"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ
I am still waiting for someone to explain how Russia hijacked the 2016 election.
Any takers?
The fact that they're denying it so much despite the evidence, as well as trying to circumvent free speech on the internet says a lot about whether they have something to hide or not.
sharewasnt that hilarious when you blamed biden for the egg price gouging, claiming "Joe Bidens new america.... its been that way for the past 3 years. No one respects the laws anymore."
but in fact the case involved events that happened in 2004-2008 during bush jr?
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/655e253fc0a5800f560aba91/Jury-finds-spike-in-egg-prices-was-collusion?reply=655e33a1c0a5800f560abb3d
how did you get so dumb?
Egg prices were low under Trump and high under Biden, so yes, Biden is to blame.
shareoxygen deprived?
shareFacts are Facts, I didn't make the rules.
sharebut in fact the case involved events that happened in 2004-2008 during bush jr?
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/655e253fc0a5800f560aba91/Jury-finds-spike-in-egg-prices-was-collusion?reply=655e33a1c0a5800f560abb3d
how did you get so dumb?
lol, that still doesn't matter, those events didn't affect us under Trump, but they did under Biden. Cope with it.
shareyes the topic was price gouging. keep up little clown
"but in fact the case involved events that happened in 2004-2008 during bush jr?
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/655e253fc0a5800f560aba91/Jury-finds-spike-in-egg-prices-was-collusion?reply=655e33a1c0a5800f560abb3d
how did you get so dumb?"
You really think that the President is a central figure in food prices?
shareDay 1.
Any questions?
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-series-of.html
we are at record oil production
shareWhere is all the oil going? Diesel and gas prices should be under $2. Joe promised to BBB 3 years ago but I haven't seen any change yet.
sharebeing sold by private corporations for profits to whoever they want? jsut like it was under Trump and Obama and bush and clinton and bush and reagan etc etc
or are you saying Biden needs to nationalize or massively control its sale? isnt that communism according to you clowns?
So Joe is colluding with Big Oil to keep his cronies rich? Sounds legit.
shareis reading something you struggle with drool chin? sounds like you are legit retarded.
shareYou didn't answer the question. Why is Joe allowing his Big Oil cronies to get rich? Why is the strategic oil reserve empty and when is Joe going to BBB?
shareremmeber when you blames Joe for egg price fixing that happened in 2004?
then remember just now when you wanted joe to nationalize and control oil sales. then cry that he didnt?
stop drinking bleach. you are getting more imbecilic with every post
How did Trump rig the egg prices in 2008? You didn't answer the question.
share"How did Trump rig the egg prices in 2008?"
where did i say he did you idiot?
put the bleach down. its early and you seem to be on your second glass already from your utter nonsense posts somehow getting even more unhinged
How come Russia didn't hijack the 2020 election? Seems odd to me.
shareYou are all over the place like someone having a mental break and episode. maybe get of this website and get professional help? there are lots of resources for unstable people like yourslef.
come on mentally ill bubba
""How did Trump rig the egg prices in 2008?"
where did i say he did you idiot?"
own up to your ranting
How did Trump rig the egg prices in 2001? You didn't answer the question.
shareyour mental spiral is worsening. each post is somehow more unhinged than the last. you need to talk to someone its getting serious.
shareI am still waiting for proof that Russia hijacked the election.
2016 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.
Nancy Pelosi: The 2016 election was hijacked.
They made the rules to blame Trump for everything while he was president, but they can't handle the truth when the same is applied to Biden; they are hypocrites and denialists.
shareDems are the worst hypocrites of them all. I dont understand why anyone would want to be a democrat these days.
shareTrump wasn't President during 2004-2008. The fact remains that Joe promised to BBB but he hasn't fulfilled his promise yet.
sharewhere did i say trump was idiot? what you said was "Joe Bidens new america." in relation to spike egg collusion case, that again happened in 2004-2008 not in "bidens new america" where "its been that way for the past 3 years. No one respects the laws anymore."
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/655e253fc0a5800f560aba91/Jury-finds-spike-in-egg-prices-was-collusion?reply=655e33a1c0a5800f560abb3d
its why you replied here and not this thread of the topic. :) you ran away. what is with so many republicans being scared little cowards.
So the economy is recovering and the recession that you red hats wanted so badly never happened so now you're going to bitch about something else. If Biden cured cancer you would complain. Then you'd call it a hoax. 🤣
shareA recession would just reset everything back to 2019 prices. Dems love inflation and high prices as it gets themselves richer and their cronies.
Exxon is flush with cash. The company posted unprecedented profits last year of $55.7 billion, breezing past its previous record of $45.22 billion in 2008 when oil prices hit record highs.
Elevated levels of cash for all big producers are driving a massive consolidation in the energy sector. Just this week, Chevron said it would buy Hess Corp. for $53 billion.
like i said you are scared and dishonest. it must be a republican thing on this site. besides keelai the biggest dishonest clowns are you and tvfan.
shareJoe has been in politics for over 50 years, he should be able to negotiate for lower prices.
sharenobody is claiming " Russia hacked the 2016 election."
nobody is " Democrats denying election results" despite your little gag reel
proof?
you cant find one post from a normal member of the public on this site saying that that happened.
whereas I can find 1000s of posts from morons saying 2020 was rigged by space aliens and godzilla
The most widespread claim among Democrats seems to be that Russia "interfered" in the 2016 election and that somehow made the election results illegitimate. How do we know that Russia didn't also "interfere" with the 2020 election, thus making those election results illegitimate?
shareno the claim is that Russia attempted to interfere by putting ads on facebook , there was no "hacking"
I thought it was accepted by both dems and reps that Russia put facebook ads up , and failed to affect the result.
If Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election and failed to do so then why were all these Democrats claiming that the election result was illegitimate?
sharefind me one post on this site from moviechat member claiming that
I dont mean show me that clip of hilary saying it was "stolen" in 2016 that doesent count .
