Vox II wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:27 pm
Genuine question to Visser and Convoluted. Do you watch Rudy et al and think "These guys are arguing a compelling case and make a lot of sense to me?" I'm intrigued.
No I don't watch Rudy.
I think he's creepy. Quite a few Republicans are like that, but they pale compared to the horrific Democrat lineup of Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer. Swawell, the Squad and on and on.
Lots of Americans and lots of we outsiders would love to see a new third party US option. And tens of millions of Americans would want it modelled on what Trump provided to ordinary Americans during his 4 years,
What is compelling re. the claims of electoral fraud is the number of ordinary concerned common folk, some Democrat, some Independent, who have come forward with affidavits detailing the corruption and obstruction that they witnessed.
By going public, these whistleblowers are knowingly exposing themselves to the full force of the vitriolic hatred that characterizes today's Democrat Party.
They know they will be abused and threatened, that they will have reduced job opportunities or advancement opportunities, that they will be vilified till the end of time.
But still they have come forward, and so many of their accounts tie in.
Contrast that with the fact that the Democrats concocted an impeachment of Trump based entirely on an ANONYMOUS whistleblower who 'reported' a legitimate phone conversation as being somehow dodgy. And every MSN news anchor and commentator and every ranking Democrat figure of the time described this person as a courageous patriot for coming forward.
Glorified as 'courageous', though never self-identifying and so perhaps even non-existent, yet that same MSN cohort and Democrats pour scorn and contempt on those very real persons whistleblowing about the electoral fraud.
My question back to you VOX 11 is do you seriously not see anything amiss with mail in ballots requiring neither ID or signature verification when ID is required to purchase liquor?