Georgia lieutenant governor says Trump claims will hurt GOP candidates in runoff

[Knox27]

I'll certainly concede that. Of course, Trump is the most unusual candidate since the election of 1876 so IMO the participation could surely be explained that way.

But it's not evidence of fraud in and of itself.

And its also not true about the turnout percentages. See above.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yall can laugh all you want, the links are to the running vote totals.

Love the "probably" line.  Im the one accused of not reading or ignoring stuff...but thats "probably" a lie because you won't entertain something that goes against the narrative.

Just pretend obama said there was fraud and go to epic lengths to prove him wrong. Lol.

I cat believe this is the party of nixon. The last intelligent republican president would blanche at the complete loss of thoughtfulness in what used to be the "serious" party.

I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of my role on TBR.

[Knox27]

I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of my role on TBR.

Your role is irrelevant to this.. its a response to your point about laughing away the links and me.

[catfish1957]

Your role is irrelevant to this..

Anyone else notice that hint of ozone in the air?

[corbe]

   If it weren't for TBR I would have given up Day Drinking a long time ago.

[Cyber Liberty]

Anyone else notice that hint of ozone in the air?

Breathtaking, isn't it?   

[libertybele]

You want this board to be an echo chamber of conspiracy theories, its your choice, ill be fine.  Simply pointing out you cannot backup many claims when challenged.

I have been a member of this forum for 6 years .... and what you just posted is absolute hogwash. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your opinions and commentaries are absolutely welcome; your false accusations - -not so much.

[GtHawk]

I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of my role on TBR.

Following this thread I have no idea why this came to me.

"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not." : : "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know"

[Right_in_Virginia]

Most folks didn't vote for Biden.  .

You should've stopped right there.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Jazzhead

Some even got out of prison or crawled out of the grave to vote. Others hadn't even been born yet,and only live in the imaginations of the people who created and voted for them.

   @sneakypete

[Hoodat]

I'll certainly concede that. Of course, Trump is the most unusual candidate since the election of 1876 so IMO the participation could surely be explained that way.

But it's not evidence of fraud in and of itself.

If it swims like a raft of ducks, and quacks like a raft of ducks, then there's most likely a duck involved.

[Hoodat]

As for the changing vote totals

"At 4:39 a.m. Wednesday, it tweeted that Trump was 2.17 million votes in Michigan while Biden was at 1.95 million. Its next update, at 5:04 a.m., said Trump had 2.20 million votes and Biden had 2.13 million. The following update, at 5:43 a.m., gave Trump 2.21 million votes and Biden 2.01 million votes.

@Knox27

You have completely obfuscated what was shown.  The comparison isn't about growing vote totals where the total for one candidate was accidentally bumped too much and corrected later, as you explanation suggests.  It is is about one candidate having his vote total increase by over 138,000 votes while every other single candidate on the ballot remained unchanged.  That isn't a clerical error.  That isn't new precincts reporting with one county inadvertently boosting Biden's numbers by adding a zero at the end.  It is someone adding 138,000 votes total without a single vote being counted.

Take a close look:



And just so you know, I did check out your source.  But your source did not address the discrepancy above.

While those tweets don’t capture the exact moment the numbers changed, they do show that at some point in that half-hour Biden lost over 100,000 votes. Given that the numbers are near the numbers in the original viral screenshot, it appears that what those screenshots actually showed was the moment 130,000 votes were taken off Biden’s tally, not the moment 130,000 additional ballots were added to Biden’s total."

Here's a tweet that actually does capture the exact moment the numbers changed.  But unlike the straw man you just offered, this one shows votes taken away from one candidate and added to the other in less than a minute.

https://twitter.com/DrSamGirgis/status/1332420490879709184


And here is further documentation of a similar event.  This is a screenshot of the 'Edison' downloads mentioned earlier.



Between 4:07:43 and 4:08:51, Trump lost 17,877 votes while Biden gained 17,930.  This cannot be explained away as a clerical error.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

And Jazzy’s lap dog still evades another aspect of the question I’ve posed several times without answer.   What about the counties that have more people voting in an area than are gegistered to vote?

As far back as three years ago there were 3.5 million in more people are on U.S. election rolls than are eligible to vote.

This isn't even just the second time the Democrats have tried to steal a Presidential Election. Just the Second time they have tried to use Fraud against Trump. I am reasonably convinced that they figured they had 2016 in the bag, but underestimated Trump's support. No wonder they lost it.

Now, this time, they had the Plan B in place, to move in tens of thousands of forged and fake ballots, to reset the algorithm on the voting machines in case the fix just wasn't enough. I believe Trump won by a landslide, masked by an historically unprecedented level of fraud.  Gropey Joe wasn't kidding...

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[Smokin Joe]

@sneakypete

Indeed.  It's an insult to the aggregate intelligence of Briefers to suggest we don't know how urban ballots get counted, and that scores of ballots normally go 100% to 0% for the Rat candidate.  There are ALWAYS votes for other people.

Which was my original point. 138,000 votes for Biden and none for the other 4 candidates. Probability would have had multiple ballots where even if everyone tried to vote for Biden, a few would have got that wrong. Hence, the idea that of 138,000 ballots cast, none of the other candidates got even one vote is preposterous.

[christian]

No matter how obvious and prevalent the election fraud was/is, Soros pays his underlings to be impervious to facts and reality.  I didn't know that was so well a kept secret.  It has been dramatic how the ultra-rich are so heavily invested in Biden, along with the world globalist rich.
 Now hardcore denial fools, tell me again how the democrats fight the war on the rich!