(and her definition of 'stolen' is unclear)
what we are measuring is popular consensus , so lets use moviechat community posts as a sample pool
like I said:
moviechat democrats claiming 2016 was rigged - zero
moviechat republicans claiming 2020 was rigged - all of them
I don't know what Democrat commenters at this website are saying about the 2016 election or really care what they're saying. What concerns me is what Democrats throughout the country say about it, especially those who are leaders in government. What does it say that the Democrat nominee in 2016, who was previously Secretary of State and whose husband was President, claims that the 2016 election results were illegitimate? Claiming that the 2016 election results were illegitimate seems to be a widespread norm among Democrats.
shareall thes words , quoted kindly by Bubba below do not mean "hacked" or "illegally cheated ",
stolen / illegitimate etc
just mean trump was a surprise winner
as in the phrase "stolen victory from the jaws of defeat"
once again - what do these stats tell you :
moviechat democrats claiming 2016 was rigged - zero
moviechat republicans claiming 2020 was rigged - all of them
It tells me that republicans chanting Trumps delusions with zero proof are f****g idiots
[–] moviechatterer (11649) an hour ago
once again - what do these stats tell you :
moviechat democrats claiming 2016 was rigged - zero
moviechat republicans claiming 2020 was rigged - all of them
fair enough
--------------------------
"[deleted] 3 hours ago"
did u make an account and delete it just to say that ?
moviechatterer,
Now you're being completely ridiculous. Hillary clearly didn't use the word 'stolen' in the way you claim she did. She clearly used it to mean that the 2016 election results were illegitimate. She specifically called Trump an "illegitimate President".
So what? Trump is calling Biden an illegitimate president.
shareThat's the point I was trying to get to. The Democrats made it a norm to call the President illegitimate. Hillary did the same to Trump.
shareIf you asked Hilary today if Trump cheated she would say no .
Those peopl in your gag reeel do not continuallty spout bnullshit day in day out like trump and all his followers do .
You wont go for the "find movievhat posts" techinique on couting - because its
moviechat democrats claiming 2016 was rigged - zero
moviechat republicans claiming 2020 was rigged - all of them
so lets go worldwide
Youve got Bubbas list of about 10 celebs saying it was illigitimate - and that was years ago
versus 1000s of posts daily by Trump cult
Have you got *any* examples of anyone saying 2016 was fixed from ,say ,this year
How do you know that if you asked Hillary today whether the 2016 election was stolen she would say 'no'? What's your basis for that? What happened in 2023 to cause Hillary's supposed change on this?
Your premise seems to be that it's okay to claim an election was stolen for the first 6 years after it happened. Why is it okay to do that for up to 6 years? And if that's the case then I would remind you that it's been less than 6 years since the 2020 election.
And why do you downplay the Democrats that Bubbathegut quoted as just "celebrities"? Those are the leaders of the Democrat party. It includes the current President, current Vice President, a former President, the current White House Press Secretary, the 2016 Democrat nominee for President, the most recent Democrat Speaker of the House and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. How many millions of Democrats do those leaders speak for when they call the 2016 election results illegitimate?
I told you before that I don't know what commenters on this website say about it and I don't care. (And in the context that it's been less than 6 years since the 2020 election, why do you even think it matters?) I care about what people throughout the country say about it. That's what politics is all about and this is the politics forum.
I'm really losing track on what the actual point of the discussion is .
But hilary said it once , Donald says it every day , he's [probsalg up to 10,000 statements of "rigged election"
my point bout "commenters on this website " is that its a reflection of the public as a whole.
the point there is that the democrat votuing publs dont go around claiming that 2016 rigged , whereas republcans do it constanlty re 2020
but we already knew that.
I think this only comes up as some sort of "proof" that 2020 was rigged
it goes like this
rep : "2020 was rigged"
dem: "for the millionth time - u crazy , there no proof"
rep : "Hilary said 2016 was rigged "
Why is it not okay for Trump to do it less than 6 years after the 2020 election? And what does it matter that Trump does it after all the Democrats made it a norm?
Hillary said the 2016 election was illegitimate more than once. And why does it matter how many times you do it? Democrats did it constantly while Trump was President. Perhaps these claims from Trump and other Republicans will die down once Biden is gone from the White House.
The Democrat leadership have all said the 2016 election was illegitimate. Isn't that more of a reflection of average voters than random commenters on this website?
Remember how they called GW the "APPOINTED PRESIDENT"? Trying to undermine his legitimacy.
If it was not for 9/11 messing with that narrative, they would have neutered his whole presidency and weakened America for his entire term.
I also had what happened to Bush in mind when I said that Democrats made it a norm to call election results illegitimate. And Democrats may have briefly stopped that after 9/11 but for most of the rest of Bush's term they continued doing it.
shareAnd today they have the nerve to whine like fags, if we say shit about anything.
sharePelosi further accused Trump of trying to dismantle the Postal Service and suppress mail-in-voting. She attacked the president for his alleged tactics then assured one thing. The Grande Dame of Democrats promised she and her posse in the House will be ready. As the speaker stated, “But again, we’re ready. We’re ready. I will do everything in my power to make sure that matter how he tries to declare victory or undermine the electoral college or try to win in the House.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says publicly Trump ‘will lie, cheat and steal’ to win election
Pelosi: Trump ‘Will Lie, Cheat and Steal to Win this Election’
“Our very democracy depends again on the confidence of the American people in the integrity of our electoral system,” said Pelosi.
She’s literally “Botox Trump.”
“So my colleagues, please don’t talk about this about a conspiracy theory. It’s not about that. It’s not about conspiracy; it’s about the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.
But conspiracies are bad now somehow.
A Democratic Party leader in Colorado has been exposed on video admitting that Democrats intend to rig the presidential election to beat President Trump.
