It is not up to us to show "enough" fraud to change the outcome. It is up to the government to show that they held a legitimate election and to produce the receipts proving it.
This is what I'm not understanding. There's obviously a lot of people who are questioning this election, but they won't even entertain the idea of it. They just tell you to not talk about it. How dare you question this election after we did it for 4 years. It's so aggravating.
Check the evidence that has been put forth. It shows that there was enough fraud bu Democrat operatives to steal the Election from Trump. It is a matter of getting that info in front of the courts and state legislatures. We still have work to do. Let’s roll.
This is the best database compilation I have seen of the evidence. If any lib clown asks you for evidence, this is what you should provide. You could take an entire week of time and not even sift your way through all of the sources provided here.
There is a line atheists love to use against Christians: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I agree; however, this line only tells me what to do in the face of an extraordinary claim, not how to identify extraordinary claims.
So when applied to voting fraud and/or irregularities: is it more reasonable to assume no voter fraud/irregularities or the existence of voter fraud/irregularities?
I think the answer is it is more extraordinary to assume no fraud/irregularities. There is a lot of money and power that rides on who wins an election that it is unreasonable to assume people would not cheat in order to win.
It is not up to us to show "enough" fraud to change the outcome. It is up to the government to show that they held a legitimate election and to produce the receipts proving it.
This is what I'm not understanding. There's obviously a lot of people who are questioning this election, but they won't even entertain the idea of it. They just tell you to not talk about it. How dare you question this election after we did it for 4 years. It's so aggravating.
Check the evidence that has been put forth. It shows that there was enough fraud bu Democrat operatives to steal the Election from Trump. It is a matter of getting that info in front of the courts and state legislatures. We still have work to do. Let’s roll.
I found hereistheevidence.com
Great resource.
good source
enter text
This is the best database compilation I have seen of the evidence. If any lib clown asks you for evidence, this is what you should provide. You could take an entire week of time and not even sift your way through all of the sources provided here.
Seriously. Multiple key states won by less 1% and we are not even going to take a casual second look?
DOJ/Barr were in on the steal. No one will get any investigating cooperation.
That’s got me scratching my head over Cruz.
TBH, I think this is flipped on its head.
There is a line atheists love to use against Christians: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I agree; however, this line only tells me what to do in the face of an extraordinary claim, not how to identify extraordinary claims.
So when applied to voting fraud and/or irregularities: is it more reasonable to assume no voter fraud/irregularities or the existence of voter fraud/irregularities?
I think the answer is it is more extraordinary to assume no fraud/irregularities. There is a lot of money and power that rides on who wins an election that it is unreasonable to assume people would not cheat in order to win.
If you don't look at the evidence you cannot judge it.