On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:09:13 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<671198e6$4$2756$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <67119743$4$2758$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:58:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <6711967e$5$3826$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <67118ce8$1$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:00:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <671188f1$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <671180d7$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:14:18 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>> <verun9$2tegq$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <671175b5$2$2873000$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 1:36:21 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <versg5$2stfd$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>>>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
>>>>>>>>>>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-harris/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
>>>>>>>>>>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
>>>>>>>>>>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on ?Jose-Diaz
>>>>>>>>>>>> Balart Reports.? Not a single voter lining up at the polling
>>>>>>>>>>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the NBC correspondent added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
>>>>>>>>>>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
>>>>>>>>>>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,? Hillyard said. ?These were
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
>>>>>>>>>>>> County.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WATCH:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
>>>>>>>>>>>> said that voters are making a ?special effort? to vote this year
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
>>>>>>>>>>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ?He keeps saying it, and I?ve been thinking about it, and so here
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am,? Schwarz said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>> because he is ?horrified by the state of the country,? Hillyard
>>>>>>>>>>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
>>>>>>>>>>>> blue states to support Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
>>>>>>>>>>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
>>>>>>>>>>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
>>>>>>>>>>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
>>>>>>>>>> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
>>>>>>>>>> sleeves this time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where do you get these wild stories?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stay blind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And stupid as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Just a few anomalies regarding the 2020 election.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Six states changed their election laws two months before the 2020
>>>>>>> election by executive fiat, instead of going through the proper channels
>>>>>>> in the legislature. That is a violation of their state constitutions and
>>>>>>> that in and of itself is enough to invalidate the results of the 2020
>>>>>>> election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Mark Zuckerberg, hard left, spent $450 million dollars of private
>>>>>>> money on our elections. After the 2020 election analysis revealed that
>>>>>>> most of that money went to benefit Democrats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. 6 swing states stopped counting the votes on election night for the
>>>>>>> first time in American history. At the time that they stopped counting
>>>>>>> the votes, Donald Trump was ahead of Biden in each of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. The unelected tech oligarchs in conjunction with the FBI in this
>>>>>>> country censored a very important story about Hunter Biden?s laptop and
>>>>>>> Joe Biden?s corruption. People who worked in the intelligence community,
>>>>>>> came out and said it was Russian disinformation only to have that laptop
>>>>>>> be admitted into evidence as part of an FBI investigation and criminal
>>>>>>> prosecution of Hunter Biden. Polling after the election showed that if
>>>>>>> people knew about the Hunter Biden laptop story it would?ve changed 17%
>>>>>>> of the vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. 2,036,041 ballots were touched by anomalies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6. 923 American citizens filled out affidavits alleging voter fraud, and
>>>>>>> signed them under penalties of perjury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. 50 plus courts blocked evidentiary hearings into the alleged fraud
>>>>>>> found in 2020.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8. Prior to 2020 there were four other contested elections, one in
>>>>>>> Florida, one in the 78th district of Missouri, one in the ninth district
>>>>>>> of North Carolina, and one in the 22nd district of New York. In every
>>>>>>> single one of those four instances, there was an evidentiary hearing. In
>>>>>>> the 2020 election, there was no evidentiary hearing. For the first time
>>>>>>> in American history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9. No election contest in American history has had 923 fact witnesses
>>>>>>> sign under penalties of perjury and stake their personal freedom in
>>>>>>> testimony to attest to the irregularities and legal issues found in
>>>>>>> various states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10. 37 states in the United States of America altered their absentee or
>>>>>>> mail in ballots ballot integrity procedures before the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11. If those 37 states used the same ballot integrity procedures that
>>>>>>> they used in 2018, swing states would?ve found an upwards of 30,000 more
>>>>>>> ineligible ballots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 12. In Pennsylvania, counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after
>>>>>>> the election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 13. Any one of those is enough to say that there was enough fraud in the
>>>>>>> 2020 election to doubt the outcome. Can I prove Donald Trump would?ve
>>>>>>> won the election if the Democrats hadn?t cheated? No I can?t prove a
>>>>>>> counter-narrative, but I can tell you that this amount of fraud leads
>>>>>>> any reasonable person to the conclusion that Joe Biden didn?t win.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The insurrection therefore was on 11/3/2020.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1/6 was a lawful protest with permits that got out of hand. Unlike
>>>>>>> Democrats who spent 10 months burning down this country to the tune of
>>>>>>> $2 billion dollars, and injuring 740 police officers nationwide, the
>>>>>>> capital riot had a couple million dollars in damages, 140 police
>>>>>>> officers that were injured and zero deaths. Except the 3 Trump
>>>>>>> supporters who were unarmed and killed without any investigation by the
>>>>>>> corrupt government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anybody who is clutching their pearls about January 6 without mentioning
>>>>>>> the fact that there was a large federal presence and many anomalies that
>>>>>>> have yet to be answered is a liar and a partisan hack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sound like an uninformed stage 10 TDS patient who needs to detox
>>>>>>> from CNN and MSNBC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can endorse the cackling communist from California, but..don?t you
>>>>>>> dare pretend like the reason why you?re doing it is because Donald Trump
>>>>>>> did something wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let?s break down and address these claims one by one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 1: States changing election laws by executive fiat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It?s true that some states changed voting procedures before the 2020 election
>>>>>> due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to expand access to mail-in voting.
>>>>>> However, these changes were largely made through emergency powers or by state
>>>>>> election boards and officials, often with judicial review. In most cases, the
>>>>>> courts ruled these changes were legal under state constitutions. Even in
>>>>>> states where the legality was questioned, no court invalidated the election
>>>>>> results based solely on these procedural changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 2: Mark Zuckerberg spent $450 million to benefit Democrats
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated to a non-partisan group, the Center for
>>>>>> Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which provided funds to help local election
>>>>>> offices run elections during the pandemic. While some of the funds went to
>>>>>> areas that leaned Democrat (which are often more populous), Republican-leaning
>>>>>> areas also received funds. There?s no evidence that this funding was used to
>>>>>> favor one party over another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 3: 6 swing states stopped counting votes on election night
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 2020, due to the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, some states did
>>>>>> stop counting votes temporarily on election night. This wasn?t a unique event
>>>>>> in history?vote counting has often extended beyond election night in previous
>>>>>> elections, especially in states with close races. Mail-in ballots take longer
>>>>>> to process, and the delays were expected and announced beforehand. Trump?s
>>>>>> early lead in some states was due to the ?red mirage? phenomenon, where
>>>>>> same-day in-person votes (which leaned Republican) were counted first,
>>>>>> followed by mail-in ballots (which leaned Democrat).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 4: Hunter Biden laptop story and censorship
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story was published just weeks before the 2020
>>>>>> election. Some media outlets and social media platforms took steps to limit
>>>>>> its distribution, citing concerns about the authenticity of the information
>>>>>> and potential foreign interference. While subsequent investigations confirmed
>>>>>> that the laptop was part of a legitimate investigation into Hunter Biden,
>>>>>> there is no evidence that the suppression of this story changed the election
>>>>>> outcome. Polls suggesting otherwise are speculative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 5: 2 million ballots touched by anomalies
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This claim is vague and lacks concrete evidence. Many claims about voting
>>>>>> anomalies have been thoroughly investigated, and none have shown widespread
>>>>>> fraud that would alter the outcome of the election. Anomalies are common in
>>>>>> every election, but they are generally clerical or minor errors that do not
>>>>>> affect the overall result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 6: 923 affidavits alleging voter fraud
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While it?s true that some people signed affidavits, affidavits are not proof
>>>>>> of fraud?they are simply statements by individuals. Many of these affidavits
>>>>>> were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence or because they described
>>>>>> misunderstandings of normal election processes. Simply filing an affidavit
>>>>>> does not prove fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 7: 50+ courts blocked evidentiary hearings
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many courts rejected election fraud claims because the evidence presented was
>>>>>> insufficient or non-existent. Courts didn?t block hearings out of bias but
>>>>>> rather followed legal standards that require concrete evidence before
>>>>>> proceeding. Most cases were dismissed because they didn?t meet the burden of
>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 8: No evidentiary hearing for the 2020 election
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were numerous hearings and legal challenges related to the 2020
>>>>>> election, including in key states like Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. In
>>>>>> most cases, judges found no credible evidence of widespread fraud. The idea
>>>>>> that there was ?no evidentiary hearing? is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 9: 923 fact witnesses signed under perjury
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While hundreds of people may have signed affidavits, it?s important to note
>>>>>> that many of these affidavits were dismissed by courts due to a lack of
>>>>>> supporting evidence. An affidavit alone does not constitute proof, and many
>>>>>> were based on misunderstandings or hearsay rather than direct knowledge of
>>>>>> fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 10: 37 states altered absentee or mail-in ballot procedures
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, many states made adjustments to their mail-in voting procedures in
>>>>>> response to the pandemic, which is entirely legal if done in accordance with
>>>>>> state laws. These changes were made to ensure voter safety and accessibility.
>>>>>> Courts generally upheld these changes as legal, with some minor exceptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 11: 30,000 more ineligible ballots in swing states
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no evidence to support the claim that 30,000 ineligible ballots were
>>>>>> cast in swing states. Audits and recounts in key states, including Georgia and
>>>>>> Arizona, have consistently shown that the number of ineligible ballots was
>>>>>> extremely low and nowhere near enough to affect the outcome of the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 12: Pennsylvania allowed new ballots after the election
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This claim is false. Pennsylvania followed court-approved deadlines for
>>>>>> accepting mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received
>>>>>> within a certain window after the election, which is a standard practice.
>>>>>> There is no evidence that ballots were illegally counted after the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claim 13: Any one of these is enough to invalidate the election
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each of these claims has been investigated and largely debunked. While there
>>>>>> were some procedural changes due to the pandemic, none of the claims provide
>>>>>> credible evidence of widespread fraud that would invalidate the results of the
>>>>>> 2020 election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> January 6 vs. Summer 2020 Protests
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The January 6 attack was not a lawful protest. It was a violent breach of the
>>>>>> U.S. Capitol aimed at overturning the results of a democratic election. There
>>>>>> were investigations into the conduct of Capitol Police, but there is no
>>>>>> evidence of a government cover-up of the deaths of protesters. In contrast,
>>>>>> while the summer 2020 protests did lead to property damage and injuries, they
>>>>>> were largely protests against police brutality, and widespread condemnation
>>>>>> occurred when violence took place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most scrutinized elections in
>>>>>> U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support claims of widespread
>>>>>> fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims made here have been
>>>>>> widely investigated, with no proof supporting the narrative that the election
>>>>>> was stolen.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:10:03 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<67119918$11$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>>>>>>> even trying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>>>>
>>>> Whoooooosh!
>>>
>>> and he concedes.
>>
>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>> points. LOL!
>
> You ran away.

