Formal transition to Biden begins

Gus Bovona

Active member
Supproting what? Election tampering? Voter Fraud? I can wall paper your house with reports of voter fraud in the last few decades I've been monitoring US elections.

And if people REALLY found out that the elections were rigged? These politicians would all be history.

What do you think the people would do, just go along with the facade?lol
Are the reports valid and reliable? Anyone can report anything. And, do they involve a few votes here and there, or is the number of votes significant?

Has any judge acknowledge this fraud in court?

How is this different from a conspiracy theory?
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
You can keep repeating the same republican propoganda (fake News) over and over. It doesn't make it true.

I watch the same video of Guliani ranting. He can claim whatever he wants. Why have these "hundreds of people" not testified in a court of law? If there is all this evidence, why has it not been presented in court?

It's funny that you criticise the "ridicule your opponent" tactic...since Trump used it time and time again.
Your using a false premise. I'm not a republican.lol I've battled both Republicans and Democrates alike on this fourm. I also thought that Bush stole the election. Remember?

Has it even made it to court? No. Why? The elites are trying to salvage the credibility of the electoral system.

I've known all along the establishment that rules America and every other country is corrupt. Thats why it wallows in immorality and "filthy" wealth.

Again, its a tactic used by people with no real argument. Whether Republican or Democrat and super common among the MSM.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
Are the reports valid and reliable? Anyone can report anything. And, do they involve a few votes here and there, or is the number of votes significant?

Has any judge acknowledge this fraud in court?

How is this different from a conspiracy theory?
Let the judge try it in court and let THE PEOPLE decide.

You know how many conspiracy theories are later discovered to be actual fact? A theory is based on actual data.

In Science are hypothesises and Theories disregarded as nonsense?

I'd say there is DEFINITELY proof of voter fraud every election. How widespread? I havent looked into it. Though its an honour system and can be easily manipulated. Especially electronic voting machines.

But if amatuers are getting caught, and knowing how Corrupt America is? I would not put it past them to rigg the elections. People that know how to cover their tracks, and if itas possible? then its already being done. That's Murphy's law.

John Gotti the "Teflon Don" won many battles in court. Where they conspiracy theories against him? Maybe he was innocent? NO. Most likely he paid off someone. And thats how corruption works.
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
Let the judge try it in court and let THE PEOPLE decide.
Until it does appear in court, you can't legitimately make the claim you made that fraud happened.
You know how many conspiracy theories are later discovered to be actual fact? A theory is based on actual data.
What the ration of true conspiracy theories to false ones? And, which ones are you considering? I'm not aware there is some database somewhere that lists all of them.

In Science are hypothesises and Theories disregarded as nonsense?
Hypothese are definitely not regarded as true - until they are confirmed. Just like election fraud must be in a court. Until then, you can't claim that fraud exists.

I'd say there is DEFINITELY proof of voter fraud every election. How widespread? I havent looked into it.
You're just going by the seat of your pants, then. Just by your intuition. That adds up to nothing.

Though its an honour system and can be easily manipulated.
Voting is NOT an honor system in the US. Are you kidding? There are checks all the way through. Legislatures of both parties pass laws about exactly how it all has to proceed. None of that equals an honor system.

Especially electronic voting machines.
Care to provide evidence for this claim?

But if amatuers are getting caught, and knowing how Corrupt America is? I would not put it past them to rigg the elections.
That's fine, you can suspect some corruption all you want, just don't claim that it actually happened until you actually have the evidence considered in a court.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Your using a false premise. I'm not a republican.lol I've battled both Republicans and Democrates alike on this fourm. I also thought that Bush stole the election. Remember?
I don't care whether your a republican or a democrat. You're spouting republican propoganda.
Has it even made it to court? No. Why? The elites are trying to salvage the credibility of the electoral system.
That's completely unsupported and just paranoia.
I've known all along the establishment that rules America and every other country is corrupt. Thats why it wallows in immorality and "filthy" wealth.

