President Trump is the victor of the 2020 election by default…by law…and to the U.S. Constitution.

[Baptist Believer]

Following the link, it is simply a guest on Fox News pushing a conspiracy theory that lacks a lot of details.

if we knew specifically what states, then we could look at the total count of votes for all candidates and see if there is a significant lack of votes for contested races other than the President. That would be potential support for the theory.

But by not giving details or evidence (have they actually seen these alleged votes and have those who may have allegedly seen these votes sworn to that under oath?), there is not way to determine the validity of the claim.

If it is true, there would be no issue in providing supporting evidence.

 

[Reformed1689]

Following the link, it is simply a guest on Fox News pushing a conspiracy theory that lacks a lot of details.

if we knew specifically what states, then we could look at the total count of votes for all candidates and see if there is a significant lack of votes for contested races other than the President. That would be potential support for the theory.

But by not giving details or evidence (have they actually seen these alleged votes and have those who may have allegedly seen these votes sworn to that under oath?), there is not way to determine the validity of the claim.

If it is true, there would be no issue in providing supporting evidence.

They have already said they will be providing evidence in courts, not elsewhere.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It would also be kind of stupid for Democrats to rig the election for Biden, yet not also take the Senate. The Senate is the bigger prize. With a Democrat Party-controlled Senate, Trump would be stopped, even if he managed to win re-election.

 

[Baptist Believer]

They have already said they will be providing evidence in courts, not elsewhere.

They have had a LOT of trouble providing evidence in court so far.

Here’s an analysis of the claim that might be helpful:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ation-utterly-ignores-history/?outputType=amp

 

[Reformed1689]

They have had a LOT of trouble providing evidence in court so far.

Here’s an analysis of the claim that might be helpful:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/09/trump-teams-latest-voter-fraud-allegation-utterly-ignores-history/?outputType=amp

You tell me all I need to know about you that you trust the Washington Post.

 

[Reformed1689]

It would also be kind of stupid for Democrats to rig the election for Biden, yet not also take the Senate. The Senate is the bigger prize. With a Democrat Party-controlled Senate, Trump would be stopped, even if he managed to win re-election.

Unless, of course, they wrongly assumed they were going to have a blue wave.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It would also be kind of stupid for Democrats to rig the election for Biden, yet not also take the Senate. The Senate is the bigger prize. With a Democrat Party-controlled Senate, Trump would be stopped, even if he managed to win re-election.

Why Dems do things a certain way is not always obvious—they are very devious little devils. They have great motivation to get Trump out, and some Reps may overlook that, if they still gain in the process. So the question is strictly whether the Dems did it.

But for some, the question is really whether they will be caught now. Unfortunately, they’ve won some cases where it was ruled that it didn’t matter that they illegally hid what they were doing. In other words, fair elections are not important to those judges.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You tell me all I need to know about you that you trust the Washington Post.

That’s good. You obviously know that I trust reliable journalism that have fact-based reporting that stands up over time.

One builds faith in media sources by analyzing how they come by their information and their conclusions, and then measuring their assertions by other sources and reality. If a source is consistently correct, it is highly reliable.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Unless, of course, they wrongly assumed they were going to have a blue wave.

If they were assuming a blue wave, there would be no motive to rig the vote. Moreover, the point still stand, that it would be even more important to flip the Senate than the presidency.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Why Dems do things a certain way is not always obvious—they are very devious little devils.

Uh huh. What you are telling me is not to think rationally, just believed that Democrats are both super-competent and super-incompetent at the same time.

They have great motivation to get Trump out, and some Reps may overlook that, if they still gain in the process. So the question is strictly whether the Dems did it.

So who are the other suspects? QAnon? The Illuminati? The angry ghost of Jerry Lewis? Elvis? Martians?

But for some, the question is really whether they will be caught now.

First, you need to demonstrate that a crime was committed.

Unfortunately, they’ve won some cases where it was ruled that it didn’t matter that they illegally hid what they were doing. In other words, fair elections are not important to those judges.

Who is “they” and what did they allegedly hide?