I am facing your trolling head on... but you are folding a lot and not
providing the entertainment you were before.
>>
>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>> now taboo?

You ignored this. You have nothing to add to the conversation.
>
> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>> > In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> >> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> >>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>> >>>>> even trying.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>> >>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>> >>
>> >> Whoooooosh!
>> >
>> > and he concedes.
>>
>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>> points. LOL!
>
> You ran away.
>>
>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>> now taboo?
>
>
> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
>
Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
I am not kidding.

Ask him.

--
pothead

See Kamala Harris best interview ever.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363352689112
She really knocks this one out of the park.
Don't you agree?

In article <67119b22$0$212411$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:10:03 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <67119918$11$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>
> >>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
> >>>>>>> even trying.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
> >>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whoooooosh!
> >>>
> >>> and he concedes.
> >>
> >> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
> >> points. LOL!
> >
> > You ran away.
>
> I am facing your trolling head on... but you are folding a lot and not
> providing the entertainment you were before.

You still ran away.
> >>
> >> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
> >> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
> >> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
> >> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
> >> now taboo?
>
> You ignored this. You have nothing to add to the conversation.

Look below.
> >
> > Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:35:43 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<ves70f$2urbc$1@dont-email.me>:

> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>>>>>>>> even trying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoooooosh!
>>>>
>>>> and he concedes.
>>>
>>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>>> points. LOL!
>>
>> You ran away.
>>>
>>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>>> now taboo?
>>
>>
>> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
>>
> Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
> Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
> I am not kidding.
>
> Ask him.

Your trolling was more interesting in the past.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <67119b50$4$1895505$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:09:13 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <671198e6$4$2756$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <67119743$4$2758$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:58:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> <6711967e$5$3826$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>
> >>> In article <67118ce8$1$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:00:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >>>> <671188f1$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <671180d7$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:14:18 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
> >>>>>> <verun9$2tegq$1@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <671175b5$2$2873000$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 1:36:21 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
> >>>>>>>>> <versg5$2stfd$2@dont-email.me>:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-harris/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on ?Jose-Diaz
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Balart Reports.? Not a single voter lining up at the polling
> >>>>>>>>>>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the NBC correspondent added.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,? Hillyard said. ?These were
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
> >>>>>>>>>>>> County.?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> WATCH:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
> >>>>>>>>>>>> said that voters are making a ?special effort? to vote this year
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?He keeps saying it, and I?ve been thinking about it, and so here
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am,? Schwarz said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because he is ?horrified by the state of the country,? Hillyard
> >>>>>>>>>>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> blue states to support Trump.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
> >>>>>>>>>>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
> >>>>>>>>>>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in 2016
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
> >>>>>>>>>>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
> >>>>>>>>>> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
> >>>>>>>>>> sleeves this time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where do you get these wild stories?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stay blind.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And stupid as well.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *Just a few anomalies regarding the 2020 election.*
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Six states changed their election laws two months before the 2020
> >>>>>>> election by executive fiat, instead of going through the proper channels
> >>>>>>> in the legislature. That is a violation of their state constitutions and
> >>>>>>> that in and of itself is enough to invalidate the results of the 2020
> >>>>>>> election.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. Mark Zuckerberg, hard left, spent $450 million dollars of private
> >>>>>>> money on our elections. After the 2020 election analysis revealed that
> >>>>>>> most of that money went to benefit Democrats.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3. 6 swing states stopped counting the votes on election night for the
> >>>>>>> first time in American history. At the time that they stopped counting
> >>>>>>> the votes, Donald Trump was ahead of Biden in each of them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 4. The unelected tech oligarchs in conjunction with the FBI in this
> >>>>>>> country censored a very important story about Hunter Biden?s laptop and
> >>>>>>> Joe Biden?s corruption. People who worked in the intelligence community,
> >>>>>>> came out and said it was Russian disinformation only to have that laptop
> >>>>>>> be admitted into evidence as part of an FBI investigation and criminal
> >>>>>>> prosecution of Hunter Biden. Polling after the election showed that if
> >>>>>>> people knew about the Hunter Biden laptop story it would?ve changed 17%
> >>>>>>> of the vote.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 5. 2,036,041 ballots were touched by anomalies.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 6. 923 American citizens filled out affidavits alleging voter fraud, and
> >>>>>>> signed them under penalties of perjury.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 7. 50 plus courts blocked evidentiary hearings into the alleged fraud
> >>>>>>> found in 2020.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 8. Prior to 2020 there were four other contested elections, one in
> >>>>>>> Florida, one in the 78th district of Missouri, one in the ninth district
> >>>>>>> of North Carolina, and one in the 22nd district of New York. In every
> >>>>>>> single one of those four instances, there was an evidentiary hearing. In
> >>>>>>> the 2020 election, there was no evidentiary hearing. For the first time
> >>>>>>> in American history.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 9. No election contest in American history has had 923 fact witnesses
> >>>>>>> sign under penalties of perjury and stake their personal freedom in
> >>>>>>> testimony to attest to the irregularities and legal issues found in
> >>>>>>> various states.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 10. 37 states in the United States of America altered their absentee or
> >>>>>>> mail in ballots ballot integrity procedures before the 2020 election.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 11. If those 37 states used the same ballot integrity procedures that
> >>>>>>> they used in 2018, swing states would?ve found an upwards of 30,000 more
> >>>>>>> ineligible ballots.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 12. In Pennsylvania, counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after
> >>>>>>> the election.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 13. Any one of those is enough to say that there was enough fraud in the
> >>>>>>> 2020 election to doubt the outcome. Can I prove Donald Trump would?ve
> >>>>>>> won the election if the Democrats hadn?t cheated? No I can?t prove a
> >>>>>>> counter-narrative, but I can tell you that this amount of fraud leads
> >>>>>>> any reasonable person to the conclusion that Joe Biden didn?t win.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The insurrection therefore was on 11/3/2020.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1/6 was a lawful protest with permits that got out of hand. Unlike
> >>>>>>> Democrats who spent 10 months burning down this country to the tune of
> >>>>>>> $2 billion dollars, and injuring 740 police officers nationwide, the
> >>>>>>> capital riot had a couple million dollars in damages, 140 police
> >>>>>>> officers that were injured and zero deaths. Except the 3 Trump
> >>>>>>> supporters who were unarmed and killed without any investigation by the
> >>>>>>> corrupt government.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anybody who is clutching their pearls about January 6 without mentioning
> >>>>>>> the fact that there was a large federal presence and many anomalies that
> >>>>>>> have yet to be answered is a liar and a partisan hack.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You sound like an uninformed stage 10 TDS patient who needs to detox
> >>>>>>> from CNN and MSNBC.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can endorse the cackling communist from California, but..don?t you
> >>>>>>> dare pretend like the reason why you?re doing it is because Donald Trump
> >>>>>>> did something wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let?s break down and address these claims one by one:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 1: States changing election laws by executive fiat
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It?s true that some states changed voting procedures before the 2020 election
> >>>>>> due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to expand access to mail-in voting.
> >>>>>> However, these changes were largely made through emergency powers or by state
> >>>>>> election boards and officials, often with judicial review. In most cases, the
> >>>>>> courts ruled these changes were legal under state constitutions. Even in
> >>>>>> states where the legality was questioned, no court invalidated the election
> >>>>>> results based solely on these procedural changes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 2: Mark Zuckerberg spent $450 million to benefit Democrats
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated to a non-partisan group, the Center for
> >>>>>> Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which provided funds to help local election
> >>>>>> offices run elections during the pandemic. While some of the funds went to
> >>>>>> areas that leaned Democrat (which are often more populous), Republican-leaning
> >>>>>> areas also received funds. There?s no evidence that this funding was used to
> >>>>>> favor one party over another.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 3: 6 swing states stopped counting votes on election night
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In 2020, due to the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, some states did
> >>>>>> stop counting votes temporarily on election night. This wasn?t a unique event
> >>>>>> in history?vote counting has often extended beyond election night in previous
> >>>>>> elections, especially in states with close races. Mail-in ballots take longer
> >>>>>> to process, and the delays were expected and announced beforehand. Trump?s
> >>>>>> early lead in some states was due to the ?red mirage? phenomenon, where
> >>>>>> same-day in-person votes (which leaned Republican) were counted first,
> >>>>>> followed by mail-in ballots (which leaned Democrat).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 4: Hunter Biden laptop story and censorship
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story was published just weeks before the 2020
> >>>>>> election. Some media outlets and social media platforms took steps to limit
> >>>>>> its distribution, citing concerns about the authenticity of the information
> >>>>>> and potential foreign interference. While subsequent investigations confirmed
> >>>>>> that the laptop was part of a legitimate investigation into Hunter Biden,
> >>>>>> there is no evidence that the suppression of this story changed the election
> >>>>>> outcome. Polls suggesting otherwise are speculative.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 5: 2 million ballots touched by anomalies
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This claim is vague and lacks concrete evidence. Many claims about voting
> >>>>>> anomalies have been thoroughly investigated, and none have shown widespread
> >>>>>> fraud that would alter the outcome of the election. Anomalies are common in
> >>>>>> every election, but they are generally clerical or minor errors that do not
> >>>>>> affect the overall result.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 6: 923 affidavits alleging voter fraud
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While it?s true that some people signed affidavits, affidavits are not proof
> >>>>>> of fraud?they are simply statements by individuals. Many of these affidavits
> >>>>>> were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence or because they described
> >>>>>> misunderstandings of normal election processes. Simply filing an affidavit
> >>>>>> does not prove fraud.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 7: 50+ courts blocked evidentiary hearings
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Many courts rejected election fraud claims because the evidence presented was
> >>>>>> insufficient or non-existent. Courts didn?t block hearings out of bias but
> >>>>>> rather followed legal standards that require concrete evidence before
> >>>>>> proceeding. Most cases were dismissed because they didn?t meet the burden of
> >>>>>> proof.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 8: No evidentiary hearing for the 2020 election
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There were numerous hearings and legal challenges related to the 2020
> >>>>>> election, including in key states like Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. In
> >>>>>> most cases, judges found no credible evidence of widespread fraud. The idea
> >>>>>> that there was ?no evidentiary hearing? is false.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 9: 923 fact witnesses signed under perjury
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While hundreds of people may have signed affidavits, it?s important to note
> >>>>>> that many of these affidavits were dismissed by courts due to a lack of
> >>>>>> supporting evidence. An affidavit alone does not constitute proof, and many
> >>>>>> were based on misunderstandings or hearsay rather than direct knowledge of
> >>>>>> fraud.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 10: 37 states altered absentee or mail-in ballot procedures
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, many states made adjustments to their mail-in voting procedures in
> >>>>>> response to the pandemic, which is entirely legal if done in accordance with
> >>>>>> state laws. These changes were made to ensure voter safety and accessibility.
> >>>>>> Courts generally upheld these changes as legal, with some minor exceptions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 11: 30,000 more ineligible ballots in swing states
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no evidence to support the claim that 30,000 ineligible ballots were
> >>>>>> cast in swing states. Audits and recounts in key states, including Georgia and
> >>>>>> Arizona, have consistently shown that the number of ineligible ballots was
> >>>>>> extremely low and nowhere near enough to affect the outcome of the election.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 12: Pennsylvania allowed new ballots after the election
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This claim is false. Pennsylvania followed court-approved deadlines for
> >>>>>> accepting mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received
> >>>>>> within a certain window after the election, which is a standard practice.
> >>>>>> There is no evidence that ballots were illegally counted after the election.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Claim 13: Any one of these is enough to invalidate the election
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Each of these claims has been investigated and largely debunked. While there
> >>>>>> were some procedural changes due to the pandemic, none of the claims provide
> >>>>>> credible evidence of widespread fraud that would invalidate the results of the
> >>>>>> 2020 election.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> January 6 vs. Summer 2020 Protests
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The January 6 attack was not a lawful protest. It was a violent breach of the
> >>>>>> U.S. Capitol aimed at overturning the results of a democratic election. There
> >>>>>> were investigations into the conduct of Capitol Police, but there is no
> >>>>>> evidence of a government cover-up of the deaths of protesters. In contrast,
> >>>>>> while the summer 2020 protests did lead to property damage and injuries, they
> >>>>>> were largely protests against police brutality, and widespread condemnation
> >>>>>> occurred when violence took place.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most scrutinized elections in
> >>>>>> U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support claims of widespread
> >>>>>> fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims made here have been
> >>>>>> widely investigated, with no proof supporting the narrative that the election
> >>>>>> was stolen.
>
> A shame you have no reasoned response not this content. That is OK, though,
> just means we have reached agreement -- the election was fair or at the very
> least there is no good evidence or reason to think it was not. Thank you.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:32:36 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<67119e96$2$212410$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
now taboo?

