Well the expert on dumb has weighed inblacksox said:
When Bill Barr says the film is nonsense and the publisher has an emergency pull of books it paid a buttload to publish, you know the premise is dumb.
2000 Mules
69,427 Views |
897 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by aggiehawg
I will as you as well. Were the people in the movie who were seen with multiple ballots at multiple drop boxes simply actors?TikkaShooter said:
Blows me away how many people were conned by the movie thinking it was real.
Well, take that premise. The Barr thread indicates possible motives not favorable to truth.cevans_40 said:Well the expert on dumb has weighed inblacksox said:
When Bill Barr says the film is nonsense and the publisher has an emergency pull of books it paid a buttload to publish, you know the premise is dumb.
The publisher pulling seems to regard to point (B) possible libel naming culprits.
But does it disprove or to point (A) - the mules and the fraud actions -- being false? That should remain the question here.
reasons people did not like the film: overwhelmingly concerning results from data analysis along with some video surveillance proof to corroborate some of it just wasn't enough for you, the low budget movie was just too jumbled and messy, etc. etc. etc. are not reasons "to be done with it". Those are BS excuses if you just want to chose to not believe the election was Fd up because your team won, you hate America, and you're loving the intentional destruction your team is doing right now. At the very minimum, the work from TTV should have sparked some concern and interest across the board instead of complete dismissal and censorship. Any sane person can see that mass mailing our elections with insecure voter reg rolls, insecure drop boxes, no real controls for validation or chain of custody, no accountability in the system --- these should be very concerning to anyone who values fair democratic elections and has any real interest in having a government of the people, by the people, for the people - the basic tenet of "democracy".
...and it's not just 2000 Mules that puts evidence to what non-brain-dead people already know
Welcome to Chester County, Pennsylvania.
— Ada Nestor (@AdaNestorWC) September 9, 2022
You'd think the authorities would be concerned about continuing to use these boxes, but instead they've added more for this election!@DonaldJTrumpJr @EricMMatheny @PolitiBunny @BreakingApp_ pic.twitter.com/UFxWBlvO9w
Exactly. They are arguing 2 separate issues but trying to make them the same.titan said:Well, take that premise. The Barr thread indicates possible motives not favorable to truth.cevans_40 said:Well the expert on dumb has weighed inblacksox said:
When Bill Barr says the film is nonsense and the publisher has an emergency pull of books it paid a buttload to publish, you know the premise is dumb.
The publisher pulling seems to regard to point (B) possible libel naming culprits.
But does it disprove or to point (A) - the mules and the fraud actions -- being false? That should remain the question here.
Can't take anything serious with that music. This is obviously a con job.oh no said:
...and it's not just 2000 Mules that puts evidence to what non-brain-dead people already knowWelcome to Chester County, Pennsylvania.
— Ada Nestor (@AdaNestorWC) September 9, 2022
You'd think the authorities would be concerned about continuing to use these boxes, but instead they've added more for this election!@DonaldJTrumpJr @EricMMatheny @PolitiBunny @BreakingApp_ pic.twitter.com/UFxWBlvO9w
Quote:
Exactly. They are arguing 2 separate issues but trying to make them the same.
It really should be the focus.
Is (A) [the basis premise/demonstration of the film] true or not.
Period. Motives for wanting Biden are obvious --- Left or globalist. It really doesn't matter where the money/recompense came from.
I think the Election thread shows his methodology tracking may work. But can't really say.
That's the amazing thing.
The movie never shows anyone at more than one box.
Millions of hours of CCTV footage they say. Millions.
And not one clip showing person A at Box 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, etc
Not. One. Clip.
The movie never shows anyone at more than one box.
Millions of hours of CCTV footage they say. Millions.
And not one clip showing person A at Box 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, etc
Not. One. Clip.
So you are speaking from having viewed it, and yes, that means your posts should be answered.TikkaShooter said:
That's the amazing thing.
The movie never shows anyone at more than one box.
Millions of hours of CCTV footage they say. Millions.
And not one clip showing person A at Box 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, etc
Not. One. Clip.
One ballot box is proof of a crimeTikkaShooter said:
That's the amazing thing.
The movie never shows anyone at more than one box.
Millions of hours of CCTV footage they say. Millions.
And not one clip showing person A at Box 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, etc
Not. One. Clip.
more (from another thread)oh no said:
...and it's not just 2000 Mules that puts evidence to what non-brain-dead people already knowWelcome to Chester County, Pennsylvania.
