The Election Steal Is Already Underway

[HisArpy]

2000 mules is based on misinformation. The conclusions it makes based on the evidence it collects are incorrect.

Lots of people drawing conclusions based on misleading or incomplete information....the extensive fraud declared as a result is faulty at best.

And of course you have EVIDENCE of this other than your belief that it is so?

Of course you don't. You BELIEVE that all the stuff that happened wasn't for nefarious purposes. You BELIEVE that despite seeing it all laid out in sequence, that the things you see, aren't true and that it's the opposite which is what's really true.

You'd suck as a juror. And, while life isn't a courtroom, the life-born lessons of sorting through what you see/hear to learn what is going on around you, are what a jury brings as its major tool in determining guilt or innocence. And you refuse to do that because of ideology.

Biden was elected. The election wasn't secure. We know it wasn't secure because there's evidence to show it wasn't. We know that the balloting was manipulated because there's evidence to show the manipulation happened. WE KNOW THIS!

What we don't know is whether any of that affected the outcome. Denying that the evidence doesn't show what it shows in order to promote your preferred outcome is called unrelenting bias.

Which is why you'd suck as a juror.

 

[ll74]

And of course you have EVIDENCE of this other than your belief that it is so?

I do. Posted it after this comment

Of course you don't. You BELIEVE that all the stuff that happened wasn't for nefarious purposes. You BELIEVE that despite seeing it all laid out in sequence, that the things you see, aren't true and that it's the opposite which is what's really true.

I'm aligned with the law enforcement officials extensive refutation.

You'd suck as a juror. And, while life isn't a courtroom, the life-born lessons of sorting through what you see/hear to learn what is going on around you, are what a jury brings as its major tool in determining guilt or innocence. And you refuse to do that because of ideology.

I expect you might have to cross examine one of the law enforcement officials if brought to trial. As a juror, their opinions would weigh heavily on my opinion.

Biden was elected. The election wasn't secure. We know it wasn't secure because there's evidence to show it wasn't. We know that the balloting was manipulated because there's evidence to show the manipulation happened. WE KNOW THIS!

It was.

But keep on with the "we all know..."

It's still funny

What we don't know is whether any of that affected the outcome. Denying that the evidence doesn't show what it shows in order to promote your preferred outcome is called unrelenting bias.

We do know based on evidence.presented.

You don't know because of your bias.

Which is why you'd suck as a juror.

Which is why you suck as a lawyer.

 

[PaxNurgle]

The evidence is out there. That you stubbornly choose to disbelieve it, despite knowing the reason you do so isn't because it's unbelievable, doesn't mean that others also do so.

2000 Mules isn't fiction. It's based in real evidence showing exactly how the balloting was manipulated to result in the election of Joe Biden. None of us will ever know if the ballots truly support the results because there's no way to ever separate fraudulent ballots, if any, from the legal ones. It just cannot be done. Our only recourse is to accept that the election is over, Joe Biden was elected President, and move on from there.

The worst part is that you KNOW this to be true but still refuse to acknowledge it because it might cast doubts on your beliefs. It might show you that your ideology is wrong. And it might prove that your loyalty is misplaced.

And those things are things you cannot accept because your hate is too comfortable and too convenient.

The "Evidence" has been debunked.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

There is no "Evidence," only fabricated fantasy fiction, created by your own private JR Tolkeian for your own dystopian dictatorship fantasies.

Trump lost in 2020- fairly and squarely. Evidence proves that Trump lost 2020 fairly and squarely. Trump lacks the emotional maturity to admit defeat (much like yourself) so he fabricates "Evidence" to the contrary- which has been refuted a thousand times.

THIS is why nobody respects you or your opinions, by the way. Because you cannot accept fact.

 

[HisArpy]

I do. Posted it after this comment

I'm aligned with the law enforcement officials extensive refutation.


I expect you might have to cross examine one of the law enforcement officials if brought to trial. As a juror, their opinions would weigh heavily on my opinion.

It was.

But keep on with the "we all know..."

It's still funny

We do know based on evidence.presented.

You don't know because of your bias.

Which is why you suck as a lawyer.

None of that is "evidence." It's all bias and projection.

I call on you to watch the film and then contrast it against what you believe. I call on you to actually understand that the lawsuits were tossed BEFORE Trump was allowed to present his evidence. He didn't lose his lawsuits, he was DENIED the ability to present his case in them.

