For Those Who Still Insist That There Was Election Fraud

[Arthur Brain]

Yep... big talk... no content.

Go cry into your thread about it.

 

[Stripe]

Hmm, you're a prime example of shy the scientific community has nothing to do with creationism. Total bat crazy.

"The scientific community" is anyone who is willing to abide by a standard process of investigation into the world of the physical.

It has no problem with literally any idea.

That you have a problem shows that you are not a part of it.

So, that's not a quote of my saying "ideas are science" then is it?

As luck would have it, I was only charged with quoting where you implied the notion that ideas are science.

In fact it's not even mildly hinting - let alone directly implying - anything of the sort and is is just a bizarre inference on your part after all. Still, at least you should know better in future...possibly...

So we won't be seeing you say that ideas are science?

Great.

Well, no. Because reality, common sense, logic and reason should tell you so.

Tell me what?

Lindell

Who?

Done and dusted

Except that there is ongoing litigation.

If it's supposedly your job, then why weren't you up to speed with events as they unfolded live?

I think you're believing the images you're creating in your mind about what people were doing.

Why were you completely ignorant of election forecasts and swings towards Biden a day later? Not much good at your job are ya?

The mood on election night was dour among the establishment media. Even with their predictions of a mail-in ballot bump.

You're screeching a narrative that has no real significance.

So which is it?

Which what is what?

If you don't believe that there was widespread voter fraud then all that tedious prattle about Georgia et al was about what exactly?

Again?

You still don't get why I brought up the ongoing litigation in Georgia?

Seriously?

If your contention is solely regarding Biden's son then that's equally devoid of merit and you're the one who needs to provide the evidence. Why would I be interested in wasting my time trying to find something that isn't there?

Hunter Biden's shady dealings and the links to his dad through them are common knowledge.

You just got finished telling us that it was reported where you are.

Which newspaper? What investigation would that be?

So much for your boasting about being up to speed on US politics. And so much for your mockery of others, saying that they do not know what you do.

Again, you'd have to quote me where I've said that voting is always above board and totally legit. Good luck...

OK, great. Then it's OK if we are skeptical about the results. Even without knowing a thing about what was even being polled.

Widespread fraud allegations were baseless from the get go. C'mon man, you should know this, it's part of your job isn't it?

Former vice president Joe Biden's election win was illegitimate. Anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Arthur Brain]

"The scientific community" is anyone who is willing to abide by a standard process of investigation into the world of the physical.

It has no problem with literally any idea.

That you have a problem shows that you are not a part of it.



As luck would have it, I was only charged with quoting where you implied the notion that ideas are science.



So we won't be seeing you say that ideas are science?

Great.

Tell me what?

Who?



Except that there is ongoing litigation.



I think you're believing the images you're creating in your mind about what people were doing.



The mood on election night was dour among the establishment media. Even with their predictions of a mail-in ballot bump.

You're screeching a narrative that has no real significance.



Which what is what?



Again?

You still don't get why I brought up the ongoing litigation in Georgia?

Seriously?



Hunter Biden's shady dealings and the links to his dad through them are common knowledge.

You just got finished telling us that it was reported where you are.



So much for your boasting about being up to speed on US politics. And so much for your mockery of others, saying that they do not know what you do.



OK, great. Then it's OK if we are skeptical about the results. Even without knowing a thing about what was even being polled.



Former vice president Joe Biden's election win was illegitimate. Anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist.

Your first would almost be reasonable were you not dumb enough to call evolution a cult. That removes you from rational discourse all in itself.

And you failed miserably as not only have I not stated that ideas are science, I've not come close to implying it either. Your faulty inferences are all on your own head but you should now know better than to repeat the mistake.

Which can be taken as seriously as one of Trump's former tweets and have been.

Well, no. Unlike yourself I've watched proceedings unfold live from election night itself through the past year of farce. The forecasts that were made were grounded in logic, common sense and reason. Its no secret that mail in ballots were going to be democrat in the main and so the predictions were accurate. If this is actually part of your job then how come you were somehow unaware of this? It was broadcast on major news outlets. There's no "narrative" going on here, this is what happened, fact. Just what job is it that you do exactly?

