US Election 2020

[Hermit]

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

I mean, he says such clear and verifiable things...

Don't worry about me, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team. Giuliani and the entire team Trump have taken 61 cases to various courts and convinced nobody about their "clear and verifiable things". That's pretty convincing evidence of no voter or election fraud, especially since a significant number of judges have been appointed by Republicans, and at least one of them by trump himself.

[Cunt]

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

I mean, he says such clear and verifiable things...

Don't worry about me, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team. Giuliani and the entire team Trump have taken 61 cases to various courts and convinced nobody about their "clear and verifiable things". That's pretty convincing evidence of no voter or election fraud, especially since a significant number of judges have been appointed by Republicans, and at least one of them by trump himself.

Your description of events is in sharp contrast to reality, but I don't doubt it makes sense to you.

Maybe you should just tell Rudy to give up. After all, you have reviewed all the evidence, and still seen none of it.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

It's not you or us he has to convince, but a whole slew of state and federal judges in various courts across the US.

In all such cases, the attempts to alter the results or claim fraud have been rejected by the court.

Why?

For the little detail that the judges (not me, not Hermit, not the media) said that there was no credible evidence presented...

[Hermit]

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

I mean, he says such clear and verifiable things...

Don't worry about me, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team. Giuliani and the entire team Trump have taken 61 cases to various courts and convinced nobody about their "clear and verifiable things". That's pretty convincing evidence of no voter or election fraud, especially since a significant number of judges have been appointed by Republicans, and at least one of them by trump himself.

Your description of events is in sharp contrast to reality...

Go on then, list the court cases concerning voter or election fraud Rudy and team Trump have won. I am always happy to recalibrate my description of events in order to bring it in line with reality.

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

In all such cases, the attempts to alter the results or claim fraud have been rejected by the court.

Why?

For the little detail that the judges (not me, not Hermit, not the media) said that there was no credible evidence presented...

I heard Rudy's side of that. You can, too.

The fact that you haven't isn't THAT weird. I don't think you care all that much, or deeply, about this particular issue.

But the fact that Hermit hasn't, does strike me as weird. It's like instead of knowing, and eviscerating Rudy in his sharp examination, he decided it was better to make it clear to everyone that he hasn't listened to his side.

But I have no trouble believing that neither of you have seen any evidence of election fraud, voter fraud, or unusual irregularities around this election. I'm totally honest there.

So yeah, the question really is 'why?'. Hope you find answers satisfactory to you.

[pErvinalia]

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC

He's more convincing to you because you value bias over reason. He was utterly non-convincing to the courts.

[Cunt]

Oh, is THAT what happened?

Weird, his story was different...but you vigorously don't know what his side of things is.

[pErvinalia]

Any day now Rudy will overturn the election...

[JimC]

Oh, is THAT what happened?

Weird, his story was different...but you vigorously don't know what his side of things is.

All I need to know is what the courts think of "his side of things"...

You know, those funny legal thingies presided over by those marxist crazies called "judges"...

[Cunt]

Oh, is THAT what happened?

Weird, his story was different...but you vigorously don't know what his side of things is.

All I need to know is what the courts think of "his side of things"...

You know, those funny legal thingies presided over by those marxist crazies called "judges"...

I understand firmly that you haven't - WON'T - be taking in his side of things.

I don't blame you. It's probably nothing. Even if he puts Trump back in, it doesn't change as much as people think. Remember that old song 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

[pErvinalia]

Even if he puts Trump back in...

Keep dreaming, Cunt.

[Cunt]

Even if he puts Trump back in...

Keep dreaming, Cunt.

Dreaming?

You mean my 'dreaming' that no matter who wins a given election, the same people all lose?

[Joe]

Fair enough, but the censorship there might filter different sets of messages through different countries' users.

There are dozens of search engines to pick from. If you suspect that Google applies a filter that is not to your liking try some of the others. https://yandex.com/images/ is a particularly useful one for reverse picture searches. It's actually better than Google's. I don't know if it applies a censorship filter.

Thanks, I use others.

I was pointing out that internally, Parler might also dial in by country.

That is easily tested with a VPN.

If I cared, I might, but I don't.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn either.

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

I mean, he says such clear and verifiable things, but obviously doesn't know as much about the matter as you guys...must be the endless evidence he shows, that some paid actors pretend doesn't exist.

Rudy is convincing because he was a hotshot prosecutor. I enjoy his podcast because he does such a marvelous job presenting his case. However, when you say he "says such clear and verifiable things," I have to ask.

Did you verify them?

[Hermit]

There are dozens of search engines to pick from. If you suspect that Google applies a filter that is not to your liking try some of the others. https://yandex.com/images/ is a particularly useful one for reverse picture searches. It's actually better than Google's. I don't know if it applies a censorship filter.

Thanks, I use others.

I was pointing out that internally, Parler might also dial in by country.

That is easily tested with a VPN.

If I cared, I might, but I don't.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn either.

It is very easy to believe that you have seen no evidence of voter or election fraud.

So why is Rudy so much more convincing than you, JimC and the whole of the elite wealthy media team?

I mean, he says such clear and verifiable things, but obviously doesn't know as much about the matter as you guys...must be the endless evidence he shows, that some paid actors pretend doesn't exist.

Rudy is convincing because he was a hotshot prosecutor. I enjoy his podcast because he does such a marvelous job presenting his case. However, when you say he "says such clear and verifiable things," I have to ask.

Did you verify them?

More importantly, did the courts verify them?

[Cunt]

Rudy is convincing because he was a hotshot prosecutor. I enjoy his podcast because he does such a marvelous job presenting his case. However, when you say he "says such clear and verifiable things," I have to ask.

Did you verify them?

A few, but nothing you would find convincing.

Of course, I've kept his words a secret, so you would risk a shitty sales pitch for cigars, gold or insurance if you went to hear him out.

The videos are video. That is a kind of convincing.

If you want to verify some, I might find your results interesting.

If you all keep vigorously ignoring his side of things, that's also a kind of interesting, to me.

Even more interesting if you keep asking me about him, when I'm not as close to the source as...well...the source.