USA .... quo vadis?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
The Democrats and the Presstitutes Will Not Admit a Trump Win
UPDATED: The Plot Against the President
If Trump wins the election, unless it is an overwhelming victory that cannot be challenged, the Democrats and the American media will not admit that Trump won. The plan in place is to blame Trump’s win on fraud and to use the tactics of the “Maidan Revolution” in Ukraine, recently employed again in Belarus, to prevent Trump’s inauguration.
The documentary, The Plot Against the President, explains the “Russiagate” plot by the FBI, the Democrats, and the media to remove President Trump from office. The venality and corruption of FBI Director Comey, the American media, and Democrats, such as Adam Schiff, is scary. That such an obvious plot against American democracy involving the country’s security agencies and one of the two ruling political parties could go on for three years without a single question by the media proves that the Establishment will not tolerate a non-establishment President or those who support him and that the media dares not cross the Establishment.
The fact that Comey is not in prison testifies to the power of the Deep State.
Had it not been for US Rep. Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee the coup would have succeeded.
....
Source: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/10/29/the-plot-against-the-president/
Comments
-
I can hardly believe this is going on in America. Things started going down hill when Clinton got elected, and then when George W. Bush got elected. Obama must be the most corrupt, or how else could things be so bad?
-
There are also rumors of something called "Operation Red Mirage" already being underway as a way to paint the election as illegitimate.
-
@reformed posted:
There are also rumors of something called "Operation Red Mirage" already being underway as a way to paint the election as illegitimate.
Welcome back to the forums.
A brief Google search on election-related "Red Mirages" highlighted a well-known and oft-reported possibility, once polls close tonight. The basic idea is that several states - Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for example - will report their election day voting results before, perhaps well before, they report their early- and absentee voting results (since they didn't start counting early votes until today). Because the data suggest strongly that election day votes will trend strongly in the president's favor, while early- and absentee votes will trend strongly in Vice President Biden's favor, a "red mirage" will arise if people (and presidential candidates) interpret early, and therefore election day-heavy, results as evidence of a Trump lead/win. The president MIGHT end up winning those states, of course, but since the majority of the initial counted votes in such states will be mainly those cast on election-day, indications of a Trump advantage could well be a "mirage."
There is also the possibility of a "blue mirage." Florida, for example, is likely to report all of its early- and absentee vote totals well before it reports its final election-day votes. In that case, early results may trend toward Mr. Biden, but his lead may well be a "mirage," giving a false or misleading impression of a Biden lead/victory in the state.
The moral of the story: Don't count your electors before they're hatched. Election results in each state won't be final until ALL the votes - early, absentee, and election day - are counted. First returns tonight will not necessarily accurately predict final results.
Moral #2 of the story: While political partisans and conspiracy theorists might couch red and blue "mirages" as attempts to paint this election as "illegitimate," the truth is such mirages ARE a thing, but a thing that cautions patience as we wait for final election results, NOT a thing that declares the election's illegitimacy.
-
Oh yes here is smug Bill back from the corners of liberal America with their smug we are right and the rest of America is stupid attitude.
It is well known the Democrats are doing everything to call any potential loss or actual loss they have in this election illegitimate.
-
@reformed posted:
Oh yes here is smug Bill back from the corners of liberal America with their smug we are right and the rest of America is stupid attitude.
As I said in my previous post, welcome back to the forums.
My post to which you're apparently responding with these two sentences contained no accusations/suggestions of election illegitimacy or even irregularity. It contained what I intended to be an objective depiction of election day "mirages," both red ones and blue ones. Since the possibility of misleading early vote totals has been widely reported over the last month or so, I assumed the details I offered would not be controversial to an informed voter such as you.
Facts such as the ones I presented in my previous post do not fit well in categories such as "right" and "stupid." "Right," yes, because facts are, by definition, "right" (a.k.a. true). But "stupid," no.
Do you contest the accuracy of any part of my summary of red and blue "mirages"? Or is your post here simply an expression of your partisan political views?
It is well known the Democrats are doing everything to call any potential loss or actual loss they have in this election illegitimate.
This claim is really, really hard to defend given the president's repeated campaign claim that the only way he will lose the election is if it is "rigged," and the Republican Party's numerous efforts, in both state and federal courts, to get legitimately cast votes thrown out (Google 127,000 votes in Harris County, Texas, and the lawsuits brought in Pennsylvania) For an organization which you allege "does everything" to claim illegitimate vote counts, the Democratic Party sure hasn't filed many lawsuits. But then again, court dockets have been filled with GOP litigation.
