Rudy Giuliani Drops Bombshell, Says "Dominion" Whistleblowers Are Coming Forward

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Boadicea

Extending deadlines for mail-in ballots.. That is fraud? How so? It is the states rights to do so. It would be like me arguing about gerrymandering. Currently that is legal right?

It is up to the state legislatures -- and only their legislatures -- to set the election rules. As noted in the AZ example I provided earlier, where the Supreme Court ordered the county recorder not to change the rules.

Allowing mail in ballots by a certain date.. How does that screw with anything?

There are many reasons that mail-in ballots can be problematic, including the possibility of such ballots being forged/manufactured after the fact to give votes to a losing party -- obviously.

It only screws with the election because you don't want them. There is no fraud here, the only reason you think there is fraud is because your horse lost the race.

You don't seem to realize that I have not been defending Team Trump. You also don't seem to realize that I vote Libertarian.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Boadicea

This case was factual, the rest of the stuff you're laying out has not be proven in court.

Everything I listed is true in fact if not in deed.

And technically, the only point that we do not know to have actually happened is whether or not ballots were "corrected" and counted by ballot counters while Republican observers were denied entry to the vote counting. And we have absolutely no way of knowing.

Those safeguards are established for exactly these reasons: To ensure there is no opportunity for cheating.

Remove the safeguards, and there is no such assurance.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Everything I listed is true in fact if not in deed.

It's been alleged.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's been alleged.

It is a fact that the recorder gave out instructions contrary to state law... it is a fact that the recorder was ordered by the Supreme Court to stop doing so... it is a fact that the recorder continued giving the same incorrect information... it is a fact that Republican observers were not allowed to watch the vote for some period of time...

The only thing not known -- and cannot be known -- to be fact is if ballot counters "corrected" and counted any such ballots.

It is fact that it possibly/probably/could have happened.

a reply to: Boadicea

He's spooning you warm diarrhoea.

And you're lapping it up hungrily.

a reply to: Boadicea

Like I said, that instance is true, it is also fairly singular. Your other anecdotes have not been found to be real by a court at this time and I doubt if any will.

a reply to: Lazarus Short
Isn't that kind of a big deal?

Did anyone else read that link?

I feel like every time Rudy speaks, and takes validity away from the topic.

I am not kidding. He needs to stop. If there is anything to these allegations, there has to better sources than Rudy or I would question if there are other sources at all.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: Boadicea

He's spooning you warm diarrhoea.

And you're lapping it up hungrily.

Oh dear... Please actually read the OP and respond to what I actually posited... and not your confirmation biases.

I'm not lapping up anything... Not the bullcrap from the left and not the bullcrap from the right.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: Boadicea

He's spooning you warm diarrhoea.

And you're lapping it up hungrily.

I agree he keeps talking and it never happens. Guliani is a troll his job buy time. He never seems to actually come through just lots of vague promises. I have a feeling this will be no different now we wait.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Boadicea

At this point what credibility, if any, does he have? How many times do you listen to the same sound byte without any supporting evidence before you start to realize he's pedaling bull?

Evidence doesn't precede investigation.

When the police find a dead body they conduct an investigation in order to find evidence. They don't have evidence and then conduct an investigation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Boadicea
It's not proof of massive fraud. But it does expose a weakness -- a fault even -- in the process which allows for and enables fraud to take place on a massive level.

It does no such thing, this was a very isolated incident.

do you feel that the massive amount of people who don't trust the system due to the MSM bias, the big tech bias, and the general way Trump and his supporters are vilified, have any right to be skeptical of the vote process, or are they all just nancys? In your uber professional opinion of course.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I feel like every time Rudy speaks, and takes validity away from the topic.

I am not kidding. He needs to stop. If there is anything to these allegations, there has to better sources than Rudy or I would question if there are other sources at all.

I think at this point Rudy is considered the "Go To Guy" for Trump, so yeah, everyone is going to Rudy, and therefore he's the source for everything. I don't like it either.

For all we know he could be doing this as much to gather and hide real evidence as he is for anything else. I'm not saying he is, but it is possible.

originally posted by: WildBillX
Evidence doesn't precede investigation.

When the police find a dead body they conduct an investigation in order to find evidence. They don't have evidence and then conduct an investigation.

LOL. The police also don't have daily press briefings about the murder filled with absolutely nothing of substance.

In front of a landscaping company.

Next to a crematorium.

originally posted by: network dude
do you feel that the massive amount of people who don't trust the system due to the MSM bias, the big tech bias, and the general way Trump and his supporters are vilified, have any right to be skeptical of the vote process, or are they all just nancys? In your uber professional opinion of course.

I think anyone who is not skeptical of government, the media and corporations is a loon.

That being said there comes a point when people have to face the reality that nothing of substance may have happened and address the underlying root causes of the election. The whole doomed to repeat scenario and all...

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I feel like every time Rudy speaks, and takes validity away from the topic.

I am not kidding. He needs to stop. If there is anything to these allegations, there has to better sources than Rudy or I would question if there are other sources at all.

I think at this point Rudy is considered the "Go To Guy" for Trump, so yeah, everyone is going to Rudy, and therefore he's the source for everything. I don't like it either.

For all we know he could be doing this as much to gather and hide real evidence as he is for anything else. I'm not saying he is, but it is possible.

My gut tells me that if Rudy is the face of the opposition to election fraud, it won't go far but when it is over and all officials call the election fair and transparent, Rudy is going to be launching his own programs to reel in all the disgruntled Trump supporters that believe he was cheated put of the election.

Its win/win for Rudy. IMO

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
do you feel that the massive amount of people who don't trust the system due to the MSM bias, the big tech bias, and the general way Trump and his supporters are vilified, have any right to be skeptical of the vote process, or are they all just nancys? In your uber professional opinion of course.

I think anyone who is not skeptical of government, the media and corporations is a loon.

That being said there comes a point when people have to face the reality that nothing of substance may have happened and address the underlying root causes of the election. The whole doomed to repeat scenario and all...

These people are stupid

a reply to: richapau
This probably needs it's own thread!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Okay... it hasn't been proven in a court of law. But it's still being judged in the court of public opinion based on the facts as the public knows them.

And we do know that election safeguards have been weakened. To what extent, we don't know.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

I hope all these "whistleblowers" are coming from Kentucky!

In Ballard County Kentucky the State Board of Elections shows 2285 registered REPUBLICAN voters as of Oct 2020 yet 3155 people voted for Mitch McConnell?

Ballard County also has 3966 registered Dems but Amy McGrath only got 936 votes.

In Bath County Kentucky there were 2478 registered REPUBLICAN voters, and McConnell got 3537 votes in total.

With 6730 registered Dems in Bath, Amy McGrath only got 1827 votes.

Seems odd in this divisive atmosphere that over 1000 registered Democrat's voted for McConnell, while almost 5000 Dems didn't vote for McGrath.

Elliott County Kentucky has 860 registered Republicans yet McConnel got 1958 vot

There's more suspicions stats at links
elect.ky.gov...
threadreaderapp.com...

Could that just mean a lot of Democrats voted Republican?

As you would expect considering the Democrat nominee.