Tippex wrote: » So you are selective in your opinion as the very start of the article states that chan’s colleagues “might” have which could be deemed an opinion but it is certainly not a fact. Please list hard facts as backup as opposed to opinions.
notobtuse wrote: » Ah, my friend... moving the goal posts. You don't ever disappoint. I already addressed that point. Please re-read my original post. It's not about changing a potentially wrong presidential certification, it's about the civil war that will erupt in this nation if the true results were proven to be otherwise and Trump really won.
notobtuse wrote: » A forensic audit would clear it up. Why are you all so scared of them?
everlast75 wrote: » So why vote against debating change?https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1407464559615430656?s=19
fullstop wrote: » Why would a civil war erupt in Ireland over trump (legitimately) losing an election in the US?
notobtuse wrote: » News outlets are reporting it as fact
astrofool wrote: » There have been multiple audits, 0 of them agree with what you believe, thus you will continue to call for more and more audits as each and every audit continues to disagree with you. Do you not see the impotence of this path? The ridiculousness of the effort going into this that has not yet turned over anything? The hilarity that ensues as these theories surface now and again only to end in absolute embarrassment over and over.
extra gravy wrote: » Credible news outlets are most definitely not reporting it as fact.
notobtuse wrote: » Like CNN, the Democrat's Collaboration News Network? The Hill is very credible and middle of the road on the bias scale.
notobtuse wrote: » Nope, I'm saying I wouldn't put it past Bloomberg to pick selective sources that supports his way of thinking and ignore the rest. A forensic audit would put the matter to bed I'd think.
WhomadeGod wrote: » Is democracy failing/has already failed in the USA if its voting population are growingly not trusting the results of elections/having confidence in the honesty of elections? In 2020 before election A Gallup poll released found that 59% of Americans don't have confidence in the honesty of elections. That percentage hit a high of 69% in 2016, in the middle of the highly contested presidential election year. That year, only 30% of Americans said they were confident in the honesty of the election Distrust in elections hit a low in 2009, when only 40% of Americans said they were not confident in the honesty of elections. That year, 59% said they were confident, the highest recorded in Gallup's poll.https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-02-13/majority-of-americans-dont-trust-elections-poll
notobtuse wrote: » I'd guess almost half the country thinks forensic audits are needed in about 4 states to bring back confidence in our elections. That is HUGE! They might very well prove Biden won legitimately. Why are you afraid of forensic audits? Makes me wonder if fear of what might rear its ugly head is driving the opposition to them.
extra gravy wrote: » The Hill haven't reported it as fact. That is a FACT. Opinions you agree with aren't facts.
notobtuse wrote: » Crisis on the border they have no intention on fixing. Illegal aliens invading the country at the highest levels in decades. Huge increases in gasoline, fuel oil, and other goods that hurt the middle class and the poor most. No more energy independence. Increasing interest rates. Terrible international decisions. That's just a few. You need forensic audits to get the the true bottom of the problems. Maybe they will prove Biden really was elected. But why fight the audits?. Don't you want to prove us on the right wrong and put the fears of half the nation at ease that democrats might have stolen the election?
notobtuse wrote: » The scientist didn't say that?
notobtuse wrote: » I'd guess almost half the country thinks forensic audits are needed in about 4 states to bring back confidence in our elections. That is HUGE!
notobtuse wrote: » News outlets are reporting it as fact and no other scientist refutted it. Certainly light years more credible than the Russian collusion hoax everyone here was reporting as gospel, wouldn't you say?
everlast75 wrote: » Trump claimed pre-2016 that the whole system was rigged and that he would lose as a result. However, he won! And what does he do to the system that treated him so unfairly? I mean - he has 4 years to improve the voting system. Trump gains control of the House, white house and Senate. Surely he's an outsider coming in to "drain the swamp", shake things up, be "the great disruptor" (shudder) Well?????????? Yep - He does absolutely nothing! What he does do is the opposite. He tries to stack the cards in his favour - make the next election more unfair for his competitor. He tries to get the Ukraine, China and others to interfere with the elections by providing outside assistance. He stymies the board which oversees elections. He employs a stooge to slow down postal votes. He and his surrogates employ voter suppression techniques. He uses the White House to campaign. And because he lost - now he takes bogus cases and tries to heavy hand individual states into "finding" votes. If you cannot see that this is complete and utter bullsh1t from a pi$$ poor loser trying to con you out of your money, then you are beyond help.
everlast75 wrote: » If you cannot see that this is complete and utter bullsh1t from a pi$$ poor loser trying to con you out of your money, then you are beyond help.
randd1 wrote: » No need. Trump's own lawyers, in Court under oath, have repeatedly stated that they have no evidence of electoral fraud. It's why every one of their cases got thrown out. All an audit would prove is that Trump and his supporters are morons. And only a moron would waste money to prove they're a moron.
briany wrote: » I do wonder what happens to these people because it's like some weird Invasion of the Bodysnatchers type thing. That woman who climbed through the inner doors at the Capitol building, only to be shot dead by a secret service man, had posted a video of herself ranting before that incident took place, and she just sounds unhinged. :eek::eek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAagzwG9GSo And here's another charmer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ed8T0GAr5g And then you have people like that lad wearing the furry headdress at the Capitol Riot. American politics has allowed reasoned discourse to go out the window because of their unregulated news media sectors and proliferation of utter b*ll**** on various social media outlets, but what's shocking is some people's apparent lack of critical thinking skills to sort through some of this.
notobtuse wrote: » Hmmm... I guess they should have worn pink vagina hats and outfits if they wanted to partake in reasoned discourse.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
