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.