Do you have a relevant reply? If not best we just end the conversation.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <ves70f$2urbc$1@dont-email.me>, pothead@snakebite.com says...
>
> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>
> >> > In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> >> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >> >>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >> >>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
> >> >>>>> even trying.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
> >> >>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whoooooosh!
> >> >
> >> > and he concedes.
> >>
> >> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
> >> points. LOL!
> >
> > You ran away.
> >>
> >> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
> >> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
> >> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
> >> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
> >> now taboo?
> >
> >
> > Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
> >
> Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
> Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
> I am not kidding.
>
> Ask him.

I can believe it. Now he's responding to his own posts just to get
attention. His meltdown is imminent.

In article <6711a077$6$1895501$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:35:43 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
> <ves70f$2urbc$1@dont-email.me>:
>
> > On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
> >>>>>>>> even trying.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
> >>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whoooooosh!
> >>>>
> >>>> and he concedes.
> >>>
> >>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
> >>> points. LOL!
> >>
> >> You ran away.
> >>>
> >>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
> >>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
> >>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
> >>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
> >>> now taboo?
> >>
> >>
> >> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
> >>
> > Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
> > Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
> > I am not kidding.
> >
> > Ask him.
>
> Your trolling was more interesting in the past.

Yours is obvious and lame.

In article <6711a074$2$2752$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:32:36 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <67119e96$2$212410$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
> now taboo?
>
> Do you have a relevant reply? If not best we just end the conversation.

I already replied Rudy wannabe. You are only seeking attention.

pothead wrote:
> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>>>>>>>> even trying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoooooosh!
>>>>
>>>> and he concedes.
>>>
>>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>>> points. LOL!
>>
>> You ran away.
>>>
>>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>>> now taboo?
>>
>>
>> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
>>
> Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
> Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
> I am not kidding.
>
> Ask him.
>
the funniest part of that is you believe him

On Oct 17, 2024 at 5:13:43 PM MST, "%" wrote
<ZLSdnRhMRaylNYz6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:

> pothead wrote:
>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>>>>>>>>> even trying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>>>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whoooooosh!
>>>>>
>>>>> and he concedes.
>>>>
>>>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>>>> points. LOL!
>>>
>>> You ran away.
>>>>
>>>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>>>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>>>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>>>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>>>> now taboo?
>>>
>>>
>>> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
>>>
>> Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
>> Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
>> I am not kidding.
>>
>> Ask him.
>>
> the funniest part of that is you believe him