It doesn't seem as though you're even sure why you were prattling on about Georgia so much as like everything else it ended up being a nothing burger in terms of anything resembling democrat voter fraud. Trump's risible call to Raffensperger OTOH...

This is presumably in relation to the New York Post and an unverified article about Hunter Biden. If so, Twitter's decision to act as it did was upheld by the Federal Election Commission. So, pretty lame really as is your contention that Biden would have lost the election had there been more coverage or whatnot. Groundless speculation at best.

It's okay to be skeptical if there's evidence to support widespread voter fraud. When there isn't as is obviously the case with the 2020 election, then it's just dumb. Just like asserting that Biden didn't win legitimately. In fact it's flat out thick.

 

[Stripe]

Your first would almost be reasonable were you not dumb enough to call evolution a cult. That removes you from rational discourse all in itself.

And you failed miserably as not only have I not stated that ideas are science, I've not come close to implying it either. Your faulty inferences are all on your own head but you should now know better than to repeat the mistake.

Darwinism is a cult kept alive by anti-science imbeciles and their useful idiots.

Well, no. Unlike yourself I've watched proceedings unfold live from election night itself through the past year of farce. The forecasts that were made were grounded in logic, common sense and reason. Its no secret that mail in ballots were going to be democrat in the main and so the predictions were accurate. If this is actually part of your job then how come you were somehow unaware of this? It was broadcast on major news outlets. There's no "narrative" going on here, this is what happened, fact. Just what job is it that you do exactly?

And for all your bragging that you kept up with the state of US politics, you claim to be ignorant of the Hunter Biden story, despite saying that it was even part of your news cycle.

On the night, the establishment media were despondent. This is true notwithstanding the predictions of a mail-in ballot bump.

You're simply believing a narrative that suits your agenda in an utterly trivial matter.

It doesn't seem as though you're even sure why you were prattling on about Georgia so much...

Oh.

So when someone tells you 10 times the point of a subject matter, it's them who is unsure.

Gotcha.

This is presumably in relation to the New York Post and an ... article about Hunter Biden.

Oh, so you do know what is going on.

You should also know that there is *gasp* an ongoing investigation into his activities.

So brushing it off makes you as insane as if you also believed that his father's election win was legitimate.

If so, Twitter's decision to act as it did was upheld by the Federal Election Commission.

What? It wasn't even held up by Twitter. They backed down on the matter. Of course only after the political damage was mitigated.

So, pretty lame really as is your contention that Biden would have lost the election had there been more coverage or whatnot. Groundless speculation at best.

Nope. Evidence, remember? There is reason to believe that had that story not been suppressed, Trump would have won at the ballot box, even with all the cheating.

It's okay to be skeptical if there's evidence to support [allegations].

We know. The problem is that you will do everything in your power to ignore the evidence.

That's flat out thick.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Darwinism is a cult kept alive by anti-science imbeciles and their useful idiots.



And for all your bragging that you kept up with the state of US politics, you claim to be ignorant of the Hunter Biden story, despite saying that it was even part of your news cycle.

On the night, the establishment media were despondent. This is true notwithstanding the predictions of a mail-in ballot bump.

You're simply believing a narrative that suits your agenda in an utterly trivial matter.


Oh.

So when someone tells you 10 times the point of a subject matter, it's them who is unsure.

Gotcha.



Oh, so you do know what is going on.

You should also know that there is *gasp* an ongoing investigation into his activities.

So brushing it off makes you as insane as if you also believed that his father's election win was legitimate.



What? It wasn't even held up by Twitter. They backed down on the matter. Of course only after the political damage was mitigated.



Nope. Evidence, remember? There is reason to believe that had that story not been suppressed, Trump would have won at the ballot box, even with all the cheating.



We know. The problem is that you will do everything in your power to ignore the evidence.

That's flat out thick.

No wonder your inferences are all over the place.