It comes down to this; the film lays out a case. The Left refuses to accept those facts and instead asserts that because they denied Trump the ability to present those facts, and other facts, nothing happened. This is classical denialism, facts versus a refusal to acknowledge them.

As a lawyer I know how to present a case to a jury. I can also spot a biased juror a mile away.

You, OTOH, being biased, cannot see that the reason you refuse to accept the facts is because you prefer the outcome regardless of the facts. Instead you justify your bias and attack those who prove your bias exists and that the facts presented are opposite your beliefs.

You don't want to believe the facts, so you deny them by any means possible.

 

[HisArpy]

The "Evidence" has been debunked.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

There is no "Evidence," only fabricated fantasy fiction, created by your own private JR Tolkeian for your own dystopian dictatorship fantasies.

Trump lost in 2020- fairly and squarely. Evidence proves that Trump lost 2020 fairly and squarely. Trump lacks the emotional maturity to admit defeat (much like yourself) so he fabricates "Evidence" to the contrary- which has been refuted a thousand times.

THIS is why nobody respects you or your opinions, by the way. Because you cannot accept fact.

No it hasn't been debunked. It's been denied and not allowed to be tested for its actual veracity.

BTW, before you or someone else go off on the challenge for me to "say who was elected in 2020;" I will say this: Joe Biden won the election and is President until he is either removed or his term ends.

That doesn't mean the election was 'secure.' Nor does it mean that the balloting and results weren't 'manipulated."

 

[deckardB26354]

No it hasn't been debunked. It's been denied and not allowed to be tested for its actual veracity.

BTW, before you or someone else go off on the challenge for me to "say who was elected in 2020;" I will say this: Joe Biden won the election and is President until he is either removed or his term ends.

That doesn't mean the election was 'secure.' Nor does it mean that the balloting and results weren't 'manipulated."

The “evidence” has been debunked.

Derpy: no it hasn’t

They pulled the 2000 Mules book and film and apologized for basically lying about the entire thing.

Derpy: no they didn’t

Trump lost the election fair and square and there is no indication of voter fraud

Derpy: Biden “won” until he’s removed because derp derp derp derp derp

Keep using those schmarts of yours, you’re going to break something loose in your head—if there’s anything left in there.

 

[ll74]

None of that is "evidence." It's all bias and projection.

I call on you to watch the film and then contrast it against what you believe. I call on you to actually understand that the lawsuits were tossed BEFORE Trump was allowed to present his evidence. He didn't lose his lawsuits, he was DENIED the ability to present his case in them.

It comes down to this; the film lays out a case. The Left refuses to accept those facts and instead asserts that because they denied Trump the ability to present those facts, and other facts, nothing happened. This is classical denialism, facts versus a refusal to acknowledge them.

As a lawyer I know how to present a case to a jury. I can also spot a biased juror a mile away.

You, OTOH, being biased, cannot see that the reason you refuse to accept the facts is because you prefer the outcome regardless of the facts. Instead you justify your bias and attack those who prove your bias exists and that the facts presented are opposite your beliefs.

You don't want to believe the facts, so you deny them by any means possible.

So the law enforcement statement is bias and projection.

Lol.....you're a fucking moron. I'm specifically discussing the film, 2000 mules, which presents faulty evidence and reached incorrect conclusions based on that evidence. The producers of the film have been called out and have even apologized for providing misleading information to the public.

You refusing to read the statements from valid objectors to the film is not the same thing as bias and projection
...you refuse to understand the evidence that has been effectively refuted because you don't want to

 

[dmallord]

Here's a little tidbit concerning the 2020 election:

New Complaint Filed Alleging that US Postal Service (USPS) Committed Electoral Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election​

by Jim Hoft Aug. 31, 2024 8:00 am

A new development that merits attention. A complaint was filed on Friday before the U.S. District Court in Maryland presenting evidence that the USPS acted illegally in shipping at least one million mail-in ballots from a facility in Bethpage, New York to Pennsylvania on October 21, 2020. The suit was brought by attorney Brian Della Rocca, but the critical evidence was collected by two friends of mine — John Moynihan and Larry Doyle. Full disclosure, I have known John since 1998 and we were partners in BERG Associates, LLC. John, in my opinion, is one of the best financial and forensic investigators in the world. Hands down.

