re: Steve Scalise Frustrates Chris Wallace- Election Stolen

quote:

---

Thousands and thousands created at the Fulton Co DVS test center alone.

---

Ballots?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you had to have actual voters connected to a ballot for it to count.

More bullshite without substance. You want to take that to court. Laughable.

quote:

---

the entire country knows this shite was stolen

---

all you do is repeat trumps big lie.
no
the 60 judges many of them trump appointments did not agree there was any stealing at all.

repeating the big lie is now required for trump to back a candidate.

the dem vs gop debates will end up being the slaughterhouse for trump.

no one believes it was stolen by fraud.
all you are doing is repeating the big lie. goebbels says hi.

quote:

---

all you do is repeat trumps big lie. no the 60 judges many of them trump appointments did not agree there was any stealing at all. repeating the big lie is now required for trump to back a candidate. the dem vs gop debates will end up being the slaughterhouse for trump. no one believes it was stolen by fraud. all you are doing is repeating the big lie. goebbels says hi.

---

Everyone knows you know we know y’all know y’all stole the election so you can stop acting like you don’t know.

Even third world countries know that American Marxists are everyone’s enemy.

quote:

---

have an election system that is not transparent, not auditable and therefore we can't tell if it was stolen or not.

We should have a system were you should be able to tell if it was stolen. We don't, and that in of itself is shameful.

---

Huh? It's transparent based on today's rules. What would you change specifically about current process and audit standards that existed pre election

quote:

---

You stand corrected.

---

Not by you.

Is there any evience that ANY of the ballots created at the Fulton Co DVS test center were connected to any actuial votes being cast.

Like I said. You want to take that to court?

You "Stop the Steal' Trumpers live in a fantacy dream world. The real world requires real evidence.

quote:

---

Again, Wallace wanted to deal in areas of speculation. Massive fraud in the 2020 election will eventually be proven, but we are not there yet. So as yet, it remains highly probable, but speculative.

Wallace asserts without evidence that there was no fraud. In contrast to the probability of massive fraud, Wallace's claim is a highly improbable assertion. But he'd refuse to discuss it in terms of probability. Instead, he'd demand Scalise PROVE assertions of fraud are 100% correct. That is a contrarian's game.

Scalese refused to play. SS forced the conversation back onto territory which was both egregious and indisputable. Wallace did not want that.

When dealing with a dishonest broker or partisan hack like Wallace, addressing the indisputable is absolutely the correct approach. BTW, Wallace has never acknowledged what Scalese was addressing. That is how fricking ridiculous Chris Wallace is.

---

He could’ve said what he said and began it with a, “Yes, there was massive fraud........ “

quote:

---

The Ninjas couldn't even do a simple recount.

---

quote:

---

Apparently the concept is quite a challenge for folks who have no clue or intellectual curiosity as to what an audit actually is.

---

I said the Ninjas could do a simple recount. That's exactly what I meant.

When the Ninjas simple recount numbers were called into question, the next day, Fann ordered counting machines to be brought in do a recount to check the Ninjas recount.

quote:

---

But IAW our POS SCOTUS in the worst decision since Dred Scott, states somehow don't have standing in a national election of the collected states.

---

Stay in your lane. You have enough trouble when you stay in the truck lane.

None of the Supremes thought they have standing to contest how another state enforces their election laws.

Alito and Thomas voted to allow the State of Texas to file the complaint (both thought the SC should accept the case under the Court's Original Jurisdiction), however, they both made it clear they did not think the State was entitled to relief as the injured party (no standing), but rather the voters of the State were the proper party plaintiffs.

quote:

---

By "today's rules," You mean the rules which were not followed???

---

What rules weren't followed and what transparency issue did that create?