Again, its a tactic used by people with no real argument. Whether Republican or Democrat and super common among the MSM.
More unsupported claims.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
Until it does appear in court, you can't legitimately make the claim you made that fraud happened.
[/QUOTE]

Ummmm Yes I can. People have been charged with voter fraud on many occassions. Would you like me to post some examples? Guliani stated many, but I guess you dont want to hear it, unless of course Trump had won.lol
What the ration of true conspiracy theories to false ones? And, which ones are you considering? I'm not aware there is some database somewhere that lists all of them.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure the ratio. The point is that a "conspiracy theory" should not be dismissed because it hasn't been proven YET!
Hypothese are definitely not regarded as true - until they are confirmed. Just like election fraud must be in a court. Until then, you can't claim that fraud exists.
[/QUOTE]

But they still do hold weight. As do theories that are backed my data.
Voting is NOT an honor system in the US. Are you kidding? There are checks all the way through. Legislatures of both parties pass laws about exactly how it all has to proceed. None of that equals an honor system.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Hold on. Let me google. Sounds like it is. You'd have to trust the people put in place no9just like jurors)? They can easily be bought out. And the Fact that Guliani states that many observers were kept out, means that those checks were not able to do their jobs.

Care to provide evidence for this claim?
[/QUOTE]

That's fine, you can suspect some corruption all you want, just don't claim that it actually happened until you actually have the evidence considered in a court.
How about if that evidence doesnt make it to court? Thats like saying the law enforcements know who the organized crime figures are, but until you actually have the evidence considered in a court? They are innocent and there is no corruption?lol
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
I don't care whether your a republican or a democrat. You're spouting republican propoganda.
[/QUOTE]

How can something I derived on my own, be considered republican propoganda?lol Try again,
That's completely unsupported and just paranoia.
[/QUOTE]
Right.... Election Fraud is a VERY serious accusation that should NOT be overlooked by the courts. The fact that it hasn't made it to court is odd.

More unsupported claims.
weak!! lol Have you looked around? I watch US videos on Youtube all the time. The country has gone to hell in a handbasket , gift wrapped by your politicians who are on the payroll of the elites

What would you like me to support? The ridiculous amounts of cocaine that America consumes, the pornography, the gambling, prostitution, frauds I read about every day?

Or that people with no real arguments resort to insults and ridicule?
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
Ummmm Yes I can. People have been charged with voter fraud on many occassions. Would you like me to post some examples? Guliani stated many, but I guess you dont want to hear it, unless of course Trump had won.lol
I'm not saying there has never been any voter fraud. Without evidence that has withstood a court’s examination, you can certainly make a claim, but that’s about all. It's just a claim.
I'm not sure the ratio.

Then your point asking about how many conspiracy theories have been proven is meaningless if you don’t know that a lot of them have been.
The point is that a "conspiracy theory" should not be dismissed because it hasn't been proven YET!
I’m not saying dismiss it, but you certainly can’t accept it until it’s been demonstrated. I’m all for you having your suspicions, and go out and collect all the evidence you can, and when your evidence survives in court, then we’ll talk.
But they still do hold weight.
Not by themselves, they are only hypotheses, suspicions, intuitions. They need evidence that will hold up.
As do theories that are backed my data.
Yes, but that data has to be examined to see if it holds up, that’s what the court does. When it holds up in court, we’ll talk.
Really? Hold on. Let me google. Sounds like it is. You'd have to trust the people put in place no9just like jurors)? They can easily be bought out.
Not when you have dems and repubs checking each other. And the penalty for election fraud as a federal crime is further deterrent.
And the Fact that Guliani states that many observers were kept out, means that those checks were not able to do their jobs.
Not necessarily. Observers *should* be thrown out if they weren’t following the rules.

You need to be trained to be an observer so you understand the process so you know whether the process is being followed or not. If you haven't gone through that training, and you just show up, you'll be thrown out, and properly so.

Behind a paywall. Do you have another source?