Here is the bottom-line — the truck driver, Jesse Morgan, picked up a container filled with 20 Gaylord boxes. There were mail-in ballots in each of the Gaylords. A Gaylord can hold from 50,000 up to 100,000 ballots. Do the math — Mr. Morgan was transporting at least one million mail-in ballots (already filled in with signatures on the envelopes). So, what you say? The mail-in ballots are First Class mail. Every piece of First Class mail is supposed to be imaged per USPS regulations. The facility where Morgan picked up the load of ballots is ONLY certified for handling packages and Express Mail. There is no legal justification to account for those ballots to have passed through that warehouse.

~Snip~

It has taken four years for this to come to light. There was fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and the USPS played a critical role in making that happen. We will see where this goes.

You can find the complaint here — Case 1:24-cv-02442-ADC Document 1 Filed 08/22/24 Page 1 of 21. I will post a link once I find one.

Read the entire article here:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/new-complaint-filed-alleging-that-us-postal-service/

Thank you for adding another conspiracy nut case to the older ones. Meanwhile... Trump lost the election.

Trucker's Deposition

The trucker's twenty-eight-page deposition says he was a trucker that carried what he thought were ballots, maybe. He doesn't know for sure if they were, but they looked like it. When asked if the ballots were already marked [they were inside containers, and he couldn't open them.], he said, 'I think so.'

Yep, fraudulent activities, for sure.

 

[dmallord]

And of course you have EVIDENCE of this other than your belief that it is so?

Of course you don't. You BELIEVE that all the stuff that happened wasn't for nefarious purposes. You BELIEVE that despite seeing it all laid out in sequence, that the things you see, aren't true and that it's the opposite which is what's really true.

You'd suck as a juror. And, while life isn't a courtroom, the life-born lessons of sorting through what you see/hear to learn what is going on around you, are what a jury brings as its major tool in determining guilt or innocence. And you refuse to do that because of ideology.

Biden was elected. The election wasn't secure. We know it wasn't secure because there's evidence to show it wasn't. We know that the balloting was manipulated because there's evidence to show the manipulation happened. WE KNOW THIS!

What we don't know is whether any of that affected the outcome. Denying that the evidence doesn't show what it shows in order to promote your preferred outcome is called unrelenting bias.

Which is why you'd suck as a juror.

Such logic defies logical analysis.

Which is why you would suck as a lawyer in such cases.

WE KNOW THIS! Because you buy into such conspiracies.

 

[beckiefalwell]

Another stellar “dump of information” from the gateway dumbshit.

And the king of Gen Z guys who think women are supposed to squirt.

 

[PaxNurgle]

You refusing to read the evidence is not the same thing as bias and projection
...you refuse to understand the evidence that has been effectively refuted because you don't want to

My biggest issue with IcanharpyTzang is exactly this. It is a sign of emotional immaturity, being unable to accept reality.
A mature person can admit the truth of the world, while a child will cling to his belief in the Easter Bunny even after it is proven the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

IcanHarpy's insistence that 2020 was a "Rigged Election" in Biden's favor is just that- childish.

I believe, honestly, that not only did Trump lose in 2020, but that the election in Biden's favor was far more lop sided than many believe. Why? Because, nobody ever researched evidence of fraud, on Trump's behalf- in some of the states in which he narrowly won. And I do believe that there was evidence of fraud committed in Trump's behalf in those states; of Biden votes being "Misplaced" and machines flipping Biden votes to Trump.

Now, I admit there is no evidence of this whatsoever, so there is no factual basis for me to believe this. However, because this claim was never investigated, it cannot be debunked either.

On the other hand, all the claims of fraud in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Pensyllvania, including the "2000 mules," HAS been researched extensively, and debunked repeatedly. Therefore, the belief that Trump only lost because of "fraud," or a "Rigged election" has even LESS basis for reality than my claim, above, that Biden should have won by a much larger margin due to fraud on Trump's behalf.

 

[deckardB26354]

And the king of Gen Z guys who think women are supposed to squirt.

Why don’t you go flog yourself to a picture of your Orange Fuhrer.

 

[beckiefalwell]

Let's take a break and listen to Stephanie Ruhle. The hell with RG.

 

[beckiefalwell]

Fuck Ted Cruz. Vote for and/or donate to his campaign. Beauty may be skin deep but Cruz and his wife are proof that ugliness goes right down to the bone.

 

[Bray123]

The felon was on Faux Entertainment yesterday whining that he had been indicted for interfering in the election, which he had every right to do.

We'll take that as a guilty plea then.

 

[ll74]

Thank you for adding another conspiracy nut case to the older ones. Meanwhile... Trump lost the election.

