Masterton

The claim is only "astonishing" to you because of your chosen "news" sources not reporting on it in order to further their narrative. How about using some of that intellectual curiosity to educate and inform yourself? It is not my job to eduate you, if you want to engage in a discussion about ways in which the 2020 election was stolen, then I suggest you better inform yourself. In any event, dwell in ignorance or not, I will not be responding further.

I suggest you change the title and content of the original post to be exclisively about voter fraud instead of continuously trying to deflect to that topic every time someone posts about potential ways the election could've been / was stolen. Just a suggestion to save and/or not waste anyone's time further.

You have a point. Anyone who gets their news from the Democrat Propaganda fake news media will of course have no knowledge of these facts, nor will they possess the intellectual curiosity to research it.

Says the person who still doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Both are meaningless if they are not allowed to be presented in a court case. As others have repeatedly pointed out to you, most of the cases with merit were refused on procedural and standing grounds. And once again, you do not seem to understand that the thread is about the 2020 election being stolen, and as I pointed out previously, there were other factors involved in addition to 'voter fraud' which you can't seem to be able to see past. The deliberate and co-ordinated suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in itself was enough to sway the election. Stop blabbering on about voter fraud and proof, you are clearly trolling and are not worthy of any further response.

What a completely idiotic comment. There are no such things as 'fake electors'. Perhaps you should get your information from sources other than Democrat Party propaganda and do your research about elections and history. Opposing parties sending alternate slates of electors is not only legal, but in the case of the 1960 election resulted in the alternate (Democrat) slate being granted the votes. Do your own research and form your own viewpoints instead of blindly parroting fake news propaganda.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about (as usual). It is common knowledge that Pensylvania violated the terms of their own constitustion when they illegally changed their voting laws leading up to the election. No 'proof' was required by Texas to offer in order to raise the case. Just because the courts refused to hear the case, does not mean Texas were wrong to pursue it. Many legal minds absolutely disagree that Texas did not have standing, it is just one of the many injustices related to the 2020 election farce.

Followed up by a short winded way to demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Thanks for proving my points by the way... 🙄

Anyone who gets their information and "news" from the Democrat mainstream media will never believe that there was any impropriety in the 2020 election and they will believe until their dying day that it was the most secure election in history. It is a completely pointless debate because nobody on either side will ever change their opinion on it. You basically have those on one side who know what happened, and those on the other side who have been lied to and gaslit by the media and think they know. When mail in balloting was found to favour Republican votes in the past, the Dems and their dishonest media sang a very different tune. When they used it to cheat in the 2020 election then all of a sudden it was perfect. There were several factors involved in stealing the election and it was not only down to mail in ballot fraud. For example Pensylvania changed their election laws in a way that violated their constitution. And the media and social platforms deliberately supressed the Hunter Biden laptop story (which turned out to be 100% true). That alone was enough to sway the results according to research done later. Too many on here blindly repeating nonsense they heard in the media rather than doing any credible research for themselves and informing themselves of facts. The cases filed were not all by Trump and they were not lost due to the claims being without evidence. They were declined due to standing etc. There was a ton of evidence, it was just not heard. There is a difference between evidence and proof. Trump got more votes than any sitting president in US history and he only "lost" by a few thousand votes in a few swing states (popular vote is meaningless), states that he was mostly leading the day after the election until the they started counting the mail in ballots behind closed doors which took weeks and which amazingly seemed to mostly be for Biden. Yeah not odd at all.... Way too much to go into, but if anyone thinks the 2020 election was not stolen, and if you really believe that Biden got more votes than Obama and Clinton, then you really are living in fantasy land...

A bigger load of claptrap, I have not read of late. I can't be bothered to address every ridiculous point, but just to educate you, the confederacy and the KKK were creations of the Democrat Party. You're welcome.

FWIW, I was looking for a synching solution to maintain backup copies of my drives and I "auditioned" a few of the programs that were highly ranked in the best of lists. I ended up choosing to use one called Synchredible made by a German software company called Ascomp. So I recommend you try that one and see if it suits your needs. It is also totally free for personal use.

Yeah I don't think that is correct... The visa is valid for 6 months meaning you can only use it up until the expiry date. If you enter 1 day before the visa expires then you can get stamped in for 2 months (plus you can extend 1 month at immigration), so techinically you can get +/- 9 months usage out of it, but there is no resetting the validity date upon re-entry that I am aware of.

What are you blabbering on about? How about you share with us where in my post (which you quoted), I said anything about the state should own the means of production? 🙄

Yes indeed... Funny how they never refer to themselves in articles as "far left" or "hard left", ever noticed that? The UK barely has a center anymore, you get to choose between left and far left.

Nice to see some of the posters on this thread have been let out of their straightjackets long enough to contribute to the thread. The article, in referring to CPAC as "hard right", should already tell you all you need to know about the source (The Guardian... 🙄) and their readership.

