CDZ What would it take to change your mind re: 2020?

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don’t think Lindell’s advice is any less trustworthy that Fauci’s contradictions. At least Lindell doesn’t pretend to be a health expert.

I think if you give medical advice you are pretending to be a health expert.

That applies to fauci, too. You just agreed with me.

You're referring to DOCTOR Fauci?

Fauci’s contradictions usurp credentials.

 

[toobfreak]

I see you like the 'new' justice system. Not all of us do.

You are the people letting criminals go, and what I meant is people are being persecuted for their politics and that is what Communists do. That is the new justice system.

It is a radicalized leftwing justice system.

• Everyone who is an actual potential threat to the country, aliens and extremist-anarchist factions, the Democrats consider a top, high priority to induce into the country for "equality."
• Meantime, they let untold criminals and potential terrorists flood across the border while releasing floodgates of arrested convicts back out onto the streets.
• They criminalize and mock policing election integrity while proudly prosecuting those brave few who risk all for God and Country because of doubts in it.
• All the while trying to silence and cut off any and all who might question or criticize, from hiding behind barbed wire and assault rifles to vanquishing popular and successful politicians from office, mayors of cities, or anyone who even dares question the State.

This isn't a justice system, it is a thinly veiled Forth Reich of the Rich Globalists.

​

 

[toobfreak]

You are the people letting criminals go, and what I meant is people are being persecuted for their politics and that is what Communists do. That is the new justice system.

Which criminals have I let go? Besides Liz Cheney, who is being persecuted for their politics?

You have a problem with persecuting Lez for her politics? YOU JUST SPENT 5 YEAR PERSECUTING A PRESIDENT FOR HIS PRO-AMERICA POLITICS.

No doubt you persecuted GW Bush for 8 years for his war against terror in the ME.

As to criminals you've let go, I assume you mean besides Hillary, you might want to consider these:

Report: Biden Order Halts 'Arrest, Removal of Nearly All' Criminal Illegals

President Joe Biden's DHS order "will prevent the arrest and removal of nearly all" criminal illegal aliens who are on the radar of ICE.

www.breitbart.com

California Wants to Create 'Safer' Prisons by Letting 63,000 Violent Felons Onto the Streets

A spokeswoman said the 'changes would help to reduce the prison population by allowing incarcerated persons to earn their way home sooner.'

www.westernjournal.com

Biden's Promise To Cut The Prison Population In Half Means More Violent Crime | Crime in America.Net

Highlights Mr. Biden stated that he wants to release half of all prison inmates or reduce the US correctional population substantially through other means. Fifty-eight…

www.crimeinamerica.net

 

[Mac1958]

It wouldn't take much to change my mind about election fraud in 2020. It would look something like this:

1. A press conference is held that includes top representatives from both ends of the issue, election officials and state officials
2. Facts, data and evidence with which both sides agree are presented clearly and all materials are made available to the public
3. Conclusions of alleged fraud and alleged guilt with which both sides agree are presented fully and clearly
4. Recommendations are made and we quickly proceed legally from that point to fix the specific issues presented

No one-sided press conferences for either side, no ridiculous assumptions or extrapolations from either side, no rumors from either side, no leaks from either side, no spin from either side, no fantasy from either side. All of that crap has been flushed out during the discovery and analysis process. All we're getting is hard facts.

Are we still capable of this in America, or have we lost the capacity to agree on reality?

R e a l i t y

 

[beautress]

A simple question: What, specifically, would change your mind regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the 2020 election? Or, if a complete change is too much, what specifically would make you seriously question and reconsider your current view?

Is there anything? I've taken to asking this question around and been surprised to find that, despite the various calls for more investigations and audits, a great many people will openly declare that no conceivable findings could ever change their minds. Have our conclusions all become so absolute that they're immune to any possible evidence?

What would change my mind?

Several items come to mind.

(1) If those Hillary clingers pushing the Alinski method were convicted of breaking Eisenhower's 1954 anticommunist law were given a fair trial were sentenced to death immediately following their sentencing.

(2) If conspirators of the diverse "get Trump" reports and phony impeachment trials were sentenced to life sentences in Leavenworth fed pen with no possibility of parole and solitary confinement with no visitors for 35 years to include Representatives Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, for illicit calumny and their role in the harrassment and stalking of members of the Trump administration and President Trump himself, and

(3) Removal of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts for direliction of duty and craven cowardice in refusing to hear citizen and President Trump's case.

 

[badbob85037]

I can go first, since that's only fair.