-
Almost as expected .... some powers behind the scenes seem more or less obviously very busy to arrive at an election outcome which is contrary to what one could see in open plain daylight during campaign time. This time, a real civil war instigated by the leftist "globalist democrats fascists" ....
Ever seen a snow storm in tropical 80°F weather? No ? Good for you ... Some are thinking they are truly seeing such a thing now ....
-
It seems that the coup of the leftist fascist elite is well underway ... not only is the ballot counting being manipulated (very obviously in Wisconsin and Michigan) to heave Biden into winning this "election", but some other steps appear to be taken in the background as well, including military forces ....
Those who did not want to get up and chose liberty are being rudely awakened into slavery.
-
Mysterious votes showing up all for Democrats and nobody thinks this is odd? Really? Did they really think we would not notice?
-
@reformed posted:
Mysterious votes showing up all for Democrats and nobody thinks this is odd? Really? Did they really think we would not notice?
Why didn't Hillary Clinton think of this objection four years ago?! Why, she just accepted her loss across three rust belt states by a cumulative total of 70,000 votes - in Michigan, by a SMALLER percentage than by which Biden will beat Trump. She didn't tweet about possible "violence in the streets." She didn't "claim" to win any states she hadn't actually won. She didn't ask to inspect ballots. She didn't even demand a recount! And worst of all, she conceded on election night, following the wimpy pattern of almost all previous losers of presidential elections (tells you why they were LOSERS, doesn't it?).
And to think all she would have had to do was post pictures of mail in stacked up cartons and call our attention to all the "mysterious votes showing up, all for (Republicans)." And even if THEY might not have thought we would notice, we would have!!
What might have been.
-
That's because Republican's didn't cheat in 2016.
-
@reformed posted:
That's because Republican's didn't cheat in 2016.
And there is NO evidence - NONE - that the Democrats are cheating now... as ballots are in the control of county and state boards of elections in the remaining undecided states.
- Of course, Eric Trump retweeted a QAnon conspiracy theory that Trump votes were being burned. The burned ballots turned out to be sample ballots, not Trump ballots.
- And perhaps lots of people promoted the falsehood attached to the image Wolfgang posted in another thread - that the image depicted discarded Trump ballots.
So yes, there are theories and accusations, but no proof.
Want evidence of the corrupt nature of the Trump campaign's current protests? They're suing to disrupt vote counts Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia - where currently Trump leads - but NOT suing to disrupt the vote count in Arizona, where Trump currently trails. In his first claim of victory early Wednesday morning, Mr Trump demanded that the vote counting stop!... except in Arizona, where he trailed.
I guess the president believes they only "cheat" in states where he's behind.
He DID tell us during the campaign that the "only way" he'd lose is if the election were "rigged." So the logic is all but impermeable:
- He can only lose if the election is rigged
- He's losing
- Therefore, the election is rigged! And stop counting votes!... but only in states where the election is rigged (i.e. where he's losing)
The ONLY thing missing from Mr. Trump's elegant argument - and your single sentence claim - is evidence... because there is none.
-
@Bill_Coley wrote:
Why didn't Hillary Clinton think of this objection four years ago?!
Simple answer: The Democrats were obviously sure that things were under control and nothing could happen to cause a problem for her victory ... her campaign "made a mistake of being overly sure", and th emargin of voter ballots in favor of Trump was just barely enough to "ruin" her victory ...
Surely, they were not going to make that "mistake" again ....
USA folks ... it's time to wake up as to who the globalist fascists are and which political side they support .... against any country and its population.
-
By the way .... do people in the USA realize that Biden is only a temporary cover to get the real puppet K. Harris into the White House?
Don't be surprised if Biden -- should he get into the White House -- steps down for health reasons after only a short period of time (with further royal sums of money going his direction) so that "lady" K. Harris turns out first female (and according to her own testimony) non-white president.
-
Of course the Democrats are cheating in this election.
The Democrats who went through the trouble to spy on Trump even before he got elected in 2016, they would go through the trouble to cheat on this election. The Democrats and FBI agents that helped make false accusations about Trump being involved illegally with Russian would cheat on an election. The Democrats who tried to impeach Trump many times would cheat on an election.
