Search results

You admitted it's possible for a presidential family to profit off of papers. That could potentially be the family that has shown itself with a propensity for influence peddling already. But you think it blasphemy to think the holy Biden's capable of that?

So you admit there is a potential Hunter and Joe could continue influence peddling during/after office, yes?

I had my doubts at first, but now that I've seen how Tump treats top secret material, he should be thrown out of office...I mean the office he's going to take in 2024. I don't like the way Tump spread top secrets all over the floor, and then went on vacation. The house cleaning ladies could...

No there has always been something, a Being. The moment before, or right as faith takes over mind space, there is nothing. I mean there is a sort of null and void upon which faith builds it's structures. Arguably, the structures are still null and void and empty. That's a basic tenant in...

If the liar knows his name will never be redacted, because it is protected by layers of other liars, would there be enough skin in the game to deserve any credibility?

The redacted "source" that they put in an affidavit could be like a meteorologist (weatherman), who accidentally fat fingers information that is wrong, but which a lot of people end up consuming, sinking a lot of yachts on the open sea. What are the chances that this source is accidentally...

Moderator please move this to the Religion and Spirituality forum...unless Sprout has faith that the redacted Hispanic with broken english is the Oracle of Mara-Lago.

Sprout will probably be satisfied with that answer. Thanks for vetting the source. Sounds Hispanic, so you know it's true.

Sprout wants your source on this. Want's to see if you are a reasonable rational person who vets sources deeply, or just an emo politico.

I admit I haven't read your entire thesis which apparently questions the authenticity of the charts, one of which seems to have come from ABC News. I'm just saying, again, Reuters (and two other sources according to gwb) does not question the authenticity of the charts like you do!

You haven't explained how, if you remove the 10x fat finger in the one state, Biden could still win that state. And you have not offered a plausible explain how absentee ballots can all come in late, be all registered as one lot (at the same time) and be 95% for Biden (when all prior results...

I'll say it again then: Reuters (and maybe two other sources according to gbw) does not question the authenticity of the charts. It merely says one of the charts is technically wrong because of the fat finger. So ok, if you remove the fat finger error, we are left with an authentic chart which...

Well the chart of one state shows the results of a 10x fat finger, of which even Reuters admits. If you remove that fat finger, let's say, by recounting the votes, then Trump should win that state! Are you saying they re-included the 10x fat finger in subsequent recounts?

Of course they didn't state it. They are political animals. But it's obvious if you do remove the fat finger from the chart results, Trump would win the state.

See my last reply to Sprout above. Reuters does not question the realness of the charts. It says one on the charts is because of a 10x fat finger clerical mistake. I've said, ok, if you remove the mistake and rectify the chart accordingly, Trump should win that state See my reply to Sprout...

I haven't read all you've said yet, just addressing the basic issue of the realness factor of the charts. Let it be known that the Reuters explanation does not question the realness of the charts. It merely gives explanation why one of the charts was right, if you don't discount the fat finger...

I summed up what Reuters said quite succinctly, breaking it down state by state (just these two states). One state boiled down to a fat finger on a cleric. The other state boiled down to absentee ballots entered all at the same time, 95% or so for Biden. How do you disagree with these...

Are you saying they all three did their own investigation and came up with the same interpretations? Or, as is more often the case, if one of them reports something, the other two fall in line? Which of these two do you think it was? As far as degrees of absurdity, I don't think it is absurd...

You've linked to an interpretation of the charts by Reuters, which has lately indicated it is still a flaming partisan in political battles. Reuters. Trump lost both those states on January 6th. WISCONSIN According to Reuters source, there was a clerical glitch, someone's fat thumb, which...

Do you mean my interpretation of the charts is psychotic? Or, do you mean taking the charts as actually indicative of what happened on the ground is psychotic? Are you saying that even if they are indicative of actual events, there is still not enough fraud to turn the 2020 election? My...