Really? You downplayed the BLM and Antifa violence all last summer. I think your disgust is really just politically based.

Like yours?

I have every right be disgusted at your selective disgust.

Look in the mirror.

I did and the mirror cracked

Markus

I think that just going along with what you believe to be cheating "for the good of the country" is exactly opposite of good for the country. Nixon did that and we ended up with Kennedy and Johnson who, although presented as clean-cut nice guys, were a bunch of politically corrupt scum.

We *need* candidates who are willing to challenge the existing political machine because it's so entrenched, it's the only way to end the way the US is run by a cabal of Washington elites and oligarchs.

We need to do away with big government in any form - regardless of party - if it means a few things get broken and a few pols get scared, it's probably worth it. In fact - pols *should* be and *need to be* scared of their constituents. Else we get what we have now with them in office for decades doing nothing for their constituents while lining their own pockets.

A few people who broke some things and farted in Pelosi's chair doesn't even come close to the antifa-blm violence. Additionally, it *looks* like those actually down breaking down doors and windows are dressed in "black Bloc" - aka antifa, yet law enforcement seems to be none too urgent in investigating that aspect. Instead, they're worried about little old ladies wandering the halls of Congress...

I do every morning when I get up. Doesn't alter anything.

Challenge all you want. But dont wait until AFTER the electoral college votes. To then discredit a several hundred year old system of government with unfounded accusations and conspiracy theories because you dont like the results.


Anyone you know of presenting any evidence yet?

I read words like those among my Danish, Swedish and sometimes among my German friends.

The problems is, on the election day-authors behind these text and their followers tend to vote as they did before.

Markus

Considering that AZ is auditing ballots and other states have folks observing those audits, with preps possibly coming for they're own, who knows? I hear they are currently looking at ballots that only cast votes for Pres/VP.

All other things being equal, if someone challenges the results and you are confident that they were aboveboard, why wouldn't you welcome audits? And I don't mean hand recounts of the exact same ballots. I mean scrutinizing each ballot.

One of the GA election workers has come out to report that she and a few others questioned several sets of ballots that had no folds or creases you'd expect from a mail-in, and the bubbles for Biden on those ballots were all filled in clearly with the same exact "shadow" below the darkened bubble, which is a common artifact of photocopying.

People have questioned why radiomodems were present in voting machines at the time of the election. It seems reasonable, from a process standpoint, to have an audit trail showing they were removed or disabled. That trail doesn't exist.

People have questioned why GA declared a water main break, sent counters and observers home for the night, and then produced suitcases of ballots and recommenced counting - all recorded on security cameras. The explanations for that are entirely unbelievable.

People need to feel confident that the *process* is clean and unable to be gamed to cheat. Right now, that doesn't exist.

If the system is corrupted and the people in the system are corrupt, then you get rid of the people and the system.

Seems to me that a fair amount of evidence was presented but it was all callously brushed aside in the establishments eagerness to get Trump out of office.

You too!! I must stop doing that, the replacement cost over the years is horrendous. :yep:

I'm all for expecting clear evidence to discredit the system but I think in light of recent developments (maybe Wuhan flu from a lab), I wouldn't call the supposition that the election was more fraudulent that before a conspiracy theory.

This. When you use administrative procedure to declare evidence (proof positive evidence) inadmissable or that plaintiffs don't have standing, at any other time and place, leftists would be up in arms and declare the court to be right wing and demand the judge recuse.

If the evidence is there, you shouldn't be allowed to suppress it. Let it be admitted and stand on its own or be determined as not believable.

Two words: Steel Mirrors.