They know I never lie.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:33:27 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<67119ec8$5$212404$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <67119b50$4$1895505$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:09:13 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <671198e6$4$2756$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <67119743$4$2758$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:58:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <6711967e$5$3826$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <67118ce8$1$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:00:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>> <671188f1$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <671180d7$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:14:18 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>>>> <verun9$2tegq$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <671175b5$2$2873000$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 1:36:21 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> <versg5$2stfd$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-harris/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on ?Jose-Diaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Balart Reports.? Not a single voter lining up at the polling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NBC correspondent added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,? Hillyard said. ?These were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> County.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATCH:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that voters are making a ?special effort? to vote this year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?He keeps saying it, and I?ve been thinking about it, and so here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am,? Schwarz said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because he is ?horrified by the state of the country,? Hillyard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blue states to support Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
>>>>>>>>>>>> sleeves this time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get these wild stories?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stay blind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And stupid as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Just a few anomalies regarding the 2020 election.*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Six states changed their election laws two months before the 2020
>>>>>>>>> election by executive fiat, instead of going through the proper channels
>>>>>>>>> in the legislature. That is a violation of their state constitutions and
>>>>>>>>> that in and of itself is enough to invalidate the results of the 2020
>>>>>>>>> election.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Mark Zuckerberg, hard left, spent $450 million dollars of private
>>>>>>>>> money on our elections. After the 2020 election analysis revealed that
>>>>>>>>> most of that money went to benefit Democrats.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. 6 swing states stopped counting the votes on election night for the
>>>>>>>>> first time in American history. At the time that they stopped counting
>>>>>>>>> the votes, Donald Trump was ahead of Biden in each of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. The unelected tech oligarchs in conjunction with the FBI in this
>>>>>>>>> country censored a very important story about Hunter Biden?s laptop and
>>>>>>>>> Joe Biden?s corruption. People who worked in the intelligence community,
>>>>>>>>> came out and said it was Russian disinformation only to have that laptop
>>>>>>>>> be admitted into evidence as part of an FBI investigation and criminal
>>>>>>>>> prosecution of Hunter Biden. Polling after the election showed that if
>>>>>>>>> people knew about the Hunter Biden laptop story it would?ve changed 17%
>>>>>>>>> of the vote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5. 2,036,041 ballots were touched by anomalies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 6. 923 American citizens filled out affidavits alleging voter fraud, and
>>>>>>>>> signed them under penalties of perjury.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7. 50 plus courts blocked evidentiary hearings into the alleged fraud
>>>>>>>>> found in 2020.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 8. Prior to 2020 there were four other contested elections, one in
>>>>>>>>> Florida, one in the 78th district of Missouri, one in the ninth district
>>>>>>>>> of North Carolina, and one in the 22nd district of New York. In every
>>>>>>>>> single one of those four instances, there was an evidentiary hearing. In
>>>>>>>>> the 2020 election, there was no evidentiary hearing. For the first time
>>>>>>>>> in American history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 9. No election contest in American history has had 923 fact witnesses
>>>>>>>>> sign under penalties of perjury and stake their personal freedom in
>>>>>>>>> testimony to attest to the irregularities and legal issues found in
>>>>>>>>> various states.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 10. 37 states in the United States of America altered their absentee or
>>>>>>>>> mail in ballots ballot integrity procedures before the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 11. If those 37 states used the same ballot integrity procedures that
>>>>>>>>> they used in 2018, swing states would?ve found an upwards of 30,000 more
>>>>>>>>> ineligible ballots.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 12. In Pennsylvania, counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after
>>>>>>>>> the election.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 13. Any one of those is enough to say that there was enough fraud in the
>>>>>>>>> 2020 election to doubt the outcome. Can I prove Donald Trump would?ve
>>>>>>>>> won the election if the Democrats hadn?t cheated? No I can?t prove a
>>>>>>>>> counter-narrative, but I can tell you that this amount of fraud leads
>>>>>>>>> any reasonable person to the conclusion that Joe Biden didn?t win.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The insurrection therefore was on 11/3/2020.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1/6 was a lawful protest with permits that got out of hand. Unlike
>>>>>>>>> Democrats who spent 10 months burning down this country to the tune of
>>>>>>>>> $2 billion dollars, and injuring 740 police officers nationwide, the
>>>>>>>>> capital riot had a couple million dollars in damages, 140 police
>>>>>>>>> officers that were injured and zero deaths. Except the 3 Trump
>>>>>>>>> supporters who were unarmed and killed without any investigation by the
>>>>>>>>> corrupt government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anybody who is clutching their pearls about January 6 without mentioning
>>>>>>>>> the fact that there was a large federal presence and many anomalies that
>>>>>>>>> have yet to be answered is a liar and a partisan hack.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You sound like an uninformed stage 10 TDS patient who needs to detox
>>>>>>>>> from CNN and MSNBC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can endorse the cackling communist from California, but..don?t you
>>>>>>>>> dare pretend like the reason why you?re doing it is because Donald Trump
>>>>>>>>> did something wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let?s break down and address these claims one by one:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 1: States changing election laws by executive fiat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It?s true that some states changed voting procedures before the 2020 election
>>>>>>>> due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to expand access to mail-in voting.
>>>>>>>> However, these changes were largely made through emergency powers or by state
>>>>>>>> election boards and officials, often with judicial review. In most cases, the
>>>>>>>> courts ruled these changes were legal under state constitutions. Even in
>>>>>>>> states where the legality was questioned, no court invalidated the election
>>>>>>>> results based solely on these procedural changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 2: Mark Zuckerberg spent $450 million to benefit Democrats
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated to a non-partisan group, the Center for
>>>>>>>> Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which provided funds to help local election
>>>>>>>> offices run elections during the pandemic. While some of the funds went to
>>>>>>>> areas that leaned Democrat (which are often more populous), Republican-leaning
>>>>>>>> areas also received funds. There?s no evidence that this funding was used to
>>>>>>>> favor one party over another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 3: 6 swing states stopped counting votes on election night
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In 2020, due to the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, some states did
>>>>>>>> stop counting votes temporarily on election night. This wasn?t a unique event
>>>>>>>> in history?vote counting has often extended beyond election night in previous
>>>>>>>> elections, especially in states with close races. Mail-in ballots take longer
>>>>>>>> to process, and the delays were expected and announced beforehand. Trump?s
>>>>>>>> early lead in some states was due to the ?red mirage? phenomenon, where
>>>>>>>> same-day in-person votes (which leaned Republican) were counted first,
>>>>>>>> followed by mail-in ballots (which leaned Democrat).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 4: Hunter Biden laptop story and censorship
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story was published just weeks before the 2020
>>>>>>>> election. Some media outlets and social media platforms took steps to limit
>>>>>>>> its distribution, citing concerns about the authenticity of the information
>>>>>>>> and potential foreign interference. While subsequent investigations confirmed
>>>>>>>> that the laptop was part of a legitimate investigation into Hunter Biden,
>>>>>>>> there is no evidence that the suppression of this story changed the election
>>>>>>>> outcome. Polls suggesting otherwise are speculative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 5: 2 million ballots touched by anomalies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This claim is vague and lacks concrete evidence. Many claims about voting
>>>>>>>> anomalies have been thoroughly investigated, and none have shown widespread
>>>>>>>> fraud that would alter the outcome of the election. Anomalies are common in
>>>>>>>> every election, but they are generally clerical or minor errors that do not
>>>>>>>> affect the overall result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 6: 923 affidavits alleging voter fraud
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While it?s true that some people signed affidavits, affidavits are not proof
>>>>>>>> of fraud?they are simply statements by individuals. Many of these affidavits
>>>>>>>> were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence or because they described
>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of normal election processes. Simply filing an affidavit
>>>>>>>> does not prove fraud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 7: 50+ courts blocked evidentiary hearings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many courts rejected election fraud claims because the evidence presented was
>>>>>>>> insufficient or non-existent. Courts didn?t block hearings out of bias but
>>>>>>>> rather followed legal standards that require concrete evidence before
>>>>>>>> proceeding. Most cases were dismissed because they didn?t meet the burden of
>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 8: No evidentiary hearing for the 2020 election
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were numerous hearings and legal challenges related to the 2020
>>>>>>>> election, including in key states like Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. In
>>>>>>>> most cases, judges found no credible evidence of widespread fraud. The idea
>>>>>>>> that there was ?no evidentiary hearing? is false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 9: 923 fact witnesses signed under perjury
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While hundreds of people may have signed affidavits, it?s important to note
>>>>>>>> that many of these affidavits were dismissed by courts due to a lack of
>>>>>>>> supporting evidence. An affidavit alone does not constitute proof, and many
>>>>>>>> were based on misunderstandings or hearsay rather than direct knowledge of
>>>>>>>> fraud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 10: 37 states altered absentee or mail-in ballot procedures
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, many states made adjustments to their mail-in voting procedures in
>>>>>>>> response to the pandemic, which is entirely legal if done in accordance with
>>>>>>>> state laws. These changes were made to ensure voter safety and accessibility.
>>>>>>>> Courts generally upheld these changes as legal, with some minor exceptions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 11: 30,000 more ineligible ballots in swing states
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no evidence to support the claim that 30,000 ineligible ballots were
>>>>>>>> cast in swing states. Audits and recounts in key states, including Georgia and
>>>>>>>> Arizona, have consistently shown that the number of ineligible ballots was
>>>>>>>> extremely low and nowhere near enough to affect the outcome of the election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 12: Pennsylvania allowed new ballots after the election
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This claim is false. Pennsylvania followed court-approved deadlines for
>>>>>>>> accepting mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received
>>>>>>>> within a certain window after the election, which is a standard practice.
>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that ballots were illegally counted after the election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claim 13: Any one of these is enough to invalidate the election
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each of these claims has been investigated and largely debunked. While there
>>>>>>>> were some procedural changes due to the pandemic, none of the claims provide
>>>>>>>> credible evidence of widespread fraud that would invalidate the results of the
>>>>>>>> 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> January 6 vs. Summer 2020 Protests
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The January 6 attack was not a lawful protest. It was a violent breach of the
>>>>>>>> U.S. Capitol aimed at overturning the results of a democratic election. There
>>>>>>>> were investigations into the conduct of Capitol Police, but there is no
>>>>>>>> evidence of a government cover-up of the deaths of protesters. In contrast,
>>>>>>>> while the summer 2020 protests did lead to property damage and injuries, they
>>>>>>>> were largely protests against police brutality, and widespread condemnation
>>>>>>>> occurred when violence took place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most scrutinized elections in
>>>>>>>> U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support claims of widespread
>>>>>>>> fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims made here have been
>>>>>>>> widely investigated, with no proof supporting the narrative that the election
>>>>>>>> was stolen.
>>
>> A shame you have no reasoned response not this content. That is OK, though,
>> just means we have reached agreement -- the election was fair or at the very
>> least there is no good evidence or reason to think it was not. Thank you.
>
> It was a fraud and everyone knows it.