You sure do have a penchant for attributing things to people they haven't said or come close to implying. Where, exactly, have I 'claimed to be ignorant of news surrounding Hunter Biden? Quote me.

The only despondency was among several in the Trump camp who'll have known that their initial lead in several states would be overturned/severely diminished the following day. There was hardly going to be an upbeat vibe going on there was there? Your claim that "establishment media" was despondent is just downright stupid. Of course it wasn't. Like any other election it was covered professionally with updates through the night. You wouldn't know because you didn't even see it. This is fact, not narrative. Tell me, just what is your job Stripe? Cos if its criteria involves being woefully uninformed and making stuff up then congrats, you must be in line for employee of the month on a regular basis. Oh, do you work for The Gateway Pundit?

Yes Stripe, you're as all over the map on this issue as your inferences are. You've blabbered on about Georgia, ongoing litigation ad nauseam despite Georgia, like everywhere else being a completely damp squib. You don't even know who Mike Lindell is apparently. One of the most vocal proponents of Trump and a complete crackpot to boot but you should at least be aware of who he is, especially if being up to speed with events is supposedly part of your job. Have you heard of Powell? Giuliani?

Yes Stripe, I'm more than aware of Hunter Biden and I'd be surprised if there wasn't an ongoing investigation, just as there is regarding issues with Trump. Hardly breaking news. Your wild and laughable speculation notwithstanding, Biden won the election legitimately as certified and as accepted by many republicans let alone the rest of the sane world. That there are gullible loons who still claim otherwise matters not one iota in actual reality.

That's Twitter's prerogative as it is to remove people pushing unsubstantiated and unverified misinformation from its boards, like Trump etc. Nothing underhand about it as upheld by the FEC and it's not like there was a media blackout on Hunter Biden anyway. So your contention is a joke.

Yes Stripe, evidence, the one integral component that you're in severe want of but still, that gives you something in common with Trump's legal teams, eh? Your speculation certainly doesn't count and can be equally dismissed and laughed at and what "cheating" would you be referring to exactly? Because all of these investigations haven't uncovered anything of the sort, you do know that right?

So, bring the evidence for this supposed cheating and let's have a look, you have got some, right?

 

[marke]

No wonder your inferences are all over the place.

You sure do have a penchant for attributing things to people they haven't said or come close to implying. Where, exactly, have I 'claimed to be ignorant of news surrounding Hunter Biden? Quote me.

The only despondency was among several in the Trump camp who'll have known that their initial lead in several states would be overturned/severely diminished the following day. There was hardly going to be an upbeat vibe going on there was there? Your claim that "establishment media" was despondent is just downright stupid. Of course it wasn't. Like any other election it was covered professionally with updates through the night. You wouldn't know because you didn't even see it. This is fact, not narrative. Tell me, just what is your job Stripe? Cos if its criteria involves being woefully uninformed and making stuff up then congrats, you must be in line for employee of the month on a regular basis. Oh, do you work for The Gateway Pundit?

Only the most devoted follower of the lying left refuses to acknowledge the massive evidence of democrat voter fraud in 2020.

Yes Stripe, you're as all over the map on this issue as your inferences are. You've blabbered on about Georgia, ongoing litigation ad nauseam despite Georgia, like everywhere else being a completely damp squib. You don't even know who Mike Lindell is apparently. One of the most vocal proponents of Trump and a complete crackpot to boot but you should at least be aware of who he is, especially if being up to speed with events is supposedly part of your job. Have you heard of Powell? Giuliani?

Yes Stripe, I'm more than aware of Hunter Biden and I'd be surprised if there wasn't an ongoing investigation, just as there is regarding issues with Trump. Hardly breaking news. Your wild and laughable speculation notwithstanding, Biden won the election legitimately as certified and as accepted by many republicans let alone the rest of the sane world. That there are gullible loons who still claim otherwise matters not one iota in actual reality.

