Rod Serling: Imagine If You Will

Video evidence of thousands of people stuffing ballot boxes in the middle of the night in multiple states... Of course, the ruling elite got caught...

Oh, you have evidence of voter fraud?

You should take that evidence directly to Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. He is STILL offering $1 million as a reward for voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Sure is weird the people who have that footage didn't alert him. Or show it to him. Or him not pay them the $1 million.

Almost like it's not really evidence of voter fraud at all.

I saw that footage.

Yup... why did they take photos of the number of ballots they put in the boxes? How else would they get paid by the numbers... that's why!

And your evidence of that is.... paranoid fantasies? Yeah.

Great. Now get that footage to the Lt. Governor. It's worth $1 million.

Sure is weird how no one else did it.

I mean, if you had 100% evidence of voter fraud that could overturn an election AND a millionaire offered a million for that evidence, would you keep it?

Or would you go make $1 million?

No I'd recognize it wouldn't be enough evidence or him. Think for a few seconds.

I've been thinking about this comment for a bit now. And it doesn't make any sense.

Are you claiming that this documentary which proves election fraud wouldn't be enough evidence for the Republican Lt. Governor of Texas?

Because he has paid out to liberals who have presented him with evidence of conservative voter fraud.

Seems like if he's willing to pay liberals for showing conservative voter fraud, he'd be really willing to pay a conservative who had evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020.

The comment means: No evidence, even of wrongdoers being caught red handed, would be enough for the Lt. Governor.

except that it would. He has paid out already. To a liberal that had evidence of conservative voter fraud: https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics/texas-voter-fraud-award/index.html

And consider how much the MAGA world would love this guy if he was able to find real evidence. He'd be able to get any position he wanted at any level of Federal or State government for the rest of his life.

Conservative Think Tanks would love to have him on staff with a no-show collect a check job.

But not 1 person has come forward with credible evidence of voter fraud against Trump in the 2020 election.

Not. One.

https://bridgeurl.com/election-fraud
https://hereistheevidence.com/

That bridg one is just a bunch of nonsense, really. It's unhinged.

But that second one.

They're doing a lot of work here. A lot of work. Like using the phrase "returned date" a lot. It's 161,774 were

Why that phrase? Because when I google it, it means that something was returned to the sender.

So...161,774 were returned to the state as undelivered. And that number was updated multiple times as more undelivered ballots were returned to the state. And that that numer was updated and reduced over time.

Why is that important? The site doesn't define why having uncast ballots returned to the state is important. They also don't define why that number changing is important.

They leave it to you, the reader, to define it. Well, actually, no, they don't. This is where they're doing A LOT of work. They work really really hard to tie returned ballots received by the state with cast ballots received after November 3rd but were mailed prior to then.

Tehre's a specific phrase for when something is mailed before a due date but it's received after the due date. it's called postmarked.

Why are they over-using "returned date" but not using "postmarked"? Because postmarked is a very clear and precise term. Why aren't they using that?

Because they're being deliberately vague and deceptive. They want you to connect this idea of 161,774 ballots being returned to the state as undelivered with the valid ballots that were received after the election but postmarked prior.

they want you to think that 161,774 were actually counted when they shouldn't have been.

But I do have 1 question: if this is valid evidence of voter fraud and election tampering...why create this website and not take it to the Lt. Governor of Texas? Seems like getting $1 Million is a lot better than spending all that time and money making this website.

Because that search tool ain't cheap. why spend money and not make it? Why go to the trouble of making this website, instead of getting the evidence into the hands of Conservative public figures that can actually do something with it?

Maybe you should think about that?

That's TX... WOW

You really didn't know...

Yes. It is. Get him that evidence. Easiest $1 million you'll ever make.

Watch the documentary before you make an uninformed comment... DUH

You mean people can only be informed by a documentary but you can’t paraphrase or at least link to a source that the documentary used to explain why the evidence is not being admitted?

Seems brainwashy to me if we must hear and watch a documentary in order to get the so-called “truth”.

Seems like you lack basic logic skills...

mewest fourm of my-ning

:0)

Imagine the leading country in the world doesn't have voter Id like the rest of the democratic world...

Gosh, if only somebody in the current government cared about voter integrity or America.

I'd watch that for a dollar.

mmmm

69piiu.gif (click to show) Nothing to see here

When I see the libtards in this thread:

imgflip.com/i/6f4ms9

(Mods won't let me publish this meme, for obvious reasons)

So true... LOL

Only liberals

And yet the only cases of 2020 voter fraud are Republicans. Mark Meadows was registered to vote in 3 states.

omg, there is voter fraud in every election since democrats.

Imagine a whole plane load full of votes from South Korea. or bamboo fibers on the boatload of ballots from China.

Imagine a bunch of american hating americans, collecting ballots after voting has closed. Yeah,

That's pretty crazy.

Of course, in the real world not every meme or tweet is fact checked. And voter signatures on mail in ballots are checked in states where that's a requirement.

All unchecked mail in ballots should be rejected.

Are we just making rules up as we go to suit your whims?

What are the state laws? Go with those. If there's a question take it to a judge. That's literally their job.

I’m just saying it’s my belief that if the ballot isn’t checked it shouldn’t be accepted, regardless of what the law actually is. I don’t see any reason you should allow unverified voters to vote and any law that allows it should be changed.

How about go to your place to vote, if you don't show up, f**k off?

I’m fine with that too. In person voting at the voting location on Election Day. What a concept!

What states allow this? I've looked up mail ballots several times, and I don't recall a single state that just counts ballots without having some process to confirm who mailed it in.

Nine states, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., verify that an absentee/mail ballot envelope has been signed but do not conduct signature verification:

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wyoming.

Nine states require the signature of a witness in addition to the voter’s signature. These states may conduct signature verification as well:

Alabama (two witnesses or a notary), Alaska (witness or notary), Louisiana, Minnesota (witness or notary), North Carolina (two witnesses or a notary), Rhode Island (two witnesses or a notary), South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Signature verification is bogus anyway. Very few people nowadays have a consistent signature because of the advent of digital media making handwriting rare enough to not have a valid consistency within the skill. So, comparing existing signatures overtime may throw out more legitimate votes than illegitimate. It’s a bad way to measure it. Fingerprinting or at least photo ID is much more reliable than a signature verification.

Neither is acceptable to democrats who demand the right to vote without establishing identity.

Pretty much!