🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Zoohouse no rush

@pthenq1

Please share the link where he asked people to be violent on public TV, I clearly missed that.

@Zoohouse

@swiley

Dont worry its a group that blocks pretty much everyone on the fediverse. I doubt they ever had qoto on their white list.

@icedquinn

Man @snow_wintermute is hilariously pathetic.. they spend half their time mocking #fediblock for trying to block instances and the other half of their time trying to get instances blocked. They literally started an archive of instances to block and literally got blocked for their trouble.

Its funny in a sad sort of way.

@icedquinn banned4life club

@icedquinn Even qoto got listed on that pile of nonsense.

@anonymoose

then make your case, saying a thing is so providing no specific examples or evidence is again, just a waste of everyone's time, including yours. If thats your opinion and you wish to demonstrate it, be specific, list the cases and your argument for why they demonstrate your point.

Lacking that its just noise. If you present me with a case that I havent actually read that has any notable bearing on the outcome of the presidential election I'd be happy to read the court documents and consider your point. But right now your just claiming its so and providing nothing to back that up.

@Atlas @icedquinn

@leyonhjelm

Backing the loosing horse again I see. I really should follow you and just do the opposite of everything you suggest or do in life, quickest way to success I can think of based on your track record.

@Atlas

@anonymoose

I've sifted through the actual court documents of 54 court cases on this topic. Every single case that actually was able to present any meaningful evidence was heard in court.

You want to convince me to the contrary feel free, but simply stating im wrong, considering the amount of personal time I invested into considering both sides in this, does little more than waste my time and offer nothing to the conversation.

@Atlas @Zoohouse

@Atlas

> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Says the man who posted a link as his top "proof" that didnt even have to do with the presidential election

Your literally spamming proof of links you didnt even **read** let alone research.. but yea, you know the truth, your so woke...

Next time you try leading a horse to water make sure its actually water and not a stream of liquid bullshit.

@icedquinn

Ok buddy, a law that was a shitty choice for a law that resulted in all of 10 votes being counted that shouldnt have in a single state is totally valid evidence that massive voter fraud took place and Trump really won.... totally valid, I just moved the goal posts

OUCH!!! oh shit I just sprained my eyes when I rolled them a bit too hard. Gonna be sore for days.

@Atlas

@Atlas

> You're presented with example after example, and you choose to trust them. Who are you trusting? The media? The Democrats?

What are you talking about? Why would I have to trust anyone? I do actual research and ensure i dont trust people.

For example you claimed the postmark case.. Do you know how trivial it is to do a little research and look at records from before election fraud was even a thought and see how frequent it is for letters to arrive without postmarks? Or to take it a step further and actually read the court documents of the case and see how many postmarked letters the plantiff claimed were involved?

You literally dont need to trust anyone..

YOU are trusting a clearly bias and corrupt news agency, that much is clear.. me, I didnt look at the news, I actually went to the source and looked at data that didnt require me to trust anyone.

> I assume people behave badly, and therefore it follows they try and cheat in elections.

So do I, which is why I spent so much time researching it and trying to find the proof.. But when I find that there is no reasonable proof of any kind to suggest voter fraud on any scale of relevance then I do what a reasonable objective person would do and conclude there was none.

What I dont do is make up fantasies and find easily debunked data from horrifically bias and untrustoworthy sources and desperately try to sell my confirmation bias anyway.

> The push back against that premise is baffling.

The guy who tried to tell everyone unicorns were real a few hundred years back thought the same thing.

@icedquinn

It is when you are arguing election fraud and the law in question effected something like 10 votes in total, at most. So while it may have been an injust law (and was corrected) it had virtually no bearing of any kind on the topic of the presidential election.

@Atlas

@icedquinn

Yes they did, I said as much in my reply and explained why its still a nonsense argument.

@Atlas

@Atlas

This response shows you havent done any research regarding the links you posted or evidence and are literally just looking on google for anything that sounds like it vaguely supports your position.. The first link being the most damning in that regard.

> Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-judge-stacey-abrams-sister-wont-recuse-election-suit-rules-against-voter-purge-before-runoffs

Not even related to the presidential election we are talking about. This is literally about an entirely different election that took place after electing local state officials (senators). No relationship in any way to the presidential election being discussed.

> Judge rules Virginia's late election law changes for mail-in ballots were illegal
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rules-virginia-s-late-election-law-changes-for-mail-in-ballots-were-illegal/ar-BB1d9atb

This one of course is also complete nonsense and I even addressed it just a few days ago.

It only deemed specifically that letters that arrived throughthe mail that expiernced a technical error where the postmark did not print properly onto the letter and was not legible or absent could not be counted.

While it is perfectly reasonable that such a law might be deemed illegal anyone doing any actual objective research would have quickly discovered this accounts for virtually 0 actual cases. The number of letters that are accidentally missing a post mark are so unbelievably low that its laughable to even bring this up as a significant influence on election outcomes.

> “We never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question. There were several states in which the law was changed by the secretary of State and not the state legislature. To me, those are clearly unconstitutional, and I think there’s there’s still a chance that those actually do finally work their way up to the Supreme Court.” - Rand Paul

A quote from a republican politician hardly counts as credible evidence, but lets consider this shall we.

It is, of course and no suprise both a complete lie and a fiction.. lets look at the actual numbers shall we:

There are actually quite a few cases that were heard, of course, only the ones that actually had evidence, court cases can and will be dropped if no evidence is provided to have the case proceed.

In total 6 cases across different states were held in full, and a rulling was passed, all 12 failed to succeed. 2 trials are still on going but were not dropped and made it to a full trial that is still in progress, and 6 trials were heard, and failed to succeed but has been appealed and the appeal is on going.

Sounds like a much bigger number than 0.

> Georgia Republican Poll Watcher Discovered Recount Error Off By More Than 9,000 Votes For Biden
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/georgia-republican-poll-watcher-discovered-recount-error-off-by-more-than-9000-votes-for-biden/

Again complete lack of research on your part, this one actually shows the **opposite** of your claim. This error was caught during the normal process used to verify vote integrity and **not** due to any prompting or claim of voter fraud.

Sometimes human error occurs, thats why the system double and triple checks most votes and when an error is found it is corrected. This is exactly the case here, during the **normal** verification process they found one bin was mislabeled, it was corrected and when the final votes were announced it had already included this correct.

> This, is an excellent rundown of the quite unbelievable elements of this election:

No its not, its a horrific one, just like every single one of your links above were trivially debunked with even a moments research.. picking the things that agree with you from very obviously biased news sources just means you have a bunch of lies, a long list of lies is still lies.

> Just because CNN doesn't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I agree, CNN is shit and they lie their asses off and bias everything they report for the left..CNN being biased and shit doesnt make your biased shit news source and less bias or shit.

i posted an actual picture of you doing research on this post for reference.

@Atlas

> Fraud is extremely incentivized in elections, and the default position should be to audit and validate rather than trust.

There was auditing and validating, a hell of a lot, and it found no evidence. (in the USA)

> OP's premise seemed to be that because the military cited election fraud, it should be dismissed out of hand as if the claim was a unicorn.

The OP and me are different people. The OP made no claims of unicorns and only quoted an article.

Me, I was not the op and I was talking about the USA, which has nothing to do with the OP's post about the military nor did I mention the military.

I am also the one who brought up unicorns and I suggested the suggestion of voter fraud in the usa should be dismissed as if a unicorn because all the evidence that was considered and all the investigations that were done didnt show even the slightest hint of organized fraud, at best isolated incidents that were so minimal as to not even approach anything significant.

@Zoohouse

@aspie4K lol translation: "no reasonable people allowed, on extremists"