Schiff and liars on the left ignored the Biden criminal connection in Ukraine and falsely accused Trump of trying to manufacture evidence of the crimes. The liars and crooks impeached Trump on the basis of their false allegations. Schiff and his lying cronies are guilty of treason for that.

That's Twitter's prerogative as it is to remove people pushing unsubstantiated and unverified misinformation from its boards, like Trump etc. Nothing underhand about it as upheld by the FEC and it's not like there was a media blackout on Hunter Biden anyway. So your contention is a joke.

Yes Stripe, evidence, the one integral component that you're in severe want of but still, that gives you something in common with Trump's legal teams, eh? Your speculation certainly doesn't count and can be equally dismissed and laughed at and what "cheating" would you be referring to exactly? Because all of these investigations haven't uncovered anything of the sort, you do know that right?

So, bring the evidence for this supposed cheating and let's have a look, you have got some, right?

How many independent forensics examinations of democrat programmed and controlled voting machines have been conducted by non-partisan examiners approved by democrats and republicans alike? NONE. Why not? Because democrats and their supporters refuse to allow it. No American can honestly claim no voter fraud was committed in 2020 if democrats are hiding the evidence and refusing to allow non-partisan and republican forensics examiners to examine the machines to determine if fraud was committed or not.

Election experts say giving Maricopa County routers to election auditors could be security threat

One expert said access to routers is a "pretty specific risk" to Maricopa County. He and others are unclear why it's needed to audit an election.

www.azcentral.com

Bernhard said providing access to the routers is a "pretty specific risk" to the county. Also, he and other election security consultants across the country are unsure why exactly the auditors would need the routers to audit the election results.

Senate liaison Ken Bennett has said they are needed to check whether the county's voting machines were connected to the internet during the election. But a county spokesperson said that the auditors already have the information and machines to perform that check, and a previous independent audit commissioned by the county proved they were not.

 

[Stripe]

Where, exactly, have I 'claimed to be ignorant of news surrounding Hunter Biden? Quote me.

Right here:

What investigation would that be?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Right here:

That was a question for specifics from you. You could have been going on about anything...Also, how does asking a question equate to making a claim of ignorance? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

 

[Stripe]

You could have been going on about anything.

"There's a mark on the bat, but it could have come from anywhere."

 

[Stripe]

How does asking a question equate to making a claim of ignorance?

Usually it means that you lack knowledge of a matter.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Usually it means that you lack knowledge of a matter.

It can do but certainly not a given, that would be more akin to you and a lack of evidence.

 

[Arthur Brain]

"There's a mark on the bat, but it could have come from anywhere."

That video's the most interesting contribution you've made to this thread, well done!

 

[Stripe]

It can do but certainly not a given.

Uh, OK.

So you knew the answer when you asked what investigation?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Uh, OK.

So you knew the answer when you asked what investigation?

Had a good idea sure, but as you were being vague I wanted specifics. That a problem for you?

 

[Stripe]

I wanted specifics.

Hunter Biden is under investigation over his finances.
Business partners linked former vice president Joe Biden to the flow of cash.
Hunter's laptop was uncovered.
The NY Post wrote a report implicating him.
Twitter squashed the story online, while other wire agencies ignored it.
Once the political fallout was mitigated, Twitter took its foot off the throat.
Polls show that had people known about Hunter's activities, they wouldn't have voted for Joe, enough to have swayed the election.

This is one of the many ways in which Joe Biden's "win" is illegitimate, but you keep screeching about "widespread voter fraud" as if what is required to swing an election is millions of ordinary citizens stealing or forging ballots.

Then you feign feigning ignorance to cover the fact that you actually are utterly ignorant.

You bring nothing to a conversation.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hunter Biden is under investigation over his finances.
Business partners linked former vice president Joe Biden to the flow of cash.
Hunter's laptop was uncovered.
The NY Post wrote a report implicating him.
Twitter squashed the story online, while other wire agencies ignored it.
Once the political fallout was mitigated, Twitter took its foot off the throat.
Polls show that had people known about Hunter's activities, they wouldn't have voted for Joe, enough to have swayed the election.