— Ada Nestor (@AdaNestorWC) September 9, 2022
You'd think the authorities would be concerned about continuing to use these boxes, but instead they've added more for this election!@DonaldJTrumpJr @EricMMatheny @PolitiBunny @BreakingApp_ pic.twitter.com/UFxWBlvO9w
Quote:
https://rumble.com/v1iuvdk-shocking-13-min.-of-never-before-seen-footage-of-ballot-trafficking-in-detr.html
How can anyone defend this? There should be zero drop boxes.
Clip #1- Heilmann Recreation Center. A woman deposits a stack of about 50 ballots while another woman appears to be videotaping her. Both are wearing face masks.
Clip #2- Horatio Williams Foundation. A person in a vehicle has a stack of ballots which he takes a phone picture of and then hands it off to another man, who does not appear to be an election official, outside his car who holds the stack up next to the drop box and then carries the ballots off. Sound secure to you?
Clip #3- Liberty Temple (a stand alone drop box, not associated with a satellite voting center ie SVC). A woman wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt deposits what initially appeared to be 3 ballots, but actually turned out to be about 6.
Clip #4- Liberty Temple. A person made 11 motions in dropping ballots into the drop box with what appeared to be multiple ballots with each motion. The estimated amount dropped would be 30 to 40 ballots.
Clip #5- Coleman A. Young Municipal Center. A person had about 5 unsealed ballots which were deposited all at once after sealing them.
Clip #6- Farwell Recreation Center. A minimum of 7 or 8 ballots was deposited.
Clip #7- Palmer Community House. A woman who appeared to be a health care worker deposited at least 6 or more ballots.
Clip #8- Farwell Recreation Center. A woman deposited about 6 ballots.
Clip #9- Heilmann Recreation Center. A man deposited at least 5 ballots.
Clip #10-Kemeny Recreation Center. A woman had a stack of multiple ballots which she deposited all at once.
Clip #11- Farwell Recreation Center. A man deposits 6 ballots from a vehicle.
Clip #12- Liberty Temple. A woman deposits a stack of ballots.
Clip #13- Pistons Performance Center. A man with a phone deposits 5 ballots.
Clip #14- North Rosedale Park. A woman with a mask deposits 6 ballots.
Clip #15- Balduck Park. A person on the passenger side of a red truck takes a pic of the drop box and center. A vehicle then drives up with what appears to be a female health care worker who deposits 8 ballots.
Clip #16- Balduck Park. A woman appearing to be a health care worker deposits a minimum of 10 ballots.
Clip #17- Balduck Park. The same woman as noted in Clip#16 deposited 12 ballots.
Clip #18- Liberty Temple. A female postal worker drops a few ballots.
Clip #19- Liberty Temple. The same female postal person as in Clip #18 deposits multiple ballots.
Clip #20- Liberty Temple. The same female postal worker as in Clip #18 arrives in a private vehicle and deposits at least 10 ballots.
Clip #21- Male postal worker deposits about 10 ballots.
Clip #22 -Liberty Temple. Same male postal worker as seen in Clip#21 deposits multiple ballots.
If someone other than the voter is delivering their absentee ballot, it must be delivered to the clerk of the respective city or township office. Not to a drop box.
That's an interesting question in this context. Using the geolocation and geofences around NGOs and showing lease agreements or signage designating those offices and then stating how many visits to a location* and then to one or more drop boxes, would not be libelous per se. There is data to back up that statement.Quote:
The publisher pulling seems to regard to point (B) possible libel naming culprits.
*TTV's parameters were ten or more visits, IIRC.
But here's a question that I have never seen addressed: who was picking up those ballots and where were they taking them?
The same car, with the same woman, went to same box, multiple times. Now you can claim it can't be proven it was the same person or you can join reality. That's up to you.TikkaShooter said:
That's the amazing thing.
The movie never shows anyone at more than one box.
Millions of hours of CCTV footage they say. Millions.
And not one clip showing person A at Box 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, etc
Not. One. Clip.
Speaks to the weakness in our mickey mouse election systems and processes. They have GPS data showing a "mule" going to 5 different drop boxes in a day. Only one of them has video surveillance. They have video footage of the person stuffing several ballots in a box (when law says you can only drop your own) and taking a picture of the box when they do it. Why should this not raise any suspicion at all and only cause you to demand more from the forensic and data analysis when there are no other cameras on these insecure cheat boxes? Why is there no concern or effort to have fewer than thousands of drop boxes around the city and have cameras on all of them instead of only a couple? ...or get rid of them altogether- if you requested an absentee ballot, you fill it out and actually put your mail-in ballot in the actual mail?TikkaShooter said:
That's the amazing thing.
