Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[notimp]

They said psy ops.

wtf? (Not something I'm usually obsessing about.)

Follow up:


edit: more:

 

[smf]

If this is true, what did he hope for? Everyone getting and wearing expensive suits before attacking the Capitol?

Bikini models probably.

Do you think one man is capable of manipulating 86,000,000 people.

Yes of course. Why do you think there is an upper bound on it? Some of his twitter followers will be for people who enjoyed laughing at him or they were worried about what he was saying, but the majority are going to be enthralled by him.

Trump used the electorate for votes, so he could be President. Wow what a bombshell.

It's supposed to be a two way thing. Politicians shouldn't use the electorate, they should do what is best for the electorate & not what is best for them.

 

[The Catboy]

"by definition". There is evidence, by definition. A lot of evidence, by definition.



It's not that what I want or don't want. I can't because I have a brain and a heart, and I have seen too much to be able to go against either of them.

You are positing that I am not being fair, because I don't accept your beliefs as my own. This is not unlike arguing about religion.



28% evidence. That's a new admission. The site has everything relevent up to a certain date, with rankings. But it doesn't include Pulitzer's findings, or other recent evidence. Not to mention the possibilities and definitive assertation of meddling from foreign countries' assets. Since over 90% of the media appeals to less than half of the country's accepted interest, it is not unfair to suggest that the news media is a propaganda arm. So, anyone who already disagrees, will be even more disenfranchised. Anyone who is trying to be unbiased, or those who are 50/50 on the bipartisan scale will be disenfranchised. It's only going to reward the die-hard ideologists who don't even know the outcome of what they are perpetuating--and only temporarily on an emotional level.

The issue with the site in your signature is that actually doesn't prove "mass voter fraud" nor is most of the "evidence" worth a damn. Much of the supposed "evidence" is uncredited "eye-witness" or cherry-picked issues that point more towards issues in the voting process. There are also random examples brought up from past elections that don't even relate to the 2020 election. There are other issues that just make the site and its claims really untrustworthy

 

[smf]

HOW DIRTY is your money, that Your Bank does not want your $5mil.

They probably didn't make enough money out of him anyway, the publicity at taking his account away is probably worth it more.

 

[djpannda]

Ted Cruz Staffer Resigns
I have feeling that More of coming...

 

[tabzer]

The issue with the site in your signature is that actually doesn't prove "mass voter fraud" nor is most of the "evidence" worth a damn. Much of the supposed "evidence" is uncredited "eye-witness" or cherry-picked issues that point more towards issues in the voting process. There are also random examples brought up from past elections that don't even relate to the 2020 election. There are other issues that just make the site and its claims really untrustworthy

Nothing will ever amount to proof to those who see god in their political ideology. You have to understand that election fraud is not a new issue, so of course references to past instances would be relatable and relevent. It is literally a site that focuses on cherry-picking all relevent information regarding rigged elections, but in a crowd-sourced format. The site even ranks the significance and admissibility of each article. The site is a repository, not an authority. So whether the site, itself, is trustworthy or not is irrelevant to the point, as it forwards you to the source to determine for yourself. It's outdated and missing the newest and greatest information that any curious reader can easily find on their own--but the point is that the contention is not without premise, and that there is indeed evidence, whether you accept it or not. Trying to dismiss the whole thing under a unilateral criticism is inauthentic in discarding concern over the matter. I believe I insinuated that people looking for evidence will easily find it. People hiding from evidence will be the last of people to accept it. Those who are on the fence, are already being pushed over by the actions of big tech and the prominence of a pro-party propaganda arm.

 

[djpannda]

Breaking News : Rats abandoning ship .

wow, because of this horrible event, the attempted coup
Edit: fixed the link

 

[The Catboy]

Nothing will ever amount to proof to those who see god in their political ideology. You have to understand that election fraud is not a new issue, so of course references to past instances would be relatable and relevent. It is literally a site that focuses on cherry-picking all relevent information regarding rigged elections, but in a crowd-sourced format. The site even ranks the significance and admissibility of each article. The site is a repository, not an authority. So whether the site, itself, is trustworthy or not is irrelevant to the point, as it forwards you to the source to determine for yourself. It's outdated and missing the newest and greatest information that any curious reader can easily find on their own--but the point is that the contention is not without premise, and that there is indeed evidence, whether you accept it or not. Trying to dismiss the whole thing under a unilateral criticism is inauthentic in discarding concern over the matter. I believe I insinuated that people looking for evidence will easily find it. People hiding from evidence will be the last of people to accept it. Those who are on the fence, are already being pushed over by the actions of big tech and the prominence of a pro-party propaganda arm.

So basically you are ok with the site not actually proving the point you are trying to make, you just like the illusion of evidence. Understandable, have nice day.

 

[tabzer]

So basically you are ok with the site not actually proving the point you are trying to make, you just like the illusion of evidence. Understandable, have nice day.

Obviously you did not comprehend what I wrote and are postulating like your hero politicians. As I said, the site is not an authority; is a repository. If you were concerned about evidence, you would easily find it and be left looking (and finding) more.

 

[Lacius]

Obviously you did not comprehend what I wrote and are postulating like your hero politicians. As I said, the site is not an authority; is a repository. If you were concerned about evidence, you would easily find it and be left looking (and finding) more.

There is no evidence of widespread election fraud. When you say there was "probably" election fraud despite this, you sound like a complete idiot.

 

[Cryoraptor]

Do you think one man is capable of manipulating 86,000,000 people or that maybe there's a modicum of a chance that you may not be totally correct

As every totalitarian and cultist state ever would suggest, yes, yes he can.