 

[Reformed1689]

That’s good. You obviously know that I trust reliable journalism that have fact-based reporting that stands up over time.

One builds faith in media sources by analyzing how they come by their information and their conclusions, and then measuring their assertions by other sources and reality. If a source is consistently correct, it is highly reliable.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Uh huh. What you are telling me is not to think rationally, just believed that Democrats are both super-competent and super-incompetent at the same time. So who are the other suspects? QAnon? The Illuminati? The angry ghost of Jerry Lewis? Elvis? Martians? First, you need to demonstrate that a crime was committed. Who is “they” and what did they allegedly hide?

Unless you are one of their strategists, you don't know what the Dems are up to, and cannot legitimately claim that you do. You are merely speculating along with the WP. The Dems are both devious and brazen, and get away with a lot with the help of their MSM, and the FBI, etc.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Unless you are one of their strategists, you don't know what the Dems are up to, and cannot legitimately claim that you do.

I’ve made no such claim, but you are making a lot of claims. How can you legitimately claim what they are up to, or that they are up to anything at all?

You are merely speculating along with the WP.

if there is not evidence of wrongdoing, then I shouldn’t assume that there is. I have no evidence that you are a fundamentally immoral person, so I have no business assuming that you are. I assume the best of you unless there is evidence. Why can’t you do the same for “the Dems?”

The Dems are both devious and brazen, and get away with a lot with the help of their MSM, and the FBI, etc.

Where is the evidence?

 

[Reformed1689]

if there is not evidence of wrongdoing, then I shouldn’t assume that there is. I have no evidence that you are a fundamentally immoral person, so I have no business assuming that you are. I assume the best of you unless there is evidence. Why can’t you do the same for “the Dems?”

Except there is evidence. (minor detail)

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I’ve made no such claim, but you are making a lot of claims. How can you legitimately claim what they are up to, or that they are up to anything at all? if there is not evidence of wrongdoing, then I shouldn’t assume that there is. I have no evidence that you are a fundamentally immoral person, so I have no business assuming that you are. I assume the best of you unless there is evidence. Why can’t you do the same for “the Dems?” Where is the evidence?

It is simply not true that you rely on evidence. You’ve bought into accusations against Trump without any real evidence, while essentially demanding conviction before admitting the corruption of someone like Hillary or Biden or Comey. It is not a trivial point that your reliance on certain heavily biased sources is laughable.

 

[Reformed1689]

It is simply not true that you rely on evidence. You’ve bought into accusations against Trump without any real evidence, while essentially demanding conviction before admitting the corruption of someone like Hillary or Biden or Comey. It is not a trivial point that your reliance on certain heavily biased sources is laughable.

Showing their true colors and double standards.

 

[canadyjd]

"We've Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden" - Sidney Powell Drops a BOMB on Sunday Morning Futures (Video)

So, POT:S attorneys go into court and say, “your honor, we discovered 450,000 ballots across several states where only the presidential race was voted on and just for Bid:n”

Judge says, “are you claiming it is impossible for a voter to submit a ballot with only one candidate voted for?” “Do you have any evidence these ballots were fraudulently casts?”

This means nothing in a court of law.

Suspicion does not equal evidence.

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

So, POT:S attorneys go into court and say, “your honor, we discovered 450,000 ballots across several states where only the presidential race was voted on and just for Bid:n”

Judge says, “are you claiming it is impossible for a voter to submit a ballot with only one candidate voted for?” “Do you have any evidence these ballots were fraudulently casts?”

This means nothing in a court of law.

Suspicion does not equal evidence.

peace to you

It is an irregularity and a big one. NOBODY does that. And all 450,000 just happen to be for Biden? Nope.

 

[canadyjd]

Uh huh......

So who are the other suspects?.... The angry ghost of.....Elvis?....?

Ok, now you’ve gone too far.

Elvis isn’t dead.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

It is an irregularity and a big one. NOBODY does that. And all 450,000 just happen to be for Biden? Nope.

You cannot speak for every American. You do not know if there are single issue voters who only vote for POT:S.

Additionally, did they look for single issue votes for TR:MP?

Suspicion is not evidence.

peace to you