(05-26-2023, 09:28 AM)Caldrac Wrote:

(05-26-2023, 09:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: It is possible for votes to be falsified and accumulated.  But if anyone did that, at the scale necessary to change the winner from Trump to Biden, there would be a huge evidence trail all around.  Every other block would have somebody saying, "hey, it says my dad voted, but my dad died the year before," and similar stories.

As for 2016, yes, the Russians made multiple attempts to collude with Trump Sr..  Both Manafort and Trump Jr. were very unscrupulous as they responded to these attempts.  However, in the end, the Trump campaign never actually crossed the line.  They were at the coffeeshop with the whore, but they left separately.

You don't think Covid, having resulted in a never before seen level of lockdowns, confusion, chaos and the overstepping of the Government on people's rights didn't have maybe a little effect on votes being potentially falsified or accumulated on a much, much larger scale? 

There was evidence all around. MSM and Social Networking Sites did everything in it's power to keep it severely hush-hush and under wraps. There was plenty of people going live, posting and [BLEEP] and complaining about shady practices, odd voting patterns, paper trails of votes gone missing or found on the side of the road, people being blocked or denied entrance to voting locations, etc. 

So, again, the double standards. If one party can do it, so can the other. It's a two way street with a two party [BLEEP] being backed by one global, plutocracy trying to [BLEEP] us, the people, several times over and then some. FaceBook, Twitter, etc. Alot of those platforms got into a ton of [BLEEP] about voting misinformation and limiting people's voices to speak out about said corruption. It still has a lasting effect today. Now if you share anything, openly on your feed or even privately in messages that seems "controversial" or against the mainstream narrative? You get flagged by a "fact checker".

Do you not remember the nearly $1 billion Fox News had to pay out as a result of saying all the things you mention above? 
If they had been able to show reasonable evidence that these things were true, they wouldn't have had to pay.
Was the judge "in on it"? 
Was some billionaire somewhere secretly providing these funds and they're "in on it" too?

---