Stolen Elections


That accounted for 255,000 ā€œexcessā€ votes for Mr. Biden above what would be expected, Mr. Lott said. His paper has been accepted for publication in Public Choice, a peer-reviewed journal specializing in the intersection of economics and political science.

Read it and common sense will tell you there was fraud. A set of numbers easily provable with public data.
 

Whole world knows it and are sitting there in total dumbfoundedness that we are doing nothing about it.
 
Perhaps you can go fuck yourself and then shut your idiot trap anyway!

You only comment now, in fucking late March, about a post I posted in December? You need a hobby suitable to your cognitive skills: coloring books maybe.
It might be that you are continuously wrong and you don't like being pinged for it.
I'll comment when I like and you can suck eggs. I don't care what you and rant your childish put downs until your happy.

You don't intimidate me dickhead. Have another go you brain dead fool.
 
It might be that you are continuously wrong and you don't like being pinged for it.
I'll comment when I like and you can suck eggs. I don't care what you and rant your childish put downs until your happy.

You don't intimidate me dickhead. Have another go you brain dead fool.
Poor colon. I was right. You are still wrong. And it is funny as fuck that you need to find such old material to try to ā€œgetā€ me on. Of course, as always, you fail despite that search.

You are intimidated, shithole. Why? Because you know youā€™ve never had any chance to refute me. You keep swinging. But you are utterly unable to land a glove. Your latest effort was another very special fail.

If you have anything to say, youā€™re free to take more swings and misses.
 
Poor colon. I was right. You are still wrong. And it is funny as fuck that you need to find such old material to try to ā€œgetā€ me on. Of course, as always, you fail despite that search.

You are intimidated, shithole. Why? Because you know youā€™ve never had any chance to refute me. You keep swinging. But you are utterly unable to land a glove. Your latest effort was another very special fail.

If you have anything to say, youā€™re free to take more swings and misses.

Youre parroting me now.
If you continue to leave yourself open, I'll continue to jam you.
 

Seventeen percent of biden voters said they would have voted differently had they had the information about Humper Biden's laptop.
 
yeah. This is a photo of a strong president you can have confidence in.

1648526855850.png
 
Youre parroting me now.
If you continue to leave yourself open, I'll continue to jam you.
You couldnā€™t jam a piece of toast, colon. And no matter how much you think you want me, the answer will always be the same. I am not into body organs stuffed with shit, but I do appreciate the foresight of those who named you. How they knew what youā€™d turn out to be? Remarkable.
:itsok:

Ok. Back on topic. As I said in that old opening post of mine; there is indeed crystal clear evidence suggestive of election fraud. What morons like you canā€™t quite grasp is that observing it and saying it isnā€™t the same thing as claiming that the evidence is sufficient to amount to proof. Then again, I didnā€™t say it was. Poor pathetic you.

Now, feel free to bitch and moan and whine and cry some more.
606EC368-F75C-4614-A837-48B60D41B450.jpeg
 

That accounted for 255,000 ā€œexcessā€ votes for Mr. Biden above what would be expected, Mr. Lott said. His paper has been accepted for publication in Public Choice, a peer-reviewed journal specializing in the intersection of economics and political science.

Read it and common sense will tell you there was fraud. A set of numbers easily provable with public data.

LOL

Imagine that? A Trump appointee who years ago created a fictitious character to defend his bullshit looks at some numbers (not ballots) and cries, "fraud!!!"

This is my shocked face --> :lol:

You're literally getting loonier with each passing day, FruitLoops. :cuckoo:
 
You couldnā€™t jam a piece of toast, colon. And no matter how much you think you want me, the answer will always be the same. I am not into body organs stuffed with shit, but I do appreciate the foresight of those who named you. How they knew what youā€™d turn out to be? Remarkable.
:itsok:

Ok. Back on topic. As I said in that old opening post of mine; there is indeed crystal clear evidence suggestive of election fraud. What morons like you canā€™t quite grasp is that observing it and saying it isnā€™t the same thing as claiming that the evidence is sufficient to amount to proof. Then again, I didnā€™t say it was. Poor pathetic you.

Now, feel free to bitch and moan and whine and cry some more. View attachment 622807
As I said your the only one who saw the evidence.
Not even the gop funded audit found it and I know you hate me reminding you of that.
So bang away with your childish rebuttals. Stick to your bible son. Its the only chance you ever have.
 
As I said your the only one who saw the evidence.
Not even the gop funded audit found it and I know you hate me reminding you of that.
So bang away with your childish rebuttals. Stick to your bible son. Its the only chance you ever have.
ā€œIn some of those swing states, you had counties where vote fraud was alleged. In some of those swing states, you had counties where vote fraud wasnā€™t alleged. And yet you only had huge increases in turnout where vote fraud was alleged,ā€ he said.

Taking another tack, Mr. Lott looked at specific voting precincts that touched each other but where one was inside a Republican-dominant county and the other inside a Democratic-leaning county where there were fraud accusations.
 
ā€œIn some of those swing states, you had counties where vote fraud was alleged. In some of those swing states, you had counties where vote fraud wasnā€™t alleged. And yet you only had huge increases in turnout where vote fraud was alleged,ā€ he said.

Taking another tack, Mr. Lott looked at specific voting precincts that touched each other but where one was inside a Republican-dominant county and the other inside a Democratic-leaning county where there were fraud accusations.

Lott has no cred. To promote a book he wrote years ago, he created a fictitious character claiming to be a former student of his who fawned over his theories in a failed attempt to overcome criticisms. He was utterly humiliated when he got caught when a cyber sleuth figured out his "former student" was posting from his IP address.

:lmao:
 
Lott has no cred. To promote a book he wrote years ago, he created a fictitious character claiming to be a former student of his who fawned over his theories in a failed attempt to overcome criticisms. He was utterly humiliated when he got caught when a cyber sleuth figured out his "former student" was posting from his IP address.

:lmao:
Does not change the fact that counties that won the election had a magical turnout when other Democratic counties dropped in turnout. The drop was nationwide, but certain counties in the swing states were unaffected and everyone voted. I wonder why?

ā€œMore heavily Democratic counties actually had a slightly lower turnout in 2020, except for counties where vote fraud was alleged. In those counties, you had a huge increase in turnout,ā€ Mr. Lott told The Washington Times in an interview explaining his findings.
 
Does not change the fact that counties that won the election had a magical turnout when other Democratic counties dropped in turnout. The drop was nationwide, but certain counties in the swing states were unaffected and everyone voted. I wonder why?

ā€œMore heavily Democratic counties actually had a slightly lower turnout in 2020, except for counties where vote fraud was alleged. In those counties, you had a huge increase in turnout,ā€ Mr. Lott told The Washington Times in an interview explaining his findings.

LOLOL

So claims a dolt who creates fictitious characters to back his assertions because they don't stand on their own.
 
LOLOL

So claims a dolt who creates fictitious characters to back his assertions because they don't stand on their own.
The data does not lie, and it comes from those states, not Lott. Obvious fraud.
 
The data does not lie, and it comes from those states, not Lott. Obvious fraud.

The data doesn't but the interpreter of the data does. Lott is a Trump appointee who points out Biden was a far more desirable candidate among Democrats than was Hillary -- but then he calls that fraud.
 

Forum List

Back
Top