Kristopher Jacks, a member of the executive committee of the Colorado Democratic Party, was filmed in an undercover sting operation admitting that the 2020 election amounts to a “revolution.”
'If it's close – watch out': Biden says he has 600 lawyers ready to fight election 'chicanery' by Trump
Biden, who has previously said he fears Trump will try to "steal" the election, said Trump and Republicans are pursuing a "systematic program on vote suppression" that could pose a serious obstacle amid the coronavirus outbreak
The team of 600 lawyers, along with 10,000 volunteers, would be in every state to figure out if any "chicanery is likely to take place."
Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances,"
a load of big nothings .
some democrats saying Trump might try to cheat ?
theyve got lawyers ready ? so what ,thats not illegal ,
plus they were right he did try to cheat by "finding more votes" and when that didnt work he just went with "storm the capital to stay in power"
how do we know that Trump didnt try to cheat or collude?
that was a civilized protest against a stolen election, dems would have done way worse if Trump had won.
Well , we've been round and round in circles on that discussion many times ,
I guess we let the courts decide that now
Presumably you're going to believe the result of a proper court investigation / trial where all the facts are presented in an orderly manner from both sides?
or does it depend which way the verdict goes?
if someone actually investigated for 2 years and found no wrongdoing in 2020, then I would accept it.
I accepted the verdict in 2016 that Trump did not collude with Russia.
again, you cant say your opponent is going to cheat and then say there was no cheating after you win.
All electronic voting equipment can easily be hacked because all such equipment must receive programming before each election from memory cards prepared on election management systems which are computers often connected to the internet running out-of-date versions of Windows.
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1648466336128065536?s=20
A few weeks ago computer scientist J. Alex Halderman rolled an electronic voting machine onto a Massachusetts Institute of Technology stage and demonstrated how simple it is to hack an election.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabilities-of-our-voting-machines/
Election was rigged, says the experts.
lol, I just saw a video clip yesterday by the same scientist where he inserted the pre-programmed card prior to someone voting and the ticket print-out showed twice the amount of votes for the candidate that was not voted for.
He used George Washington vs Benedict Arnold for his example.
Hilary conceded the election the next morning. How long did it take trump? oh and hes still pushing "stolen" conspiracy.
one conceeded instantly. on is spreading lies
Yeah, Hillary officially conceded the election the next day. But ever since then she's been claiming that the election was stolen. Perhaps that had an influence on how Trump dealt with losing the 2020 election. Trump still claims the 2020 election results were illegitimate just as Hillary still claims the 2016 election results were illegitimate.
shareso no evidence. literally a presidential candidate and cant even find one video of her saying it.
source; "i made it up in my head trust me bro"
No one asked me for a video or any source at all showing Hillary Clinton say that Trump is an illegitimate President and therefore I didn't provide any. I don't know why you would think I would just make up something like that out of thin air. But since you bring up the issue of video evidence, I'll provide you with some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQesfLIycJw&ab_channel=CBSSundayMorning
This is something you could have looked up on your own before chiming in here.
When it came to light in January 2017, just days before Donald Trump took office, the so-called Steele dossier landed like a bombshell and sent shockwaves around the world with its salacious allegations about Trump and his supposed ties to Russia.
The central allegations, that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election and that Russia had compromising information on him, were given a veneer of credibility because they originated from a retired British spy, Christopher Steele, who had a solid reputation.
But five years later, the credibility of the dossier has significantly diminished.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html
The Federal Election Commission has agreed to a fine of over $100,000 against the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign over an investigation into alleged misreporting of spending related to the now-infamous Steele dossier.
That investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.
Durham’s 300-plus page report also states that the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” to launch the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html
cont...
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.
NANCY Pelosi has been accused of hypocrisy after her tweet claiming the 2016 election was "hijacked" resurfaced.
The House Speaker said that Republicans were "refusing to accept reality" following the results of the 2020 election.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13732187/nancy-pelosi-hypocrisy-resurfaced-election-tweet/
2016 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.
Nancy Pelosi: The 2016 election was hijacked.
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that will happen this time" - President Obama
https://youtu.be/cruh2p_Wh_4
If our elections cant be hacked then why did Nancy say that Russia hijacked the election? And if Russia did hijack the election, how did they do it? Did they rig the votes, hack the ballots? Please explain to everyone how Russia and Trump rigged the 2016 election.
Did they rig the votes, hack the ballots?
of course not , thats crazy maga 2020 shit
nobody is saying that.
"Nancy Pelosi: The 2016 election was hijacked."
hijacked
not hacked.
world of difference
from your linked article
" The candidate himself and his closest advisers even welcomed the Kremlin’s interference in the election"
So if the Kremlin interfered/hijacked the election, then how did they do it? Please explain to everyone in detail how Russia hijacked the 2016 election so Trump would win?
shareI keep telling you - they didnt , Trump won fairly no democrat debates that ,despite a handfull of clips with hilary saying it was stolen.
The Kremlin DID attempt to influence the result by putting ads on facebook - no hacking skills or weak voting machines required. They did not succeed , nor did they have to , as trump got enough votes legitimately.
Now if i was to say "How did they do it?" to some MAGAs, I would get a dozen different completely ludicrous stories about midnight vote stuffing , hacked machines , dead people voting ad infintum.
You guys cant even agree on what method you think was used , despite being so sure it was rigged, and having proof that no one is allowed to see.
So if Trump won fair and square then why did Mueller investigate for 2 years? What was the point of him investigating if the election wasn't hijacked?
The last time I checked Obama was President in 2016 and he said that American elections are 100% secure and unhackable.
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that will happen this time" - President Obama
So you are saying democrats were tricked into voting for Trump because they saw ads on Twitter/Facebook?
Proof that voting machines can be hacked.
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1648462770936115202?s=20
why did Mueller investigate for 2 years?
