Liberal Forum

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 7:21 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:21 pm

voter fraud is a legal term.   

Nobody cheated.  We played by the rules and those rules were available to be used by everyone.  You snoozed,  You lost.

Illegally changing the rules was cheating, *******. 

BTW, if there was no cheating, why did liberals do this:
You know, because covering up windows so no one can see what you're doing, is how people who DON'T cheat, act.

 ​​​​​​
 

golfboy » 27 Sep 2023, 7:36 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:36 pm

The OP shows why there was no court who found widespread fraud. 
They refused to hear any case the would have exposed it. 

But it's okay Room Temp, no one expected you to actually accept the fact that fraud occurred, because it benefitted your side, and ALL you care about is political power. 

Hey, ever heard of GBI Strategies and what they did, nation wide?

The OP lists cases that Team Kraken filed.... not one of them had any credible, producible, ACTUAL evidence of voter fraud.  You listed #18 from the OP as proof of your case, but, in fact, it does exactly the opposite.  I even quoted the findings to you earlier in this thread and you ran away from it.

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 7:46 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:46 pm

The OP lists cases that Team Kraken filed.... not one of them had any credible, producible, ACTUAL evidence of voter fraud.  You listed #18 from the OP as proof of your case, but, in fact, it does exactly the opposite.  I even quoted the findings to you earlier in this thread and you ran away from it.

Why do you lie?
 

golfboy » 27 Sep 2023, 7:40 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:40 pm

Illegally changing the rules was cheating, *******. 

BTW, if there was no cheating, why did liberals do this:
You know, because covering up windows so no one can see what you're doing, is how people who DON'T cheat, act.

 ​​​​​​

It wasn't cheating.  It was done, in many places with bipartisan support, as a public health measure and those rules did not favor one party over the other.

And if you could prove there was vote fraud going on behind those panels, you'd have done so three years ago!  

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm

It wasn't cheating.  It was done, in many places with bipartisan support, as a public health measure and those rules did not favor one party over the other.

And if you could prove there was vote fraud going on behind those panels, you'd have done so three years ago!

****.  It was done unilaterally and illegally, by liberal Secretaries of State who didn't have that authority. 
Stupid ****. 


Come on man, tell us why they were putting up those panels. 
Just give us ONE reasonable explanation.   If you're able.   I don't think you are. 

golfboy » 27 Sep 2023, 7:49 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:49 pm

Why do you lie?

why can't you read?

#18 states quite clearly "The court first described how Appellant has since withdrawn some of the challenges in the complaint and, of the remaining challenges, all but 69 ballots were resolved by a recent decision of the Supreme Court. These remaining 69 ballots were received with secrecy envelopes that were “unsealed.” The court held that, since: (i) it cannot be established that the electors did not seal the secrecy envelopes; (ii) the parties stipulated that the instructions on the outer envelope stated only that the ballot should be placed in the secrecy envelope and did not specify that the envelope needed to be securely sealed; and (iii) there are no allegations of any fraud, impropriety, misconduct, or undue influence, or that the secrecy of the ballots cast was jeopardized, the 69 ballots would count. The court held prospectively that ballots must be securely sealed."

golfboy » 27 Sep 2023, 7:53 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:53 pm

****.  It was done unilaterally and illegally, by liberal Secretaries of State who didn't have that authority. 
Stupid ****. 

Come on man, tell us why they were putting up those panels. 
Just give us ONE reasonable explanation.   If you're able.   I don't think you are.

Cool opinion.  Were Republicans specifically precluded from voting by mail in any rule change?

I have absolutely NO idea what was going on in that room and in the hallways on the other side of those windows that would have motivated election workers to want to do their jobs in something other than an open arena.  Maybe wack job MAGA morons like you were taking photos of election workers and  yelling threats at then?  I have no idea....and NEITHER DO YOU.

 

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 8:00 pm

Cool opinion.  Were Republicans specifically precluded from voting by mail in any rule change?

I have absolutely NO idea what was going on in that room and in the hallways on the other side of those windows that would have motivated election workers to want to do their jobs in something other than an open arena.  Maybe wack job MAGA morons like you were taking photos of election workers and  yelling threats at then?  I have no idea....and NEITHER DO YOU.

Atta girl.  I knew you couldn't do it. 

 

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 7:54 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:54 pm

why can't you read?

