Funny, that:

 So the Media and many Liberals are now deriding those who felt that there was fraud in the 2020 elections…laughing at the claims that the obvious irregularities and statistical anomalies are nothing…that they are simply wishful thinking. 

They claim that not only is there no “evidence” but that there is no way that there could be enough changes made, even if it were possible, to influence the outcome of the election.

Yet these are the same people that spent tens of millions of dollars looking into “Russian” interference in the 2016 election. 

So which is it? A foreign entity could have influenced our election enough to change the outcome, but a domestic entity (the DNC) could not have done the same 4 years later?  

When one turns blue, does any logical thought simply disappear? 

10 thoughts on “Funny, that:

  1. So, let's look at the flip side to your statement.

    After the 2016 election, the right said it was ridiculous that "Russian" interference had any effect on election results. But now they claim that Venezuela, China and George Soros have fraudulently provided Biden with an election victory.

    I'll turn your question right back at you. "So which is it?" Russian interference couldn't have an effect, but Venezuela and China could?

    Seems that hypocrisy doesn't distinguish between party lines, but is just part of the human condition.


    • Russian FB posts and ads couldn't.
      China owning Dominion could.
      BIG difference.

  2. I've never heard the claoms of Venzuela or china interfereing with the election….George Soros, yes (He's influenced a lot of things with large sums of money)

    But we on the right are not claiming a foreign power "Influenced" our last election. We are pointing out the counting anomalies, the statistical impossibilities that folks like you seem to want to ignore…and the fact that these anomalies all occurred in large cities (Democrat controlled) and only is states where the vote was close….

    As TewShooz said, Apples and Oranges. Nice deflection. You aren't that stupid to have done that on accident, so you comment is pretty much either deflection of lying.

  3. I think the difference between russia russia russia and what we are dealing with now is the evidence.

  4. Well, B, Giuliani is Trump's personal attorney, so I think he counts as the right, and the two campaign attorneys with him at last Thursday's press conference (the one where Giuliani's hair dye melted down his face) are certainly spokespeople of the right. At that press conference they went on about Venezuela and Hugo Chavez (he's been dead for seven years!), Cuba, China and Soros, among other things. Watch it, read it, whatever you can stomach. So yeah, the right is claiming foreign interference.

    So much for apples and oranges.

    Charlie's right. The difference is evidence. "Russia russia russia" produced enough evidence for a Republican justice dept. to indict 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies for scheming to interfere in the 2016 election.

    And where is the legitimate evidence of counting anomalies and statistical impossibilities? I've asked here before, and no one has produced anything that suggested rampant, industrial-level fraud.

    Glen F. says we'll see it at the trial. What trial? As of yesterday, the Trump campaign and the Republican party had filed 37 lawsuits, but 24 had been either withdrawn or dismissed for–you guessed it–LACK of evidence.

    During the press conference, Giuliani claimed to have thousands and thousands of signed affidavits that supported fraud claims. If he ever successfully enters those affidavits into evidence and they are found to be legit, I'll be right there with you, B, shouting for an investigation.

    But that seems unlikely. I mean what is he waiting for?


  5. I've said here on this blog that if they have enough evidence, now is the time to show it.

    Donnie's "Personal Attorney" isn't the Right, sorry.

    It was the DNC….(The Left) that pushed the "Russia" story. And indictments aren't prosecutions. They had to show something after wasting all that time and taxpayer money, didn't they? Unless you are delusional or a total moron (which you don't seem to be, most of the time, at least when you are not trying to defend the indefensible), you know that that whole Russia!! bit was bullshit in an attempt to try and discredit Trump….Which failed badly.

    You've rejected all claims of statistical evidence. I've linked in previous posts. YOU DON"T WANT TO SEE. You are obviously biased as the press, and as long as your boy get there, the means don't matter. Dishonest but that is ok, as the ends justify the means. Perhaps you should return to your previous persona and go back to Misfit's blog.

  6. B, Let's start with this. "You've rejected all claims of statistical evidence. I've linked in previous posts."

    I have gone back over all your posts to this blog about the election and all your comments within (back to the day before the election), and I've gone over all your comments at Misfit's blog dealing with the election, and the only link to "statistical data" that I can find is the one to Busted Knuckles blog. So, technically you are correct; I have rejected all your claims–all one of them.

    " . . . if they have enough evidence, now is the time to show it." I did read that. I also read the two paragraphs that led to that statement ("great deal of evidence that there was voter fraud," "lots of INDIRECT evidence," "the lots of "found" ballots . . . that were overwhelmingly for Biden," etc., etc.). And no links to back any of it up. Your hunches and gut instincts are not evidence (not even indirect evidence).

    "And indictments aren't prosecutions." You are correct, but they do require evidence. And, yes, the DNC pushed hard on this, but it was Trump's DOJ that signed off on it. Did somebody put a gun to their heads?

    "Donnie's "Personal Attorney" isn't the Right, sorry." While you might not like it, Trump is the face of the right. Giuliani is one of his spokespeople, so yeah, he speaks for the right. Of course I don't alway like or agree with who you decide speaks for the left.

    "previous persona" And who would that be? I'm Pete, always have been. I've never commented under an alias, nickname or avatar.

    Pete (my real name)

    PS Nice touch with the name-calling. Classy.

  7. And a question for you, B.

    I know we don't agree on a lot of things, but what indefensible things have I defended?


  8. Wow, SL. I submit to your overwhelmingly unsubstantiated argument.

    (Sarcasm font off.)


Comments are closed.