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 5:13:43 PM MST, "%" wrote
> <ZLSdnRhMRaylNYz6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> pothead wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>>>>>>>>>> even trying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>>>>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whoooooosh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and he concedes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>>>>> points. LOL!
>>>>
>>>> You ran away.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>>>>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>>>>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>>>>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>>>>> now taboo?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
>>>>
>>> Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
>>> Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
>>> I am not kidding.
>>>
>>> Ask him.
>>>
>> the funniest part of that is you believe him
>
> They know I never lie.
>
i never said they didn't ,
i won't believe it until ,
i hear it from the cat

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:33:27 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <67119ec8$5$212404$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
>> In article <67119b50$4$1895505$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:09:13 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>> <671198e6$4$2756$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> In article <67119743$4$2758$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:58:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>> <6711967e$5$3826$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <67118ce8$1$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:00:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>>> <671188f1$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <671180d7$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:14:18 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <verun9$2tegq$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <671175b5$2$2873000$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 1:36:21 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> <versg5$2stfd$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-harris/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on ?Jose-Diaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Balart Reports.? Not a single voter lining up at the polling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NBC correspondent added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,? Hillyard said. ?These were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> County.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATCH:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that voters are making a ?special effort? to vote this year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?He keeps saying it, and I?ve been thinking about it, and so here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am,? Schwarz said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because he is ?horrified by the state of the country,? Hillyard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blue states to support Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sleeves this time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get these wild stories?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stay blind.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And stupid as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Just a few anomalies regarding the 2020 election.*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Six states changed their election laws two months before the 2020
>>>>>>>>>> election by executive fiat, instead of going through the proper channels
>>>>>>>>>> in the legislature. That is a violation of their state constitutions and
>>>>>>>>>> that in and of itself is enough to invalidate the results of the 2020
>>>>>>>>>> election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Mark Zuckerberg, hard left, spent $450 million dollars of private
>>>>>>>>>> money on our elections. After the 2020 election analysis revealed that
>>>>>>>>>> most of that money went to benefit Democrats.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. 6 swing states stopped counting the votes on election night for the
>>>>>>>>>> first time in American history. At the time that they stopped counting
>>>>>>>>>> the votes, Donald Trump was ahead of Biden in each of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. The unelected tech oligarchs in conjunction with the FBI in this
>>>>>>>>>> country censored a very important story about Hunter Biden?s laptop and
>>>>>>>>>> Joe Biden?s corruption. People who worked in the intelligence community,
>>>>>>>>>> came out and said it was Russian disinformation only to have that laptop
>>>>>>>>>> be admitted into evidence as part of an FBI investigation and criminal
>>>>>>>>>> prosecution of Hunter Biden. Polling after the election showed that if
>>>>>>>>>> people knew about the Hunter Biden laptop story it would?ve changed 17%
>>>>>>>>>> of the vote.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 5. 2,036,041 ballots were touched by anomalies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 6. 923 American citizens filled out affidavits alleging voter fraud, and
>>>>>>>>>> signed them under penalties of perjury.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 7. 50 plus courts blocked evidentiary hearings into the alleged fraud
>>>>>>>>>> found in 2020.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 8. Prior to 2020 there were four other contested elections, one in
>>>>>>>>>> Florida, one in the 78th district of Missouri, one in the ninth district
>>>>>>>>>> of North Carolina, and one in the 22nd district of New York. In every
>>>>>>>>>> single one of those four instances, there was an evidentiary hearing. In
>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 election, there was no evidentiary hearing. For the first time
>>>>>>>>>> in American history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 9. No election contest in American history has had 923 fact witnesses
>>>>>>>>>> sign under penalties of perjury and stake their personal freedom in
>>>>>>>>>> testimony to attest to the irregularities and legal issues found in
>>>>>>>>>> various states.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 10. 37 states in the United States of America altered their absentee or
>>>>>>>>>> mail in ballots ballot integrity procedures before the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 11. If those 37 states used the same ballot integrity procedures that
>>>>>>>>>> they used in 2018, swing states would?ve found an upwards of 30,000 more
>>>>>>>>>> ineligible ballots.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 12. In Pennsylvania, counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after
>>>>>>>>>> the election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 13. Any one of those is enough to say that there was enough fraud in the
>>>>>>>>>> 2020 election to doubt the outcome. Can I prove Donald Trump would?ve
>>>>>>>>>> won the election if the Democrats hadn?t cheated? No I can?t prove a
>>>>>>>>>> counter-narrative, but I can tell you that this amount of fraud leads
>>>>>>>>>> any reasonable person to the conclusion that Joe Biden didn?t win.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The insurrection therefore was on 11/3/2020.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1/6 was a lawful protest with permits that got out of hand. Unlike
>>>>>>>>>> Democrats who spent 10 months burning down this country to the tune of
>>>>>>>>>> $2 billion dollars, and injuring 740 police officers nationwide, the
>>>>>>>>>> capital riot had a couple million dollars in damages, 140 police
>>>>>>>>>> officers that were injured and zero deaths. Except the 3 Trump
>>>>>>>>>> supporters who were unarmed and killed without any investigation by the
>>>>>>>>>> corrupt government.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anybody who is clutching their pearls about January 6 without mentioning
>>>>>>>>>> the fact that there was a large federal presence and many anomalies that
>>>>>>>>>> have yet to be answered is a liar and a partisan hack.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You sound like an uninformed stage 10 TDS patient who needs to detox
>>>>>>>>>> from CNN and MSNBC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can endorse the cackling communist from California, but..don?t you
>>>>>>>>>> dare pretend like the reason why you?re doing it is because Donald Trump
>>>>>>>>>> did something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let?s break down and address these claims one by one:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 1: States changing election laws by executive fiat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It?s true that some states changed voting procedures before the 2020 election
>>>>>>>>> due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to expand access to mail-in voting.
>>>>>>>>> However, these changes were largely made through emergency powers or by state
>>>>>>>>> election boards and officials, often with judicial review. In most cases, the
>>>>>>>>> courts ruled these changes were legal under state constitutions. Even in
>>>>>>>>> states where the legality was questioned, no court invalidated the election
>>>>>>>>> results based solely on these procedural changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 2: Mark Zuckerberg spent $450 million to benefit Democrats
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated to a non-partisan group, the Center for
>>>>>>>>> Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which provided funds to help local election
>>>>>>>>> offices run elections during the pandemic. While some of the funds went to
>>>>>>>>> areas that leaned Democrat (which are often more populous), Republican-leaning
>>>>>>>>> areas also received funds. There?s no evidence that this funding was used to
>>>>>>>>> favor one party over another.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 3: 6 swing states stopped counting votes on election night
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In 2020, due to the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, some states did
>>>>>>>>> stop counting votes temporarily on election night. This wasn?t a unique event
>>>>>>>>> in history?vote counting has often extended beyond election night in previous
>>>>>>>>> elections, especially in states with close races. Mail-in ballots take longer
>>>>>>>>> to process, and the delays were expected and announced beforehand. Trump?s
>>>>>>>>> early lead in some states was due to the ?red mirage? phenomenon, where
>>>>>>>>> same-day in-person votes (which leaned Republican) were counted first,
>>>>>>>>> followed by mail-in ballots (which leaned Democrat).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 4: Hunter Biden laptop story and censorship
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story was published just weeks before the 2020
>>>>>>>>> election. Some media outlets and social media platforms took steps to limit
>>>>>>>>> its distribution, citing concerns about the authenticity of the information
>>>>>>>>> and potential foreign interference. While subsequent investigations confirmed
>>>>>>>>> that the laptop was part of a legitimate investigation into Hunter Biden,
>>>>>>>>> there is no evidence that the suppression of this story changed the election
>>>>>>>>> outcome. Polls suggesting otherwise are speculative.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 5: 2 million ballots touched by anomalies
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This claim is vague and lacks concrete evidence. Many claims about voting
>>>>>>>>> anomalies have been thoroughly investigated, and none have shown widespread
>>>>>>>>> fraud that would alter the outcome of the election. Anomalies are common in
>>>>>>>>> every election, but they are generally clerical or minor errors that do not
>>>>>>>>> affect the overall result.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 6: 923 affidavits alleging voter fraud
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While it?s true that some people signed affidavits, affidavits are not proof
>>>>>>>>> of fraud?they are simply statements by individuals. Many of these affidavits
>>>>>>>>> were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence or because they described
>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of normal election processes. Simply filing an affidavit
>>>>>>>>> does not prove fraud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 7: 50+ courts blocked evidentiary hearings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many courts rejected election fraud claims because the evidence presented was
>>>>>>>>> insufficient or non-existent. Courts didn?t block hearings out of bias but
>>>>>>>>> rather followed legal standards that require concrete evidence before
>>>>>>>>> proceeding. Most cases were dismissed because they didn?t meet the burden of
>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 8: No evidentiary hearing for the 2020 election
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were numerous hearings and legal challenges related to the 2020
>>>>>>>>> election, including in key states like Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. In
>>>>>>>>> most cases, judges found no credible evidence of widespread fraud. The idea
>>>>>>>>> that there was ?no evidentiary hearing? is false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 9: 923 fact witnesses signed under perjury
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While hundreds of people may have signed affidavits, it?s important to note
>>>>>>>>> that many of these affidavits were dismissed by courts due to a lack of
>>>>>>>>> supporting evidence. An affidavit alone does not constitute proof, and many
>>>>>>>>> were based on misunderstandings or hearsay rather than direct knowledge of
>>>>>>>>> fraud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 10: 37 states altered absentee or mail-in ballot procedures
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, many states made adjustments to their mail-in voting procedures in
>>>>>>>>> response to the pandemic, which is entirely legal if done in accordance with
>>>>>>>>> state laws. These changes were made to ensure voter safety and accessibility.
>>>>>>>>> Courts generally upheld these changes as legal, with some minor exceptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 11: 30,000 more ineligible ballots in swing states
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence to support the claim that 30,000 ineligible ballots were
>>>>>>>>> cast in swing states. Audits and recounts in key states, including Georgia and
>>>>>>>>> Arizona, have consistently shown that the number of ineligible ballots was
>>>>>>>>> extremely low and nowhere near enough to affect the outcome of the election.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 12: Pennsylvania allowed new ballots after the election
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This claim is false. Pennsylvania followed court-approved deadlines for
>>>>>>>>> accepting mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received
>>>>>>>>> within a certain window after the election, which is a standard practice.
>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that ballots were illegally counted after the election.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim 13: Any one of these is enough to invalidate the election
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each of these claims has been investigated and largely debunked. While there
>>>>>>>>> were some procedural changes due to the pandemic, none of the claims provide
>>>>>>>>> credible evidence of widespread fraud that would invalidate the results of the
>>>>>>>>> 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> January 6 vs. Summer 2020 Protests
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The January 6 attack was not a lawful protest. It was a violent breach of the
>>>>>>>>> U.S. Capitol aimed at overturning the results of a democratic election. There
>>>>>>>>> were investigations into the conduct of Capitol Police, but there is no
>>>>>>>>> evidence of a government cover-up of the deaths of protesters. In contrast,
>>>>>>>>> while the summer 2020 protests did lead to property damage and injuries, they
>>>>>>>>> were largely protests against police brutality, and widespread condemnation
>>>>>>>>> occurred when violence took place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most scrutinized elections in
>>>>>>>>> U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support claims of widespread
>>>>>>>>> fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims made here have been
>>>>>>>>> widely investigated, with no proof supporting the narrative that the election
>>>>>>>>> was stolen.
>>>
>>> A shame you have no reasoned response not this content. That is OK, though,
>>> just means we have reached agreement -- the election was fair or at the very
>>> least there is no good evidence or reason to think it was not. Thank you.
>>
>> It was a fraud and everyone knows it.
>
> Everything is a fraud.
>
no , i'm not i am all of what i have told you