Trucker's Deposition

The trucker's twenty-eight-page deposition says he was a trucker that carried what he thought were ballots, maybe. He doesn't know for sure if they were, but they looked like it. When asked if the ballots were already marked [they were inside containers, and he couldn't open them.], he said, 'I think so.'

Yep, fraudulent activities, for sure.

The problem is that people don't care whether evidence being presented actually supports their conclusions. It does to them.

Saying a cell phone shows that someone was around a ballot box multiple times, indicates to those who believe that fraud occurred that someone was there to commit fraud. To those who don't, it just shows that a cell phone of a person was in the vicinity of a ballot box multiple times and does not explain anything else.

And again.....I go back to the well known exclamation of the right ....."we all know...." When a sentence starts off with that, it's because the author is prepping the reader to expect the overall conclusion prior to knowing any details of the evidence.

 

[HisArpy]

My biggest issue with IcanharpyTzang is exactly this. It is a sign of emotional immaturity, being unable to accept reality.
A mature person can admit the truth of the world, while a child will cling to his belief in the Easter Bunny even after it is proven the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

IcanHarpy's insistence that 2020 was a "Rigged Election" in Biden's favor is just that- childish.

I believe, honestly, that not only did Trump lose in 2020, but that the election in Biden's favor was far more lop sided than many believe. Why? Because, nobody ever researched evidence of fraud, on Trump's behalf- in some of the states in which he narrowly won. And I do believe that there was evidence of fraud committed in Trump's behalf in those states; of Biden votes being "Misplaced" and machines flipping Biden votes to Trump.

Now, I admit there is no evidence of this whatsoever, so there is no factual basis for me to believe this. However, because this claim was never investigated, it cannot be debunked either.

On the other hand, all the claims of fraud in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Pensyllvania, including the "2000 mules," HAS been researched extensively, and debunked repeatedly. Therefore, the belief that Trump only lost because of "fraud," or a "Rigged election" has even LESS basis for reality than my claim, above, that Biden should have won by a much larger margin due to fraud on Trump's behalf.

Yea... no.

 

[ll74]

Yea... no.

Which part of the law enforcement statement do you believe to be incorrect or invalid regarding 2000 mules. Please, be specific and provide sources.

 

[Bray123]

---

---

https://newrepublic.com/post/185544/notorious-maga-fraudsters-ai-lobbying-scam

Found the steal!

 

[HisArpy]

Which part of the law enforcement statement do you believe to be incorrect or invalid regarding 2000 mules. Please, be specific and provide sources.

Perhaps we can begin with Pox 'n Gargle's assumption that I'm a bunch of Alts and go downhill from there.

I mean if he can't get that straight, nothing else he posts is of any greater value or truthfulness. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[ll74]

Perhaps we can begin with Pox 'n Gargle's assumption that I'm a bunch of Alts and go downhill from there.

I mean if he can't get that straight, nothing else he posts is of any greater value or truthfulness. Wouldn't you agree?

So you won't refute their statement regarding 2000 mules.

Thanks for confirming

 

[HisArpy]

So you won't refute their statement regarding 2000 mules.

Thanks for confirming

IF one begins with a lie, and then continually repeats said lie despite being corrected, then it logically follows that whatever else is stated by that individual is also a lie.

THAT is what's called reality.

Oh, before I go, have I told you lately that you lie? A lot.

Welcome to your 2nd dose of reality this morning.

 

[Bray123]

IF one begins with a lie, and then continually repeats said lie despite being corrected, then it logically follows that whatever else is stated by that individual is also a lie.

THAT is what's called reality.

Oh, before I go, have I told you lately that you lie? A lot.

Welcome to your 2nd dose of reality this morning.

Does that apply to Trump?

 

[HisArpy]

Does that apply to Trump?

"But, but, Trump" only earns you a fuck off.

 

[ll74]

IF one begins with a lie, and then continually repeats said lie despite being corrected, then it logically follows that whatever else is stated by that individual is also a lie.

Yes, you believe 2000 mules makes valid conclusions regarding the election, so that tracks.

THAT is what's called reality.

That you're avoiding

Oh, before I go, have I told you lately that you lie? A lot.

Welcome to your 2nd dose of reality this morning.

You deflect a lot.

2000 mules is disinformation and inaccurate conclusions based on the data they have available.

So you stating that their conclusions are accurate is incorrect.

As mentioned, if the law enforcement statement was entered into evidence, I would give it more weight than your statements.