Someone needs to explain this

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
In 2008 the kenyan got 69.5 million votes

In 2012 the kenyan got 66 million votes

In 2016 Hillary got 66 million votes

In 2020 Veggie Joe got 81.3 million votes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 2024 Kamala got 71 million votes

en.wikipedia.org

United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

How did biden do that.?? He couldn't draw flies at his rallies. No one liked him or cared about him. IT WAS MASSIVE CHEATING.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
In 2008 the kenyan got 69.5 million votes

In 2012 the kenyan got 66 million votes

In 2016 Hillary got 66 million votes

In 2020 Veggie Joe got 81.3 million votes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 2024 Kamala got 71 million votes

en.wikipedia.org

United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

How did biden do that.?? He couldn't draw flies at his rallies. No one liked him or cared about him. IT WAS MASSIVE CHEATING.
Click to expand...
IT WAS MASSIVE CHEATING.
Yes
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
In 2008 the kenyan got 69.5 million votes

In 2012 the kenyan got 66 million votes

In 2016 Hillary got 66 million votes

In 2020 Veggie Joe got 81.3 million votes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 2024 Kamala got 71 million votes

en.wikipedia.org

United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

How did biden do that.?? He couldn't draw flies at his rallies. No one liked him or cared about him. IT WAS MASSIVE CHEATING.
Click to expand...
10 million people had nothing better to do than vote being locked in their house by the government? :unsure:
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
In 2008 the kenyan got 69.5 million votes

In 2012 the kenyan got 66 million votes

In 2016 Hillary got 66 million votes

In 2020 Veggie Joe got 81.3 million votes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 2024 Kamala got 71 million votes

en.wikipedia.org

United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

How did biden do that.?? He couldn't draw flies at his rallies. No one liked him or cared about him. IT WAS MASSIVE CHEATING.
Click to expand...
10 plus million fake votes for Biden
 
BartenderElite said:
Evidence absolutely does NOT say otherwise. That's pure fantasy.

There is no evidence.
Click to expand...
Well I've played this game before and it looks an awful lot like this:

- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
+ Post evidence of undeniable fraud
- THAT'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE, STATISTICS DON'T EXIST EVERY BALLOT THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN FRAUDULENT IS BY DEFAULT VALID
+ Post more evidence
- THAT'S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
+ Points out that the modifications to election procedure were such that only circumstantial evidence would be possible
- SO IT'S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DOESN'T COUNT
+ Points out that it is the duty of a democratic government to make elections auditable, i.e. proven, i.e. fraud would leave more than circumstantial evidence
- NO IT ISN'T, A DEMOCRACY IS ANY GOVERNMENT THAT COLLECTS BALLOTS; DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY FOLLOW A SYSTEM THAT PREVENTS ONE PERSON FROM FILLING OUT MULTIPLE BALLOTS

So does [-] that just about sum up your feelings or are you sane and honest?

BartenderElite said:
Courts rejected everything.
Click to expand...
...and that means anything they rejected must be meritless?
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
Well I've played this game before and it looks an awful lot like this:

- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
+ Post evidence of undeniable fraud
- THAT'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE, STATISTICS DON'T EXIST EVERY BALLOT THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN FRAUDULENT IS BY DEFAULT VALID
+ Post more evidence
- THAT'S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
+ Points out that the modifications to election procedure were such that only circumstantial evidence would be possible
- SO IT'S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DOESN'T COUNT
+ Points out that it is the duty of a democratic government to make elections auditable, i.e. proven, i.e. fraud would leave more than circumstantial evidence
- NO IT ISN'T, A DEMOCRACY IS ANY GOVERNMENT THAT COLLECTS BALLOTS; DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY FOLLOW A SYSTEM THAT PREVENTS ONE PERSON FROM FILLING OUT MULTIPLE BALLOTS

So does [-] that just about sum up your feelings or are you sane and honest?


...and that means anything they rejected must be meritless?
Click to expand...

You posted nothing here. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Outside of "fake electors."

So what evidence do you have? Have you posted it, as you have indicated? Why have the courts ignored this?

Do you know how many people would need to be involved to rig a national election?
 