There's a lot about the AZ audit that seems sketchy to me, but I know one thing they're supposedly doing is surveying people who are recorded as having voted to confirm that they did, in fact, vote. If Cyber Ninjas finds a major discrepancy on that front, I expect various other organizations or state governments will try to reproduce their results, both in Arizona and elsewhere. If those attempts consistently show a wide variance between recorded voters and self-reporting voters then, yeah, I'd have to get on board with the idea that something very sinister screwed with the 2020 election.

There are probably other ways to get there too, but that's the one strikes me as reasonable and not requiring any highly improbable events.

So that's what would change my mind now. Looking back I can see a number of times when, had things gone differently, I would have had to change my mind along the way. Many of them involved recounts, such as in Georgia, where there were claims that election workers had fed the same ballots through the machines over and over and over again. I was dubious (though that famous one video clip did make me stop and work on learning more), but if the recounts had significantly differed from the original count such that the ultimate result was in doubt, I was ready to conclude that the process of fundamentally compromised.

Another key moment was the Allied Securities audit of Atrium County in Michigan (remember that one?) when Russell Ramsland's analysis purportedly showed that the Dominion machines were systematically skewing the vote count. I have a friend who firmly believed that was the smoking gun and that a hand recount, without using the tampered machines, would prove it. I was iffy, Ramsland's track record is not great, but had to agree that if the machine count and the hand count were substantially different from one another, then yes there was clearly fraud happening in one or the other (if not both).

The other test I set for myself was watching State governors and State Sec. States. I knew a number of Republican governors and Sec. States were standing firmly by their state's results for Biden, which I thought was telling (particularly in the case of Kemp, who was pretty much universally acknowledged to be a pro-Trump Republican until that moment). What I wanted to see was if ANY Democratic governors or Sec States would call into question their state's results for Biden. E.G. Had Gov. Wolfe in Pennsylvania raised any doubt about the legitimacy of PA's result, that would have immediately called the whole thing into question for me.

None of that played out, of course. The GA recounts all agreed with a tiny margin of error, even on a county-by-county level; the Atrium county hand count was effectively the same as the machine count, wholly defying Ramsland's predictions; and as far as I know, not a single gov. or sec. scopa wit

A simple question: What, specifically, would change your mind regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the 2020 election? Or, if a complete change is too much, what specifically would make you seriously question and reconsider your current view?

Is there anything? I've taken to asking this question around and been surprised to find that, despite the various calls for more investigations and audits, a great many people will openly declare that no conceivable findings could ever change their minds. Have our conclusions all become so absolute that they're immune to any possible evidence?

It would take a whole bunch of arrests:

Poll workers who ran the same ballots through multiple times for example

IT professionals who rigged voting machines
Only Maricopa county hs being conted rght now W

 

[candycorn]

I can go first, since that's only fair.

There's a lot about the AZ audit that seems sketchy to me, but I know one thing they're supposedly doing is surveying people who are recorded as having voted to confirm that they did, in fact, vote. If Cyber Ninjas finds a major discrepancy on that front, I expect various other organizations or state governments will try to reproduce their results, both in Arizona and elsewhere. If those attempts consistently show a wide variance between recorded voters and self-reporting voters then, yeah, I'd have to get on board with the idea that something very sinister screwed with the 2020 election.

There are probably other ways to get there too, but that's the one strikes me as reasonable and not requiring any highly improbable events.

So that's what would change my mind now. Looking back I can see a number of times when, had things gone differently, I would have had to change my mind along the way. Many of them involved recounts, such as in Georgia, where there were claims that election workers had fed the same ballots through the machines over and over and over again. I was dubious (though that famous one video clip did make me stop and work on learning more), but if the recounts had significantly differed from the original count such that the ultimate result was in doubt, I was ready to conclude that the process of fundamentally compromised.

Another key moment was the Allied Securities audit of Atrium County in Michigan (remember that one?) when Russell Ramsland's analysis purportedly showed that the Dominion machines were systematically skewing the vote count. I have a friend who firmly believed that was the smoking gun and that a hand recount, without using the tampered machines, would prove it. I was iffy, Ramsland's track record is not great, but had to agree that if the machine count and the hand count were substantially different from one another, then yes there was clearly fraud happening in one or the other (if not both).

The other test I set for myself was watching State governors and State Sec. States. I knew a number of Republican governors and Sec. States were standing firmly by their state's results for Biden, which I thought was telling (particularly in the case of Kemp, who was pretty much universally acknowledged to be a pro-Trump Republican until that moment). What I wanted to see was if ANY Democratic governors or Sec States would call into question their state's results for Biden. E.G. Had Gov. Wolfe in Pennsylvania raised any doubt about the legitimacy of PA's result, that would have immediately called the whole thing into question for me.