Because it was odd that a loud mouthed narcisstic moron would win the votes , so it just looked suspicious , turned out it was all above board
There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that will happen this time" - President Obama
Yup , that guy knows his shit , unlike Trump who just cries foul because he's sooo fucking stupid he thinks that if he says it enough, and he wants it enough, it will become true.
re saying democrats were tricked into voting for Trump because they saw ads
well , yeah , I'm sure a few "undecideds" will have been influenced - not enough to make any difference.
It was also suspicious that a dementia patient that never left his basement won in 2020. This same dementia patient said he was going to lose by chicanery and had 600 lawyers and 10,000 volunteers ready to fight against chicanery. Nancy also said that Trump was going to steal the election again.
Why not just investigate to make sure there was no chicanery and see if Trump colluded with Russia?
I am still waiting for proof that Russia hijacked the election.
2016 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.
Nancy Pelosi: The 2016 election was hijacked.
ask one of those people then. nobody here is claiming Russia hijacked the election.
shareNancy and Hillary said the election was stolen. Do you believe them?
shareOnce again - "No "
They are (were) talking shit .
You cannot argue that point here when nobody here believes that.
However every single maga cult member believes 2020 was stolen
Not just one or two of the leadership said a thing once - all of them say it all the time.
how weird is that?
I started a thread once asking id any republicans didnt believe 2020 rigged - no replies .
Either all too stupid to see the truth or the smart ones are scared to speak up.
https://media.tenor.com/Ar3v5pxeEzEAAAAC/nobody-cares-nobody-gives-a-fck.gif
shareI know, right?
shareMerry Trumpmas!
Did you finish season 2 yet?
Yup, I'm into season 3, and I've ordered 4 and 5 per your recommendation...Thanks again, I'm really enjoying this show!
Edit: I happened to watch the Christmas Glee club episode today(25th), good stuff!
I am glad you are enjoying it. What were your favorite episodes for S2? My favs are the Halloween one and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Chevy was great in that episode.
Thats a good one too. S3 has some amazing episodes as well.
Did the pillow ninjas find anything?
share Bubbathegut said - "I am still waiting for someone to explain how Russia hacked the 2016 election."
No, you're obviously still just employing the sad and immature maga/gop tactic of wanting others to waste their time explaining things that you'll automatically refuse to acknowledge.
"If a current day conservative says they want you to back something up with facts, they're lying. They want you to waste your time explaining a position they will neither consider nor accept. If they liked facts, they wouldn't be current day conservatives." - A rational human being. ; )
Wow. That is some of the best projection i have ever seen.
shareEvery right-wing accusation is a confession. ; )
shareYou being a sily hack has nothing to do with me.
The claim of "russian hacking" was everywhere and vague as hell.
The implication for the stupid masses of dem lemmings was that russia hacked the voting machines.
But if you pressed politcial hacks about it, they would admit that what they were referringi to was the use of russian troll to spread disinformation and the use of russian hackers to release real but somehow "Fake" news about Hillary...ect. They were not real clear.
In the context of the current day the point is, that dems were quite happy to "question the legitimacy of an election" and today they are acting like doing so is... the worst thing ever.
So, fuck them and their hypocritical shit talk.
You are simply trying to conflate the russian hacing of the 2016 presidential election with current day republican hackery. In other words, just more of the same of your usual, nonsensical $#!+ talk.
shareI'm not conflating anythiing, just pointing out the clear difference in behavior by dems.
When it serves their purpose, they are happy to talk shit about the election.
When it doesn't then they pretend to be outraged and have a hissy fit.
It is not I than am talking shit, but you lefties/dems.
Yes, you ARE conflating those things.
Not surprised you'd deny that and try to deflect attention away from what you're doing.
Your stonewaliing is noted. My point stands. Your double standards are clear.
shareYour refusal to admit you were conflating things obviously did NOT prove your point. ; )
share'm not conflating anythiing, just pointing out the clear difference in behavior by dems.
When it serves their purpose, they are happy to talk shit about the election.
When it doesn't then they pretend to be outraged and have a hissy fit.
It is not I than am talking shit, but you lefties/dems.
Merry Trumpmas!
shareIf you have actual proof that Russia stole/hijacked the election then I will accept it.
That investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
If there was no collusion between Trump and Russia to steal the election then why did Nancy and Hillary say that Trump stole the election? Where is the hard evidence that Russia hijacked the election and how did they do it? The only way to hijack/steal an election would be vote tampering. How was Russia able to change the votes to Trump?
Just because YOU obviously accepted what bill barr said about TMR (apparently no questions asked) doesn't mean everyone else did.
shareMueller said there was no collusion and Trump won fair and square.
The Durham Report said all the "facts" provided were fake and there shouldn't have been an investigation.
Still waiting for an investigation into chicanery for the 2020 election.
No, Mueller said that if could have charged trump with collusion he would have, and that the only reason he "couldn't" is because actually charging trump wasn't within the purview of what he was specifically assigned to do. There's an obvious difference, but you probably know that don't you. (
shareIf thats true then why did Mueller say that Trump did not collude with Russia?
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
My original question still stands as unanswered. If Russia interfered in the election then how did they get Trump elected?
A: Not what Mueller said.
B: You are answering your own questions, and refusing to accept your own answers to your own questions because you are proving YOURSELF wrong in the process.
C: You obviously don't even understand you're doing it. ; )
D: Another question for you: If the special counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." --- Why did so many people associated with trump get indicted/imprisoned for doing those very things? ; )
1. Yeah he did.
B. Mueller found no collusion.
C. I understand everything.
4. Because the Biden admin wants to intimidate people not to associate with Trump or risk being falsely accused and jailed. Plus they are seeking retribution for Hillary losing. Its only the democrats that are persecuting people that are associated with Trump.
5. My original question still stands as unanswered. If Russia interfered in the election then how did they get Trump elected? Did they hack the ballots, voting machines, or electoral college? Still waiting for someone to take on this challenge.