This is one of the many ways in which Joe Biden's "win" is illegitimate, but you keep screeching about "widespread voter fraud" as if what is required to swing an election is millions of ordinary citizens stealing or forging ballots.

Then you feign feigning ignorance to cover the fact that you actually are utterly ignorant.

You bring nothing to a conversation.

Oh, I was well aware of this and your poor grasp of a language you supposedly once taught is no excuse for accusing others of being things they aren't. As before, issues regarding Hunter were hardly state secret and there was no media blackout. Your contention is ridiculous. For one thing this investigation hasn't concluded even now let alone the time of the election. Now you're fond of that particular word "ongoing" so there were no results in were there? Guilt hadn't and still hasn't been determined has it? So why would this swing the election? Also, given that there was no media blackout on the matter, people could read about it easily enough if so invested. So, your contention is worth nothing other than what it is - hot air.

You state that this is "one of the many ways in which Joe Biden's "win" is illegitimate" (notice how I quoted you word for word to avoid confusion?) so what many ways are these exactly and what evidence have you got to support your posit?

You do have some don't you? Otherwise, the one bringing literally nothing to the discussion is you.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, I was well aware of this and your poor grasp of a language you supposedly once taught is no excuse for accusing others of being things they aren't.

Yeah.

My English is terrible.

That's why you can't read.

There was no media blackout.

Well, I check the wires every day. "Hunter" showed up rarely, usually buried in paragraph six with few details and commonly with language designed to make it look like nothing major was happening.

That and Twitter really did black out the one report about him in a major paper.

So your contention is ridiculous.

For one thing this investigation hasn't concluded even now let alone the time of the election.

Did someone say it had?

Quite the opposite. I told you a few posts ago that it was ongoing.

We get the distinct impression that it's not my use of the language, but your determination to acknowledge nothing that goes against your narrative.

Now you're fond of that particular word "ongoing" so there were no results in were there?

Uh huh. When there is a case ongoing, it hasn't concluded. So it would be stupid to say that everything has been settled when the case is ongoing.

Guilt hadn't and still hasn't been determined has it?

Guilt of what?

And this is a classic case of you shifting the goalposts. The polls show that had people heard the reports — not a conviction that has not happened yet — the election result might have been different.

So why would this swing the election?

For the same reason that bogus reports of Trump doing things that he never did swung voters against him.

Are you seriously this dense?

Also, given that there was no media blackout on the matter.

There was a media blackout on the matter.

Go do a search of the wires — AP, AFP, Reuters — see what you turn up for Hunter Biden at the time.

People could read about it easily enough if so invested.

Yeah, and they could have read about aliens on Saturn if they were so invested.
However, that subject would not have been fed into their aggregator of choice now would it?

So your contentions are worth nothing other than what they are: Hot air.

You state that this is "one of the many ways in which Joe Biden's "win" is illegitimate" (notice how I quoted you word for word to avoid confusion?) so what many ways are these exactly and what evidence have you got to support your posit?

Is reading your second language?

I outlined all these back on page 40-something. You chose to ignore them.

The one bringing nothing to the discussion is you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah.

My English is terrible.

That's why you can't read.



Well, I check the wires every day. "Hunter" showed up rarely, usually buried in paragraph six with few details and commonly with language designed to make it look like nothing major was happening.

That and Twitter really did black out the one report about him in a major paper.

So your contention is ridiculous.


Did someone say it had?

Quite the opposite. I told you a few posts ago that it was ongoing.

We get the distinct impression that it's not my use of the language, but your determination to acknowledge nothing that goes against your narrative.



Uh huh. When there is a case ongoing, it hasn't concluded. So it would be stupid to say that everything has been settled when the case is ongoing.



Guilt of what?

And this is a classic case of you shifting the goalposts. The polls show that had people heard the reports — not a conviction that has not happened yet — the election result might have been different.

For the same reason that bogus reports of Trump doing things that he never did swung voters against him.

Are you seriously this dense?



There was a media blackout on the matter.