BartenderElite said:
You posted nothing here. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Outside of "fake electors."

So what evidence do you have? Have you posted it, as you have indicated?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to waste my time if you're one of those fools who wipes statistics and the definition of democracy out of your mind for the duration of the conversation.

Admit that a real democracy is duty bound to run elections that reasonable people know are real election because there is no reasonable doubt that the quantity of fraud is below the margin of victory.

Admit the fundamental theorem of statistics: The ratios of the sample are representative of the ratios of the whole population. In other words admit that just because you can only prove 10 ballots are fraudulent does not mean that only 10 ballots are fraudulent. Instead admit that it means there is a mechanism for fraudulent ballots to be added to the pile and statistical analysis is required to get anything resembling a ballpark on the actual amount of fraud.

BartenderElite said:
Why have the courts ignored this?
Click to expand...
They're cowards. Kinda like how Jack Smith is packing up shop instantly.

It's not fun to play the game when you're on the wrong side of the powerful.

BartenderElite said:
Do you know how many people would need to be involved to rig a national election?
Click to expand...
Depends on how many ballots are fraudulent. The minimum number is probably around 500 cheaters, but a more realistic one is 5000. Mostly organized in small cells of 3 to 5 people. Many working independently. Some in larger conspiracies such as the one recently discovered in Lancaster County PA.
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
Well I've played this game before and it looks an awful lot like this:

- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
+ Post evidence of undeniable fraud
- THAT'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE, STATISTICS DON'T EXIST EVERY BALLOT THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN FRAUDULENT IS BY DEFAULT VALID
+ Post more evidence
- THAT'S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
+ Points out that the modifications to election procedure were such that only circumstantial evidence would be possible
- SO IT'S CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DOESN'T COUNT
+ Points out that it is the duty of a democratic government to make elections auditable, i.e. proven, i.e. fraud would leave more than circumstantial evidence
- NO IT ISN'T, A DEMOCRACY IS ANY GOVERNMENT THAT COLLECTS BALLOTS; DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY FOLLOW A SYSTEM THAT PREVENTS ONE PERSON FROM FILLING OUT MULTIPLE BALLOTS

So does [-] that just about sum up your feelings or are you sane and honest?


...and that means anything they rejected must be meritless?
Click to expand...
Just remember, and there are people on this board that have said as much in the last few days, for the Left China, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, to name a few dictatorships have "fair and democratic" elections every so often.
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
I'm not going to waste my time if you're one of those fools who wipes statistics and the definition of democracy out of your mind for the duration of the conversation.

Admit that a real democracy is duty bound to run elections that reasonable people know are real election because there is no reasonable doubt that the quantity of fraud is below the margin of victory.

Admit the fundamental theorem of statistics: The ratios of the sample are representative of the ratios of the whole population. In other words admit that just because you can only prove 10 ballots are fraudulent does not mean that only 10 ballots are fraudulent. Instead admit that it means there is a mechanism for fraudulent ballots to be added to the pile and statistical analysis is required to get anything resembling a ballpark on the actual amount of fraud.


They're cowards. Kinda like how Jack Smith is packing up shop instantly.

It's not fun to play the game when you're on the wrong side of the powerful.


Depends on how many ballots are fraudulent. The minimum number is probably around 500 cheaters, but a more realistic one is 5000. Mostly organized in small cells of 3 to 5 people. Many working independently. Some in larger conspiracies such as the one recently discovered in Lancaster County PA.
Click to expand...

Wow. I thought you were going to try to post some actual evidence.

Do you know that baseless speculation isn't evidence? Maybe that's the issue.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Just remember, and there are people on this board that have said as much in the last few days, for the Left China, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, to name a few dictatorships have "fair and democratic" elections every so often.
Click to expand...
What can you say, Stalin was a very popular man. You can deny his election if you want to get shot, leave me out of it.
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
Suspicious that you won't admit to what any sane honest person would concede were true.
Click to expand...

That there is no evidence? Yeah - I guess that's "suspicious."

You lost this one. If there is evidence, you could still win - but there isn't. You can't post a single thing. And yet you continue to undermine election integrity, one of the foundations of our democracy, baselessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top