None of that played out, of course. The GA recounts all agreed with a tiny margin of error, even on a county-by-county level; the Atrium county hand count was effectively the same as the machine count, wholly defying Ramsland's predictions; and as far as I know, not a single gov. or sec. scopa wit

A simple question: What, specifically, would change your mind regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the 2020 election? Or, if a complete change is too much, what specifically would make you seriously question and reconsider your current view?

Is there anything? I've taken to asking this question around and been surprised to find that, despite the various calls for more investigations and audits, a great many people will openly declare that no conceivable findings could ever change their minds. Have our conclusions all become so absolute that they're immune to any possible evidence?

It would take a whole bunch of arrests:

Poll workers who ran the same ballots through multiple times for example

IT professionals who rigged voting machines
Only Maricopa county hs being conted rght now W

Compelling. Lol

 

[beautress]

I doubt it is the passwords they want to protect, I'd guess it is the proprietary software. In any other case, you can get a court order if you can provide evidence, otherwise you're just fishing.

It is not fishing, it is demanding transparency. If Dominion will not cooperate I can only conclude like any thinking person would that there was fraud. What are they hiding?

Did you feel the same way when Trump refused to release his taxes after promising he would?

If I accused you of a crime but offered no evidence, should that be enough to have a court order a search of your house?

In our new justice system that is more than enough.

I see you like the 'new' justice system. Not all of us do.

You are the people letting criminals go, and what I meant is people are being persecuted for their politics and that is what Communists do. That is the new justice system.

Which criminals have I let go? Besides Liz Cheney, who is being persecuted for their politics?

What ? She's being persecuted for her stiletto in the heart of the 7.5 million Republican voters for President Trump, whom she persecuted since he stepped into the Oval office.

Get a grip, doll. I thought she got elected to represent conservative Republicans, not to get even with a Republican President who disagreed with one and only one point of view and said so out loud.

Ms. Cheney, if you are reading this, please start respecting people's right to disagree with you, and one who truly acted in the interests of conservatism, equal pay for equal work opportunities for persons of color who never had a chance to earn money well for three centuries heretofore. I have loved and/or voted for your parents for half a century, but please stop taking other Republicans to the chopping block with overbearing disdain for truly petty and forgettable differences. This crusade of yours against a man 97% of your party cast real votes for needs to cease and desist because the only thing the Demmies want is to turn peacekeeper America into a nothing burger communist oligarchy. We need you on our side to preserve and protect the constitution. Please reconsider some stuff and negotiate in a manner that is diplomatic with former President Trump. That's my best case, keeping in mind that I have loved the ground your courageous mom and dad walked on for 50 years. And best wishes on keeping your chair for the Equality State that was my home for 40 years. ♡♡♡♡♡

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Nothing will change my mind, as I've seen it happen before in the late 80's and again in the early 90's.

As a matter of fact, the Democrats were the ones calling "foul" on paper ballots, because several candidates lost because of their claims (the Dems) of using paper ballots were too easily sabotaged, plagiarized, copied, faked, forged, and counterfeited!!!

Thats why paper ballots were stopped and electronic voting machines appeared. The Dems claimed that paper ballots were too easily manipulated.

Since the Dems knew how easily paper ballots are corrupted and manipulated, they used it against Trump....once again showcasing their supreme hypocrisy and traitorous natures!!

 

[alang1216]

I don’t think Lindell’s advice is any less trustworthy that Fauci’s contradictions. At least Lindell doesn’t pretend to be a health expert.

I think if you give medical advice you are pretending to be a health expert.

That applies to fauci, too. You just agreed with me.

You're referring to DOCTOR Fauci?

Fauci’s contradictions usurp credentials.

Did Einstein 'usurp' Newton or did the science of physics just become more accurate as more data was amassed?

 

[alang1216]

You are the people letting criminals go, and what I meant is people are being persecuted for their politics and that is what Communists do. That is the new justice system.

Which criminals have I let go? Besides Liz Cheney, who is being persecuted for their politics?

You have a problem with persecuting Lez for her politics? YOU JUST SPENT 5 YEAR PERSECUTING A PRESIDENT FOR HIS PRO-AMERICA POLITICS.

No doubt you persecuted GW Bush for 8 years for his war against terror in the ME.