You seem to be misinterpreting my question. I never said that Russia hijacked the election. I fully believe 100% that the election was fair and honest. Trump won because not enough people voted for Hillary because everyone thought she was a lock to win. Every news organization said that Hillary was going to win.
After Trump won is when Nancy said that Russia hijacked the election.
Nancy Pelosi
@SpeakerPelosi
Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.
11:44 AM · May 16, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2C6Z6tjY0w
Pelosi: 'Cold hard evidence' of collusion between Russia and the Trump family
https://youtu.be/Im50XUXeb0I
The Durham Report concluded that everything leading up to the Mueller report was fake. There was never any evidence of Russia hijacking the election nor Trump colluding with Russia.
2016 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.
Nancy Pelosi: The 2016 election was hijacked.
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that will happen this time" - President Obama
https://youtu.be/cruh2p_Wh_4
If you actually read anything I posted then you would see its the Democrats who said the 2016 election was stolen. Again, my position is that Trump won fair and square.
And once again, your "position" is simply mistaken.
shareMistaken how?
Obama said that our elections are unhackable but when Hillary lost all the democrats said that Russia helped Trump steal the election. Nancy said that the election was hijacked.
If the election was hijacked, then I assume there would evidence of voter tampering, ballot tampering, voter machine tampering or electoral vote tampering.
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
My original question still stands as unanswered. If Russia interfered in the election then how did they get Trump elected?
Mistaken now because you are now OBVIOUSLY trying to conflate election "hacking" with election interference.
That your mistakes just keep piling up and you don't even know it is but ANOTHER of the things you remain mistaken about. ; )
Lets go with election interference then. If Russia interfered in the election then how did they get Trump elected? Keep in mind that Obama said that our elections are 100% secure and even mocked Trump for saying that elections could be tampered with.
shareAnnnnd you're STILL trying to conflate election hacking with election interference.
Seriously, is English your first language? ; )
Lets go with election interference then. If Russia interfered in the election then how did they get Trump elected? How does interfering in a election get someone voted in?
shareCan hacking the voting machines be a form of election interference? Yes or No?
shareAbsolutely it's election interference. Surprised we don't have the usual liberal suspects not here putting this thread down??
shareFun Fact: Two right wingers agreeing to conflate two different things as being the same doesn't automatically make them so, or, that the accusation of voting machine hacking is based in reality.
shareStill waiting on your answer:
Can hacking the voting machines be a form of election interference? Yes or No?
Can you prove that any voting machines were hacked?
But thank you for providing yet ANOTHER example that there is no original thought from the right seeing as how you're basically just trying to do the same conflating as your pal bubba. ; )
You can deny anything you'd like. You cannot act to illegally overthrow an election.
shareDemocrats tried 3 times to illegally remove Trump. They succeeded on the 4th try.
Mueller Report: Fail
1st fake impeachment: Fail
2nd fake impeachment: Fail
Rigged 2020 election: Success
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that President Donald Trump, “Whether he knows it yet or not, he will be leaving” the White House after the 2020 presidential election.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said President Donald Trump would “lie, cheat and steal to win this election” on Wednesday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View.”
Behar said, “I’m dreaming of the day when we all say ‘President Nancy Pelosi.’ I think that sounds really good. But the polls are showing that Biden is ahead in key swing states. It’s very encouraging in many ways, Pennsylvania, et cetera, but I’m still worried that they could steal this election. I know that the Russians are still involved. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security just released a report warning that Russia is a key threat to the election. Now we knew this going into 2016 too, and we saw how that turned out. This is why I’m not counting my chickens at all. I’m still nervous. People have to vote, and we have to win in a landslide. How concerned are you about that?”
Why didn't Russia hijack the 2020 election?
"Democrats tried 3 times to illegally remove Trump. They succeeded on the 4th try.
Mueller Report: Fail"
The Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was initiated by the Trump Department of Justice by an acting attorney general that had been appointed by Trump.
You fail!
Why do you leftoitds continually think or believe that just because Trump appoints someone that it guarantees that they are not RINOs, traitors, or a member of the uniparty/establishment/swamp?
Wait, are you inferring or implying that Trump should be a mind reader or omniscient?
It was initiated by the House of Representatives. (Nancy saggy boobs Pelosi) The President cant start an investigation into himself.
share"1st fake impeachment: Fail
2nd fake impeachment: Fail"
There is noting illegal about an impeachment. The second one got more votes from the impeached president's party than any impeachment in history. You FAIL!
"Rigged 2020 election: Success"
Nobody has ever provided an evidence of rigging.
You FAIL!
Yeah there is, when you are falsely accused of something you didn't do.
There is lots of evidence the 2020 election was hijacked. The dems just dont want to investigate because it will prove they rigged the election.
Just. Shut. Up.
You keep regurgitating the same bullshit and don't respond to refutation of your garbage. You act like a Russian bot.
I'm pretty sure that many of links have been provided posting proof of it, but once again, no matter what proof there is you simply won't accept it and rinse & repeat, right??
shareNo, no proof. Or even credible evidence. You are ignorant and brainwashed.
shareI am still waiting for someone to explain how Russia hijacked the 2016 election.
Any takers?
Wasn't Obama President in 2016? Why did he allow Russia to put fake ads on Twitter and Facebook?
There is nothing in that article about voter fraud, ballot tampering or voter machine tampering.
Also obstructing a investigation is not the same as hijacking an election. The only way to hijack an election would be to electronically change votes on the Dominion voter software or do ballot dumps at 3 AM.
Fun Facts:
The American Constitution Society is a progressive legal organization. ACS was created as a counterweight to, and is modeled after, the Federalist Society, and is often described as its progressive counterpart.
President: Russ Feingold
A member of the Democratic Party, he was its nominee in the 2016 election for the same U.S. Senate seat he had previously occupied.
Is there anything similar to this report or the Mueller report for the 2020 election?
