Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4378
    MEMBERS
  • 91208
    MESSAGES
  • 15
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Would you eat at a computerized restaurant?   The Consumer You: Marketplace

Started 4/28/21 by Showtalk; 4048 views.
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

5/28/21

That is not true.  The judges refused to allow them to look further at the voting machines or ballots. They didn’t find fraud because they did not look. That is all people are asking about. To have unbiased people with ability to look into the allegations.  They were not even given that much.  

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

5/28/21

The term is gaslighting.  If enough outlets repeat the information, then it must be true.  But they are carefully leaving out the facts that the people running then investigations don’t want the actual claims looked into.  It’s similar to Fauci very carefully saying our country did not fund a specific type of research at a specific lab during a specific time.  The news actually came out that the research was funded that led to the worldwide outbreak of pandemic and it happened under his watch during the Obama administration.  

This kind of thing is exactly why around 150 million people are convinced irregularities happened during the election and they were covered up.   I’ve said before what happened is statistically impossible and numbers don’t lie, people do.  The concern isn’t 2020 anymore, it’s whether 2022 and 2024 will be honest and fair elections.  

YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/29/21

WALTER784 said:

But what happened to the over 140 affidavits swearing under oath with notarization that they saw fraud? If they were lying, they could be jailed.

Yes, and that is explained in the links I posted.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

5/29/21

It comes down to one main issue, which is just going back and looking at the results. Why are they so afraid for that to happen? If there is really nothing to find, then everyone will be satisfied and it will be over.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784 

5/29/21

YWN666 said...

WALTER784 said:

But what happened to the over 140 affidavits swearing under oath with notarization that they saw fraud? If they were lying, they could be jailed.

Yes, and that is explained in the links I posted.

And if your posts were the case... then they should have no problem going through the actual ballots and auditing them.

However, those who attempt to perform an audit are turned down... why would they be turned down if the election were fair? An audit would only prove whether it was fair or not. And if it were fair, then there should be no reason for turning down the requests for the audit. Something is fishy here. And a full forensics audit would clarify that fishy situation up. So why the hesitancy to have the audits move forward?

If there's nothing to hide... there's nothing to hide... and thus the audits should be allowed to proceed as requested!

FWIW

 

YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/30/21

That has been done multiple times in multiple courts and the result has been the same every time - Trump lost and there was no fraud.  Many Republicans have even come out and told Trump to stop the charade.

In reply toRe: msg 48
YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/30/21

In reply toRe: msg 50
YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/30/21

In reply toRe: msg 50
YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/30/21

In reply toRe: msg 52
YWN666

From: YWN666 

5/30/21

TOP