Search results

I pass muster on the first score (barely) but yes, anyone with an IQ above 17.9 would understand the actual intent. Those invested in trolling or incapable of recognizing the nuances of the English language will not, however.

Well, you haven't addressed as to how El Q Shaman is actually 'Q' himself have you? Sidney Powell and others still buy into Qanon, you do realize that, right? Secondly, there's a plethora of footage showing MAGA nuts inside the building and proudly showing their allegiance to Trump as well...

Have you got something besides a link that says you have to log in or sign up to view? Cos that's all I'm getting and I don't click on any old garbage thanks.

You think Jake Angeli is 'Q'? Nobody else? That's kinda bonkers just by itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Angeli

Nobody with anything resembling objectivity and intelligence denies who was responsible for the events that day. It's all on record and for all to see. Pence is hardly a bastion of virtue but "dark day" summed up proceedings more than adequately. If some of this mob had had their way it could...

Just pathetic.

What, the one with the supposedly watermarked ballots? The one that's come to nothing? Just more conspiracy stuff peddled by the likes of 'Q'.

Sure, no argument there. A shame Trump couldn't have followed suit.

So, you could have just linked to the post in question then couldn't you? Now that you have then Clinton conceded the election, fact. There was no ridiculous posturing about it being stolen or baseless allegations of fraud either, fact. As to your latter, of course you use the word lightly and...

By all means, continue to believe that Trump had the election stolen from him. I doubt anything would convince you otherwise. Completely irrelevant to actual reality but hey, that's how it goes.

About as much rationale going on "their" as there is with spelling and grammar.

Link to it again and I'll address it if I haven't already. I don't actually expect everyone to read through the cites I supply and I usually quote part of the salient source material anyway but I'll provide the whole link regardless. Up to folk if they address them or not. So, no shifting...

They weren't.

I don't have 'shifting standards' of evidence. The only sort worthwhile is the substantial kind, that's it. Not the 'scanty' sort. What article? Cite? Clinton conceded the election once the results were obvious. No bleating about it being stolen by the republicans and aided the transition of...

Um, nope. The forecasts were already in place on all manner of news outlets as to how Trump's lead was going to diminish once mail in ballots were counted and lo and behold, that's what happened. Nothing mysterious about it...you keep deluding yourself that Trump had the election stole from him...

Oh, there's been a fuss over his presidency since he took office for sure and with good reason but that didn't answer the point. Was there any of this baseless fraud allegation and the like or did Clinton concede and aid a smooth transition of power? I notice you didn't even touch on the...

The obvious is that there's no substantial evidence for fraud and in no way would I make excuses for it if there was, as on record.

Was there a big fuss kicked up when Trump won in 2016? Did the democrats cry fraud or was there a concession from Clinton and a smooth transition of power to Trump? Telling that you you use the term "much scantier evidence" in relation when you've attempted to berate others for wanting the...

No. Otherwise I'd still be waiting for Powell's kraken to be released and the like...

That measure of neural capacity could certainly dupe people into believing that.