• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge orders Trump campaign to provide evidence of Pa. voter fraud

And the most hilarious part was that you were so proud of yourself. The level of cluelessness here is mind boggling.

That guy is always proud of the ridiculous crap he says, and he does make some of the most childish and absurd comments, like his favorite phrase "facts don't care about your feelings." Silly ludin, Trump cultists can't distinguish facts from their assholes.
 
So, being asked to back up your claim with evidence is a logical fallacy, now??????

That’s a new excuse!

Proving a negative is a logical fallacy.
 
Funny how quickly you deflect when you run out of **** to say.
Pointing out the hypocrissy of that coming from the people who litterally demand investigations, in search of crimes, when it suits there political aspirations, has created a credibility problem for progressives.
They spent 2 years and $30 million dollars investigating the allegation that, Trump and Russia conspired to steal the election, without a shred of evidence that any crime had occurred. To this day, progressives still defend that investigation's legitimacy, yet for some reason think its out of bounds to investigate the integrity of our election process when it pertains to mail in ballots.
It is perfectly reasonable to question how votes will be reliably authenticated before making a major change to the process. Arguing that its fine because there is no evidence that it isnt when its never been tried before, is frankly ridiculous.
If you want to change the election process, the burden to prove that it will remain safe and reliable is on the people proposing the changes.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Pointing out the hypocrissy of that coming from the people who litterally demand investigations, in search of crimes, when it suits there political aspirations, has created a credibility problem for progressives.

They spent 2 years and $30 million dollars investigating the allegation that, Trump and Russia conspired to steal the election, without a shred of evidence that any crime had occurred. To this day, progressives still defend that investigation's legitimacy, yet for some reason think its out of bounds to investigate the integrity of our election process when it pertains to mail in ballots.

It is perfectly reasonable to question how votes will be reliably authenticated before making a major change to the process. Arguing that its fine because there is no evidence that it isnt when its never been tried before, is frankly ridiculous.

If you want to change the election process, the burden to prove that it will remain safe and reliable is on the people proposing the changes.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I guess that you missed

From CNN

Bipartisan Senate report details Trump campaign contacts with Russia in 2016, adding to Mueller findings

The Senate Intelligence Committee released Tuesday the most comprehensive and meticulous examination to date explaining how Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign adversary's help, revealing new information about contacts between Russian officials and associates of President Donald Trump during and after the campaign.

In several key ways, the committee's counterintelligence investigation goes beyond the findings of former special counsel Robert Mueller released last year, as the Republican-led Senate panel was not limited by questions of criminality that drove the special counsel probe.

Among the key findings:

  • That then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort was working with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence officer, and sought to share internal campaign information with Kilimnik. The committee says it obtained "some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected" to Russia's 2016 hacking operation and concludes Manafort's role on the campaign "represented a grave counterintelligence threat."
    *
  • That Trump and senior campaign officials sought to obtain advance information on WikiLeaks' email dumps through Roger Stone, and that Trump spoke to Stone about WikiLeaks, despite telling the special counsel in written answers he had "no recollections" that they had spoken about it.
    *
  • That information offered at the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting "was part of a broader influence operation" from the Russian government, though there's no evidence Trump campaign members knew of it. Two of the Russians who met with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort had "significant connections" to the Russian government, including Russian intelligence, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya's ties were "far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known."
    *
  • That Russian-government actors continued until at least January 2020 to spread disinformation about Russia's election interference, and that Manafort and Kilimnik both sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, and not Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
    *
  • That Russia took advantage of the Trump transition team's inexperience and opposition to Obama administration policies "to pursue unofficial channels," and it's likely that Russian intelligence services and others acting on the Kremlin's behalf exploited the Transition's shortcomings for Russia's advantage.
    *
  • That the FBI may have been victim to Russian disinformation coming through intelligence sources such as the Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.
    *
  • And that campaigns, political leaders and other influential Americans must be even more diligent in the future not to fall victim to Russian interference, given the extent of Russia's efforts and successes to reach campaign operatives in 2016.

The report is all the more remarkable because it was led by then-Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, and Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. The report provides an exhaustive, bipartisan confirmation of the contacts between Russians and Trump associates in 2016 -- and it was the only congressional committee that managed to avoid the partisan infighting that plagued the other congressional investigations into Russian election meddling.
 
Back
Top Bottom