better. If there are issues with postal voting that have impacted on the election result then that result should should be overturned.
If not, lessons should be learnt and improvements made for next time and the result should stand.
At the moment the lawsuits are based on technicalities and NOT fraud. Obviously there are loads of videos out there produced by the likes of InfoWars and if their proved to be true (as Dr. P. said) will end up as part of the evidence. I find this hard to believe at the moment as again, fraud is not part of the current law suits.
Someone more knowledgeable than me may be able to point to fraud actions - I don’t count the Sidney Powell kort kace. In the meantime. It’s like a football team winning 6 - 0 and the losers complaining the corner flags were the wrong colour. |
Indeed.
The legislation was bipartisan and the rationale for its introduction is well documented.
One side has now lost the race and is taking issue with the legislation because the result didn’t go their way. As you say, no sign of fraud. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:09 - Nov 28 with 1184 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:24 - Nov 28 by Gwyn737 |
Spot on.
The more people who are able to vote the better. If there are issues with postal voting that have impacted on the election result then that result should should be overturned.
If not, lessons should be learnt and improvements made for next time and the result should stand.
At the moment the lawsuits are based on technicalities and NOT fraud. Obviously there are loads of videos out there produced by the likes of InfoWars and if their proved to be true (as Dr. P. said) will end up as part of the evidence. I find this hard to believe at the moment as again, fraud is not part of the current law suits.
Someone more knowledgeable than me may be able to point to fraud actions - I don’t count the Sidney Powell kort kace. In the meantime. It’s like a football team winning 6 - 0 and the losers complaining the corner flags were the wrong colour. |
“The more people that are able to vote the better”.
Everyone is able to vote.
What you mean is the more people that usually can’t be bothered to vote or have no interest that are more susceptible to mass media manipulation the better because the media is largely leftist dominated.
How can having millions of people that wouldn’t normally vote be delivered a vote and then have months of borderline criminal propaganda slammed into them from all sides be democratic?
The answer is that it can’t. More people doesn’t mean more democracy, I’m not sure why you hold that view. It’s demonstrably untrue. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:13 - Nov 28 with 1182 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:24 - Nov 28 by Gwyn737 |
Spot on.
The more people who are able to vote the better. If there are issues with postal voting that have impacted on the election result then that result should should be overturned.
If not, lessons should be learnt and improvements made for next time and the result should stand.
At the moment the lawsuits are based on technicalities and NOT fraud. Obviously there are loads of videos out there produced by the likes of InfoWars and if their proved to be true (as Dr. P. said) will end up as part of the evidence. I find this hard to believe at the moment as again, fraud is not part of the current law suits.
Someone more knowledgeable than me may be able to point to fraud actions - I don’t count the Sidney Powell kort kace. In the meantime. It’s like a football team winning 6 - 0 and the losers complaining the corner flags were the wrong colour. |
Also important to note that fraud is not part of the court case because it’s a minefield.
To claim fraud you have to prove intent, which is nigh on impossible. For example if I decided to withhold thousands of votes from being uploaded from strong Biden areas... that’s fraud, I would be defrauding the process intentionally.
If I get caught or an audit happens, I have the fallback of saying “oh I forgot”. Then that is not fraud but human error.
So all the court cases can do is point out error and the more errors that are found that happen to be overwhelmingly one way, will prove fraud and intentional malpractice by weight of number and probability. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:28 - Nov 28 with 1178 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:03 - Nov 28 by majorraglan |
Indeed.
The legislation was bipartisan and the rationale for its introduction is well documented.
One side has now lost the race and is taking issue with the legislation because the result didn’t go their way. As you say, no sign of fraud. |
100s of affidavits, videos of fraud and you keep saying no evidence.
There is even live TV of vote switching as well.
You don't live in the real world. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 23:31]
| | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:34 - Nov 28 with 1171 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:28 - Nov 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
100s of affidavits, videos of fraud and you keep saying no evidence.
There is even live TV of vote switching as well.
You don't live in the real world. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 23:31]
|
Yes.
Anyone who keeps harping on the media mantra of “no evidence” really isn’t paying attention to what is actually happening. Which is a prime example of what happens when the media meddle in elections and why it’s imperative that they are not allowed another election where they can manipulate millions of apathetic.
There is mounds of evidence. What these people may mean is that there may not be enough to convict or to rule, which is another argument altogether.
If you stole my bike and someone saw you steal my bike, they come forward as a witness - that’s evidence of theft. However if you deny it, it’s very difficult to prove. That doesn’t mean there was no evidence. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:42 - Nov 28 with 1161 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:09 - Nov 28 by Dr_Parnassus |
“The more people that are able to vote the better”.
Everyone is able to vote.
What you mean is the more people that usually can’t be bothered to vote or have no interest that are more susceptible to mass media manipulation the better because the media is largely leftist dominated.
How can having millions of people that wouldn’t normally vote be delivered a vote and then have months of borderline criminal propaganda slammed into them from all sides be democratic?
The answer is that it can’t. More people doesn’t mean more democracy, I’m not sure why you hold that view. It’s demonstrably untrue. |
It’s your opinion that it’s borderline criminally propaganda.
Is Trump’s Twitter feed criminal propaganda?
