What's more DeSantis won reelection last year by a huge margin. It is hardly the case that elections are somehow "fixed" in the US or someone like DeSantis (or a number of others in other states) would not be in office.
What's more DeSantis won reelection last year by a huge margin. It is hardly the case that elections are somehow "fixed" in the US or someone like DeSantis (or a number of others in other states) would not be in office.
This comment system is better than anything Rod has had before, but your reply baffles me. I can't remember that I said anything about DeSantis and fixed elections, and I can't spare the time to go through all of the comments to see what I said. What was it? ( Hi, Jon. I was Robert Kirby in a previous fake identity. )
Consider the possibility that the UniParty and its election fraud infrastructure allowed the "red wave" to occur in Florida (but not in other states) so as to make DeSantis look good, while providing a narrative that "MAGA candidates failed." Comments after the midterms by GOP Establishment / UniParty types are consistent with this thesis.
>>"There is no evidence whatsoever of serious election fraud. Deal with reality."
That's arguably insulting ("Deal with reality.").
Also, "no evidence whatsoever" is factually inaccurate. I will be happy to provide links to multiple sources of evidence, but even without that, the documentary "2000 Mules" alone provides compelling evidence.
I am not tryin to be isnulting, but I can respect the spreading of falsehoods, even when the person doing so believes in them hismelf.
The "evidence" of stolen elections has been aired and found severely wanting multiple times. Trump's own legal people did not dare introduce any of it (with a couple minor exceptions) in court in 2020-21 since doing so would have earned a rebuke, possibly even legal penalties from judges (including those Trump-apppointed) who cannot look kindly of fallacious, fraudulent or frivolous legal claims.
"Falsehoods." That is your opinion. Neither you (or I) are the ultimate arbiter of truth. Follow the evidence.
The statement about Trump's legal team mischaracterizes courts refusing to hear cases due to (alleged) lack of standing ... not to mention the Supreme Court refusing to hear a similar case brought by multiple states.
There are parties (including leadership of both political parties) that have been pushing (what many of us consider a "Big Lie") that 2020 (and later) were "free and fair elections." Those of us who disagree are labeled "election deniers" (same technique employed against those who point out that "climate change" is a fraud - who are then branded "deniers").
I already mentioned "2000 Mules." And I offered to post links to other sources of evidence. Accept my offer, then look at with an open mind. Then decide.
What's more DeSantis won reelection last year by a huge margin. It is hardly the case that elections are somehow "fixed" in the US or someone like DeSantis (or a number of others in other states) would not be in office.
This comment system is better than anything Rod has had before, but your reply baffles me. I can't remember that I said anything about DeSantis and fixed elections, and I can't spare the time to go through all of the comments to see what I said. What was it? ( Hi, Jon. I was Robert Kirby in a previous fake identity. )
My reply would have been better had I made it more directly to the person above you who was floating the "rigged election" line.
I am glad to see you here.
Consider the possibility that the UniParty and its election fraud infrastructure allowed the "red wave" to occur in Florida (but not in other states) so as to make DeSantis look good, while providing a narrative that "MAGA candidates failed." Comments after the midterms by GOP Establishment / UniParty types are consistent with this thesis.
There is no evidence whatsoever of serious election fraud. Deal with reality.
>>"There is no evidence whatsoever of serious election fraud. Deal with reality."
That's arguably insulting ("Deal with reality.").
Also, "no evidence whatsoever" is factually inaccurate. I will be happy to provide links to multiple sources of evidence, but even without that, the documentary "2000 Mules" alone provides compelling evidence.
I am not tryin to be isnulting, but I can respect the spreading of falsehoods, even when the person doing so believes in them hismelf.
The "evidence" of stolen elections has been aired and found severely wanting multiple times. Trump's own legal people did not dare introduce any of it (with a couple minor exceptions) in court in 2020-21 since doing so would have earned a rebuke, possibly even legal penalties from judges (including those Trump-apppointed) who cannot look kindly of fallacious, fraudulent or frivolous legal claims.
"Falsehoods." That is your opinion. Neither you (or I) are the ultimate arbiter of truth. Follow the evidence.
The statement about Trump's legal team mischaracterizes courts refusing to hear cases due to (alleged) lack of standing ... not to mention the Supreme Court refusing to hear a similar case brought by multiple states.
There are parties (including leadership of both political parties) that have been pushing (what many of us consider a "Big Lie") that 2020 (and later) were "free and fair elections." Those of us who disagree are labeled "election deniers" (same technique employed against those who point out that "climate change" is a fraud - who are then branded "deniers").
I already mentioned "2000 Mules." And I offered to post links to other sources of evidence. Accept my offer, then look at with an open mind. Then decide.