]How about if that evidence doesnt make it to court? Thats like saying the law enforcements know who the organized crime figures are, but until you actually have the evidence considered in a court? They are innocent and there is no corruption?lol

Are you saying you’ve got the evidence but it won’t stand up in court (like a cop who knows who the crime boss is but won't bring it to court because there’s not enough evidence to survive a court examination)? If so, you need to get more evidence, because courts are how we decide these types of things.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member

How can something I derived on my own, be considered republican propoganda?lol Try again,

[/QUOTE]
Right.... Election Fraud is a VERY serious accusation that should NOT be overlooked by the courts. The fact that it hasn't made it to court is odd.


weak!! lol Have you looked around? I watch US videos on Youtube all the time. The country has gone to hell in a handbasket , gift wrapped by your politicians who are on the payroll of the elites

What would you like me to support? The ridiculous amounts of cocaine that America consumes, the pornography, the gambling, prostitution, frauds I read about every day?

Or that people with no real arguments resort to insults and ridicule?
[/QUOTE]
Please format your posts properly; it is too difficult to reply to them otherwise.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
I'm not saying there has never been any voter fraud. Without evidence that has withstood a court’s examination, you can certainly make a claim, but that’s about all. It's just a claim.

I've heard enough to know that there was indeed voter fraud. Why the court's wont entertain it is simple. They are corrupt. Like everything else in Corporate America.

Then your point asking about how many conspiracy theories have been proven is meaningless if you don’t know that a lot of them have been.
I dont know the ratio. Though i DO knowThat there is quite a few. Just google it.


I’m not saying dismiss it, but you certainly can’t accept it until it’s been demonstrated. I’m all for you having your suspicions, and go out and collect all the evidence you can, and when your evidence survives in court, then we’ll talk.
But that is exactly what the courts and the democrates are trying to do. Dismiss it. Why? It supports their narrative.
Yes, but that data has to be examined to see if it holds up, that’s what the court does. When it holds up in court, we’ll talk.

Again. It should be brought up in court. Alot of doctors are saying Hydroxychloroquine works and the South Koreans have had good success with it. Why isn't the health care system entertaining the idea? Because it is cheap and not as profitable as the vaccines they have planned. Conspiracy theory ? Maybe but again. It has legs. Gates has now started funding Celltium(in South Korea) to come up with a more profitable cure.
Not when you have dems and repubs checking each other. And the penalty for election fraud as a federal crime is further deterrent.

Not necessarily. Observers *should* be thrown out if they weren’t following the rules.

You need to be trained to be an observer so you understand the process so you know whether the process is being followed or not. If you haven't gone through that training, and you just show up, you'll be thrown out, and properly so.

These people were apparently trained observers. And Guliani apparently has MANY testimonies under sworn affidavides, You'd think that would be enough for a court case.
Behind a paywall. Do you have another source?

So your saying that the claims made in the article are not valid? weak.....If we are gonna play that game. Any proof you or I offer is pointless.
Are you saying you’ve got the evidence but it won’t stand up in court (like a cop who knows who the crime boss is but won't bring it to court because there’s not enough evidence to survive a court examination)? If so, you need to get more evidence, because courts are how we decide these types of things.
They must have some evidence or else they wouldn't know or could get sued publishing it. But it doersn't make it to court. Does that mean there is no crime being commited? And even when they make it to court. Witnesses disappear, or recant. Thats how corruption works.

The courts are trying to silence the witnesses with sworn affidavides of election fraud. And that is concerning. There is one guy who witnessed a discrepancy. The MSM was saying he recanted, when he did no such thing. They just need enough people to beleive the lies to maintain their narrative.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
LOL. It looks pretty straight forward to me but I fixed it for you. This new board has new features. I like it.

I don't care whether your a republican or a democrat. You're spouting republican propoganda.

How can something I derived on my own, be considered republican propoganda?lol Try again,

That's completely unsupported and just paranoia.
Right.... Election Fraud is a VERY serious accusation that should NOT be overlooked by the courts. The fact that it hasn't made it to court is odd.

More unsupported claims.

weak!! lol Have you looked around? I watch US videos on Youtube all the time. The country has gone to hell in a handbasket , gift wrapped by your politicians who are on the payroll of the elites

What would you like me to support? The ridiculous amounts of cocaine that America consumes, the pornography, the gambling, prostitution, frauds I read about every day?