More people doesn’t mean better democracy. So less people voting means better democracy?
[Post edited 28 Nov 2020 23:54]
| | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:49 - Nov 28 with 1157 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:34 - Nov 28 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes.
Anyone who keeps harping on the media mantra of “no evidence” really isn’t paying attention to what is actually happening. Which is a prime example of what happens when the media meddle in elections and why it’s imperative that they are not allowed another election where they can manipulate millions of apathetic.
There is mounds of evidence. What these people may mean is that there may not be enough to convict or to rule, which is another argument altogether.
If you stole my bike and someone saw you steal my bike, they come forward as a witness - that’s evidence of theft. However if you deny it, it’s very difficult to prove. That doesn’t mean there was no evidence. |
Quite right. You (the royal you) have to make a distinction between evidence and proveable evidence.
If I was that way inclined I could sign an affidavit that the works was flat if that was what I truly believed. I could even produce documents to ‘prove it’.
Doesn’t make it true though, does it? [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 23:51]
| | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:57 - Nov 28 with 1140 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:42 - Nov 28 by Gwyn737 |
It’s your opinion that it’s borderline criminally propaganda.
Is Trump’s Twitter feed criminal propaganda?
More people doesn’t mean better democracy. So less people voting means better democracy?
[Post edited 28 Nov 2020 23:54]
|
It’s not my opinion. It’s the truth, they don’t even hide it and everyone knows. Both Twitter and Facebook are before hearings right now for their election meddling.
Donald Trumps Twitter is his personal Twitter account. If the head of the news corporations want to put their opinions on their personal Twitter feeds then they are welcome to do so. There is a world of difference between that and printing intentional falsehoods in national newspapers and television media while burying others.
More people voting democratically means a more democratic result. More people voting un-democratically means a less democratic vote.
Again, everyone who wants to vote - can. [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 23:59]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:58 - Nov 28 with 1138 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:49 - Nov 28 by Gwyn737 |
Quite right. You (the royal you) have to make a distinction between evidence and proveable evidence.
If I was that way inclined I could sign an affidavit that the works was flat if that was what I truly believed. I could even produce documents to ‘prove it’.
Doesn’t make it true though, does it? [Post edited 28 Nov 2020 23:51]
|
But then you would be jailed for perjury as I could prove you to be lying.
There in lies the difference. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:02 - Nov 29 with 1129 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:58 - Nov 28 by Dr_Parnassus |
But then you would be jailed for perjury as I could prove you to be lying.
There in lies the difference. |
I can sign an affidavit i saw a green car outside my house earlier. Can you prove it’s false? [Post edited 29 Nov 2020 0:03]
| | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:09 - Nov 29 with 1117 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:02 - Nov 29 by Gwyn737 |
I can sign an affidavit i saw a green car outside my house earlier. Can you prove it’s false? [Post edited 29 Nov 2020 0:03]
|
It’s not something that would be affidavit worthy.
The point is you are stating there is no evidence - suggesting the evidence is false. With no proof or information on that.
We are stating there is mounds of evidence - suggesting that accuracy is yet to be determined.
One is an opinion, the other is a fact. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:11 - Nov 29 with 1113 views | majorraglan |
I am not going to waste my time looking at the rantings of barm pots and conspiracy theorists, lots of allegations have been made of large scale fraud etc but to date not a great deal of evidence has been forthcoming and produced in a Court of law. We even had Chris Krebs, director of Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency debunk the allegations of fraud hence his sacking.
I am not discounting the possibility of fraud, I will keep an open mind and await the outcome of the various litigations, but as things stand evidence is thin on the ground. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:17 - Nov 29 with 1104 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:11 - Nov 29 by majorraglan |
I am not going to waste my time looking at the rantings of barm pots and conspiracy theorists, lots of allegations have been made of large scale fraud etc but to date not a great deal of evidence has been forthcoming and produced in a Court of law. We even had Chris Krebs, director of Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency debunk the allegations of fraud hence his sacking.
I am not discounting the possibility of fraud, I will keep an open mind and await the outcome of the various litigations, but as things stand evidence is thin on the ground. |
He didn’t debunk anything, he said he saw no evidence of mass cyber security threats. Which of course he would say considering it was his job to keep the election secure, which is questionable at this point in time.
It’s remarkable how many state they don’t listen to conspiracy theories yet kept quiet when the Russia investigation was going on for years, said nothing when people were trying to make out Hunter Biden's laptop was a creation of Russia and a plant that involved hundreds of people and extreme accuracy.
It’s almost like it’s only a conspiracy theory when it suits... | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:23 - Nov 29 with 1099 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 00:09 - Nov 29 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s not something that would be affidavit worthy.
The point is you are stating there is no evidence - suggesting the evidence is false. With no proof or information on that.
We are stating there is mounds of evidence - suggesting that accuracy is yet to be determined.
One is an opinion, the other is a fact. |
No, I’m not stating there is no evidence.
There is no evidence yet to be proved, and from what I see, the alleged evidence (take out the bonkers stuff, which in fairness you've not wed yourself too) is not even close to overturning any county, state or national result.
For the sake of balance, there wasn’t anything in the 2016 election to justify a change either. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