Also thanks for the link and not calling me an idiot for asking questions.
"Wasn't Obama President in 2016? Why did he allow Russia to put fake ads on Twitter and Facebook?"
Obama wasn't in charge of placing ads for private media companies. And it is a policy of the DOJ to not make public who they are investigating, ESPECIALLY when it is close to an election. Oh, except for when Comey decided to announce that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton for her emails weeks before the election. I think this move by Comey was much more consequential than Russian misinformation campains.
"There is nothing in that article about voter fraud, ballot tampering or voter machine tampering."
Right. Because no such allegations have been made or investigated regarding the 2016 election.
"Also obstructing a investigation is not the same as hijacking an election. The only way to hijack an election would be to electronically change votes on the Dominion voter software or do ballot dumps at 3 AM."
Right. Because no such allegations have been made. You have chosen a particular definition of what "hijacking" an election means and that is your problem.
"The American Constitution Society is a progressive legal organization. ACS was created as a counterweight to, and is modeled after, the Federalist Society, and is often described as its progressive counterpart."
So what! If you want to refute how they have characterized the findings of the Mueller report, please read the Mueller report for yourself. It's linked in the first footnote.
"Is there anything similar to this report or the Mueller report for the 2020 election?"
No, because there is nothing to investigate, you moron. There has never been any credible evidence provided under oath that suggests there is something to investigate. Why hasn't the Republican House initiated an investigation, they've nearly had a year to do so?
"Also thanks for the link and not calling me an idiot for asking questions. "
Oops!
"Right. Because no such allegations have been made or investigated regarding the 2016 election."
Nancy said the election was hijacked, I didn't say that, she did.
2016 Presidential Election
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.
Nancy Pelosi: "The 2016 election was hijacked."
If there are no allegations of voter fraud then why did Mueller investigate the 2016 election?
I searched for the 2020 election investigation on The American Constitution Society and I couldn't find any results or comments concerning Trump stealing the election again or Trump using chicanery to steal the election. Is there any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia and did Trump allow Russia to put fake ads on Twitter and Facebook?
Again if there was no evidence of voter fraud, ballot tampering or voter machine tampering. Then why was the 2016 election investigated?
Mueller didn't investigate voter fraud, you moron.
shareI know. He investigated Russian collusion and didn't find any. Nancy said she had cold hard facts that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. He did find that Russia put fake ads on Twitter and Facebook. If there was no voter fraud in 2016 then why was the election investigated?
The Durham Report said that there was no need for the Mueller Report and all the evidence presented by the dems was fabricated.
Again, this is the crux of my argument.
Lastly, Obama mocked Trump for saying that our elections couldn't be tampered with. Obama said that our elections are the most secure.
Synopsis:
Dems in 2016: Elections cant be stolen
Dems in 2016: The election was stolen
Dems in 2020: The election will be stolen
Dems in 2020: The election wasn't stolen
Dems in 2024: The election will be stolen
Dems in 2024: TBD
I await evidence for the election in 2020 being rigged.
shareI await evidence for the election in 2016 being hijacked.
shareI did not say that it was hijacked.
shareBut the OP is a request to explain how the 2016 was hijacked, yet, your previous reply was "awaiting evidence for the 2020."
shareBut I didn't make those claims. Other people in here are claiming 2020 was rigged.
shareThe post that you originally replied to asking for evidence shows a correlation between the OP's 2016 supposed hijack, and everything else between that and the rigged 2020.
Mueller Report: Failshare
1st fake impeachment: Fail
2nd fake impeachment: Fail
Rigged 2020 election: Success
That's not evidence that the election of 2020 was rigged. Just saying it was "rigged" over and over isn't evidence.
shareI didn't say that is was, It is a correlation of the events that led to a fraudulent election.
You have to apply some common sense, deductive reasoning, and independent thinking to comprehend it.
>I didn't say that is was, It is a correlation of the events that led to a fraudulent election.
All you're doing here is admitting you have no evidence whatsoever of actual fraud in the 2020 election and are just filling in holes from your imagination.
The DoD-SF has the evidence, Trump's independent team has the evidence, and "we the people" have the evidence.
shareIf they have the evidence, why isn't Trump president? Why did every single case fail?
And why are many of his former allies now folding?
And if "we the people" have the evidence, where is it?
He had a choice to risk a civil war or wait until things get bad enough...wait until the shit really hits the fan.
He didn't loose every single case:
Despite the MSM lies that 60+ election challenges found no evidence of wrongdoing, there were actually 92 cases, with only 31 decided on the merits, and of those 31, Trump and/or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 23 of them.
And why are many of his former allies now folding?
>He had a choice to risk a civil war or wait until things get bad enough...wait until the shit really hits the fan.
No, they tried repeatedly through the courts and got blocked repeatedly.
>Despite the MSM lies that 60+ election challenges found no evidence of wrongdoing, there were actually 92 cases, with only 31 decided on the merits, and of those 31, Trump and/or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 23 of them.
Can I see the cases in which the GOP prevailed in please?
>It is called "optics".
No idea what you're getting at here. Could it actually be that they see the walls closing in on them (legally) and decide to co-operate?
Those were only lawsuits.
SCOTUS was not involved. Those cases were also for optics. The two main goals to allow two of the four indictment cases was to expose the DS, and for Trump to obtain "subpoena power."
Optics: [ op-tiks ] noun. the way a situation, action, event, etc., is perceived by the public or by a particular group of people.share
>Those were only lawsuits.
And they all failed in everything.
>SCOTUS was not involved. Those cases were also for optics. The two main goals to allow two of the four indictment cases was to expose the DS, and for Trump to obtain "subpoena power."
This sounds like another conspiracy theory. These people are getting sentences for taking deals. And I know what 'optics' mean - I was unsure what you were getting at.
