The conversion back and forth from word to pdf could explain this

Happy thanksgiving all! 🦃 I’m new here and just hoping to learn wtf happened this election.

The document has gone through countless edits and revisions through its collaborative creation. Just doing a bit of Occam’s razor but to me it’s likely to be a formatting error and rushed publication moreso than a Sydney Powell furiously typing out an incorrectly spelled title.

Neat

Bringing the government in to regulate speech on social media scares the shit out of me. But if done right, would be preferable to the alternative.

^ is this a bot

In regards to any law, you have to assume evil people are empowered to enforce it.

If there are sworn affidavits of fraud in NC it should be investigated. As far as I know, there are none. So why would anyone investigate if there’s no evidence of fraud?

There’s affidavits of republican fraud in nc?

Please provide the affidavits, or else it’s hearsay

He still didn’t provide a law

All the detractions to election fraud seem to be non factual or are factually incorrect. I’ve noticed this everywhere the discussion is had

@james j would you agree that it’s incontrovertible that there is a legal process for counting ballots, and that many ballots were illegally counted?

Ok, so you still contest that some ballots were illegally counted, meaning they did not follow the legal procedure for doing so. What would convince you that you’re wrong?

I’m asking what you would need to see to be convinced that there were some ballots counted illegally.

Is it possible for votes to be counted illegally and for the justice system to not rule in such a way to acknowledge that?

What would proof look like to you?

Sounds like it’s not a very good way to determine the truth, no?

You just said that it’s possible for courts to rule in a way that does not acknowledge ballots were illegally counted, even if they were.

Meaning-Court rolling does not equal truth

So let me reframe the question. If ballots were illegally counted, and the court doesn’t acknowledge this, is it possible that ballots were illegally counted?

Ok, I’m simply asking what specially you would have to see to be convinced that ballots were illegally counted. It could be a witness testimony, mathematical evidence, etc. you name it.

If you can’t define what it would take to change your mind, then there’s no point in trying to change it because it is not based in fact, it’s based on ideology.

I would say for me, what I would need to be convinced that there was widespread election fraud would be sworn witness testimony that HAS to be in line with the observed vote counting data. Further, there should be a pattern across several states in which the witness testimony and voting data all coincide with each other.

I think in order for one to clear themselves of ideologically driven opinions, they need to identify what specifically would be needed to change their opinion

I agree it’s possible different states would have different fraud methodology, and that’s fine, but it wouldn’t necessarily convince me there was widespread election fraud alone

That’s fair. I could challenge you on that, and reference a handful of court rulings in which justice was indeed not served, but it’s a reasonable spot to be in if you don’t have access to all the information.

And how would you verify the affidavits?

I recommend watching the latest rr group video explaining the purpose of the earlier court cases

If you witness someone murdering an innocent joggers in cold blood, do you think there should be a trial with cross examination of your witness testimony based on your affidavit?

If that’s the case then it should follow you believe that trumps legal team should be able to have a hearing in which their evidence can be presented and their witnesses can be cross examined from both sides, and the defendants witnesses can be cross examined from both sides

I think we’d both agree that you wouldn’t send the murderer to jail based solely on your affidavit without a trial, right?

Ok... so credible employees including democrats and election workers with decades of experience witnessing a crime that has mathematical data supporting their claims isn’t enough to have a hearing. What else would you like to see in order to earn the hearing?

I understand this. Seeing as it’s a piece of the puzzle, do you think it deems being formally investigated is the question, given that If fraud did indeed occur, then the data do show exactly what is expected.

I disagree that we should always defer to the justice system. Again I can bring examples of when the justice system got rulings wrong.

As far as I’m aware, there are currently no formal hearings where both sides are presenting evidence and being cross examined.

I actually don’t think that’s a fair point. This again goes back to the murder analogy, and I admit I’m not familiar with the justice system. But if the construction worker witnesses someone on the street getting shot in the head in cold blood, vs watching ballot counters say “Biden” 90,000 times in a row, why is he any less credible in the latter?

What would need the standard of merit in your opinion?

What your opinion on the democrats who testified on irregularities or illegal ballot counting? And if this were true-wouldn’t we expect an equal number of Democratic affidavits in which democrat poll watchers report similar experiences after months of being told that the fascist was going to try to steal the election?

Didn’t the poll watchers come forward on their own accord?

I remember reading affidavits just days after, maybe even the next day. I guess that’s just my memory I’m going off of.

There were videos on Twitter DAY OF Election Day, of republicans poll watchers being kicked out

Why do you say sympathetic towards their bias, do you mean in support of their case? When i read that it just makes me believe you’re biased lol

Spam challenging votes does not threaten the integrity of them.

Are there any affidavits you can point to of this occurring?

Her testimony showed that employees were attempting to break the legal process and used intimidation to do so. That’s pretty bad...

She witnessed a person come in to invalidate an absentee vote and replace it with their own, and the employee there used physical intimidation to make her break the legal process for doing that properly.

Yes, fraud is something different and specific. But it points to a process of illegally counting ballots. Using physical intimidation.

Again if you have any affidavits of Republican poll watchers doing any of the things you mentioned I would be happy to take a look

I don’t see how you could assign any meaning to it then

I mean, how easy is it to record something on tape lol. Especially if you hate trump

Where is there a video of Republican poll watchers breaking rules and being kicked out?