Or that people with no real arguments resort to insults and ridicule?
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
I've heard enough to know that there was indeed voter fraud. Why the court's wont entertain it is simple. They are corrupt. Like everything else in Corporate America.
That is conspiratorial thinking. When there isn’t evidence of a claim, make another claim (here, corruption in that particular court and judge) without presenting any evidence behind it.
I dont know the ratio. Though i DO knowThat there is quite a few. Just google it.
You‘re just repeating what I already replied to without addressing my reply.


But that is exactly what the courts and the democrates are trying to do. Dismiss it. Why? It supports their narrative.
I meant don’t claim it’s false. that’s different from the courts that have standards of evidence and law needed to bring a case.

Again. It should be brought up in court.
And when it stands up in court, the you have something. But that’s not now.
These people were apparently trained observers. And Guliani apparently has MANY testimonies under sworn affidavides, You'd think that would be enough for a court case.
You haven’t event said who these people are, nor why they were thrown out. We need specifics.

Just because someone files an affidavit doesn’t mean that what they say is true. And, there statements in the affidavits don’t get more likely to be true if there are more affidavits. And, the statements in the affidavits can’t be taken at face value because they haven’t been challenged yet. They are just allegations, and anyone and make any allegations they want (short of libel).



So your saying that the claims made in the article are not valid? weak.....If we are gonna play that game. Any proof you or I offer is pointless.

They must have some evidence or else they wouldn't know or could get sued publishing it. But it doersn't make it to court. Does that mean there is no crime being commited? And even when they make it to court. Witnesses disappear, or recant. Thats how corruption works.

The courts are trying to silence the witnesses with sworn affidavides of election fraud. And that is concerning. There is one guy who witnessed a discrepancy. The MSM was saying he recanted, when he did no such thing. They just need enough people to beleive the lies to maintain their narrative.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
LOL. It looks pretty straight forward to me but I fixed it for you. This new board has new features. I like it.



How can something I derived on my own, be considered republican propoganda?lol Try again,
Um..easily. If what you're spouting is the same as propoganda republicans are spouting, then what you are spouting is republican propoganda.
Right.... Election Fraud is a VERY serious accusation that should NOT be overlooked by the courts. The fact that it hasn't made it to court is odd.
It has made it to court. Many times. They've all been thrown out.
weak!! lol Have you looked around? I watch US videos on Youtube all the time. The country has gone to hell in a handbasket , gift wrapped by your politicians who are on the payroll of the elites
Gee, Youtube...now there's an authority.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
That is conspiratorial thinking. When there isn’t evidence of a claim, make another claim (here, corruption in that particular court and judge) without presenting any evidence behind it.
You people believe that if you keep repeating there is no evidence, that makes it so? There is a ton of evidence.
You‘re just repeating what I already replied to without addressing my reply.
Which is what? The actual ratio?
I meant don’t claim it’s false. that’s different from the courts that have standards of evidence and law needed to bring a case.

Your the one claiming that the evidence is false. I say the evidence is substantial. I could have told you that the elections have been rigged for decades if not centuries.
And when it stands up in court, the you have something. But that’s not now.

Again. So all the times John Gotti got aquitted means he was innocent?lol
You haven’t event said who these people are, nor why they were thrown out. We need specifics.
Trump has sworn affidavids. Bring it to court and you will see the specifics. I watch an video of Gulianni name specifics for over an hour.
Just because someone files an affidavit doesn’t mean that what they say is true. And, there statements in the affidavits don’t get more likely to be true if there are more affidavits. And, the statements in the affidavits can’t be taken at face value because they haven’t been challenged yet. They are just allegations, and anyone and make any allegations they want (short of libel).
True, but if they are willing to swear under oath and risk purgery, it must hold some weight.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
Um..easily. If what you're spouting is the same as propoganda republicans are spouting, then what you are spouting is republican propoganda.

Sworn affidavides are propoganda?lol

It has made it to court. Many times. They've all been thrown out.