To the Trumptwats it actually is!
shareBiden: The ‘only way’ I’ll lose is through ‘chicanery’ at polling places
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said on Wednesday that his party has assembled a group of 600 lawyers and thousands of other people to prepare for possible "chicanery" ahead of November's election.
"We put together 600 lawyers and a group of people throughout the country who are going into every single state to try to figure out whether chicanery is likely to take place," Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said on a video conference with donors to his campaign.
Biden's remarks come as the candidate offers dire warnings about efforts by Republicans to cheat in the Nov. 3 election while also criticizing his election opponent, Republican President Donald Trump, for undermining confidence in the vote.
He said: "Here's the deal guys, you've gotta make sure you go out and vote, because the only way we lose this is by the chicanery going on relative to polling places."
Joe said the 2020 election was going to be rigged.
>Joe said the 2020 election was going to be rigged.
I'm at a loss as to how this is evidence for the election in 2020 supposedly being rigged. Joe said that if he lost, it would possibly be rigged (or he implied this) - but he didn't lose. So how is this evidence that the election was rigged?
If Joe had lost, he would have said he was right that the election was rigged. Also Nancy said the same thing before the election. She said that Trump was going to steal the election again. If Trump had won, Nancy would have said she was right and the election was stolen.
Trump did lose because of chicanery but now every democrat is saying that the election was NOT stolen or rigged and if you say its rigged then you are a crazy election denier.
Here is the skitso part, there was nothing wrong with saying the 2016 election was hijacked. Dems repeated the lie so much that the election was eventually investigated for 2 years.
Here is something even more skitso.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat down with MSNBC's Jen Psaki for an interview that aired on Sunday and said that we should be talking about potential election interference leading up to 2024.
"He has indeed interfered in our elections in the past," Psaki said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. "It’s not something, as you experienced firsthand, is not something we talk about a lot. Do you fear that that is something that could be happening for 2024, do you think we should be talking about it more?"
Dems are spreading lies again that Russia will hijack the election in 2024. And if Trump wins, all the dems will say they were right that the election was stolen again.
If Trump loses in 2024, all the dems will say the election was not stolen or rigged.
>If Joe had lost, he would have said he was right that the election was rigged.
Speculative. You have no way of knowing this. What politicians say whilst campaigning often differs from when they lose.
>Also Nancy said the same thing before the election. She said that Trump was going to steal the election again. If Trump had won, Nancy would have said she was right and the election was stolen.
See above.
>Trump did lose because of chicanery
Evidence please.
>"He has indeed interfered in our elections in the past," Psaki said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. "It’s not something, as you experienced firsthand, is not something we talk about a lot. Do you fear that that is something that could be happening for 2024, do you think we should be talking about it more?"
What do you think she means by "interfered", may I ask?
And I'll note NONE OF THIS is evidence of actual fraud.
Its not speculative, its the truth. Obama said that our elections are secure back in 2016. Then Nancy said the election was hijacked. Saying its speculative is your opinion.
NANCY Pelosi has been accused of hypocrisy after her tweet claiming the 2016 election was "hijacked" resurfaced.
The House Speaker said that Republicans were "refusing to accept reality" following the results of the 2020 election.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13732187/nancy-pelosi-hypocrisy-resurfaced-election-tweet/
How is this speculative? Evidence please.
Evidence the 2020 election was stolen
https://moviechat.org/tt18924506/2000-Mules?page=1
Interfered by hijacking the election.
If there is no evidence of fraud then why was the 2016 election investigated for 2 years?
>Its not speculative, its the truth. Obama said that our elections are secure back in 2016. Then Nancy said the election was hijacked. Saying its speculative is your opinion.
And what did Nancy actually do about it? Nothing. The Democrats handed over power in 2016.
Factcheck:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-check-does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ/
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1098787088/a-pro-trump-film-suggests-its-data-are-so-accurate-it-solved-a-murder-thats-fals
>If there is no evidence of fraud then why was the 2016 election investigated for 2 years?
It was not investigated for voting fraud. At no point did the Democrats suggest that there was actual voting fraud.
There you go again, citing fact checkers and propaganda that regurgitate fake news and misinformation for the DS.
In 2012, Obama signed off on a bill that authorized the use of propaganda in the US, which had previously been banned since 1948 when the Smith-Mundt Act was passed.
>There you go again, citing fact checkers and propaganda that regurgitate fake news and misinformation for the DS.
Provide evidence for this claim please.
>In 2012, Obama signed off on a bill that authorized the use of propaganda in the US, which had previously been banned since 1948 when the Smith-Mundt Act was passed.
https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-7064410002
Oh look. Immediately that claim in itself is revealed to be bogus. More Internet mythos from you.
hahaha, Apnews is part of that propaganda, of course they are going to lie about it.
shareThere are other sources.
And you are begging the question. You have not demonstrated that APNews is "part of that propaganda", nor even the initial claim that Obama signed off a bill that "authorised the use of propaganda".
Evidence please
There are other sources.
You have not demonstrated that APNews is "part of that propaganda", nor even the initial claim that Obama signed off a bill that "authorised the use of propaganda".
shareBtw, do you know how to deduce? Of course you don't, but nevertheless.
From that article:
The amendment did not repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, but rather lifted some restrictions on the domestic dissemination of government-funded media.
>Just enough to allow propaganda, fake news, and fact-checkers, lol.
No, you haven't demonstrated that. What "restrictions" is it referring to?
"The change essentially eased restrictions for Americans who want to access government-funded media content, allowing media produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, to be made available to Americans “upon request.”"
"Under the previous law, the agency’s content, including radio broadcasts from Voice of America, were banned from dissemination in the U.S. However, Americans were still able to access much of the content online.
“There was essentially a de facto ban on the domestic dissemination of materials originating from the State Department,” said Weston Sager, an attorney who published a paper on the change in law.
Under the new law, it is still against the law for government-funded media to create programming and market their content to U.S. audiences."