The movie never shows anyone at more than one box.
Millions of hours of CCTV footage they say. Millions.
And not one clip showing person A at Box 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, etc
Not. One. Clip.
Just more examples of what doesn't pass the smell taste, yes.aggiehawg said:That's an interesting question in this context. Using the geolocation and geofences around NGOs and showing lease agreements or signage designating those offices and then stating how many visits to a location* and then to one or more drop boxes, would not be libelous per se. There is data to back up that statement.Quote:
The publisher pulling seems to regard to point (B) possible libel naming culprits.
*TTV's parameters were ten or more visits, IIRC.
But here's a question that I have never seen addressed: who was picking up those ballots and where were they taking them?
It is true however, in his place if he really has evidence of who `did it' for real -- would simply dump the text free on the web to get the culprits out there. (NPR is not a friend--they are going to spike anything) He can't even be sure he wouldn't be killed if he has learned something. Its the only way.
Nah. That's up to Dinesh and TTV.
EXACTLY!
You wouldn't have to accuse someone of a crime to actually be able to name the NGOs without potential legal/libel liability. Just something like "Mule A visited drop box 3 fourteen times over the course of these dates. In addition to the drop box visits, Mule A visited 123 Main Street eight times on these dates. According to the county tax assessor's records, that property is owned by such-and-such LLC and at the time was leased to such-and-such scumbag NGO."
Where's the liability there?
You wouldn't have to accuse someone of a crime to actually be able to name the NGOs without potential legal/libel liability. Just something like "Mule A visited drop box 3 fourteen times over the course of these dates. In addition to the drop box visits, Mule A visited 123 Main Street eight times on these dates. According to the county tax assessor's records, that property is owned by such-and-such LLC and at the time was leased to such-and-such scumbag NGO."
Where's the liability there?
titan said:
As point out above, there are two very distinct elements here, and people should not let static confuse and blend the two.
A)
D'Souza and associates claim to have shown and documented methodology and instances of blatant election fraud in a video that has been fairly well received by those with an open mind.
B) Now in a controversial book, he seems to have gotten into trouble because made all kinds of accusations or naming of supposed funders and backers of this fraud process. Even risking legal jeopardy enough where the publisher pulled the book.
To demonstrate fraud, it is neither necessary or especially relevant to be able to prove who the backer was and how the payment/recompense was made. Its bad enough the fraud can be documented. The backer was a Leftist pro Democrat of one kind or another if it took place --that suffices for where ballot for Biden is concerned.
So......
Is (A) True or Not True, should be the only question? Who paid them, or if zealotry they did it pro bono, is secondary.
If (A) is Not True, then the whole thing can be dropped. But the Election thread appears to rule that out clearly - establishing that this process is feasible. And long ago established more than one type of shenanigans.
If (B) was over-hasty or libelous --- does it mean the evidence in (A) is faulty. Again, haven't seen it said it was faked documentation yet.
That's all.
Are you serious that you don't believe it's relevant to identify who committed the "fraud" to prove that fraud happened?
The whole premise of the 2000 Mules claims are that people seen on video (or identified by GPS data) are doing something nefarious. How can these people just be assumed to be bad actors without any evidence of who they were, who they worked for, why they were doing what was "caught" on video or identified by GPS tracking data?
The WHO is literally the missing link to tying what could be otherwise legitimate or explainable behavior to some nefarious voter fraud scheme. Without the "Who" there is nothing but conjecture and speculation (which I suppose works great for those who have already made up their minds that fraud happened).
DoEsN't PrOvE aNyThInGTheHulkster said:
EXACTLY!
You wouldn't have to accuse someone of a crime to actually be able to name the NGOs without potential legal/libel liability. Just something like "Mule A visited drop box 3 fourteen times over the course of these dates. In addition to the drop box visits, Mule A visited 123 Main Street eight times on these dates. According to the county tax assessor's records, that property is owned by such-and-such LLC and at the time was leased to such-and-such scumbag NGO."
Where's the liability there?
NOT BEFORE confirming if (A) happened at all. I am simply laying out that D'souza doesn't have to prove (B) to prove (A)unmade bed said:titan said:
As point out above, there are two very distinct elements here, and people should not let static confuse and blend the two.
