Without full transparency, how can you know there is no widespread fraud?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Has there ever been a general election that you would then consider credible? It seems to me that ability to cheat and reward for cheating have been present in every election in my lifetime...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Indeed - One must look at the Emperor to see if he has any clothes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Reason died quite some time ago, Scott.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not credible would mean substantive evidence to to doubt the results and that has not been produced
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I guess now we can pick and choose the ones we like
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Errrr... no.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Define “widespread”. Sounds like the media thinks “widespread” is only synonymous with “enough to turn an election”. Well, for a certain NY congressional seat that number was only a tiny handful.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Really? A lack of motive to cheat? C'mon man, that could be said about every election up to and including local School Board races...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2020 was more transparent than the 2016 election. The motive part of your argument is more true for the Trumpers. Look what they did on January 6– they displayed not only a motive but also a willingness to cheat.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
