For 4 years, Hillary said the 2016 election was stolen. Did Twitter ban her??

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

That's not evidence you fucking moron. That's hearsay. Do you know the difference? The right wing is playing you for a fool and you're swallowing it.

You think posting numbers on a website is proof?

Why do you think 60 of Trump's court cases failed?

My God, you're gullible and naive. Find a law book and learn something about proof, Gomer.

if people are wiling to go on record and have legal affidavits it's evidence.

[Joe Capitalist]

RQAA. He has already provided a link to evidence. I have already described some of the evidence. You can't wish this stuff away.

You have no evidence, Gomer:

President Donald Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected the campaign’s latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.
Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges’ assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote for the three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents.

So, how much money have you given to Trump's Election Fraud Legal Defense Fund?

[Legion]

It was stolen from Hillary.

That's sedition, isn't it?

[Into the Night]

you have a right to say that, even though hillary conceded night of.

She announced that she conceded, then turned right around and built claims that the election was stolen from her due to Russian interference, even producing fake evidence that she paid for to have constructed.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Not even close to the same thing. The BLMers were trying to stop police from beating and killing blacks for sport. They were trying to make a better, kinder America. The Repub rioters were trying to destroy the US government by killing the politicians and destroying the capitol . Those are not the same thing.

by rioting? that's helpful.

[Into the Night]

>>>

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

She announced that she conceded, then turned right around and built claims that the election was stolen from her due to Russian interference, even producing fake evidence that she paid for to have constructed.

I know. it's all such a sick joke. the levels of hypocrisy here are off the charts.

[Into the Night]

Not even close to the same thing.

It is the same thing.

The BLMers were trying to stop police from beating and killing blacks for sport.

Lie. In every case, these black men were fighting with cops, often armed with a deadly weapon, or died from drug overdose in the custody of police (such as Floyd).

They were trying to make a better, kinder America.

By burning and firebombing businesses, homes, cars, police stations, and federal buildings? By looting and pillaging? By commandeering city streets and declaring them independent states? By threatening and beating people and sometimes killing them? That's your 'kinder America'????? FUCK YOU.

The Repub rioters were trying to destroy the US government by killing the politicians and destroying the capitol.

The rioters were Antifa and BLM. No one was trying to kill politicians. No one was trying to destroy the capitol.

You're a liar, dude.

Those are not the same thing.

They are the same thing.

[coldjoint]

He thinks he's God.

There is a lot of that going around.

[Into the Night]

And why do you think no judge would allow it in the courtroom?

BECAUSE IT WASN'T EVIDENCE! IT WAS HEARSAY![/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

WRONG. Because the court has no authority to select electors, or because the judges were wimps, or bought and paid for by Democrats.

Go read about the cases online. One judge even said:

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote for the three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents.

Bigotry. Bibas did not make any ruling.

Now do you get it? You need to stop watching just NewsMax, OAN and FoxNews and get out of your Radical Far Right Wing Proud Boy bubble.

Evidence does not need a court to exist. Evidence exists. NewsMax didn't create it. OAN didn't create it. FoxNews didn't create it. Trump didn't create it. It is not hearsay. It is direct evidence. Some of it has already been presented to you. You can't wish this stuff away.

[Into the Night]

So, if there's so much indisputable evidence why did all but one of his court cases fail?

Courts have no authority to choose electors. Other judges were wimps. Others were bought and paid for by Democrats. No court examined any of the evidence.

If you really believe Trump really won the election, how much money did you give to his Election Fraud Defense Fund?

Irrelevant question. Whataboutism.

[Into the Night]

You have no evidence, Gomer:
...deleted irrelevant repetition and whataboutism...

Evidence has already been shown to you. You can't just wish it away.

[Nordberg]

if people are wiling to go on record and have legal affidavits it's evidence.

Nope. If they had any truth in them the reds would have front-paged them. They are nothing. The Reds had months to prove something, anything. They did not. 60 court cases and all that absolute proof ? They must have forgotten about it.

[Nomad]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Your skull is made out of stone fallacy.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Nope. If they had any truth in them the reds would have front-paged them. They are nothing. The Reds had months to prove something, anything. They did not. 60 court cases and all that absolute proof ? They must have forgotten about it.

shut your ignorant hate hole.