A)
D'Souza and associates claim to have shown and documented methodology and instances of blatant election fraud in a video that has been fairly well received by those with an open mind.
B) Now in a controversial book, he seems to have gotten into trouble because made all kinds of accusations or naming of supposed funders and backers of this fraud process. Even risking legal jeopardy enough where the publisher pulled the book.
To demonstrate fraud, it is neither necessary or especially relevant to be able to prove who the backer was and how the payment/recompense was made. Its bad enough the fraud can be documented. The backer was a Leftist pro Democrat of one kind or another if it took place --that suffices for where ballot for Biden is concerned.
So......
Is (A) True or Not True, should be the only question? Who paid them, or if zealotry they did it pro bono, is secondary.
If (A) is Not True, then the whole thing can be dropped. But the Election thread appears to rule that out clearly - establishing that this process is feasible. And long ago established more than one type of shenanigans.
If (B) was over-hasty or libelous --- does it mean the evidence in (A) is faulty. Again, haven't seen it said it was faked documentation yet.
That's all.
Are you serious that you don't believe it's relevant to identify who committed the "fraud" to prove that fraud happened?
The whole premise of the 2000 Mules claims are that people seen or video (or identified by GPS data) are doing something nefarious. How can these people just be assumed to be bad actors without any evidence of who they were, who they worked for, why they were doing what was "caught" on video or identified by GPS tracking data?
The WHO is literally the missing link to tying what could be otherwise legitimate or explainable behavior to some nefarious voter fraud scheme. Without the "Who" there is nothing but conjecture and speculation (which I suppose works great for those who have already made up their minds that fraud happened).
Not saying any more or less than that.
What wanting to see settled here is if (A) holds water. I am inclined to think it does from the Election thread.
And said not essential to identify who PAID for the fraud to affirm (A)
There are so many shell LLCs behind the NGOs and money being fungible, and between HAVA's 400 million and Zuck's nearly the same amount, there was too much money sloshing around to be able to trace it precisely.Quote:
And said not essential to identify who PAID for the fraud to affirm (A)
That having been said in a general sense, getting the mules themselves to assert they were paid in cash (which TTV has but has promised to keep their identities secret) establishes there was such an operation.
Since Philly appears to have been one of the worst offenders with a large number of mules crossing back and forth the bridge from New Jersey (wonder if their is a toll road involved?) I would concentrate on that one.
titan said:NOT BEFORE confirming if (A) happened at all. I am simply laying out that D'souza doesn't have to prove (B) to prove (A)unmade bed said:titan said:
As point out above, there are two very distinct elements here, and people should not let static confuse and blend the two.
A)
D'Souza and associates claim to have shown and documented methodology and instances of blatant election fraud in a video that has been fairly well received by those with an open mind.
B) Now in a controversial book, he seems to have gotten into trouble because made all kinds of accusations or naming of supposed funders and backers of this fraud process. Even risking legal jeopardy enough where the publisher pulled the book.
To demonstrate fraud, it is neither necessary or especially relevant to be able to prove who the backer was and how the payment/recompense was made. Its bad enough the fraud can be documented. The backer was a Leftist pro Democrat of one kind or another if it took place --that suffices for where ballot for Biden is concerned.
So......
Is (A) True or Not True, should be the only question? Who paid them, or if zealotry they did it pro bono, is secondary.
If (A) is Not True, then the whole thing can be dropped. But the Election thread appears to rule that out clearly - establishing that this process is feasible. And long ago established more than one type of shenanigans.
If (B) was over-hasty or libelous --- does it mean the evidence in (A) is faulty. Again, haven't seen it said it was faked documentation yet.
That's all.
Are you serious that you don't believe it's relevant to identify who committed the "fraud" to prove that fraud happened?
The whole premise of the 2000 Mules claims are that people seen or video (or identified by GPS data) are doing something nefarious. How can these people just be assumed to be bad actors without any evidence of who they were, who they worked for, why they were doing what was "caught" on video or identified by GPS tracking data?
The WHO is literally the missing link to tying what could be otherwise legitimate or explainable behavior to some nefarious voter fraud scheme. Without the "Who" there is nothing but conjecture and speculation (which I suppose works great for those who have already made up their minds that fraud happened).
Not saying any more or less than that.
What wanting to see settled here is if (A) holds water. I am inclined to think it does from the Election thread.