On Oct 17, 2024 at 7:57:39 PM MST, "%" wrote
<hb-dnQ5imbgsU4z6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>:

> Snit wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:33:27 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <67119ec8$5$212404$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <67119b50$4$1895505$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:09:13 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <671198e6$4$2756$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <67119743$4$2758$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:58:28 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>> <6711967e$5$3826$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <67118ce8$1$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:00:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>>>> <671188f1$0$3829$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <671180d7$0$1895500$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 2:14:18 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> <verun9$2tegq$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <671175b5$2$2873000$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 1:36:21 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <versg5$2stfd$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-harris/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on ?Jose-Diaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Balart Reports.? Not a single voter lining up at the polling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NBC correspondent added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,? Hillyard said. ?These were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> County.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WATCH:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that voters are making a ?special effort? to vote this year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?He keeps saying it, and I?ve been thinking about it, and so here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am,? Schwarz said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because he is ?horrified by the state of the country,? Hillyard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blue states to support Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sleeves this time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get these wild stories?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stay blind.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And stupid as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Just a few anomalies regarding the 2020 election.*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Six states changed their election laws two months before the 2020
>>>>>>>>>>> election by executive fiat, instead of going through the proper channels
>>>>>>>>>>> in the legislature. That is a violation of their state constitutions and
>>>>>>>>>>> that in and of itself is enough to invalidate the results of the 2020
>>>>>>>>>>> election.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Mark Zuckerberg, hard left, spent $450 million dollars of private
>>>>>>>>>>> money on our elections. After the 2020 election analysis revealed that
>>>>>>>>>>> most of that money went to benefit Democrats.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. 6 swing states stopped counting the votes on election night for the
>>>>>>>>>>> first time in American history. At the time that they stopped counting
>>>>>>>>>>> the votes, Donald Trump was ahead of Biden in each of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. The unelected tech oligarchs in conjunction with the FBI in this
>>>>>>>>>>> country censored a very important story about Hunter Biden?s laptop and
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Biden?s corruption. People who worked in the intelligence community,
>>>>>>>>>>> came out and said it was Russian disinformation only to have that laptop
>>>>>>>>>>> be admitted into evidence as part of an FBI investigation and criminal
>>>>>>>>>>> prosecution of Hunter Biden. Polling after the election showed that if
>>>>>>>>>>> people knew about the Hunter Biden laptop story it would?ve changed 17%
>>>>>>>>>>> of the vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. 2,036,041 ballots were touched by anomalies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 6. 923 American citizens filled out affidavits alleging voter fraud, and
>>>>>>>>>>> signed them under penalties of perjury.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 7. 50 plus courts blocked evidentiary hearings into the alleged fraud
>>>>>>>>>>> found in 2020.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Prior to 2020 there were four other contested elections, one in
>>>>>>>>>>> Florida, one in the 78th district of Missouri, one in the ninth district
>>>>>>>>>>> of North Carolina, and one in the 22nd district of New York. In every
>>>>>>>>>>> single one of those four instances, there was an evidentiary hearing. In
>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 election, there was no evidentiary hearing. For the first time
>>>>>>>>>>> in American history.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 9. No election contest in American history has had 923 fact witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>> sign under penalties of perjury and stake their personal freedom in
>>>>>>>>>>> testimony to attest to the irregularities and legal issues found in
>>>>>>>>>>> various states.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 10. 37 states in the United States of America altered their absentee or
>>>>>>>>>>> mail in ballots ballot integrity procedures before the 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 11. If those 37 states used the same ballot integrity procedures that
>>>>>>>>>>> they used in 2018, swing states would?ve found an upwards of 30,000 more
>>>>>>>>>>> ineligible ballots.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 12. In Pennsylvania, counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after
>>>>>>>>>>> the election.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 13. Any one of those is enough to say that there was enough fraud in the
>>>>>>>>>>> 2020 election to doubt the outcome. Can I prove Donald Trump would?ve
>>>>>>>>>>> won the election if the Democrats hadn?t cheated? No I can?t prove a
>>>>>>>>>>> counter-narrative, but I can tell you that this amount of fraud leads
>>>>>>>>>>> any reasonable person to the conclusion that Joe Biden didn?t win.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The insurrection therefore was on 11/3/2020.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1/6 was a lawful protest with permits that got out of hand. Unlike
>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats who spent 10 months burning down this country to the tune of
>>>>>>>>>>> $2 billion dollars, and injuring 740 police officers nationwide, the
>>>>>>>>>>> capital riot had a couple million dollars in damages, 140 police
>>>>>>>>>>> officers that were injured and zero deaths. Except the 3 Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> supporters who were unarmed and killed without any investigation by the
>>>>>>>>>>> corrupt government.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anybody who is clutching their pearls about January 6 without mentioning
>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that there was a large federal presence and many anomalies that
>>>>>>>>>>> have yet to be answered is a liar and a partisan hack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You sound like an uninformed stage 10 TDS patient who needs to detox
>>>>>>>>>>> from CNN and MSNBC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can endorse the cackling communist from California, but..don?t you
>>>>>>>>>>> dare pretend like the reason why you?re doing it is because Donald Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> did something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let?s break down and address these claims one by one:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 1: States changing election laws by executive fiat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It?s true that some states changed voting procedures before the 2020 election
>>>>>>>>>> due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to expand access to mail-in voting.
>>>>>>>>>> However, these changes were largely made through emergency powers or by state
>>>>>>>>>> election boards and officials, often with judicial review. In most cases, the
>>>>>>>>>> courts ruled these changes were legal under state constitutions. Even in
>>>>>>>>>> states where the legality was questioned, no court invalidated the election
>>>>>>>>>> results based solely on these procedural changes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 2: Mark Zuckerberg spent $450 million to benefit Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated to a non-partisan group, the Center for
>>>>>>>>>> Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which provided funds to help local election
>>>>>>>>>> offices run elections during the pandemic. While some of the funds went to
>>>>>>>>>> areas that leaned Democrat (which are often more populous), Republican-leaning
>>>>>>>>>> areas also received funds. There?s no evidence that this funding was used to
>>>>>>>>>> favor one party over another.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 3: 6 swing states stopped counting votes on election night
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In 2020, due to the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, some states did
>>>>>>>>>> stop counting votes temporarily on election night. This wasn?t a unique event
>>>>>>>>>> in history?vote counting has often extended beyond election night in previous
>>>>>>>>>> elections, especially in states with close races. Mail-in ballots take longer
>>>>>>>>>> to process, and the delays were expected and announced beforehand. Trump?s
>>>>>>>>>> early lead in some states was due to the ?red mirage? phenomenon, where
>>>>>>>>>> same-day in-person votes (which leaned Republican) were counted first,
>>>>>>>>>> followed by mail-in ballots (which leaned Democrat).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 4: Hunter Biden laptop story and censorship
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story was published just weeks before the 2020
>>>>>>>>>> election. Some media outlets and social media platforms took steps to limit
>>>>>>>>>> its distribution, citing concerns about the authenticity of the information
>>>>>>>>>> and potential foreign interference. While subsequent investigations confirmed
>>>>>>>>>> that the laptop was part of a legitimate investigation into Hunter Biden,
>>>>>>>>>> there is no evidence that the suppression of this story changed the election
>>>>>>>>>> outcome. Polls suggesting otherwise are speculative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 5: 2 million ballots touched by anomalies
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This claim is vague and lacks concrete evidence. Many claims about voting
>>>>>>>>>> anomalies have been thoroughly investigated, and none have shown widespread
>>>>>>>>>> fraud that would alter the outcome of the election. Anomalies are common in
>>>>>>>>>> every election, but they are generally clerical or minor errors that do not
>>>>>>>>>> affect the overall result.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 6: 923 affidavits alleging voter fraud
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While it?s true that some people signed affidavits, affidavits are not proof
>>>>>>>>>> of fraud?they are simply statements by individuals. Many of these affidavits
>>>>>>>>>> were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence or because they described
>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of normal election processes. Simply filing an affidavit
>>>>>>>>>> does not prove fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 7: 50+ courts blocked evidentiary hearings
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many courts rejected election fraud claims because the evidence presented was
>>>>>>>>>> insufficient or non-existent. Courts didn?t block hearings out of bias but
>>>>>>>>>> rather followed legal standards that require concrete evidence before
>>>>>>>>>> proceeding. Most cases were dismissed because they didn?t meet the burden of
>>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 8: No evidentiary hearing for the 2020 election
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There were numerous hearings and legal challenges related to the 2020
>>>>>>>>>> election, including in key states like Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. In
>>>>>>>>>> most cases, judges found no credible evidence of widespread fraud. The idea
>>>>>>>>>> that there was ?no evidentiary hearing? is false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 9: 923 fact witnesses signed under perjury
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While hundreds of people may have signed affidavits, it?s important to note
>>>>>>>>>> that many of these affidavits were dismissed by courts due to a lack of
>>>>>>>>>> supporting evidence. An affidavit alone does not constitute proof, and many
>>>>>>>>>> were based on misunderstandings or hearsay rather than direct knowledge of
>>>>>>>>>> fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 10: 37 states altered absentee or mail-in ballot procedures
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, many states made adjustments to their mail-in voting procedures in
>>>>>>>>>> response to the pandemic, which is entirely legal if done in accordance with
>>>>>>>>>> state laws. These changes were made to ensure voter safety and accessibility.
>>>>>>>>>> Courts generally upheld these changes as legal, with some minor exceptions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 11: 30,000 more ineligible ballots in swing states
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence to support the claim that 30,000 ineligible ballots were
>>>>>>>>>> cast in swing states. Audits and recounts in key states, including Georgia and
>>>>>>>>>> Arizona, have consistently shown that the number of ineligible ballots was
>>>>>>>>>> extremely low and nowhere near enough to affect the outcome of the election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 12: Pennsylvania allowed new ballots after the election
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This claim is false. Pennsylvania followed court-approved deadlines for
>>>>>>>>>> accepting mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received
>>>>>>>>>> within a certain window after the election, which is a standard practice.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence that ballots were illegally counted after the election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claim 13: Any one of these is enough to invalidate the election
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Each of these claims has been investigated and largely debunked. While there
>>>>>>>>>> were some procedural changes due to the pandemic, none of the claims provide
>>>>>>>>>> credible evidence of widespread fraud that would invalidate the results of the
>>>>>>>>>> 2020 election.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> January 6 vs. Summer 2020 Protests
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The January 6 attack was not a lawful protest. It was a violent breach of the
>>>>>>>>>> U.S. Capitol aimed at overturning the results of a democratic election. There
>>>>>>>>>> were investigations into the conduct of Capitol Police, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>> evidence of a government cover-up of the deaths of protesters. In contrast,
>>>>>>>>>> while the summer 2020 protests did lead to property damage and injuries, they
>>>>>>>>>> were largely protests against police brutality, and widespread condemnation
>>>>>>>>>> occurred when violence took place.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most scrutinized elections in
>>>>>>>>>> U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support claims of widespread
>>>>>>>>>> fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims made here have been
>>>>>>>>>> widely investigated, with no proof supporting the narrative that the election
>>>>>>>>>> was stolen.
>>>>
>>>> A shame you have no reasoned response not this content. That is OK, though,
>>>> just means we have reached agreement -- the election was fair or at the very
>>>> least there is no good evidence or reason to think it was not. Thank you.
>>>
>>> It was a fraud and everyone knows it.
>>
>> Everything is a fraud.
>>
> no , i'm not i am all of what i have told you