#18 states quite clearly "The court first described how Appellant has since withdrawn some of the challenges in the complaint and, of the remaining challenges, all but 69 ballots were resolved by a recent decision of the Supreme Court. These remaining 69 ballots were received with secrecy envelopes that were “unsealed.” The court held that, since: (i) it cannot be established that the electors did not seal the secrecy envelopes; (ii) the parties stipulated that the instructions on the outer envelope stated only that the ballot should be placed in the secrecy envelope and did not specify that the envelope needed to be securely sealed; and (iii) there are no allegations of any fraud, impropriety, misconduct, or undue influence, or that the secrecy of the ballots cast was jeopardized, the 69 ballots would count. The court held prospectively that ballots must be securely sealed."

mainbitch thinks because they said there was no fraud in those 69 ballots, that no evidence of fraud was introduced at all. 

BTW, I'm still waiting for that magical "voter fraud" definition. 
You find it yet, or did you just make another claim you can't support?
 

golfboy » 27 Sep 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 8:05 pm

mainbitch thinks because they said there was no fraud in those 69 ballots, that no evidence of fraud was introduced at all. 

BTW, I'm still waiting for that magical "voter fraud" definition. 
You find it yet, or did you just make another claim you can't support?

Show me the text from that lawsuit's original complaint that cites any election fraud.

Oh...and here is a great article about Election law violations...
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... olations-0

 you should READ it!  

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 8:10 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 8:10 pm

Show me the text from that lawsuit's original complaint that cites any election fraud.

Oh...and here is a great article about Election law violations...
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... olations-0

 you should READ it!  

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Still waiting for your magical "voter fraud" definition, mainbitch. 
Do you think trying to change the subject is going to make your claim magically disappear?

golfboy » 27 Sep 2023, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 9:13 pm

Still waiting for your magical "voter fraud" definition, mainbitch. 
Do you think trying to change the subject is going to make your claim magically disappear?

it's in there.  you need to read it.

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm

It wasn't cheating.  It was done, in many places with bipartisan support, as a public health measure.... 

.
You'ra hack !

 

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm

It wasn't cheating.  It was done, in many places with bipartisan support, as a public health measure and those rules did not favor one party over the other.

And if you could prove there was vote fraud going on behind those panels, you'd have done so three years ago!

Show us these "many other places where the windows were boarded up with bipartisan support for health reasons".
You are nothing more than an election fraud loving POS.
Well you are also a pathological liar too.
VIDEO: Why Did They Cover Up the Windows at Detroit's Absentee Ballot Counting Center? - Todd Starnes
 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 27 Sep 2023, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 9:35 pm

Show us these "many other places where the windows were boarded up with bipartisan support for health reasons".
 

where did I ever make such an assertion?

Is English your second language?

MackTheFinger » 27 Sep 2023, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 9:35 pm

.
You'ra hack !

Wrong...but you're a stumblebum loser.

maineman » 27 Sep 2023, 9:41 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 9:41 pm

where did I ever make such an assertion?

Is English your second language?

I posted your direct quote already you low life POS LIAR

golfboy » Today, 5:40 pm » wrote: ↑
Today, 5:40 pm
Illegally changing the rules was cheating, *******. 

BTW, if there was no cheating, why did liberals do this:
You know, because covering up windows so no one can see what you're doing, is how people who DON'T cheat, act.

 ​​​​​​

"maineman said......
It wasn't cheating.  It was done, in many places with bipartisan support, as a public health measure and those rules did not favor one party over the other.
 
 

Murica

is

DYING

golfboy » 27 Sep 2023, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 9:13 pm

Still waiting for your magical "voter fraud" definition, mainbitch. 
Do you think trying to change the subject is going to make your claim magically disappear?

Here:  Heritage Foundation... conservative think tank.... has a very interesting article all about Voter Fraud.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integ ... oter-fraud

There IS that problem of "word soup" for you, however, so I guess you'll still be waiting.    

GHETTOBLASTER » 27 Sep 2023, 9:45 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 9:45 pm

I posted your direct quote already you low life POS LIAR

"maineman said......
It wasn't cheating.  It was done, in many places with bipartisan support, as a public health measure and those rules did not favor one party over the other.

The key word there is that very first "it".  It refers to the very first sentence of golfboi's post where he said, 

"Illegally changing the rules was cheating, *******." 

Illegally changing those rules was not cheating.

*******.

Again... is English your second language?