I havent seen or heard of any trials.
Gee, Youtube...now there's an authority.
Actually Youtube is a huge window into a country's society. Your country is full of filth/immorality. You dont need youtube. Just look out the window or watch the news.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Sworn affidavides are propoganda?lol
When they are thrown out by courts for a myriad of reasons, yes.
I havent seen or heard of any trials.
Then you need to actually listen to/read some news outlets.
Actually Youtube is a huge window into a country's society. Your country is full of filth/immorality. You dont need youtube. Just look out the window or watch the news.
Youtube is full of nutcases.
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
You people believe that if you keep repeating there is no evidence, that makes it so? There is a ton of evidence.
So why hasn't a court yet seen this evidence? If you think it has been presented, then give me the specifics: which court, which filing, which documents. Until then, it's just someone talking.

Which is what? The actual ratio?

My reply was that you don't have an actual ratio, so it means nothing for you to claim that "there is quite a few." "Quite a few" means nothing without context, which the ratio would provide.
Your the one claiming that the evidence is false. I say the evidence is substantial. I could have told you that the elections have been rigged for decades if not centuries.
I explicitly said I'm not claiming that the evidence is false. But it has not met any standard in any court. And before we go any further with this, we need the actual evidence: which court, which judge, which filing, which documents?

Again. So all the times John Gotti got aquitted means he was innocent?lol
Before the trial, before the evidence is presented and considered and challenged in court, you don't know who is innocent or guilty. You're only using Gotti as an example because you already know he was guilty, but we are not in that position right now, because the evidence hasn't been presented, considered, and challenged. So the Gotti analogy doesn't work.

Trump has sworn affidavids. Bring it to court and you will see the specifics. I watch an video of Gulianni name specifics for over an hour.
Have any of these affidavits been submitted in a court? Which court, which judge, which case? Anyone can get up at a microphone and lie about anything they want to.

When you say, ":Bring it to court," you're addressing that to me, which is absurd. It's Trump and Guiliani who need to be bringing it to court. Why haven't they done so yet?
True, but if they are willing to swear under oath and risk purgery, it must hold some weight.
But you still haven't even confirmed that these affidavits even exist, and merely saying they do at some microphone isn't good enough.
 

wiseones2cents

Active member
So why hasn't a court yet seen this evidence? If you think it has been presented, then give me the specifics: which court, which filing, which documents. Until then, it's just someone talking.


50-60 poll watchers obstructed
My reply was that you don't have an actual ratio, so it means nothing for you to claim that "there is quite a few." "Quite a few" means nothing without context, which the ratio would provide.

Why do I need a ratio?lol The point I was making is that you cannot dismiss something because someone claims its a conspiracy theory, because those theories are sometimes true.
I explicitly said I'm not claiming that the evidence is false. But it has not met any standard in any court. And before we go any further with this, we need the actual evidence: which court, which judge, which filing, which documents?
watch the video
Before the trial, before the evidence is presented and considered and challenged in court, you don't know who is innocent or guilty. You're only using Gotti as an example because you already know he was guilty, but we are not in that position right now, because the evidence hasn't been presented, considered, and challenged. So the Gotti analogy doesn't work.

The Gotti anaolgy does work. Just because the courts found him innocent, didn't mean the crimes weren't commited.
Have any of these affidavits been submitted in a court? Which court, which judge, which case? Anyone can get up at a microphone and lie about anything they want to.
I would imagine. Why it hasn't been tried is odd to me.
When you say, ":Bring it to court," you're addressing that to me, which is absurd. It's Trump and Guiliani who need to be bringing it to court. Why haven't they done so yet?

They brought it to court, and the system refuses to have a trial

But you still haven't even confirmed that these affidavits even exist, and merely saying they do at some microphone isn't good enough.
Then let the court announce that no affidavides exist. You haven't confirmed that they dont.

Me personally? I've always known that the elections were rigged. If you listen to the quotes of the forefathers, they believe most of the public is not intellectually qualified to vote and I sort of 1/2 agree. They are easily influenced and decieved.

The democrats had less evidence on "Russian collusion" and that didn't stop them from taking Trump to court
 
Top