So no video of republican poll watchers breaking any rules, and no affidavits. That’s our conclusion here correct?

To be clear, that’s not a video of Republican poll watchers breaking the rules and justly getting kicked out. Correct?

Please provide a link to a video of Republican poll watchers breaking rules and justifiably being kicked out.

Were they republican poll watchers breaking the rules and subsequently getting kicked out?

Which rule am I looking at being broken here?

No no-there is a claim being made.

“The reason Republican poll watchers were kicked out because they broke the rules. Violating social distancing, spitting, etc.”

All I see so far are mobs of people OUTSIDE the polls.

Again, I am asking if there is any evidence of justification for poll watchers being kicked out in the first place

If the poll watchers were unjustly kicked out, IMO they have a moral duty to stop the vote count by any means necessary

Ok, do you realize they’re NOT SUPPOSED to be outside in the first place?

Please explain. Your claim is that poll watchers in Michigan cannot be in the room during the vote count? Do I have that right?

lol at the bias pouring out of that headline

I am curious where this takes the legal effort in Arizona. Supposedly this was planned in advance of team trumps hearing.

That subheading I’m going to call, a bit biased.

Would it kill to include a fact every now and then?

I would say this mischaracterizes the little I saw of the hearing. Why do they try to whittle it down to something that is easy to construct a silly narrative around?

How would you know if it represents the essence of the hearing, having not watched it? Would you trust a left wing source to tell the truth about a hearing That trumps legal team called for? In other words, are the incentives aligned to give you the truth?

https://twitter.com/natyliy/status/1333500580287950849?s=21

That is a great question for a cross examination

And yes

In general, if you hypothetically knew there was widespread fraud, do you think state legislator should overrule the popular vote results?

I suppose I personally trust that that colonel is willing to testify

Because the incentives don’t align for him to lie at this moment. There are other expert witnesses who have already signed affidavits.

I try to keep my arguments and line of reasoning to facts as much as possible. Maybe a little game theory. I don’t think I have to point out what’s at stake on the other side if it is in fact ruled that there is fraud, and lots if people are in on it, and the fallout of that, and the incentive for doing what’s necessary to keep that from happening at all costs. But I will leave that out of my line of reasoning.

I don’t think I am. How do you figure?

I don’t see any reason to come to a conclusion based on anything other than the facts of the cases. Whether trump saw it coming, or planned lawsuits, or is a big whiny crybaby, is irrelevant.

https://twitter.com/senmastriano/status/1333568439311609865?s=21

They are responsible for choosing the electors

https://twitter.com/rothbard1776/status/1333588949831458818?s=21 nothing to see here, just some voting machines that immediately need removing.

Lol. Dignity and Grace get you a cia fueled crack epidemic that demolishes the lower class. I’ll take one “bumbling fool” please.

I just hate every argument about trump that’s based on the way he talks. I’m annoyed af by the way he talks to, but it’s pretty simple to just NOT watch news and enjoy the fruits of his policies.

I’ve gone from being extremely critical of him to correctly framing the merits of his presidency with the context of the real world (run by elite globalists) and his predecessors. There’s likely not another candidate in the future that will actually bring me out to vote again.

I don’t think he was equipped to take on the challenge that he did. But he took it on, and that’s enough to inspire awe and enjoy the fireworks

I do greatly support the direction trump is bringing the gop. He is making it the party of the disenfranchised common man that was once upon a time represented by democrats, and are now politically homeless. If the gop can become the party of the working class and minorities, and kick out corporate America, neocons and the globalist, that would be trumps lifetime achievement.

I don’t even agree with populist economic policies, but I feel that they should have a voice and be represented

Twitter [big tech] has bred fascism marketed as wokeness. Combating neo fascism will be the challenge of this decade.

I’m using fascism to describe a very specific and evil form of authoritarianism:

1. The merger of the state and the media. Using the state to censor threatening views.
2. The merger of the state and private business. The destruction of small business in favor of large corporations in which the state owns an ever increasing stake.
3. The merger of state and religion. Critical theory policies and the deconstruction of western culture in favor of the “cult” of science and government.
4. Race-based distribution of wealth and civil rights. Neo segregation and equity policies.
5. Disarming the populace.
6. Strengthening the military presence around the world and playing superpower.
7. Abolition of privacy.

I’d argue this is the modern left’s platform.

I would say that project their authoritarianism.

IMO the unifying ideology is what really separates a simple authoritarian regime like Cuba from something like nazi Germany who felt they had a spiritual destiny to cleanse the world that they were obligated to fulfill. I see this same phenomena with the woke left.

How many people would donate to a Joe Biden election fraud fund? 😂

https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1333530175770857475?s=21 this is pretty damning.

Blockchain voting is even more secure than paper.

My tweet from dr shiva was mainly intended to draw focus to weighted voting tabulation.

“Our procedure is to destroy the evidence”

All of this destruction of evidence, while it may be detrimental to the state level cases, perhaps it’s helpful in the looming scotus ruling?

https://twitter.com/codemonkeyz/status/1333641704839147520?s=21 anyone have thoughts on this? Can anything be made conclusive from this video? At work and can’t watch

Is “it support” permitted on tabulation machines at the time that footage was recorded?