https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/hsgac-finance-report&ved=2ahUKEwjex_3g5b_tAhXEhK0KHWu9C7QQFjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1s__wSGyPNHlr5a6hBF9OR

Sorry that's the old report I think

https://t.co/Y4q2tf4KeU?amp=1

This is the committee report on Hunter Biden

https://t.co/Y4q2tf4KeU?amp=1

I haven't read it but, yeah found it now

https://t.co/Y4q2tf4KeU?amp=1

Here's the new one

No it's because they don't like his manners and the people he represents

Woot!

So one of the issues people get wrong about the general hate for republican politicians like Trump is that democrats don't hate him, they hate the people they represent. That's why they hated Regan and Bush with the same fervour.

@james j I think that the numbers when you do a monte carlo simulation and other fraud checks that something happened with the numbers in the swing states. Whether it was legal fraud or not is still getting played out in the courts. But the statistical anomalies are quite large.

True you could do that, but you would only show it on one axis of analysis, that's why you do several tests. That's why it's concerning is that multiple tests are showing fraud.

Legal fraud/legal cheating is like changing the rules to benefit your side like mail in ballots benefit democrats is an example

I've seen several models so I'm not sure which one you're referring to, but can you link it?

No benfords said you needed data of magnitudes which this election has, but most elections dont

Oh no I'm not saying "the numbers say so that's it" it just means we have to look at video and the machines

I've seen that one with the "trump tower"

That's basically it

youtu.be/r7S1-OCHqd8

That is a good one to see someone run a simulation over 4000 years of 1000 elections, the numbers there are probably the most solid

https://youtu.be/r7S1-OCHqd8

Oh yeah aliens will take over after trump wins

Also the betting sites, trump went from 1:32 to 1:16

So it's looking better but not a sure win😋

The mandalorian is real, it's just a documentary

The chances are astronomically low that there are other species on other planets if we are first life. If we are in last life theory, were one of many because basically we evolved from stray bacteria from another planet

But that means other aliens are bacteria basically

Bacteria can vote

Half the cells in your body are bacteria

I worked at a planetarium in high school, this stuff is like all we talked after work

Separate because then they learn new stuff and build them into better ultimate case

Grouping them if a judge doesn't like one part will risk them to dismiss the whole case

Lonely but I got the rabbit in the moon with me

China says they're a separate species, maybe they are🤨

Makes sense then the Chinese messed with the election.

Chinese = aliens *boom*

He's just seeing what she thinks

Watched it earlier, my brother is fluent in chinese, he says that the translation is spot on. The corruption is unreal.

I know the Dominion thing is a bit of a red herring

It's that they didn't verify signatures and voter rolls

So my issue with those articles is there is no named source as the only and main source. Many times people who were there conterdict the accounts in those articles. It came out last year that under pressure of being "first to break a story", there were a lot of journalists pre-writing the stories, including a totally fictional one by CNN about a shooting exchange in the capital building yesterday, which scared the senators. Also she's complained openly how the press were portraying Melania as cold and heartless during Christmas, when she put month of effort and took time to visit children at the border. It might be true, but to me this doesn't pass the sniff test. I think what happened is Trump and everyone else didn't expect it and were caught flat footed, asking the head of police what was happening or national guard. The reason this was historic was because it was the first time members of MAGA rallies turned into an absolute riot. We're still in the fog of the events, so take a grain of skepticism on these kinds of articles, even if it fills your confirmation bias.

@SANCTIONED just note that I believe beating cops is wrong on both sides, but a BLM supported shot 5 Dallas police officers in 2016. Over the course of the summer the justice department cited that more than 700 officers were injured. The problem is that the democrat party benefits financially from BLM and back the blue, why would you have an incentive to criticize your cash cow? What would happen if you criticized the behavior of the rioters, who vote for you in overwhelming numbers, when you're trying to win a popularity contest? Political violence is not acceptable because how will society benefit when everytime a person has an issue the whole town burns down? Will it be acceptable to burn a business down for climate change? Or your house for lower taxes? Or how about blowing up abortion clinics? It is a slippery slope started because antifa and BLM got away with it. And democrats got paid to have their town burns down. Republicans however, only get donations for upholding law and order, so they have every incentive to not only throw the rioters under the bus, but also every single non violent person. The incentives for politics is not the same for society all the time. All of us can see that when they banned tampons as a nonessential item during lockdowns in Wales.

How does trump benefit? They want to impeach him. Is that something that benefits him politically? I don't know of a single president bragging about that

And read the first line, I am condemning both sides, the summer of violence and the 6th

I just assume I don't have to spell it out that I disagree with the 6th when the whole post is about condemning political violence

And so did Hilary.

I think it's bad judgement to assume just because someone is trying to show a different perspective on why everyone is running to call this terrorism is because it's politically favorable. That if there was logical consistency they would also condemn the riots by BLM. I don't assume you condone the killing of cops because you didn't explicitly stated it. I assumed it because you condemned their beating.

I'm just pointing out it's not the first time people have said they won, when they may have not won. Look at Stacy Abrams.

My perspective is that the world doesn't revolve around Trump, there are other precedent of political violence that was ignored.