Yeah, counted later at 4am with no observers.
For Those Who Still Insist That There Was Election Fraud
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Democrats do not prove the hundreds of thousands of questionable ballots were legitimate, but they do prove themselves dishonest by resisting common-sense voting securities designed to obstruct voting fraud.
Democrats have not proven the problems with their controlled voting machines did not disenfranchise voters.
Why count ballots at 4 am without the legally required participation of observers if there is nothing dark and shady going on? Democrats mock those who disapprove of such illegal practices as if failure to uncover what went on under the cover of darkness is proof nothing illegal or crooked occurred.
You do realize it was in English, right?
"Temporary" being "hours."
"Having the option" is not the same as knowing the option was available immediately and there being no delays.
They "could" have voted, but the hours they would have had to wait in line turned them away.
What you've got are weasel terms designed to ignore the facts.
Paraphrase it.
Which was the goal.
More than likely.
However, democracy cheats know that such things are nearly impossible to prove in court and even if they were, the consequences would be next to nothing.
"Trump's inner circle at the end was...Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Peter Navarro... Garbage in. Garbage out." -- Mick Mulvaney
He called them "garbage." Sounds like a very negative assessment on Mick's part.
It pays not to misconstrue a man's words so blatantly, especially when the quote is right there.
Do you agree with Mulvaney, or disagree? Why?
Is Mulvaney a devout Christian or not?
Is Trump a devout Christian or not?
No he's not but people didn't vote for him to become their pastor.
Explain it to me. And then explain why you agree or disagree with him. Don't be shy.
Read the tweet you posted.
Do you agree with Mulvaney or not? Tell us. I promise I won't make fun of you, even though you deserve it.