On Oct 17, 2024 at 7:50:12 PM MST, "%" wrote
<hb-dnRNimbhvUYz6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>:

> Snit wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 5:13:43 PM MST, "%" wrote
>> <ZLSdnRhMRaylNYz6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> pothead wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>>>>>>>>>>> even trying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>>>>>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whoooooosh!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and he concedes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>>>>>> points. LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> You ran away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>>>>>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>>>>>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>>>>>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>>>>>> now taboo?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
>>>>>
>>>> Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
>>>> Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
>>>> I am not kidding.
>>>>
>>>> Ask him.
>>>>
>>> the funniest part of that is you believe him
>>
>> They know I never lie.
>>
> i never said they didn't ,
> i won't believe it until ,
> i hear it from the cat

Meeeeeeoooow!

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> In article <6711a077$6$1895501$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:35:43 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
>> <ves70f$2urbc$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>> > On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> >> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>>
>> >>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> >>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> >>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> >>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> >>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>> >>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
>> >>>>>>>> even trying.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
>> >>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Whoooooosh!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and he concedes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
>> >>> points. LOL!
>> >>
>> >> You ran away.
>> >>>
>> >>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
>> >>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
>> >>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
>> >>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
>> >>> now taboo?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
>> >>
>> > Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
>> > Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
>> > I am not kidding.
>> >
>> > Ask him.
>>
>> Your trolling was more interesting in the past.
>
> Yours is obvious and lame.

I wasn't trolling. What snit isn't telling you is:

1. Snit likes to mix prescription drug cocktails in attempts to self
medicate. In the past he has asked for specific dosages, online.
2. Snit got so high once he admitted he almost pissed on his cat and,
get this, he imagined that his eyeball fell out of it's socket.
This is the truth right from snit himself.

--
pothead

See Kamala Harris best interview ever.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363352689112
She really knocks this one out of the park.
Don't you agree?

great, so more people can not care about the camel and hump.

In article <vetjqj$39ts7$1@dont-email.me>, pothead@snakebite.com says...
>
> On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <6711a077$6$1895501$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 17, 2024 at 4:35:43 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
> >> <ves70f$2urbc$1@dont-email.me>:
> >>
> >> > On 2024-10-17, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <6711981d$0$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >> >> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:56:57 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> >>> <67119624$4$3834$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> In article <67118cd0$2$2873018$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >> >>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:01:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> >>>>> <6711892d$0$3832$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> In article <67118374$0$2757$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >> >>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >> >>>>>>>> I can feel it too. Same atmosphere as with the Joe vs Trump. They aren't
> >> >>>>>>>> even trying.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> When there were two old senile candidates the media focused on that. Now that
> >> >>>>>>> there is only one it is like they have forgotten it.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I said. Stop trolling.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Whoooooosh!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> and he concedes.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Why is you trolls feel the need to speak for others and dodge so many relevant
> >> >>> points. LOL!
> >> >>
> >> >> You ran away.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The point is a solid one: When Trump and Biden were competing head to head
> >> >>> there was a lot of focus on how both are senile old dudes who are not
> >> >>> competent. Biden did the right thing and stepped aside. The story was not
> >> >>> killed -- there still is one old senile dude in the race. Why is that topic
> >> >>> now taboo?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Biden was replaced like a toilet seat. You know this.
> >> >>
> >> > Snit doesn't own a toilet seat.
> >> > Snit prefers to piss on his cat.
> >> > I am not kidding.
> >> >
> >> > Ask him.
> >>
> >> Your trolling was more interesting in the past.
> >
> > Yours is obvious and lame.
>
> I wasn't trolling. What snit isn't telling you is:
>
> 1. Snit likes to mix prescription drug cocktails in attempts to self
> medicate. In the past he has asked for specific dosages, online.
> 2. Snit got so high once he admitted he almost pissed on his cat and,
> get this, he imagined that his eyeball fell out of it's socket.
> This is the truth right from snit himself.

Sounds like PCP. Dummy dust.

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
>>
>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
>>>
>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
>>>
>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-ha
>>> rris/>
>>>
>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
>>>
>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on “Jose-Diaz
>>> Balart Reports.” Not a single voter lining up at the polling
>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
>>> the NBC correspondent added.
>>>
>>> “We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,” Hillyard said. “These were
>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
>>> County.”
>>>
>>> WATCH:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
>>> said that voters are making a “special effort” to vote this year
>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats’
>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
>>>
>>> “He keeps saying it, and I’ve been thinking about it, and so here
>>> I am,” Schwarz said.
>>>
>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
>>> because he is “horrified by the state of the country,” Hillyard
>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
>>> blue states to support Trump.
>>>
>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
>>> in 2016
>>
>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
>
> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
> sleeves this time.
>
>

You should watch the Lev Parnas documentary someday if you get the chance.
All the criming by Trump and supporters is absolutely staggering, and so
many people knew about it. But it was pretty ham-fisted. How could someone
as sloppy as trump is, get away with so much? I can’t believe even more
now, that this person was ever president and MIGHT BE AGAIN!!!

Anyway, Maddow does NOT appear (or even speak) in the show. It’s mostly
just Lev doing all the talking (and his wife, and just a couple other
people).
And Lev tells a good story

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
>>
>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
>>>
>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
>>>
>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-ha
>>> rris/>
>>>
>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
>>>
>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on “Jose-Diaz
>>> Balart Reports.” Not a single voter lining up at the polling
>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
>>> the NBC correspondent added.
>>>
>>> “We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,” Hillyard said. “These were
>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
>>> County.”
>>>
>>> WATCH:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
>>> said that voters are making a “special effort” to vote this year
>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats’
>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
>>>
>>> “He keeps saying it, and I’ve been thinking about it, and so here
>>> I am,” Schwarz said.
>>>
>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
>>> because he is “horrified by the state of the country,” Hillyard
>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
>>> blue states to support Trump.
>>>
>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
>>> in 2016
>>
>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
>
> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
> sleeves this time.
>
>

You should watch the Lev Parnas documentary someday if you get the chance.
All the criming by Trump and supporters is absolutely staggering, and so
many people knew about it. But it was pretty ham-fisted. How could someone
as sloppy as trump is, get away with so much? I can’t believe even more
now, that this person was ever president and MIGHT BE AGAIN!!!

