Possible Election Fraud in Progress

THE SUPREME COURT ON Monday declined to take up a case challenging Pennsylvania's absentee ballot receipt deadline, a few days after Republican efforts were dealt a blow in a lower court regarding late-arriving ballots.


hmmm.......Guess Trump forgot that judges apply the law, they dont suck the dick of who appointed them.
 
El OchoCinco said:
THE SUPREME COURT ON Monday declined to take up a case challenging Pennsylvania's absentee ballot receipt deadline, a few days after Republican efforts were dealt a blow in a lower court regarding late-arriving ballots.


hmmm.......Guess Trump forgot that judges apply the law, they dont suck the dick of who appointed them.
More...


Odds are, the Supreme Court will be making decisions on more cases going forward, possibly even including other PA cases.

Now, if the Supreme Court does take up a election related case, will you be ok with that?

If the Supreme Court takes a election case and ultimately rules in Trump’s favor, would it be fair to say it was likely based on the evidence and not because of appointments?
 
BeautifulStranger said:
You don’t want to be pinned down to recognizing the legitimacy of a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Trump on other upcoming cases, do you?
More...


I don't have to do anything but get old and die someday.... so I dont give a fuck what you think I need to be pinned down on you non-citizen.

SC just ruled on something and yet you still persist with the fraud and scam idea but you are asking me to recognize a decision by the SC? You seem to be the one that needs to recognize the SC decisions right in front of you.
 
El OchoCinco said:
THE SUPREME COURT ON Monday declined to take up a case challenging Pennsylvania's absentee ballot receipt deadline, a few days after Republican efforts were dealt a blow in a lower court regarding late-arriving ballots.


hmmm.......Guess Trump forgot that judges apply the law, they dont suck the dick of who appointed them.
More...

If this is true about PENN then it's over. Trump must flip Penn via a favorable SC ruling. It's his only path.
 
El OchoCinco said:
I don't have to do anything but get old and die someday.... so I dont give a fuck what you think I need to be pinned down on you non-citizen.

SC just ruled on something and yet you still persist with the fraud and scam idea but you are asking me to recognize a decision by the SC? You seem to be the one that needs to recognize the SC decisions right in front of you.
More...

If we lived in a world where the Supreme Court only gets to rule on one case, you would be correct. However, in the world we do live, the Supreme Court only ruled on absentee ballots. There are so many more potential cases related to election fraud, such as electronic voting and alleged fraudelent ballots, the odds are the Supreme Court will be ruling again soon.

Whether you care or not if I decide to try preempting future hypocracy on your part should a Supreme Court ruling go against how you perceive things, is not my top priority.


Now get back to work:

upload_2020-11-16_14-5-19.jpeg
 
Hotcakes said:


If this is true about PENN then it's over. Trump must flip Penn via a favorable SC ruling. It's his only path.
More...


This woman WAS a judge but is not anymore. Judges cannot comment on any case, and surely not in the way she did. It is clearly a Republican voter and she probable receives a lot of cash to tell this story.
These Dominion machines apparently are used already for along time and in many countries. And nobody ever saw any problem???? Do you believe that the whole world is stupid and all elections are manipulated?
China and Venezuela are mentioned by her, but there is no proof at all of fraud and also no proof at all that China or Venezuela are involved. It is just nonsense brought in the "Trump style" ( massive fraud, a shockwave...)

The major problem is the word IF. Unless there is undeniable hard proof that also can indicate exactly how big the fraud was, there is nothing. For each vote that has to be considered invalid there should be proof. So proof of 25 votes that were switched, means 25 votes invalid. You can never use theses small amounts of errors as proof to cancel all the elections or even 1 state's result.All votes should be checked and counted again.
 
virtusa said:
This is the explanation: The numbers are clearly rounded with 1 decimal.
Depending of the way it is rounded you can have different results.

View attachment 244202

Notice: The website that posted the numbers is not an offical website, nor have the numbers been audited and declared as officially correct. Not a single Court will accept these numbers as official.
More...

So, the same entity at the same time states votes reported yet use 2 different numbers and somehow you attribute it to a difference in rounding?
BS

I never said a court would accept that, just that it stinks and where there is enough stink, one usually finds a nice big pile of bullsh*t. That, is what we have here.
 
DTB2 said:
So, the same entity at the same time states votes reported yet use 2 different numbers and somehow you attribute it to a difference in rounding?
BS

I never said a court would accept that, just that it stinks and where there is enough stink, one usually finds a nice big pile of bullsh*t. That, is what we have here.
More...

Following your logic:
in states were the counting is finished, you see 99% counted votes. Where are the remaining votes? Or is it again a mathematical inaccurancy (what is is indeed). The numbers shown are truncated with 1 decimal. You probably never worked with Excel. 3.3 would not be correct too, as it was too much.

I understand:
  • massive fraud
  • huge number of votes stolen (38 million already according to Trump)
  • fraud in 22 states with dominion machines
  • etc...
But apparently very hard to find hard proof as courts till now rejected almost everything and the first real fraud still has to be found.

Show us the"nice big pile of bullsh*t.". Let me guess: you cannot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top