Does anyone really think that they wouldn't, or couldn't?
-
@Bill_Coley our resident liberal hack, refuses to see what is going on. Bill how do 130k ballots show up in the middle of the night and every one of them are a vote for Biden? That is statistically impossible.
-
@reformed posted:
@Bill_Coley our resident liberal hack, refuses to see what is going on. Bill how do 130k ballots show up in the middle of the night and every one of them are a vote for Biden? That is statistically impossible.
I had only seen the 130k ballot allegation in passing - perhaps in a post in these threads? - and did not know the important detail you note in your post, that all of those votes allegedly went to Biden.
Your post prompted me to investigate the matter because, as you correctly note, it would be statistically impossible for 130k votes to go to only one candidate in any particular vote count update. Because I was certain I would have heard about such a glaring error were it an actual defect, my first impression was it had to be the product of a mistake, a conspiracy theory, or some other innocent beginning. IF we're talking about the same event, it turns out I was right.
On Wednesday morning, Pamela Geller (among others, apparently) posted this tweet:
Later in the day, President Trump retweeted the Gellar tweet.
But Ms. Gellar, to her credit, has since deleted her tweet because there was a simple and innocent explanation to the result she observed. A company called DecisionHQ tabulates and reports election results it receives from the various states. It does not, however, edit the numbers it receives. So when the state of Michigan (specifically, Shiawassee County in Michigan) made a mistake in one of its updates - an update that DID report a 138,000-0 vote advantage for Biden - DecisionHQ posted those numbers as it received them. At some point - I don't know how long it took - DecisionHQ noticed the error, contacted election officials, and issued a corrected update that removed the 138k vote burst for Biden. The correction evidently convinced Ms Gellar to delete her tweet. Here's the way the Detroit Free Press newspaper reported the event's resolution:
So, Mr. Biden did NOT receive 130k votes in the middle of the night. It was a mistake - such things DO happen - that was found and corrected.
Now, you MIGHT be talking about some OTHER 130k votes for Biden in the middle of the night. If so, PLEASE provide a link to the story so that I can pursue its origins.
ONE MORE THING: You call me a "liberal hack." From lots of experience, I've come to expect such juvenile name-calling from you. In the matter of those mysterious 130k Biden votes, however, I would call myself a "factual hack." I took the time to investigate the matter before reaching a conclusion. Did you? Did you do ANY additional research to verify the truthfulness of the claim before you posted it in this thread? Or did you simply parrot what you had seen in your politically partisan newsfeeds? If you didn't verify the claim before you posted it, what name do you call yourself?
-
Even though P.C. Roberts in the past has been put down quite often when I posted a link to one of his articles, I post a link of an article from today.
I suggest a careful reading and also reading of linked sources in his article .... it just might make some sense regarding what is going on in the USA at this time.
-
Too bad these mysterious 4am dumps are happening in other places as well, all for Biden. I don't trust these Democrat states for one minute. Why are they boarding up the windows in the counting centers? Why are they keeping Republicans out? If it is all on the level what are they hiding?
-
@reformed posted:
Too bad these mysterious 4am dumps are happening in other places as well, all for Biden. I don't trust these Democrat states for one minute. Why are they boarding up the windows in the counting centers? Why are they keeping Republicans out? If it is all on the level what are they hiding?
An artful dodge of the issue.
In a previous post you claimed that Biden had received "130k ballots [that showed] up in the middle of the night and every one of them are a vote for Biden." I then explained and documented the origin and resolution of approximately that number of Biden "votes" that briefly displayed in Michigan's returns until the correction of a clerical error in a single county. You asked how such "votes" could "show up in the middle of the night, and every one of them a vote for Biden." I proved both how they showed up and that they were promptly removed. Your post offers no comment on the now-established fact that there was NOTHING nefarious about the mistake, or on the fact that at least one of the people who launched concerns about those "votes" deleted her tweet once she learned the truth. In your previous post, you raised alarm, of sorts, about those votes. Don't you now owe us to comment directly on the FACTS of that matter?
I ask you again the questions I posed in my previous post: When it comes to those 130k Biden "votes," I took the time to investigate before reaching a conclusion. Did you? Did you do ANY additional research to verify the truthfulness of the claim before you posted it in this thread? Did you know, for example, about the corrected clerical error in Michigan when you posted? Or did you simply parrot what you had seen in your politically partisan newsfeeds?