And said not essential to identify who PAID for the fraud to affirm (A)
The issue is in order to prove (A) by the methods used by D'Souza and TTV you have to assume nefarious explanation for the videos or data. In order to make that prove that assumption to be accurate, (B) is necessary.
The fact that D'Souza allegedly has (B) or is at least willing to come out and point at certain groups to prove (B) but both his publisher and the group that originally provided him the information he used to "prove" (A) raises questions.
Threats of lawsuits can't really be the answer because lawsuits would actually go a long way to giving the people claiming (A) access to the data they need to establish (B).
This is probably a horrible analogy, but let's assume the Aggies lose a football game to Alabama and we don't like that outcome. We analyze statistics and determine that the Aggies were flagged 15 times and Bama was only flagged 2 times. That alone does not prove the game was rigged against us. Yeah we might point to it and being on the losing end it sure may seem like the that disproportionate number of penalties called against us is irrefutable "evidence" of being cheated, but in order to actually claim we have "proved" that the game was rigged we would have to prove that the disproportionate number of flags was the result of the referees intentionally calling penalties on us and ignoring those by Alabama. If we had evidence that Roll Tide Booster Club made $1 million payment to each referee, that would go towards explaining the motivation behind the disproportionate number of flags, so by providing evidence of "(B)" we would have bolstered our claim of "(A)."
Okay, I see your connection of (A) to (B) and why it becomes important. It is clear you also understood why believed it did not. I believe part of the answer here lies not so much in the publisher recall (which may be intimidation from rather obvious powers) but the real tell is why does TTV which has done such work, in this case wave its hands `stop' and seek to distance itself?
Second, then you look at the publisher. What is going on with that---and why so far along before retracting if fearful of something.
More remains to be revealed is clear.
My initial thought is that TTV had promised to keep some identities secret and Dinesh was not honoring that, perhaps?Quote:
why does TTV which has done such work, in this case wave its hands `stop' and seek to distance itself?
That makes a great deal of sense. It also neatly explains why a sudden reversal would come up---something was not done as originally agreed.aggiehawg said:My initial thought is that TTV had promised to keep some identities secret and Dinesh was not honoring that, perhaps?Quote:
why does TTV which has done such work, in this case wave its hands `stop' and seek to distance itself?
cevans_40 said:Exactly. They are arguing 2 separate issues but trying to make them the same.titan said:Well, take that premise. The Barr thread indicates possible motives not favorable to truth.cevans_40 said:Well the expert on dumb has weighed inblacksox said:
When Bill Barr says the film is nonsense and the publisher has an emergency pull of books it paid a buttload to publish, you know the premise is dumb.
The publisher pulling seems to regard to point (B) possible libel naming culprits.
But does it disprove or to point (A) - the mules and the fraud actions -- being false? That should remain the question here.
They're doing their usual gaslighting. It's amazing that they're either ignorant, evil or both. Or, they think we are.
The proverbial, throw the baby out with the bath water.
Donald Trump race some thing like $100 million to stop the steal. How hard would it be to say $10 million to the first mule to spill the beans and show receipts? Since that's not happening, I think it's reasonable to conclude that perpetuating the myth of election fraud is more valuable than actually proving election fraud happened.
Malibu2 said:
Donald Trump race some thing like $100 million to stop the steal. How hard would it be to say $10 million to the first mule to spill the beans and show receipts? Since that's not happening, I think it's reasonable to conclude that perpetuating the myth of election fraud is more valuable than actually proving election fraud happened.
Yeah, I'm sure the mules haven't been threatened with Clintonciding.
Malibu2 said:
Donald Trump race some thing like $100 million to stop the steal. How hard would it be to say $10 million to the first mule to spill the beans and show receipts? Since that's not happening, I think it's reasonable to conclude that perpetuating the myth of election fraud is more valuable than actually proving election fraud happened.
And you would then surely attack the credibility and authenticity of that one mule then say the usual "move along, nothing to see here."
ChemEAg08 said:Malibu2 said:
Donald Trump race some thing like $100 million to stop the steal. How hard would it be to say $10 million to the first mule to spill the beans and show receipts? Since that's not happening, I think it's reasonable to conclude that perpetuating the myth of election fraud is more valuable than actually proving election fraud happened.
Yeah, I'm sure the mules haven't been threatened with Clintonciding.
Well there you have it. The conspiracy just continues to go deeper and deeper. What good as money when the Clintons will just kill you?
