What's new

Blatent election fraud thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hammerhead

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
No one ever said there was ZERO CASES OF VOTER FRAUD. There is no mass voter fraud that would change any elections results. Not when there is fraud on the scale there claim. Its easier to prove a crime then to disprove. That's why we have so many locked up.
 
mowood3479

mowood3479

Active member
Veteran
Hammerhead said:
No one ever said there was ZERO CASES OF VOTER FRAUD. There is no mass voter fraud that would change any elections results. Not when there is fraud on the scale there claim. Its easier to prove a crime then to disprove. That's why we have so many locked up.
Click to expand...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I think proving a vast conspiracy in court is much harder than failing to prove it....
one is constrained by many things...the rules of evidence (what may be admitted for use, chain of custody, etc.)
The preconceptions of the judge and jury (if there is one)

Really all I’m saying is just because something isn’t proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean it didn’t happen....

Just ask OJ,
Or John Gotti or any other mafioso who beat a case over the years

Justice isn’t ALWAYS served in court..
It’s foolhardy to think that it is.
No institution is perfect.. (especially our criminal justice system)
 
h.h.

h.h.

Active member
Veteran
mowood3479 said:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I think proving a vast conspiracy in court is much harder than failing to prove it....
one is constrained by many things...the rules of evidence (what may be admitted for use, chain of custody, etc.)
The preconceptions of the judge and jury (if there is one)

Really all I’m saying is just because something isn’t proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean it didn’t happen....

Just ask OJ,
Or John Gotti or any other mafioso who beat a case over the years

Justice isn’t ALWAYS served in court..
It’s foolhardy to think that it is.
No institution is perfect.. (especially our criminal justice system)
Click to expand...
I can probably name multiple crimes you haven’t been convicted of, so you must be guilty of them all.
 
unclefishstick

unclefishstick

Fancy Janitor
ICMag Donor
Veteran
mowood3479 said:
Another personal attack
So I’m guessing because mr fish stick hasn’t stepped in that this type of dynamic is acceptable again?
Btw
The only drug I do is cannabis...

I do post a lot ur welcome to put me on ignore.. I don’t want to offend ur delicate sensibilities
Click to expand...


i was busy all day trimming pot from my garden,i did update like 5 different grow threads last week if you're interested...


plus i put you on ignore...just the same recitations of trumpy grievance,no reason for me to waste time reading it,no need for modding...
 
spadedNfaded

spadedNfaded

Active member
Veteran
mowood3479 said:
How about no thanks.
And telling a member they have their tongue in an old mans asshole is kind of personal.

Saying the radical left is out to get trump is hardly comparable.
(Who is debating in good faith again?)
Click to expand...

The rule of law is out to get Trump. If you think the law is the "radical left" then that's insane. You can think that, just don't be surprised when the indictments start rolling in.

If you know Trump is innocent (fucking lol) then let him have his days in court to prove it. Just a side note, he refused to meet with investigators, would never show up for a hearing, and submitted answers to the Mueller investigation on paper (coward).

He's also refusing to submit a DNA test (which would completely absolve him if he was innocent) to the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit over sexual assault. If Trump was innocent he would've done all of those things so he could boast and brag about it on Twitter and on Fox. The reason he hasn't is because he's guilty.

If you don't want to want to be called out for slavishly sucking up to what amounts to a grifting con man, then I'd suggest being more objective.

I've already stated multiple times that I'm not a Biden loyalist. I don't think anyone should be a loyalist for a political party or politician. If he or Hunter committed crimes they should be punished. I'm also a believer in precedent and standards. If Trump can use the presidency to shield himself, protect his family and prevent justice then I'd assume it's totally fine for Biden to do it. Would you say so?

Otherwise it would be hypocritical to allow Trump to do whatever he wants because he's in office and deny that same power to his predecessor.

Btw Trump lost. Hell be gone in 4 weeks and tossed to the wolves of justice. We'll see how long he lasts, since Manafort and Cohen are probably singing like song birds.
 
flylowgethigh

flylowgethigh

Non-growing Lurker
ICMag Donor
Hammerhead said:
If any of it was true it wouldn't be so difficult to prove in court would it lol. Its all BS
Click to expand...

