Crnr2Crnr Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 2 minutes ago, Plissken said: The FIBS are coming! closer... was hoping for a HI RACER but that will have to suffice 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 2 minutes ago, Plissken said: Lloyd’s heading up from Florida too! PRTOPLN 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plissken Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Could be anyone really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 3 minutes ago, Plissken said: Could be anyone really STEV WON 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plissken Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 I am glad you guys have proven the level of manipulation you will fall for with no actual physical proof. No one here will ever see any physical proof of "fake electors". But you will believe. And given the obvious where you can see physical proof you deny it and make excuses. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crnr2Crnr Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 10 minutes ago, racer254 said: I am glad you guys have proven the level of manipulation you will fall for with no actual physical proof. No one here will ever see any physical proof of "fake electors". But you will believe. And given the obvious where you can see physical proof you deny it and make excuses. Lol like out of state license plates? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 11 minutes ago, racer254 said: I am glad you guys have proven the level of manipulation you will fall for with no actual physical proof. No one here will ever see any physical proof of "fake electors". But you will believe. And given the obvious where you can see physical proof you deny it and make excuses. Lol So the dude on 60 minutes was fake along with the young gal involved 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deephaven Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Fake? You mean part of the plan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 42 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said: like out of state license plates? 100% or like busses full of people going to vote. How many "fake electors" have you seen in public? Just lke multiple applications for absentee ballots. Tangible evidence. I talked about it before the election. You wait until after a narrative comes out to bring it up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 (edited) FFS....the manipulation that you idiots believe and lack of understanding of how the electoral college system works is priceless. America should require a civics exam before being allowed to vote and many of you would fail. I notice how none of you "fake elector" morons will address the factual points I made regarding how the system ACTUALLY works. Edited February 20 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Courts say otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 10 minutes ago, akvanden said: Courts say otherwise. In your own words, what did the courts actually say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 26 minutes ago, Highmark said: FFS....the manipulation that you idiots believe and lack of understanding of how the electoral college system works is priceless. America should require a civics exam before being allowed to vote and many of you would fail. I notice how none of you "fake elector" morons will address the factual points I made regarding how the system ACTUALLY works. I agree. You and racer wouldn’t be able to vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayward Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 What system will be in place by the time the upcoming election rolls around so as our fake elector immigrants can successfully cast their votes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 33 minutes ago, racer254 said: In your own words, what did the courts actually say? My own words of the guilty verdict? Like it will differ somehow? Part of a multi state conspiracy to recruit electors to fraudulently claim Trump won states where he actually lost. Are you going to make me send you link so you can see if my paraphrasing is good enough to your liking? Let me guess , none of it matters to you either way. In your own words please. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 45 minutes ago, akvanden said: Courts say otherwise. Courts say its illegal for both slates of electors to submit if there is pending cases when the deadline is reached? Link please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 (edited) 20 minutes ago, akvanden said: My own words of the guilty verdict? Like it will differ somehow? Part of a multi state conspiracy to recruit electors to fraudulently claim Trump won states where he actually lost. Are you going to make me send you link so you can see if my paraphrasing is good enough to your liking? Let me guess , none of it matters to you either way. In your own words please. First and foremost these electors were already in place selected by the GOP. Secondly there was pending litigation that was yet to be decided. Third its not illegal for a candidates team to show these electors why they feel they may win the pending case. You, the MSM and the Fulton County prosecutors can call it recruiting but that doesn't mean its true. Anderson Cooper: You are deciding to sign this document as an elector, and getting the other electors to sign this document based on a court challenge that you yourself don't believe has legitimacy. Andrew Hitt: I wouldn't say it doesn't have legitimacy– that's different than not personally agreeing with it. Anderson Cooper: You