>> We have proof that grants were made and also changes in the law.
We have proof that INHERENTLY CORRUPT grants were made and that the entire process was corrupt. By inherently corrupt, I am saying there is not ANYTHING that can be done to make those grants acceptable. Once it was done, the corruption was in place and could not be un-done. I understand these other yokels on the thread not grasping this; however, you have worked in public policy and you understand (or I thought you did) the principles of fraud and corruption and how it must be avoided.
The changes in the law were unwarranted, pushed through by Democrats desperate to change an otherwise certain outcome. They violated the operational principles that were put in place to protect the vote from cheating, and you have now seen there was widespread cheating that resulted from these absurd last-minute changes, the only purpose of which was to unseat Trump.
>> As for signature requirements, I have only seen you mention Georgia and I have seen that clearly refuted.
Refuted? Refuted HOW? Facts are facts. Under the prior requirements the mismatches were over 6 percent and under the new requirements they dropped to 0.3%. You cannot refute that. If you think you can, how about you post it?
I know, you are not required to post anything. Well, no you're not.
Willful ignorance. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I get it. You're working overtime not to see the truth. |