Bryanisbest said:Malibu2 said:
Donald Trump race some thing like $100 million to stop the steal. How hard would it be to say $10 million to the first mule to spill the beans and show receipts? Since that's not happening, I think it's reasonable to conclude that perpetuating the myth of election fraud is more valuable than actually proving election fraud happened.
And you would then surely attack the credibility and authenticity of that one mule then say the usual "move along, nothing to see here."
Well if I want to continue to be an ostrich with my head in the sand that is my right as an American citizen. Wouldn't you at least want to be able to teabag dunk on me with incontrovertible proof that the election was stolen so that I could scurry off to my Internet dark corner and cry?
proof in three videosMalibu2 said:
actually proving election fraud happened.
1. 2000 Mules / TTV data
2. Chester County PA video posted above
3. Detroit video posted above
you're blindly ignoring actual proof that corroborates a lot of ****ed up **** in that obviously ****ed up election and negotiating in your mind that "if Trump has money and no one has been bribed into talking, BAM! Most secure election evvvaaarr!!! DEBUNKED!!!!"
also, you already know your next defense if a mule tries to be a whistleblower, their credibility would be destroyed and they can't be trusted because they're just doing it for money.
TIME called it "fortifying", but states using the scamdemic to change the process and utilize insecure EZ fraud zero accountability mass mailing processes and elitists like zuckerberg funding NGOs to make sure the desired election results were achieved must feel like a noble cause by those heroes to "protect our democracy" but it really goes against the most basic fundamental tenet of "democracy". Those angry about it being called the threats to our democracy is such as slap in the face. You know what your team is asking for by going down the path the Biden admin is going down now.
In the last California election I voted by mail at home and so did my wife. Wanting to make sure that my ballot got in before the deadline I decided to put it in a dropbox instead of in the mail. My wife was running late so she asked me to grab her ballot as well and I dropped it off for her. If you had me on video you would be asking for me to be perp walked for fraudulently putting ballots in a dropbox.
Let me confirm with you that the issue of dropbox is an election security is a real thing. I'm even in favor of voter ID. So I'm not going to sit here and claim that drop boxes are the best way to run an election and that there isn't an opportunity for nefarious actors to commit fraud. That said, a video that shows people dropping off multiple ballots proves absolutely nothing. We don't know if they were being neighborly, being paid megabucks by a Soros Corp. or any other innocent ways. You can't just post videos of things like that and say see look it's fraud. You actually have to prove that one of those people is in fact committing fraud by voting on behalf of someone else. And since we don't have a singular person saying this with reasonable evidence that they did in fact commit fraud rather than looking for their 15 minutes of fame, I'm still waiting for you to show rock solid evidence that fraud actually happened.
Let me confirm with you that the issue of dropbox is an election security is a real thing. I'm even in favor of voter ID. So I'm not going to sit here and claim that drop boxes are the best way to run an election and that there isn't an opportunity for nefarious actors to commit fraud. That said, a video that shows people dropping off multiple ballots proves absolutely nothing. We don't know if they were being neighborly, being paid megabucks by a Soros Corp. or any other innocent ways. You can't just post videos of things like that and say see look it's fraud. You actually have to prove that one of those people is in fact committing fraud by voting on behalf of someone else. And since we don't have a singular person saying this with reasonable evidence that they did in fact commit fraud rather than looking for their 15 minutes of fame, I'm still waiting for you to show rock solid evidence that fraud actually happened.
all three videos above show people stuffing a lot more than theirs + their spouse's ballot envelope. A LOT more. And 2000 Mules arrived at the title, using the number 2000, because that's how many cell phones visited drop boxes at least 10 times in only a couple of cities. Did you drop yours and your wife's ballots in 10 different boxes or the same box 10 times? Did you have to take a picture of the box when you dropped off you and your wife's envelopes? There is obviously a lot of nefarious activity and it's obviously too easy to accomplish and get away with. Instead of spiking the football if your team won, ignoring the weaknesses and lack of controls and accountability in the system, ignoring the disenfranchisement of half the population, and vilifying anyone who questions it as fascist threats to democracy, why not fix the ****ED up system that you just admitted yourself is an issue?
Featured Stories
See All
47:40
6h ago
5.0k
Myopic Aggies focused on task at hand with South Carolina up next
by Olin Buchanan
9:13
11h ago
1.3k
Players to Watch: No. 10 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
10:11
15h ago
3.9k
Positive Ag
*****The Official Houston Texans 2024: Slowik strikes back****
in NFL & Fantasy Football
2