And in your latest post you refer to other "mysterious 4am dumps...happening in other places as well, all for Biden." First, the vote "dump" you cited in a previous post didn't happen in the way your post seemed to purport it did. Second, give us links to credible news reports about these "mysterious 4am dumps." It's easy - and potentially corrosive to our body politic - to CLAIM misconduct. What you need to do - and won't be able to do in the current vote counting process - is to PROVE misconduct. Show us your evidence.
You claim Republicans are being kept out of vote counting centers. Everything I've heard about that alleged issue is that it is not true. Again, provide documentation for your claim.
And finally you claim the existence of boarded-up windows at vote counting centers. I can't find ANY evidence of that. Please provide documentation.
There's a theme to this post: You can't just CLAIM things, even if your favorite politically partisan "news" sources tell you they're true. You have to prove them, as in show that they're objectively true. Your first claim - about the Biden 130k votes - was not what you purported it to be. Now you have a chance to prove that your latest claims ARE what you claim them to be.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
Of course the Democrats are cheating in this election.
The Democrats who went through the trouble to spy on Trump even before he got elected in 2016, they would go through the trouble to cheat on this election. The Democrats and FBI agents that helped make false accusations about Trump being involved illegally with Russian would cheat on an election. The Democrats who tried to impeach Trump many times would cheat on an election.
Does anyone really think that they wouldn't, or couldn't?
- Democrats are cheating in this election? Your proof?
- Democrats who went through the trouble to spy on Trump? This claim has been debunked by every credible investigation, but you may have others. Your proof?
- The Democrats and FBI agents helped make false accusations about illegal involvement with Russians? Which Democrats and which FBI agents made which "false accusations" of illegal involvement?
- Impeachment is a constitutional remedy afforded to the House of Representatives. How did their following the Constitution demonstrate their willingness to cheat on an election? Did the Republicans in the 1997-98 House of Representatives demonstrate THEIR willingness to cheat on an election when they impeached Bill Clinton?
- Vote counting is overseen by bipartisan boards of elections and happens at precinct-, county-, and state locations. Where is your evidence that EITHER party is interfering in the vote counting process (you don't have to cite the president's many lawsuits aimed at stopping vote counts; we know he's trying to interfere with the vote counting process).
-
- They refuse to let poll observers in.
- Actually it has been proven, NOT debunked.
- Anyone of them that made the accusation.
- It was a baseless impeachment with zero evidence required for impeachment.
- Bi-Partisan? When the Secstate of PA says Trump doesn't deserve the title President? That's Bi-Partisan? No. They are keeping Trumps people out and boarding up windows. And the President is not trying to stop the counts. He is trying to stop UNOBSERVED counts.
As you say, facts matter.
-
@reformed posted:
They refuse to let poll observers in.
Identify and link to evidence that proves the existence of one vote count location in which fewer Republican poll watchers were allowed in than was required by applicable law.
Actually it has been proven, NOT debunked.
Your single sentence claims rarely prove anything other than your ability to write single sentence claims; such is certainly the case here.
There is NO evidence "Democrats went to the trouble of spying on Trump." I'm sure you read the 2017 court filing from the Trump Justice Department that in one sentence refuted the president's oft-tweeted claim of Obama administration wiretaps of Trump Tower ("Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets.") Further, the fact that the Bill Barr Justice Department didn't even file a report, let alone charges, after its probe of the great "unmasking" scandal Devin Nunes breathlessly brought to the nation's attention, should tell you how little "there" there is in this claim. It is false. Not so? Prove your single sentence claim.
Anyone of them that made the accusation.
No more helpful of a single sentence claim than the previous one.
It was a baseless impeachment with zero evidence required for impeachment.
Your partisan political view of the president's lawful and constitutional impeachment in no way addresses the issue I raised: That the House's following the Constitution does not demonstrate their willingness to cheat on an election. And I ask the other question again: Did the Republicans in the 1997-98 House of Representatives demonstrate THEIR willingness to cheat on an election when they legally and constitutionally impeached Bill Clinton?
Bi-Partisan? When the Secstate of PA says Trump doesn't deserve the title President? That's Bi-Partisan? No. They are keeping Trumps people out and boarding up windows. And the President is not trying to stop the counts. He is trying to stop UNOBSERVED counts.