As to criminals you've let go, I assume you mean besides Hillary, you might want to consider these:

Report: Biden Order Halts 'Arrest, Removal of Nearly All' Criminal Illegals

President Joe Biden's DHS order "will prevent the arrest and removal of nearly all" criminal illegal aliens who are on the radar of ICE.

www.breitbart.com

California Wants to Create 'Safer' Prisons by Letting 63,000 Violent Felons Onto the Streets

A spokeswoman said the 'changes would help to reduce the prison population by allowing incarcerated persons to earn their way home sooner.'

www.westernjournal.com

Biden's Promise To Cut The Prison Population In Half Means More Violent Crime | Crime in America.Net

Highlights Mr. Biden stated that he wants to release half of all prison inmates or reduce the US correctional population substantially through other means. Fifty-eight…

www.crimeinamerica.net

I spent the last 4 years in disagreement with Trump since I don't consider him pro-American so much as pro-Trump.

I was OK with Bush overthrowing the Taliban although I think he did a poor job of it. I consider his invasion of Iraq the worst decision since Vietnam.

As for Hillary, I thought you had to be convicted of a crime to be considered a criminal? That whole innocent-until-proven-guilty stuff.

 

[toobfreak]

You are the people letting criminals go

I thought you had to be convicted of a crime to be considered a criminal? That whole innocent-until-proven-guilty stuff.

Never stopped the Left one second during the whole 4 years of Trump.

 

[sartre play]

Election has been certified, time to move forward, look for honest people working in the interests of the average American. Not those who work for party over country.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don’t think Lindell’s advice is any less trustworthy that Fauci’s contradictions. At least Lindell doesn’t pretend to be a health expert.

I think if you give medical advice you are pretending to be a health expert.

That applies to fauci, too. You just agreed with me.

You're referring to DOCTOR Fauci?

Fauci’s contradictions usurp credentials.

Did Einstein 'usurp' Newton or did the science of physics just become more accurate as more data was amassed?

Non sequitur.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A simple question: What, specifically, would change your mind regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the 2020 election? Or, if a complete change is too much, what specifically would make you seriously question and reconsider your current view?

Is there anything? I've taken to asking this question around and been surprised to find that, despite the various calls for more investigations and audits, a great many people will openly declare that no conceivable findings could ever change their minds. Have our conclusions all become so absolute that they're immune to any possible evidence?

Integration Created Disintegration

Splitup, as in Czechoslovakia. The two divisions of the formerly United States are incompatible and irreconcilable.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

A simple question: What, specifically, would change your mind regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the 2020 election? Or, if a complete change is too much, what specifically would make you seriously question and reconsider your current view?

Is there anything? I've taken to asking this question around and been surprised to find that, despite the various calls for more investigations and audits, a great many people will openly declare that no conceivable findings could ever change their minds. Have our conclusions all become so absolute that they're immune to any possible evidence?

Integration Created Disintegration

Splitup, as in Czechoslovakia. The two divisions of the formerly United States are incompatible and irreconcilable.

Not that bad. Just dissolve all media and rebuild it. Too many allow themselves to be brainwashed. That’s the real division right now. The sheep vs the curious.

 

[beautress]

A simple question: What, specifically, would change your mind regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the 2020 election? Or, if a complete change is too much, what specifically would make you seriously question and reconsider your current view?

Is there anything? I've taken to asking this question around and been surprised to find that, despite the various calls for more investigations and audits, a great many people will openly declare that no conceivable findings could ever change their minds. Have our conclusions all become so absolute that they're immune to any possible evidence?

Integration Created Disintegration

Splitup, as in Czechoslovakia. The two divisions of the formerly United States are incompatible and irreconcilable.

Not that bad. Just dissolve all media and rebuild it. Too many allow themselves to be brainwashed. That’s the real division right now. The sheep vs the curious.

You nailed it. Right on the head.

 

[alang1216]

I don’t think Lindell’s advice is any less trustworthy that Fauci’s contradictions. At least Lindell doesn’t pretend to be a health expert.

I think if you give medical advice you are pretending to be a health expert.

That applies to fauci, too. You just agreed with me.

You're referring to DOCTOR Fauci?

Fauci’s contradictions usurp credentials.

Did Einstein 'usurp' Newton or did the science of physics just become more accurate as more data was amassed?

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.

 

[toobfreak]

Did Einstein 'usurp' Newton or did the science of physics just become more accurate as more data was amassed?

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.

Actually, yes, Einstein essentially usurped Newton.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don’t think Lindell’s advice is any less trustworthy that Fauci’s contradictions. At least Lindell doesn’t pretend to be a health expert.

I think if you give medical advice you are pretending to be a health expert.

That applies to fauci, too. You just agreed with me.

You're referring to DOCTOR Fauci?

Fauci’s contradictions usurp credentials.

Did Einstein 'usurp' Newton or did the science of physics just become more accurate as more data was amassed?

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.

No, dummy.
You’re comparing actual scientific progress to bureaucracy.