This is why you should never stick your stick in crazy... Bet her boyfriend had fun while it lasted though... 🤐

Don't you ever tire of simply repeating Democrat propaganda talking points? Trump did not "send a mob" to the Capitol. Stop talking nonsense. You also know damn well what he meant when he said "fight like hell", just like virtually every other politician has said in the past, including Democrats. Furthermore, the "rampage" at the Capitol started before Trump said that people "should march peacefully and patriotically to make their voices heard". The people who determined that the stolen election was "a lie" were the people on the side of those who "won" it. The people who stormed the Capitol did not do so "after being sent there by Trump". You are the one who needs to "keep up". With reality. Trump offered 10,000 National Guard to protect the Capitol and this offer was turned down by Pelosi. One can only wonder why. You ask "what audit" shows suspicious results? Perhaps you fail to recall that the Democrats opposed any audits be done (Not suspicious at all right?). A recount is NOT an audit, and logic would dictate that illegal ballots would still be counted in a recount, it is not rocket science...

2016 called.... It wants it's fake news back... 🙄

Lol.. The NY Times is a great example of fake news. If you think they are a credible news source, then you greatly mistaken... Er... no. Perhaps you should research this a bit more and delve into it a bit deeper. You will not find what you are looking for in the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC etc. They lied and promoted this hoax and then failed to report / cover up all the evidence that proved it to be a setup. Anyway, not going to get into this topic, and will not comment on it any further.

The reason why the cable news networks gave him "ridiculous amounts of airtime for free" (did they charge the Clinton campaign for airtime?), was two fold. Firstly, he was good for ratings and they cashed in on his popularity/unpopularity. Secondly, being that they were mostly all in the tank for Clinton/Democrats, they believed he would not win. How wrong they were. If Trump ran as a Democrat, they MSM would not have attacked him the way they did, promoting pseudo events and hoaxes in order to try and discredit his policies and popularity and/or lying and covering up for his opponent. The MSM has a history of attacking Republicans, it is not something unique to Trump. But Trump was the first one to fight back and call them out on it. The fact that you "would definitely believe MSM stories" is self evident, but we're all still waiting for evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians... 🙄

Not sure he made up the tag MSM, but he was certainly the first 'mainstream' person to use the term 'fake news', which is basically a simplified way of stating that the media create pseudo events and then use them as an excuse to slander people. I completely disagree that Trump drew first blood, in fact Trump was the first person to stand up to the dishonest media and fight back. The media mercilessly attacked Trump from the moment he declared he was running for President, mainly because he committed the cardinal sin of running as a Republican. If Trump ran as a Democrat, he would be their darling.

Why are you still persisting with this? Firstly, I pointed out to another low-information fake news consuming sufferer, who posted a link entitled "Trump vows to expand Muslim ban if he wins presidency", that THERE WAS NEVER ANY MUSLIM BAN. It was a dishonest headline, and that was the point that I made. Especially as I pointed out that nowhere in the article did it attribute any of Trump's claims or quotes to specifically banning Muslims. Typical fake news. Secondly, you injected yourself into the situation by claiming rather ridiculously that the article in question said "nothing about a ban on all Muslims" when it was literally how the article was framed with the headline, and it was in reference to the headline posted that I was responding. I am not letting anything "misguide me as to reality", as I am the one pointing out the reality.

Yes, I am fully aware that purveyors of fake news propaganda and anti Trump conspiracy theories "commonly" refer to the travel ban as a "Muslim ban", that is the whole point... And no, it is not "more accurately called a Muslim travel ban", and no, it (a Muslim ban) did not happen. A travel ban comprising several countries which were failed states or associated with terrorism were on the list, the fact that a lot of them were Muslim majority is completely irrelevant. Just as the fact that some of the countries were in Africa is irrelevant. Unless you are implying that all Muslims are terrorists? Interesting... 🙄 Interesting too how the the worlds top 6 most populous Muslim countries, comprising approx 1 BILLION Muslims, mysteriously did not appear on the travel ban? Wierd..... 🙄 But yeah sure, a "Muslim travel ban" happened....

Just curious if you are actually aware of the bill in question? It does nothing to solve the border issue, unless you think legalizing illegal immigration and speeding up the process by which fake asylum seekers can become citizens constitutes "solving the border issue" ?? The bill is a total disaster, regardless of who wrote it and who did or didn't vote for it. Furthermore the bill is totally unneccessary as the president can solve or worsen what is going on at the border by exectutive order, no bill is needed. Howabout he start by enforcing existing law? Just a suggestion.

Apart from the fact that part of the title of the article literally says "Trump pledges to ban Muslims from the U.S".... Seems you missed that part? The point which you clearly (or deliberately?) missed is that another low-information poster with TDS referenced a "Muslim ban" (which never existed and is fake news Democrat propaganda,) and then linked to a silly Guardian hitpiece which again is literally titled "Trump vows to expand Muslim ban". This type of reporting, and the repeating of it on this forum, is inaccurate and dishonest and you all know it. But you support and promote it and look the other way because it ties in with the whole BS Trump bad and Biden good narrative.

No, you are the one quoting and propagating pseudo events. The point that you clearly missed is that there was never any "muslim ban", it is and always was a fake narrative to discredit Trump amongst Muslim voters. Nowhere in any of the quotes or actual facts does it say anything about specifically banning Muslims. This is 2017 era propaganda, I don't need to 'keep up' with it.