In my previous post, I asked for evidence that EITHER party is interfering in the vote counting process (you don't have to cite the president's many lawsuits aimed at stopping vote counts; we know he's trying to interfere with the vote counting process). The Secretary of State's partisan political views are NOT evidence of vote count interference. And again I ask you to identify and link to evidence that proves the existence of one vote count location in which fewer Republican poll watchers were allowed in than was required by applicable law?
And I'm still waiting for you to either acknowledge the falsehood of your "mysterious" 130k vote claim or prove that it's true. In addition, I'm waiting for you to stand accountable for that claim by telling us whether before you posted it, you did ANY additional research to verify its relevance and accuracy, or instead you parroted what you had read/heard from politically partisan information sources.
-
Press Prostitutes Make Fools of Themselves Trying to Cover Up Vote Fraud for Democrats
Paul Craig Roberts
It is amusing to watch the press prostitutes try to coverup vote fraud for the Democrats. Here is an example from the bought-and-paid-for BBC whose “Reality Check Team” has undertaken to “fact check” the “rumor” of a 138,000 sudden ballot dump for Biden in Michigan during the early hours of morning when no one was watching: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54811410
The BBC claims this was a “data entry error” that was corrected. The “data entry error” was not corrected, if it was, until it became an issue. How does the BBC know that the sudden jump in votes for Biden wasn’t fraud that when exposed was explained away by crooked officials as a “data entry error.”
Note also that the exact same thing occurred in neighboring Wisconsin at about the same time. So we had two simultaneous “data entry errors” in two critical contested states that wiped out Trump’s lead? How likely is that?
Note also that correcting the “data entry error” did not result in the reappearance of Trump’s lead. So how was the error corrected?
It shows how utterly stupid the presstitutes are that they report that a data entry error that erased Trump’s lead was “corrected” but the lead remained erased!
Why does a British news service have a “Fact Check Team” to protect an American political party? Is the campaign against red state America organized globally?
Note two other anomalous vote patterns. In the critical swing states, the Democrat votes for senators do not match the votes for Biden, and despite what seems to be a record Democrat turnout the Democrats lost house seats in the election! What explains the absence of “down the ticket” voting in Democrat House and Senate voting? Fraud in the Biden vote is an obvious answer. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-does-biden-have-so-many-more-votes-democrat-senators-swing-states
Notice the interesting facts mentioned above how the supposed correction of an error does not result in any correction at all ???????
-
Hmn ... let's sit back and see what happens in the near future ... watch the little video clip with the information revealed by intelligence expert Steve Pieczenik
-
THIS IS AN ILLEGAL FRAUDULENT ELECTION.
-
Biden is not the rightful President Elect, you will never convince me otherwise. There is so much evidence that this is all a sham.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Notice the interesting facts mentioned above how the supposed correction of an error does not result in any correction at all ???????
I won't play the "whack-a-mole" game with you, Wolfgang, in which I debunk every conspiracy theory you post in these forums. In part, I won't play that game because there will be no end to such theories now that Joe Biden is the presumptive president-elect, and I have other things to do with my time than address a steady stream of baseless claims. But I also won't play that game with you because of your long-established practice of refusing even to mention, let alone directly engage, the questions or considerations I raise to you on matters related to politics and government. Time after time and time after time over our years together in these forums, you have refused even to acknowledge the existence of questions I asked in my responses to your conspiracy theories.
So, I won't play whack-a-mole with you, but as a template for what would be my response to all of your future conspiracy theories, I offer the following in response to your "interesting facts" post:
- Mr Roberts claims that the 138,000-0 vote addition in Biden's favor occurred "during the early hours of morning when no one was watching." If no one was watching, how was it discovered and corrected? Isn't the fact that the state corrected the error proof that someone was watching?
- Roberts asks, "How does the BBC know that the sudden jump in votes for Biden wasn’t fraud that when exposed was explained away by crooked officials as a “data entry error”? In form, Roberts's question can convert ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING into a conspiracy theory: How do we know Wolfgang hasn't murdered three dozen people during his lifetime? How do we know Donald Trump doesn't use his daily "executive time" to plot a one world government over which he would be the dictator? The only defense against such absurdity is this question: What's your proof? In the case of the 138,000 votes, there is NO proof of fraud - none - because none occurred.
