Neehau said:
aggieforester05 said:
Neehau said:
aggieforester05 said:
Neehau said:
ShaggySLC said:
Neehau said:
aggieforester05 said:
Read the official election thread, it's full of information if you really want to know. I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't for a second believe that you are arguing in good faith.
Oh I watched the first two committee hearings. People who even dare to doubt now are experiencing a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on clinical.
So that makes you some kind of expert? This has all been known and debated since the start, and it was known what the narrative trying to be spun a year and a half ago. The highlighted part made me laugh, that you really think you are all knowing now.
If any thinking person watched them there is no other conclusion they could come to unless they are lying to themselves.
This is a committee made up of Democrats and Trump hating Republicans and the hearings were produced by a DNC propaganda outlet. They can craft a message to make it look like whatever they want. Any "thinking person" would recognize propaganda and a one sided show trial when they see it. This is Norko dear leader level propaganda. The election was conducted in highly unprecedented, unsecure and extremely shady methods (especially in the urban areas of swing states) and there's no covering that up. Nor can they cover up the hypocrisy of the Democrats crocodile tears for 1/6 while ignoring the swath of death and destruction caused by left wing rioters in 2020. You have to be a troll, there's no way you're on this site and as poorly informed as you appear based on your posts.
Except none of that is true. No real credible election expert or official agrees with you. There is no grand conspiracy. All of these officials aren't lying. Your rhetoric is similar to those who questioned the patriotism or honesty of the individuals on The Warren Commission.
So we didn't have mass mail in ballots, unsecured drop boxes, illegal election law changes, and organizations like CTCL that donated more money per urban voter than rural voters in swing states with clawback provisions dictating the handling of the election? How about news organizations and social media companies suppressing negative stories about Biden while promoting stories about Trump they knew were untrue? All of those are verifiable facts and no credible election expert would disagree. Anyone solely relying on Trump or his organization to provide them with information about the election is a low information voter. Your assumption that claims of election fraud were dependent on Trump's claims show how poorly informed you really are. Your primary source of information is a committee made up exclusively of habitual liars and scum bags.
This was addressed specifically in the hearings. Mail in ballots being counted later is typical. You have no idea what you are talking about and you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. If you want to see what happened, make a cocktail/coffee and watch the committee hearings. The witnesses are Trumps children and his cabinet.
I've given you the source of evidence, but you're clearly too lazy to research it yourself. It's not my problem if you choose to remain ignorant, which is clearly the case. There's a lot more to ballot harvesting and box stuffing than counting late ballots.
Again everything that happened in this committee is a one sided portrayal of events and that includes questioning witnesses. If the Democrats wanted this committee to have ANY credibility then they shouldn't have rejected the Republican members that they knew would question their narratives. They didn't want a committee that used opposing sides to get to the bottom of the truth. They wanted a show trial using selected members of congress that could produce sound bytes to sway the minds of low information voters.
This committee is similar to a grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents evidence without any rebuttal or even the presence of a defense attorney. It could be used to create an indictment but has not been scrutinized by opposition at all. A trial where exculpatory evidence can be produced by defense council and witnesses will likely tell a very different story.
Would you think you would be fairly portrayed if your greatest enemy got to put on a public hearing to tarnish your image using only their witnesses and their evidence, with no chance for you or your representations to rebut their claims or produce evidence and witnesses to counter their arguments? You know the answer to that question, is no, but you won't answer it or you'll try to spin it.