 

[notimp]

Signature Bank cut ties:

 

[Cryoraptor]

Nothing will ever amount to proof to those who see god in their political ideology

This makes no sense.

 

[tabzer]

There is no evidence of widespread election fraud. When you say there was "probably" election fraud despite this, you sound like a complete idiot.

The truth according to Lacius, who believes that Joe Biden does not prop and defend the image of his son even though there is pedophilia. There is evidence, as I said. When I say that it "probably" happened over and over before, I am insinuating that it's approaching the limit where it's becoming undeniable.

This makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense to you. Ok.

 

[Plasmaster09]

"by definition". There is evidence, by definition. A lot of evidence, by definition.



It's not that what I want or don't want. I can't because I have a brain and a heart, and I have seen too much to be able to go against either of them.

You are positing that I am not being fair, because I don't accept your beliefs as my own. This is not unlike arguing about religion.



28% evidence. That's a new admission. The site has everything relevent up to a certain date, with rankings. But it doesn't include Pulitzer's findings, or other recent evidence. Not to mention the possibilities and definitive assertation of meddling from foreign countries' assets. Since over 90% of the media appeals to less than half of the country's accepted interest, it is not unfair to suggest that the news media is a propaganda arm. So, anyone who already disagrees, will be even more disenfranchised. Anyone who is trying to be unbiased, or those who are 50/50 on the bipartisan scale will be disenfranchised. It's only going to reward the die-hard ideologists who don't even know the outcome of what they are perpetuating--and only temporarily on an emotional level.

Biden won by at least seven million. The website totals about two million.
I'm saying you have ~28% MAXIMUM, and that even if every single alleged fraudulent or manipulated vote counted on that site was actually fraudulent then Biden would still have won by more than double that.

Nothing will ever amount to proof to those who see god in their political ideology. You have to understand that election fraud is not a new issue, so of course references to past instances would be relatable and relevent. It is literally a site that focuses on cherry-picking all relevent information regarding rigged elections, but in a crowd-sourced format. The site even ranks the significance and admissibility of each article. The site is a repository, not an authority. So whether the site, itself, is trustworthy or not is irrelevant to the point, as it forwards you to the source to determine for yourself. It's outdated and missing the newest and greatest information that any curious reader can easily find on their own--but the point is that the contention is not without premise, and that there is indeed evidence, whether you accept it or not. Trying to dismiss the whole thing under a unilateral criticism is inauthentic in discarding concern over the matter. I believe I insinuated that people looking for evidence will easily find it. People hiding from evidence will be the last of people to accept it. Those who are on the fence, are already being pushed over by the actions of big tech and the prominence of a pro-party propaganda arm.

Uh... what the fuck? Not only are you admitting the site is blatantly cherry-picking the bits that agree with it while ignoring the rest as well as being fundamentally unreliable, you're also trying to derail our arguments by throwing a completely unrelated deific accusation at them! For the record, I'm agnostic- and my faith increasingly wavers the more I see Trump brainwash people into spouting stupid shit like this without consequence.

 

[Cryoraptor]

It doesn't make sense to you. Ok.

No, it doesn't make sense in the English language. I can't tell if it's a typo, or if you're calling out supposed divine invoking on the opposing side.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

When I say that it "probably" happened over and over before, I am insinuating that it's approaching the limit where it's becoming undeniable

So election fraud is becoming undeniable... because you said so. Right.

 

[tabzer]

No, it doesn't make sense in the English language. I can't tell if it's a typo, or if you're calling out supposed divine invoking on the opposing side.

I'm saying that even people who do not believe in capital GOD will idolize and attempt to immortalize bunk politics.

I'm saying you have ~28% MAXIMUM, and that even if every single alleged fraudulent or manipulated vote counted on that site was actually fraudulent then Biden would still have won by more than double that.

It only takes 1% of the evidence to swing the election the other direction. 28% is of the evidence being real does not equal 28% of the vote. What are you thinking?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

So election fraud is becoming undeniable... because you said so. Right.

Not because I said so. There has been a definite statement that there is no evidence of election fraud, even though every election has evidence of fraud. It's an issue that has never been put to rest, and it is a limit that is continually being approached. I do believe, that this time, there will be an outcome where everybody will agree. It's obviously not at this point in the dialogue, as you still disagree with me.

 

[Lacius]

The truth according to Lacius, who believes that Joe Biden does not prop and defend the image of his son even though there is pedophilia. There is evidence, as I said. When I say that it "probably" happened over and over before, I am insinuating that it's approaching the limit where it's becoming undeniable.



It doesn't make sense to you. Ok.

You can't say widespread election fraud is "undeniable" without providing evidence of widespread voter fraud. Not without sounding like a fool, anyway.

 

[Cryoraptor]

I'm saying that even people who do not believe in capital GOD will idolize and attempt to immortalize bunk politics.

Haha

 

[Plasmaster09]

I'm saying that even people who do not believe in capital GOD will idolize and attempt to immortalize bunk politics.



It only takes 1% of the evidence to swing the election the other direction. 28% is of the evidence being real does not equal 28% of the vote. What are you thinking?

first off, your delusional deific comparison is contradicting itself
first you claim that those who see God will not accept proof, then you claim even people that don't believe in God will... do whatever the fuck that last string of snarl words is
you sure seem pretty religious to insist on capital G-O-D, so your original quote applies to you far more than you intended
and secondly...
dude this is basic math and you're still messing it up
the margin of victory was about 7 million
the website has about 2 million
2 million is about 28% of 7 million
you wouldn't need 1% of that evidence (or even 1% of the total vote- you already """""have""""" that and it's nowhere near enough since that too is far less than 7 million), you'd need roughly 350% of it- which is to say, far more than you have and likely ever will have