- Roberts then claims that "the exact same thing occurred in neighboring Wisconsin at about the same time. So we had two simultaneous “data entry errors” in two critical contested states that wiped out Trump’s lead? How likely is that?" It's not likely at all, at least in this case... because it didn't happen. Wisconsin simply reported its absentee and early votes, which as any objective observer of the American election knows, have leaned decidedly toward Biden because Democrats voted early and by mail FAR, FAR, FAR more than did Republicans (recall that throughout his campaign Mr. Trump told his followers to vote in person, and not to trust voting by mail) There is NO evidence - none - that "the exact same thing" happened in Wisconsin because what happened in Wisconsin was a report of votes that reflected the political reality of absentee/mail-in vs. in-person voting this year (AND there was no Wisconsin vote update in which Mr Biden received ALL of the reported votes... which by definition means what happened in Wisconsin was not "the exact same thing" as happened in the Michigan clerical error).
- Finally, Mr Roberts claims that, "correcting the “data entry error” did not result in the reappearance of Trump’s lead. So how was the error corrected?" Examine the every two hour Michigan vote count that was part of the article to which I previously linked:
IF the 138,000-0 vote dump was not corrected, in that graph there should be a time frame that reports a significant increase in votes for Biden but hardly any for Mr Trump. There is no such time period. Mr Trump's vote count increases every two hours, and at about the pace we would expect given his performance in previous periods. Ergo, the 138,000 vote error WAS corrected.
BOTTOM LINE: Mr Roberts's claims are baseless and false, as is the entire conspiracy theory you raise by your post, Wolfgang. There is NO evidence - NONE - to support the claim because NOTHING fraudulent happened. It was a mistake that election officials found and corrected, full stop. But of course, that's the nature of conspiracy theories. There is NEVER any evidence to support them because they are ALWAYS baseless and false.
Because you have a long history of trafficking in and posting baseless and false conspiracy theories in these forums, I fully expect that you will post additional ones going forward; such is your right. As you do, somewhere in the back of your mind remember that if I wanted to, I could likely debunk every single one of your theories, and in response, if our shared posting history is any indication, you wouldn't even MENTION, let alone directly engage, the substance of my debunking posts. Why not? 1) That's your approach to questions and assertions of fact that dispute your points of view - you refuse even to acknowledge their existence; 2) My debunking posts would be based on facts and truth, and that's a field on which no conspiracy theory dares to tread.
-
@reformed posted:
THIS IS AN ILLEGAL FRAUDULENT ELECTION....
Biden is not the rightful President Elect, you will never convince me otherwise. There is so much evidence that this is all a sham.
I have no doubt that you will never be convinced that Mr Biden is the "rightful president-elect."
Since there is "so much evidence that this is all a sham," you should be able to present it to us. NOT in the form of single-sentence declarations - which prove nothing - but in the form of collections of objectively true facts and evidence. I haven't seen ANY evidence that this is a "sham" or "AN ILLEGAL FRAUDULENT ELECTION," but I could be wrong. Please share some of the most compelling portions of what you claim is "so much evidence." And if you don't do so, please tell us why we should believe your claim about such "evidence" when you're not willing to back it up.
-
You won't because he is not. THis is a fraud.
There is plenty of evidence of the Fraud, you refuse to see it. You are a liberal hack an the ultimate idiot.
-
@reformed posted:
You won't because he is not. THis is a fraud.
There is plenty of evidence of the Fraud, you refuse to see it. You are a liberal hack an the ultimate idiot.
I asked that you not respond with single-sentence declarations. At first glance, I was heartened to see FOUR sentences in your reply. But upon closer inspection, I discovered that each is, sadly, a single-sentence declaration:
- "You won't because he is not." -- I won't WHAT?... "because he is not" WHAT?
- "This is a fraud." -- Am I correct to assume you're referring to the presidential election? If so, your claim here lacks... what do they call it? Evidence.
- "There is plenty of evidence of the Fraud, you refuse to see it." -- It's not that I "refuse" to see it; it's that I DON'T see it, which is why in my last post I asked you to "share some of the most compelling portions of what you claim is 'so much evidence.'" Obviously, you chose not to do so, which triggers the other request of that post, that you "tell us why we should believe your claim about such 'evidence' when you're not willing to back it up."
- "You are a liberal hack an the ultimate idiot." -- Juvenile name-calling inside a single-sentence declaration. Now THAT'S rhetorical efficiency!