Nothing to do with fact-checking.
Do you think fact-checkers didn't exist prior to that law, or something? You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that they only exist because the US government established them.
As I said, you are incapable of deducing or using common sense.
They are not going to literally admit directly that they lifted "All/Any" restrictions on propaganda, they obfuscate it in their carefully selected words/phrasing as I pointed out in my previous blockquote.
Before he signed off on allowing propaganda, they used operation Mockingbird......they still do.
>They are not going to literally admit directly that they lifted "All/Any" restrictions on propaganda, they obfuscate it in their carefully selected words/phrasing as I pointed out in my previous blockquote.
This is just constructing your own narrative. You take every action of every Democratic government or president and interpret it in the most conspiratorial way you can. You call all these fact-checkers liars, and propagandists. And you still haven't provided any examples of lies in these fact checkers you so decry - instead constructing your own personal mythos.
Apparently, I'm not the only one since there are millions of others that are also aware that MSM is propaganda, fake news, and mis/dis-information just like the fact-checkers. You can't accept it because it doesn't fit your narrative which is why you are in denial.
share>Apparently, I'm not the only one since there are millions of others that are also aware that MSM is propaganda, fake news, and mis/dis-information just like the fact-checkers.
All media everywhere in every country has varying levels of bias and faulty reporting. The degrees of bias depend on the specific outlet. This includes mainstream and underground media. You are innoculating yourself from the normal news cycle of events by telling you that all of them lie about everything. It is fundamentally absurd. What you are claiming is beyond that and you have not presented the slightest shred of evidence.
You still haven't provided any examples of lies in these fact checkers you so decry - instead constructing your own personal mythos.
Once again, I never said "All", this is the second thread that you imply on my behalf.
I said MSM and fact-checkers.
There is no point in explaining or providing examples as you will automatically by default contradict without using any deductive reasoning or common sense.
Exhibit-A:
Remember the first time that you cited a fact-checker on this forum with an entire page full of lies about Trump and I provided proof of how it lied and you double-down on more lies, denials, and non-sense contradictions to support the fact-checker because you could not accept that fact-checkers lie.
>Once again, I never said "All", this is the second thread that you imply on my behalf.
Yes, I said you were referring to all mainstream media. You've still provided no evidence.
>Remember the first time that you cited a fact-checker on this forum with an entire page full of lies about Trump and I provided proof of how it lied and you double-down on more lies, denials, and non-sense contradictions to support the fact-checker because you could not accept that fact-checkers lie.
No, I don't. Because we've had lots of chats and I suspect your characterisation of that discussion is a complete fabrication.
You still haven't provided any examples of lies in these fact checkers you so decry - instead constructing your own personal mythos.
You words: "All media everywhere"
There are media sources that are not part of MSM.
I said: "All media everywhere in every country has varying levels of bias and faulty reporting."
I did not say that you said all media lies. I know you only think "MSM" lies (although I suspect you also think non-mainstream leftist sites also lie about everything)
Leftist non-MSM regurgitate leftist MSM.
shareNancy said the election was hijacked and then repeated on the news the election was hijacked. The democrats did not hand over power in 2016.
Saying a factcheck doesn't make something a fact. You wanted proof the election was stolen and I provided it. The fact remains there was no investigation into chicanery.
If there was no voter fraud, then how did Russia hijack the 2016 election? Why did Hillary say Trump was an illegitimate President?
>Nancy said the election was hijacked and then repeated on the news the election was hijacked. The democrats did not hand over power in 2016.
Provide evidence the Democrats rejected handing over power in 2016.
>Saying a factcheck doesn't make something a fact. You wanted proof the election was stolen and I provided it. The fact remains there was no investigation into chicanery.
There were tons of court cases, all completely failed.
And the factchecks DIRECTLY respond to the claims in 1000 Mules.
>If there was no voter fraud, then how did Russia hijack the 2016 election? Why did Hillary say Trump was an illegitimate President?
The claim was Russia influencing the election in coverage, NOT that they were hacking voter machines. The result was never in doubt.
The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States marked the commencement of Donald Trump's term as president and Mike Pence's term as vice president.[1] An estimated 600,000 to 900,000[2][3] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, at the West Front of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.
LOLz
Just because no one wanted to investigate doesn't mean the election wasn't stolen. Nancy said that Trump was going to steal the election and Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery.
I am not aware of 1000 mules, please elaborate.
If Russia didn't hack the voting machines then how did they hijack the election?
>The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States marked the commencement of Donald Trump's term as president and Mike Pence's term as vice president.[1] An estimated 600,000 to 900,000[2][3] people attended the public ceremony held on Friday, January 20, 2017, at the West Front of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.
So? What are you getting at here?
>Just because no one wanted to investigate doesn't mean the election wasn't stolen.
Actual evidence of fraud is evidence of "stolen". You haven't provided it. There were tons of court cases, all completely failed. Why did they fail?
>Nancy said that Trump was going to steal the election and Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery.
What does this have to do with anything?
>I am not aware of 1000 mules, please elaborate.
2000 mules.
>If Russia didn't hack the voting machines then how did they hijack the election?
I didn't say they did. But the Democrats handed over power.
Are you really going to pretend to be ignorant of what you just said? I get that enjoy this kind of stuff. I will play along with you.
Why would dems hand over power in 2016?
2000 mules proves the election was stolen, its up to Congress to investigate it.
Why didn't Trump steal the election again?
Dems refused to hand over power in 2016. Why did they do this?
>Why would dems hand over power in 2016?
You haven't demonstrated that they didn't.
>2000 mules proves the election was stolen, its up to Congress to investigate it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-check-does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ/
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1098787088/a-pro-trump-film-suggests-its-data-are-so-accurate-it-solved-a-murder-thats-fals
>Why didn't Trump steal the election again?
He tried. Failed.
>Dems refused to hand over power in 2016. Why did they do this?
Evidence please.