Anyway, Maddow does NOT appear (or even speak) in the show. It’s mostly
just Lev doing all the talking (and his wife, and just a couple other
people).
And Lev tells a good story

On 17 Oct 2024 20:38:13 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 17, 2024 at 1:36:21?PM MST, "pothead" wrote
><versg5$2stfd$2@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On 2024-10-17, P. Coonan <nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 Oct 2024, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> posted some
>>> news:1lj2hjdh81bp6l51k7lm780n4mld88clag@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> This shouldn't be a surprise. Even to the morons at msnbc.
>>>>
>>>> 'MSNBC Interviews Early Voters In Key Battleground State, Struggles To
>>>> Find Anyone Who Voted For Harris'
>>>>
>>>> <https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/msnbc-arizona-early-voting-kamala-harris/>
>>>>
>>>> 'NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard said Wednesday that not one
>>>> early voter interviewed by his team in the battleground state of
>>>> Arizona admitted they were voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.
>>>>
>>>> Republicans are voting by mail or returning their ballots early at a
>>>> two-to-one margin over Democrats, though Democrats outpaced
>>>> Republicans with early voting in 2020, Hillyard said on “Jose-Diaz
>>>> Balart Reports.” Not a single voter lining up at the polling
>>>> locations in Mohave County openly said they were voting for Harris,
>>>> the NBC correspondent added.
>>>>
>>>> “We went to a couple early voting locations, and we saw lengthy
>>>> lines during the lunch hour. Thirty people waiting in line, and we
>>>> should note, we did not find a single person who audibly would tell us
>>>> that they voted for Kamala Harris,” Hillyard said. “These were
>>>> Trump supporters getting out to vote early in the all-important Mohave
>>>> County.”
>>>>
>>>> WATCH:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump named Jim Coddington
>>>> said that voters are making a “special effort” to vote this year
>>>> and that it is important for those to come out early. Shelley Schwarz,
>>>> a voter in Mohave County, said she voted early for the first time ever
>>>> because Trump encouraged voters to do so. (RELATED: Democrats’
>>>> Championing Of Early Voting Could Come Back To Haunt Them)
>>>>
>>>> “He keeps saying it, and I’ve been thinking about it, and so here
>>>> I am,” Schwarz said.
>>>>
>>>> Another voter said he did not vote in 2020 but voted early in 2024
>>>> because he is “horrified by the state of the country,” Hillyard
>>>> said. Three other voters he spoke to said they moved to Arizona from
>>>> blue states to support Trump.
>>>>
>>>> Trump is currently ahead in Arizona, 49% to 47%, according to The New
>>>> York Times. President Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020 by less
>>>> than one point, 49.4% to 49.1%, while the former president won the
>>>> state against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 49.5% to 45.4%
>>>> in 2016
>>>
>>> We're going to see a repeat of the Hillary Clinton chokefest and shocked
>>> expressions on CBS talking heads.
>>
>> I sure hope so, however the demoncrats have been plotting their
>> cheating methods for 4 years so who knows what they have up their
>> sleeves this time.
>
>Where do you get these wild stories?

Any Republican accusation is, in fact, a confession.

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 16 days.

55) Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring
increased, and manufacturing fell.

56) Trump said he would fix America's infrastructure but it
never happened. He announced so many failed "infrastructure weeks",
they became a running joke! White House reporter,
"Since it’s infrastructure week..." (Laughter is the press room)
(To Sarah Huckabee) "*Is* it infrastructure week?"

On 17 Oct 2024 21:25:43 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

Well done!

>Let’s break down and address these claims one by one:
>
>Claim 1: States changing election laws by executive fiat
>
>It’s true that some states changed voting procedures before the 2020 election
>due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly to expand access to mail-in voting.
>However, these changes were largely made through emergency powers or by state
>election boards and officials, often with judicial review. In most cases, the
>courts ruled these changes were legal under state constitutions. Even in
>states where the legality was questioned, no court invalidated the election
>results based solely on these procedural changes.
>
>Claim 2: Mark Zuckerberg spent $450 million to benefit Democrats
>
>Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated to a non-partisan group, the Center for
>Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which provided funds to help local election
>offices run elections during the pandemic. While some of the funds went to
>areas that leaned Democrat (which are often more populous), Republican-leaning
>areas also received funds. There’s no evidence that this funding was used to
>favor one party over another.
>
>Claim 3: 6 swing states stopped counting votes on election night
>
>In 2020, due to the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, some states did
>stop counting votes temporarily on election night. This wasn’t a unique event
>in history—vote counting has often extended beyond election night in previous
>elections, especially in states with close races. Mail-in ballots take longer
>to process, and the delays were expected and announced beforehand. Trump’s
>early lead in some states was due to the “red mirage” phenomenon, where
>same-day in-person votes (which leaned Republican) were counted first,
>followed by mail-in ballots (which leaned Democrat).
>
>Claim 4: Hunter Biden laptop story and censorship
>
>The Hunter Biden laptop story was published just weeks before the 2020
>election. Some media outlets and social media platforms took steps to limit
>its distribution, citing concerns about the authenticity of the information
>and potential foreign interference. While subsequent investigations confirmed
>that the laptop was part of a legitimate investigation into Hunter Biden,
>there is no evidence that the suppression of this story changed the election
>outcome. Polls suggesting otherwise are speculative.
>
>Claim 5: 2 million ballots touched by anomalies
>
>This claim is vague and lacks concrete evidence. Many claims about voting
>anomalies have been thoroughly investigated, and none have shown widespread
>fraud that would alter the outcome of the election. Anomalies are common in
>every election, but they are generally clerical or minor errors that do not
>affect the overall result.
>
>Claim 6: 923 affidavits alleging voter fraud
>
>While it’s true that some people signed affidavits, affidavits are not proof
>of fraud—they are simply statements by individuals. Many of these affidavits
>were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence or because they described
>misunderstandings of normal election processes. Simply filing an affidavit
>does not prove fraud.
>
>Claim 7: 50+ courts blocked evidentiary hearings
>
>Many courts rejected election fraud claims because the evidence presented was
>insufficient or non-existent. Courts didn’t block hearings out of bias but
>rather followed legal standards that require concrete evidence before
>proceeding. Most cases were dismissed because they didn’t meet the burden of
>proof.
>
>Claim 8: No evidentiary hearing for the 2020 election
>
>There were numerous hearings and legal challenges related to the 2020
>election, including in key states like Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. In
>most cases, judges found no credible evidence of widespread fraud. The idea
>that there was “no evidentiary hearing” is false.
>
>Claim 9: 923 fact witnesses signed under perjury
>
>While hundreds of people may have signed affidavits, it’s important to note
>that many of these affidavits were dismissed by courts due to a lack of
>supporting evidence. An affidavit alone does not constitute proof, and many
>were based on misunderstandings or hearsay rather than direct knowledge of
>fraud.
>
>Claim 10: 37 states altered absentee or mail-in ballot procedures
>
>Yes, many states made adjustments to their mail-in voting procedures in
>response to the pandemic, which is entirely legal if done in accordance with
>state laws. These changes were made to ensure voter safety and accessibility.
>Courts generally upheld these changes as legal, with some minor exceptions.
>
>Claim 11: 30,000 more ineligible ballots in swing states
>
>There is no evidence to support the claim that 30,000 ineligible ballots were
>cast in swing states. Audits and recounts in key states, including Georgia and
>Arizona, have consistently shown that the number of ineligible ballots was
>extremely low and nowhere near enough to affect the outcome of the election.
>
>Claim 12: Pennsylvania allowed new ballots after the election
>
>This claim is false. Pennsylvania followed court-approved deadlines for
>accepting mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received
>within a certain window after the election, which is a standard practice.
>There is no evidence that ballots were illegally counted after the election.
>
>Claim 13: Any one of these is enough to invalidate the election
>
>Each of these claims has been investigated and largely debunked. While there
>were some procedural changes due to the pandemic, none of the claims provide
>credible evidence of widespread fraud that would invalidate the results of the
>2020 election.
>
>January 6 vs. Summer 2020 Protests
>
>The January 6 attack was not a lawful protest. It was a violent breach of the
>U.S. Capitol aimed at overturning the results of a democratic election. There
>were investigations into the conduct of Capitol Police, but there is no
>evidence of a government cover-up of the deaths of protesters. In contrast,
>while the summer 2020 protests did lead to property damage and injuries, they
>were largely protests against police brutality, and widespread condemnation
>occurred when violence took place.
>
>In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most scrutinized elections in
>U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support claims of widespread
>fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims made here have been
>widely investigated, with no proof supporting the narrative that the election
>was stolen.
--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 16 days.

55) Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring
increased, and manufacturing fell.

56) Trump said he would fix America's infrastructure but it
never happened. He announced so many failed "infrastructure weeks",
they became a running joke! White House reporter,
"Since it’s infrastructure week..." (Laughter is the press room)
(To Sarah Huckabee) "*Is* it infrastructure week?"

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:58:28 -0600, Skeeter wrote:
>Snit wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 2024 at 3:00:38 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> > Snit wrote:
<snip>
>> >> In summary, the 2020 election was one of the most scrutinized elections in
>> >> U.S. history, with no credible evidence found to support claims of widespread
>> >> fraud that would have changed the outcome. The claims made here have been
>> >> widely investigated, with no proof supporting the narrative that the election
>> >> was stolen.
>> >
>> > All that? Did we make you do that? Do you really care? I think you are
>> > like Rudy. Jus sayen.
>>
>> I responded to each point. And your reply... RUN!
>
>I'm right here moron You copy/pasted some shit.

He copied and pasted some facts.

>The point is we made you do it.

So ... If someone responds to your post, it's because you "made them" do it?

>I want to see you meltdown like Rudy.

Good luck with that.

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 16 days.

55) Trump vowed to protect American jobs, but offshoring
increased, and manufacturing fell.

56) Trump said he would fix America's infrastructure but it
never happened. He announced so many failed "infrastructure weeks",
they became a running joke! White House reporter,
"Since it’s infrastructure week..." (Laughter is the press room)
(To Sarah Huckabee) "*Is* it infrastructure week?"