Powell argues "no reasonable person" would believe her lies

[tnt]

ITT people believing things are facts despite the author of these claims telling a court no reasonable person would believe they are facts.

[PeterGriffin]

@Smyrna

ndicates a potential fraudulent election.

Really? How are you getting that? Nothing in there shows anything close to fraud, unless one engages in “specious reasoning”.

[wonderingrover]

@Smyrna

@PeterGriffin

What do you think it says?

It indicates a potential fraudulent election.

Well, there was fraud somewhere - and Sydney Powell has been gracious enough to let us know precisely where it was.

But by all means - go ahead and believe those who are now telling everyone they were full of ■■■■ in court documents.

[Smyrna]

@tnt

ITT people believing things are facts despite the author of these claims telling a court no reasonable person would believe they are facts.

The numbers are facts.

[PeterGriffin]

@Smyrna

The numbers are facts

Ok. Just like the 2020 numbers are facts.

[Smyrna]

@PeterGriffin

How are you getting that?

The highest percentage of eligible voters voting was in 2008 and this election not only beat that…but crushed it being double digits higher. That indicates fraud.

[SpacemanSpiff]

So a guy with <40% approval lost an election? Been known to happen, I guess.

[JayJay]

@Smyrna

I hope this does all go to court and goes through the discovery process to thoroughly examine whether Dominion played a role in voter fraud. If some say they have “proof”, it should be heard in a courtroom and either exposed as the truth…or a lie?

https://www.oann.com/lindell-counter-suing-dominion-alleges-racketeering/

Remember when many posters here were saying Dominion would never sue because they were afraid of what would be unearthed in discovery?

My how the times have changed…

[westaussie]

I certainly don’t consider a voter turnout of under 70% as indicative of fraud.

[wonderingrover]

@westaussie

I certainly don’t consider a voter turnout of under 70% as indicative of fraud.

It’s only “indicative of fraud” to those who can’t accept that people were ticked off enough at Trump’s ■■■■■■■■ that they came out in droves to ensure that he was evicted from the White House.

[PeterGriffin]

@Smyrna

The highest percentage of eligible voters voting was in 2008 and this election not only beat that…but crushed it being double digits higher. That indicates fraud

No, it doesn’t. Unless you employ Specious reasoning and faulty logic to arrive at a pre determined conclusion.

That’s how you get people to believe “widespread voter fraud”, by taking advantage of their ignorance on how voting works and not understanding a lot of things. All they know is their team lost and they can’t accept it, so they turn to increasingly wack a doodle conspiracy takes to try and make sense out of it, or at least “sense” that they can process.

You said you wanted this to go to court. Well, it’s IN court. Sidney Powell is desperately trying to get it out of court. She doesn’t seem very cocky about the whole “discovery” process like some of the dead enders out there.

[PeterGriffin]

@westaussie

certainly don’t consider a voter turnout of under 70% as indicative of fraud

None of the Normies do.

[westaussie]

Personally, I am more used to an 80-90+% turnout.

[Smyrna]

@PeterGriffin

No, it doesn’t. Unless you employ Specious reasoning and faulty logic to arrive at a pre determined conclusion.

That’s how you get people to believe “widespread voter fraud”, by taking advantage of their ignorance on how voting works and not understanding a lot of things. All they know is their team lost and they can’t accept it, so they turn to increasingly wack a doodle conspiracy takes to try and make sense out of it, or at least “sense” that they can process.

You said you wanted this to go to court. Well, it’s IN court. Sidney Powell is desperately trying to get it out of court. She doesn’t seem very cocky about the whole “discovery” process like some of the dead enders out there.

Ahhhh…a nice speech of feelings because you can not logically refute the numbers I’ve shown.

[PeterGriffin]

@westaussie

Personally, I am more used to an 80-90+% turnout.

Republicans across the country are busily addressing the problem of too many people exercising their right to vote.

[tnt]

@Smyrna

The numbers are facts.

Sidney Powel told a court that no reasonable person would believe her explanation of the numbers as a fact.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

That indicates fraud.

Why would it indicate fraud?

Seems to me that is indicates that Trump is a very polarizing figure that drives people to the polls.

[tnt]

@Smyrna

The highest percentage of eligible voters voting was in 2008 and this election not only beat that…but crushed it being double digits higher. That indicates fraud.

Did the fraud extend to trumps numbers, because unless I am mistaken, he got more votes than anyone else in history except biden.

[Smyrna]

@tnt

Did the fraud extend to trumps numbers,

If you can’t follow what’s been posted, I’m wasting my time. Bye Felicia.

[PeterGriffin]

@Smyrna

Ahhhh…a nice speech of feelings because you can not logically refute the numbers I’ve shown.

That’s funny. The contentions of “voter fraud” are based solely on feelings.

There is literally nothing to refute. Hand waving numbers of past elections literally mean nothing.

That’s all “voter fraud” is ie feelings. Feelings of anger, fear, confusion, rage.

Lost an election, straight up, no voter fraud. It’s just that simple.