Why Did They Have To Steal The Election?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    So what have we learned?

    We learned that democrats already knew the vulnerabilities of both the infrastructure system and the legal/political system.

    We learned the democrats exploited that knowledge to win the presidency.

    We learned the courts don't want to deal with election issues.

    We learned that even political adversaries in the legislature don't want to deal with election issues.

    We learned that the system is not set up to hear election cases in a timely manner.

    We learned that elections are very unsupervised, with no real chain of responsibility of those conducting it.

    We learned a secretary of state can make unilateral decisions that can change the outcome of an election and nothing can be done about it.

    But most importantly we learned that we no longer have societal fair play, it is win now at all costs, integrity be damned.
    Add to this that we know that out elections are a bunch of hokum and by extension the Republic now stands as an illusion only.
     

    dmarsh8

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 10, 2011
    1,429
    63
    Katmandu
    We have a long list of irregularities that range from extremely improbable to damn well impossible in a fair election. We have a number of changes to election rules made by actors who had no constitutional authority to do so. We have flagrant violations of safeguards to protect against corruption on video.

    After all this, we have you saying that because no one tripped over one pile of evidence connecting all the deeds to doers and then faceplant himself in a second pile of end of trial quality evidence on the way down it didn't happen.

    As a police officer did you refuse to consider the possibility of wrongdoing unless you were handed a slam-dunk just go through the motions of taking it to court guaranteed conviction, or did you have to do a small modicum of investigation once in a while?

    Do you not see a problem when the only form of investigation of obvious wrong-doing is the discovery process, and even that is denied?
    We have a number of changes to election rules made by actors who had no constitutional authority to do so.
    ^^ This is the only proof needed. Violation of Art. II Sec. I Clause II
    And Scotus didn't have the guts to deal with it.
     
    Top Bottom