6175
Comments (146)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
210
thunderpussy 210 points ago +210 / -0

Even worse, if you dared to suggest that votes be audited, or followed the Constitution, you were labelled a seditionist and traitor.

Orwellian doesn't begin to described the propaganda, lies, sophistry, and gas lighting that has become the MSM. They are enemies to humanity, as are their Big Tech doppel gangers'.

83
WishdoctorsSong 83 points ago +84 / -1

Seriously, if all 6 actual Biden supporters were so sure he won a historic victory, why wouldn't you submit to an audit to get those fucking Trumpers to shut up?

58
thunderpussy 58 points ago +59 / -1

No sane and legitimate government that was truly concerned about institutions of government would have handled this situation this way.

Any sane government would have agreed to a forensic ballot audit, and then proposed sweeping election reforms with fraud prevention as the number one goal.

Without faith in elections, no country can truly be called a democratic Republic.

That NONE of these things have been done, and indeed the mere suggestion of them invokes screams of "Sedition!", speaks VOLUMES as to just how illegitimate our government has become.....

13
SteelMongoose 13 points ago +13 / -0

I'm not aware of a single court in which evidence was presented, evaluated, and judged. The entire argument from one side was that the issues shouldn't be examined or discussed. There's no doubt what's that sort of argument means.

10
thunderpussy 10 points ago +10 / -0

Most of the courts used every technicality in the book to PREVENT having to hear the evidence....they didn't want it out in open court.

7
Frog_Anne 7 points ago +7 / -0

Plus NONE of them would agree to a full forensic audit, which is how you can get the PROOF. Witnesses, affidavits, all the other evidence pointed to huge amounts of fraud. It was clear proof of the need for an audit to determine the scope of the fraud.

They just kept going in circles, "no, you need proof to get an audit!" "let us audit so we can get proof!"

11
dixond 11 points ago +11 / -0

This is the only correct take. Now extend what this means to the 'laws and social norms' that we all operate under.

6
thunderpussy 6 points ago +6 / -0

Indeed.

2
Psyop2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

Al Gore got to inspect ballots and was heard by Supreme Court. What changed?

1
thunderpussy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Democrat. They are unaccountable and assailable, apparently.

4
snoopy3210 4 points ago +4 / -0

Let's be precise :
Fact checkers hired at big tech are the one doing the censorship.
These people are maniacs.
For example one of them was a scientist who worked at the Wuhan lab and (I'm not kidding) she was angry because people were saying the virus may have leaked from the lab. She made a fact check and said the lab was safe and secure. I'm not joking here. She had worked there (a P4 lab). They attacked zerohedge for talking about the lab leak theory. NIH sent millions to the Wuhan lab and apparently Americans like her were working there. I'm sure she regretted to have unwillingly exposing that fact.

2
USAFpatriot1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

History is written by the victors as they say. For the longest time the only fact checking was done by snopes, which is owned by the lefties. Big tech thinks they can control all the information and we let them. But the internet was built to survive nuclear wars! There are alternatives out there, shit just look at the pirate bay... how long have they been trying to shut that down? We can survive this unless they institute the great firewall of Chyna here too.

The 2A was written to keep a tyrannical government from taking over. We must fight back!

2
snoopy3210 2 points ago +2 / -0

True. But my fear is the Pentagon is trying to ban free speech and the Pentagon developed the IP protocol for the Internet.