Go do a search of the wires — AP, AFP, Reuters — see what you turn up for Hunter Biden at the time.



Yeah, and they could have read about aliens on Saturn if they were so invested.
However, that subject would not have been fed into their aggregator of choice now would it?

So your contentions are worth nothing other than what they are: Hot air.



Is reading your second language?

I outlined all these back on page 40-something. You chose to ignore them.

The one bringing nothing to the discussion is you.

It has been on this thread, lamentable in fact.

So you don't think it's reported enough or in a manner that you'd find more befitting? So? You're not the arbiter of how articles should be published and the fact remains, there was no media blackout on the matter and it certainly hadn't been quashed. It was reported enough over here. Twitter had issues with the sources used by the WP and with good reason.

Your contention can be dismissed. You have nothing but baseless speculation that an ongoing investigation would have influenced the results the other way. That's not evidence.

You've outlined nothing of any concrete substance since you waded into this thread with typical lameness about how those in a prevailing consensus on an issue are somehow conspiracy theorists. This was followed up with some garbled and substance free rhetoric about media influence blah blah blah. You haven't bought one bit of actual evidence to the discussion and now you're claiming that there are "many" ways that Biden won illegitimately having already brought up cheating.

So where is this evidence for all of this? Any of it? Even a hint of it?

 

[marke]

It has been on this thread, lamentable in fact.

So you don't think it's reported enough or in a manner that you'd find more befitting? So? You're not the arbiter of how articles should be published and the fact remains, there was no media blackout on the matter and it certainly hadn't been quashed. It was reported enough over here. Twitter had issues with the sources used by the WP and with good reason.

Your contention can be dismissed. You have nothing but baseless speculation that an ongoing investigation would have influenced the results the other way. That's not evidence.

You've outlined nothing of any concrete substance since you waded into this thread with typical lameness about how those in a prevailing consensus on an issue are somehow conspiracy theorists. This was followed up with some garbled and substance free rhetoric about media influence blah blah blah. You haven't bought one bit of actual evidence to the discussion and now you're claiming that there are "many" ways that Biden won illegitimately having already brought up cheating.

So where is this evidence for all of this? Any of it? Even a hint of it?

Democrats have always devised narratives to explain away obvious signs of fraud. That is what democrats do. They have to lie, obstruct, and attack sources that expose their fraud.

No, Michigan didn't find thousands of Biden votes overnight

Widespread posts about vote tallies in Michigan are taking off online as conservatives ramp up their efforts to sow doub

www.politifact.com

• Conservatives on social media were sharing screenshots of the election map from Decision Desk HQ. The screenshots appeared to show that in one overnight update, Biden received a large number of voters while Trump and other candidates got none.
• A Decision Desk HQ spokesperson said the change was the result of an error in a file sent by the state. The state corrected the error, and Decision Desk HQ followed.
• Votes cast legally on or before Election Day will continue to be counted for several days. Counting these votes is part of the process and not a sign of voter fraud, which is rare.

 

[Stripe]

It has been on this thread, lamentable in fact.

So you don't think it's reported enough or in a manner that you'd find more befitting?

I don't care.

The point was, it swayed the election.

You're not the arbiter of how articles should be published

Actually, I am.

there was no media blackout on the matter

Except that I was watching. It was all but radio silence.

Twitter had issues with the sources used by the WP and with good reason.

"WP"? The Washington Post?

You have nothing but baseless speculation that an ongoing investigation would have influenced the results the other way.

Reading is your second language, isn't it? I just got done explaining how it wasn't the investigation that was squashed.

You've outlined nothing of any concrete substance since you waded into this thread with typical lameness about how those in a prevailing consensus on an issue are somehow conspiracy theorists. This was followed up with some garbled and substance free rhetoric about media influence blah blah blah. You haven't bought one bit of actual evidence to the discussion and now you're claiming that there are "many" ways that Biden won illegitimately having already brought up cheating.

So where is this evidence for all of this? Any of it? Even a hint of it?

What do you want evidence for?