personally don't believe that legitimate votes by Wisconsin residents should be tossed out. And yet, you are signing a document in support of a lawsuit which is alleging just that. Andrew Hitt: And if I didn't do that, and the court did throw out those votes, it would have been solely my fault that Trump wouldn't have won Wisconsin. Edited February 20 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 5 minutes ago, akvanden said: My own words of the guilty verdict? Like it will differ somehow? Part of a multi state conspiracy to recruit electors to fraudulently claim Trump won states where he actually lost. Are you going to make me send you link so you can see if my paraphrasing is good enough to your liking? Let me guess , none of it matters to you either way. In your own words please. Guilty of what exactly, in your own words. You can back out all you want. Or just admit that you really don't quite understand what the court said. What were/are the charges in Wisconsin? Edited February 20 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 (edited) I'd bet good money before I posted most people thought that each state had one single group of electors prior to the election not one for each candidate on the ballot. Edited February 20 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 (edited) And here's the best part. Even if there was no ongoing litigation on the validity of a state's election results a candidate still has the right to have their electors submit votes so potential fraud can be taken up by congress. This is the case in the 7 states Trump was having the alternate slate of electors submit that he had won. This is simply another case of Prosecutors completely stretching the laws to try and get someone they hate. Edited February 20 by Highmark 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 17 minutes ago, Highmark said: And here's the best part. Even if there was no ongoing litigation on the validity of a state's election results a candidate still has the right to have their electors submit votes so potential fraud can be taken up by congress. This is the case in the 7 states Trump was having the alternate slate of electors submit that he had won. This is simply another case of Prosecutors completely stretching the laws to try and get someone they hate. Exactly, and they can convince people that dont care to understand the process. Just like the john doe cases in Wisconsin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 30 minutes ago, Highmark said: First and foremost these electors were already in place selected by the GOP. Secondly there was pending litigation that was yet to be decided. Third its not illegal for a candidates team to show these electors why they feel they may win the pending case. You, the MSM and the Fulton County prosecutors can call it recruiting but that doesn't mean its true. Anderson Cooper: You are deciding to sign this document as an elector, and getting the other electors to sign this document based on a court challenge that you yourself don't believe has legitimacy. Andrew Hitt: I wouldn't say it doesn't have legitimacy– that's different than not personally agreeing with it. Anderson Cooper: You personally don't believe that legitimate votes by Wisconsin residents should be tossed out. And yet, you are signing a document in support of a lawsuit which is alleging just that. Andrew Hitt: And if I didn't do that, and the court did throw out those votes, it would have been solely my fault that Trump wouldn't have won Wisconsin. Have you read the Cheseboro or Eastman memos? It wasn’t “send in Republican electors should litigation swing the state entirely the opposite way.” It was send the electors with falsified documentation saying Trump won and Pence count those instead on J6, regardless of any pending litigation. Or just completely throw out said states that Biden won. That’s what they’re being charged for, not your watered down version. 29 minutes ago, racer254 said: Guilty of what exactly, in your own words. You can back out all you want. Or just admit that you really don't quite understand what the court said. What were/are the charges in Wisconsin? I just did in my own words. Did you miss it? Can you tell me how it differs, if at all? You clearly asked for a good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 20 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 20 24 minutes ago, akvanden said: Have you read the Cheseboro or Eastman memos? It wasn’t “send in Republican electors should litigation swing the state entirely the opposite way.” It was send the electors with falsified documentation saying Trump won and Pence count those instead on J6, regardless of any pending litigation. Or just completely throw out said states that Biden won. That’s what they’re being charged for, not your watered down version. I just did in my own words. Did you miss it? Can you tell me how it differs, if at all? You clearly asked for a good reason. Again....show me the specific law that states that cannot be done? There was significant debate as to whether or not the VP could choose a particular slate of electors....in fact this was in such doubt they passed legislation AFTER the fact to try and clarify it. Now if it was so clear why would they do that? Did passing that law after ensure that no law was broken prior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plissken Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Remember when the Supreme Court ended the 2000 Florida recount on December 9th when really they should have been allowed to continue the recount until January 6th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.