For those who need proof of election fraud....

I'd accept any court case that looked at the evidence and convicted anyone of fraud. How many court cases have been tossed out because of no evidence? 70 now? Here's what happens, trump and associates claim all this fraud in media, but when it goes to court the judges (even trump appointed judges) look at what they have and kick them out of court. Trumptards keep saying "it's coming", well where is it? We're waiting. Originally Posted by royamcr

Has there been a court case that reviewed the alleged evidence yet? Or have all the Court cases been dismissed by lack of standing? Does lack of standing invalidate evidence?

Regardless of party affiliation, if there were fraud at the levels being alleged, then the election officials were likely involved... Do you think they would verify that there was fraud that they were a part of?

Therefor you're essentially saying there is no way to prove fraud ever. Originally Posted by texassapper

Why would people who have openly supported Donald Trump be involved in voter fraud to keep him from being reelected?

Even though your response borders on the ridiculous, I'll make it easier on you.

Give me an unbiased 3rd party who has substantiated any of the claims of voter fraud and provided any proof to support the allegations.

ta has a valid point
SR will never , ever, ever admit the fraud of teh corrupt, power mad DPST party to which he kneels in obedience.

Why would people who have openly supported Donald Trump be involved in voter fraud to keep him from being reelected? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Are you one of those fools that thinks we have two opposing political parties rather than a ruling elite and everyone else they view as a serf class?

Give me an unbiased 3rd party who has substantiated any of the claims of voter fraud and provided any proof to support the allegations. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Who would you qualify as an unbiased 3rd party?

Are you one of those fools that thinks we have two opposing political parties rather than a ruling elite and everyone else they view as a serf class?

Who would you qualify as an unbiased 3rd party? Originally Posted by texassapper

Anyone not and never has been a trumptard or in any way associated with trump. Then the same as a supervisor.

Why would we consider someone anti Trump unbiased? It was one biased side who clusterfucked the election, they’ll obviously never admit it so it’ll have to be the other side responsible for unfucking it.

There is only one person that clusterfucked a free and fair election. No fraud has been proven in 9 months.

Has there been a court case that reviewed the alleged evidence yet? Or have all the Court cases been dismissed by lack of standing? Does lack of standing invalidate evidence? Originally Posted by texassapper

That is how courts work, early on there is a discovery process where evidence is shared. Oh there is no evidence? Case closed.

The election has been covered by CNN, Time, CBS, WaPo, NYT, etc. And what story has the WaPo gotten wrong that they didn't correct? Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

It's not a question of getting the story "wrong" as much as it's making the (Ohio primary) election front-page news beforehand, then burying the outcome afterwards deep within their print and online editions, so few people will see it.

The first paragraph of his statement told how big a headline the primaries were.
At the end of his statement he claims it was barely covered.
What an asshole. Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Now you're the liar. The Ohio primary race was a headline before the ballots were cast and counted. Once it became clear the Trump-endorsed candidate won, the result was barely covered. You make it seem like Trump contradicted himself when he didn't.

Very true. The election was covered by most networks before and after the election...

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-blame...n-lost-1616204 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No, munchy's post is very UNTRUE. There were two elections. Both were given MSM attention prior to the votes. After the votes, the one in Texas (where the Trump-endorsed candidate lost) garnered most of the MSM attention while the one in Ohio (where the Trump-endorsed candidate won) was downplayed.

Your Newsweek link corroborates this. The headline is about the TX primary. The reader has to wade halfway through the story before the OH primary is mentioned.

C'mon speedy. You understand how media bias works. It can be brazen and egregious, or subtle and nuanced. Fortunately, most Americans are smart enough to recognize both types of bias.

Nobody really gives a shit about Ohio primary anyway. It is a nothingburger. There were 100s of other primaries not covered. It is a local thing.

Nobody really gives a shit about Ohio primary anyway. It is a nothingburger. There were 100s of other primaries not covered. It is a local thing. Originally Posted by royamcr

Except when trumpy endorses someone who loses, as in Texas. Then it becomes national front-page news.

That is how courts work, early on there is a discovery process where evidence is shared. Oh there is no evidence? Case closed. Originally Posted by royamcr

That’s definitely NOT how courts work. At all.

Are you one of those fools that thinks we have two opposing political parties rather than a ruling elite and everyone else they view as a serf class?

Who would you qualify as an unbiased 3rd party? Originally Posted by texassapper

I'll make it even easier for you.

Give me an allegation that YOU believe has been substantiated as significant voter fraud in Arizona or Georgia.

If you say Dominion servers changed votes from Trump to Biden supply proof that that happened.

If you say illegal voters voted for Biden in the thousands supply prooof that that happened.

If you say votes were rescanned several times provide proof that that happened.

Remember that a hand recount of votes was done in Georgia and the results matched the machine output.

.

C'mon speedy. You understand how media bias works. It can be brazen and egregious, or subtle and nuanced. Fortunately, most Americans are smart enough to recognize both types of bias. Originally Posted by lustylad

All I can say is I read about the Ohio results the very next day.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...lection-502351

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/03/polit...lts/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/u...ike-carey.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...io/5477960001/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...-ohio-n1275875

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rimary-in-ohio

https://www.yahoo.com/now/trump-back...014200949.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tru...io-2021-08-04/

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trump-s-...ohio-1.1636258

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/08/03/...15th-district/