Sorry, but I still only support presidents who win the popular vote.*looks at 2016 "Russian election hacking!"*
Sorry, but I still only support presidents who win the popular vote.*looks at 2016 "Russian election hacking!"*
Nothing like a bit of opportunistic, performative moral high ground.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I thought at best they found some click bait farmers spent about $100k on facebook seeking clicks and that it isn't clear these people (13 of them?) actually gave a care who won. ITMT: I'm sure some meddling happens in every election but the "muh Russia" narrative was cooked up by HRC for political gains. Obama supposedly approved, Biden knew of it and didn't. I'll have to review some.Russian hacking (along with other general election meddling and influencing) was proven by US intelligence agencies and even acknowledged by the (Republican) Senate report. There was no proof votes were changed in any way, but voter information was viewed/stolen.
No, you didn't.I answered this question already.
You don't have to vote for either democrats or republicans.I mean, 'they' also only limited your choices to two in the first place and both aren't going to be very good for the country. They did already show their power to put in whoever they want. Having Trump and Biden contest was the rigging in the election
Not to offend, but that's likely all you remember because of the sources you chose. Read (or re-read) the Mueller report, the Senate report, and the House report on the subject (PDFs are available online for them). All 3 agree that it constituted far more than just 13 click-bait farmers without an agenda.I thought at best they found some click bait farmers spent about $100k on facebook seeking clicks and that it isn't clear these people (13 of them?) actually gave a care who won. ITMT: I'm sure some meddling happens in every election but the "muh Russia" narrative was cooked up by HRC for political gains. Obama supposedly approved, Biden knew of it and didn't. I'll have to review some.
#3,266No, you didn't.
What's preventing you from at least entertaining the possibility that they have a legitimate grievance?"If I don't get what I want, I'll sue!"
Remember how we used to say this as little kids in elementary school?
Never figured there'd be an elderly president with the same mindset, or that there'd be 70 million people willing to go along with it.
I’m pretty sure Trump was elected (at least partially) so he would do this."If I don't get what I want, I'll sue!"
Remember how we used to say this as little kids in elementary school?
Never figured there'd be an elderly president with the same mindset, or that there'd be 70 million people willing to go along with it.
Probably has something to do with the facts not caring about your feelings...What's preventing you from at least entertaining the possibility that they have a legitimate grievance?
Nothing.What's preventing you from at least entertaining the possibility that they have a legitimate grievance?
Answer?More ways to get caught too.Why wouldn't they want to cheat via multiple means? Higher chances of victory.
But they have the algorithm! What does it matter where the ballots come from?!?!
No, you're not wrong. I'm sure the Senate report did a dandy job of finding things Russians did that constitutes interference. And we do the same. China, Israel. But the only arrests I'd ever heard of on the Russian collusion narrative regarded the 13 click-bait farmers. And we never really got details on that. Jim Jordan went off stating how we never would hear those details. Be happy to review any links you may have on the details regarding those farmers.Not to offend, but that's likely all you remember because of the sources you chose. Read (or re-read) the Mueller report, the Senate report, and the House report on the subject (PDFs are available online for them). All 3 agree that it constituted far more than just 13 click-bait farmers without an agenda.
Pennsylvania resident (worth listening to) here. This description is accurate in the general sense, but the state supreme court and anyone who touched this election in Philadelphia shouldn't be allowed to touch an election anywhere ever again. I don't think they're trying to enable or defend election fraud, but they've deliberately created the image that they're doing so entirely out of spite, and that enough should disqualify them from making decisions on further elections.Pennsylvania resident here. Levin is overtly full of shit. That is all.
What evidence would you need to convince you that Biden won legally?If Biden did not win legally, and I think he did not, and was aided in doing so by a bi-partisan elite that selected Biden over Trump for their own reasons, what's the point of voting? They have the power to just put whoever they want in, regardless of how I vote.
We'll see.
Order fake ballots, and put them through. They wouldn't be recognized in a recount.Answer?
Yeah, I'd imagine that if Russian intelligence didn't interfere with the 2016 US elections, there'd all of a sudden have bene some vacancies in Russian intelligence.No, you're not wrong. I'm sure the Senate report did a dandy job of finding things Russians did that constitutes interference. And we do the same. China, Israel.