Yes it would be nice to have the opportunity to have the evidence heard in court. Every American should wonder why the voting officials refuse to have the machine examined. Why the courts are refusing to hear the evidence. Why is the tee vee ignoring this?

You will never get freedom back willingly from the globalists. Why be in such a hurry to surrender it, just because the orange man pissed off the globalists and their plans?

And put your fuckin mask on.
 
spadedNfaded

spadedNfaded

Active member
Veteran
flylowgethigh said:
Yes it would be nice to have the opportunity to have the evidence heard in court. Every American should wonder why the voting officials refuse to have the machine examined. Why the courts are refusing to hear the evidence. Why is the tee vee ignoring this?

You will never get freedom back willingly from the globalists. Why be in such a hurry to surrender it, just because the orange man pissed off the globalists and their plans?

And put your fuckin mask on.
Click to expand...

Read all 59 court cases. The courts don't hear the cases because all they bring is hearsay. Courts don't rule on hearsay. You need evidence. Once these lawsuits come to court the judge asks for the evidence and they don't get any. So they're throw out.

Can you provide me with an article not from "TrumpThatBitchNews" or breitbart that shows a court NOT hearing valid election evidence?
 
spadedNfaded

spadedNfaded

Active member
Veteran
Also, if we do examine machines, let's make sure to appear bipartisan in the Nation's interest and do Kentucky, South Carolina and Florida as well. Yeah?

Why has there been no movement to examine states where Trump won? I thought there was massive voter fraud. We should look at all 50 states, not just the ones where Trump lost.
 
h.h.

h.h.

Active member
Veteran
flylowgethigh said:
Yes it would be nice to have the opportunity to have the evidence heard in court. Every American should wonder why the voting officials refuse to have the machine examined. Why the courts are refusing to hear the evidence. Why is the tee vee ignoring this?

You will never get freedom back willingly from the globalists. Why be in such a hurry to surrender it, just because the orange man pissed off the globalists and their plans?

And put your fuckin mask on.
Click to expand...
You’re talking about Sasquatch or Loch Ness or some other bullshit fable?
 
Hammerhead

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
flylowgethigh said:
Yes it would be nice to have the opportunity to have the evidence heard in court. Every American should wonder why the voting officials refuse to have the machine examined. Why the courts are refusing to hear the evidence. Why is the tee vee ignoring this?

You will never get freedom back willingly from the globalists. Why be in such a hurry to surrender it, just because the orange man pissed off the globalists and their plans?

And put your fuckin mask on.
Click to expand...




They had 59 opportunities to show this BS prof and 1 attempt with the SC. All failed. Yet here you are claiming they never got a chance lol..
 
Zeez

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
picture.php
 
flylowgethigh

flylowgethigh

Non-growing Lurker
ICMag Donor
Opening statement to the Sente Homeland Security omittee, given under oath.

https://youtu.be/2fLtD89wKMg

Youtube may remove it, again.

“YouTube has decided that my opening statement in the U.S. [Senate], given under oath and based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it. To this day, ‘our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.’ Why is Google so afraid of the truth? #BigBrother,” lawyer Jesse Binnall wrote on Twitter.
 
Hammerhead

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
flylowgethigh said:
Opening statement to the Sente Homeland Security omittee, given under oath.

https://youtu.be/2fLtD89wKMg

Youtube may remove it, again.

“YouTube has decided that my opening statement in the U.S. [Senate], given under oath and based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it. To this day, ‘our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.’ Why is Google so afraid of the truth? #BigBrother,” lawyer Jesse Binnall wrote on Twitter.
Click to expand...


That's not prof dude. You should look it up so next time you will know what it is.
 
Im'One

Im'One

Active member
Guys we cheated so well it cost trump 7 million voted with no vidence found anywhere.
Did you get your Soros check yet?
 
M

mcattak

Active member
spadedNfaded said:
Also, if we do examine machines, let's make sure to appear bipartisan in the Nation's interest and do Kentucky, South Carolina and Florida as well. Yeah?

Why has there been no movement to examine states where Trump won? I thought there was massive voter fraud. We should look at all 50 states, not just the ones where Trump lost.
Click to expand...

And Texas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top