Mar-a-Lago Raided by FBI

[gwb-trading]

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 to question the relatively high degree of absurdity in the explanations offered by Reuters sources.

I think it is rational to conclude that if you remove the fat finger error, Trump wins that state.

I think it is rational to question whether absentee ballots can be entered as a batch (instead of one by one as counted), and rational to question whether those absentees could be 95% in favor of any single candidate.


So Barr has neglected his duty and your mob buddies don't like my explanation as to why he neglected his duty.

Seems like the well-respected news sources were reporting the facts in deep detail. While you are merely peddling fantasy.

 

[Good1]

Seems like the well-respected news sources were reporting the facts in deep detail. While you are merely peddling fantasy.

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 summaries?

 

[Good1]

Simply:

1) What is the source of this chart?

2) How was the data derived?

3) How can someone verify that the data hasn't been tampered with?

4) How do you know that this chart isn't just a graphics program?

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 clerical error, and therefore, must be wrong if you DO discount the fat finger.

What I have said is ok, but once you discount the fat finger, then it's obvious Trump should have won that state.

Then, as far as the other chart, again, the realness of the chart is not questioned. The explanation given is those were absentee ballots all coming in at the same time, not all for Trump. What they avoid saying out loud is the absentee ballots, that came in all at the same time, must have been 95% for Biden to produce the results we see on the chart.

That's something that should have been addressed by the DOJ because, contrary to what Barr said, that brings the issue to a level where it can throw the entire election.

 

[UsualName]

If the charts indicate actual events on the ground, then they represent election fraud. Are you saying election fraud is nothing new?

You’re stupid dude. You just are. You idiots were accusing service members, married women that changed their name and citizens overseas of voter fraud. The so called charts are bullshit. Most “fraud” is clerical things like voting in the wrong precinct or failure to update your address, not identifying as a Jr or Sr etc.

 

[Good1]

You’re stupid dude. You just are. You idiots were accusing service members, married women that changed their name and citizens overseas of voter fraud. The so called charts are bullshit. Most “fraud” is clerical things like voting in the wrong precinct or failure to update your address, not identifying as a Jr or Sr etc.

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 for the other state, then reconsider the definition of stupid.

 

[gwb-trading]

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 for the other state, then reconsider the definition of stupid.

That's not what Reuters or any other respected source stated after providing the facts. There is no scenario under which you remove the minor clerical mistake and Trump wins the state. Your assertions are pure fantasy.

 

[Good1]

That's not what Reuters or any other respected source stated after providing the facts. There is no scenario under which you remove the clerical mistake and trump wins the state. Your assertions are pure fantasy.

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.

 

[gwb-trading]

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.

The votes in these states have been recounted multiple times. The results have remained the same.

You are peddling pure fantasy.

 

[UsualName]

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 for the other state, then reconsider the definition of stupid.

Nope. You’re still stupid. The final totals are the final totals. All certified and and appealed and sued. Your little conspiracy theories have all been officially debunked.

 

[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 clerical error, and therefore, must be wrong if you DO discount the fat finger.

What I have said is ok, but once you discount the fat finger, then it's obvious Trump should have won that state.

Then, as far as the other chart, again, the realness of the chart is not questioned. The explanation given is those were absentee ballots all coming in at the same time, not all for Trump. What they avoid saying out loud is the absentee ballots, that came in all at the same time, must have been 95% for Biden to produce the results we see on the chart.

That's something that should have been addressed by the DOJ because, contrary to what Barr said, that brings the issue to a level where it can throw the entire election.

I addressed the "realness" of your squiggly lines and why and in what manner you are mistaken to hold them as "authentic."