Comments (11)
sorted by:
4
Yolobaggins 4 points ago +4 / -0

I’m not as confident this week

All this talk and I still haven’t seen OFFICIAL action

2
Winter_Is_Coming2020 2 points ago +2 / -0
  • The commissioner of the FEC declared this election illegitimate
  • our GEOTUS just restructured some key positions.

Not sure how much weight the first will carry in the courts or why Trump would change key personnel in his admin unless he knew he wasn’t going anywhere

Trump tweeted 2.7 M votes were deleted or moved away from him, he’s got some top notch talent on his Team, I think they have the proof and haven’t shown it yet

There were rumors pre-election the CIA (deep state) would fuck with election results via election hacking, I honestly think there was no support for a decrepit senile old man (Biden) and there was widespread fraud (all diff kinds, fake ballots, etc).

2
blacktankguy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Slaughtermeter = 95% for trump. Evidently there is irrefutable evidence that has yet to come out. Lots of insiders talking about it. Try to be patient...I know it’s hard.

2
pepperedtrail 2 points ago +3 / -1

It's bad. GA is fucked.

However MI and PA are the only states where we have hopes of flipping.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Woodburningstove 2 points ago +2 / -0

Calm down, this isn’t like the drive thru at McDonalds, none of this is instant. Either your gloomers or you need to bone up on the legal process. All the “bad” Georgia recount does is bolster the case for Fraud to the Supreme Court.

2
slag 2 points ago +2 / -0

PA judge just set precedent that late ballot exception did not follow state law (for the specific ballots after the 9th in this limited smaller case). Sets foundation for reversing any other election changes that violated state law (e.g. all mail in ballots past 3 nov). Good start.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
Nes61 1 point ago +1 / -0

So if they don’t drop information when YOU want it, they have no hope of winning? Hmm

2
colonial113 2 points ago +2 / -0

No that's not what I said, but the first part of your sentence is valid. What I said is that we need optics as well. I know: law doesn't care about optics (well, it shouldn't), however as I see it we must counter the msm narrative.