He said that "There is no way (zero) that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent"
My emphasis. There may be evidence of fraud and cause for concern for postal voting but substantially? Is there evidence of that? Bear in mind that Trump has previous on this, claiming without any basis that there were 2 million fraudulent votes in the last election.
That's a completely meaningless statement. How do we know what the truth IS? We all read things, see things, hear things. How do we know whether those things are true?And the arbiter of truth, by the way, is truth
LOL. Only 2 million? It's not like him to be so reserved. Voter fraud is, and has been, rampant in the States for decades. On both sides. Either side has its favoured method. There are several, excellent journalists who have tracked and carefully documented this for many years. But they don't get the coverage because fraud is part of the game. A fundamental part. But you're doing your misdirection thing again - to avoid the points I raised. One being, you can't fact check an opinion about a future event. And should you try to pull such a ridiculous stunt, it's probably best not to use the fake news media to verify your fortune telling.
You know what truth is by doing the legwork, rather than waiting for some authority figure to spoon-feed you. You can also understand the truth, minus any facts, when it is a moral or ethical issue. You may never get to the whole truth and nothing but the truth, some truths are unknowable. But you can often arrive in the vicinity of the truth, which in turn assists with revealing other truths or paths to other truths. I've constantly encouraged you to do just that, but your instant response is to run to authority to "prove" the truth.
Für eure Sicherheit
Nobody is saying that, at least not me. Trump and the Republican had run the numbers on the day before the election and had already accepted defeat. They couldnt believe it when they won. Every opinion poll said they would lose. How is that not a tideswell of unknown support?. These people have majorly not left him and the Democrats cant get the independents to come out and vote for Biden. who the fk wants Biden for president that is under 65 years of age. Im pretty sure it will be another landslide. If you analyse the total results of 2016. I think Republicans won like 70% of all the contests across the board. Hold 33 out of 50 governors and just recently won 2 by elections in the house(I think) there is no rush to vote for Biden, hence the Corona home vote tactic.
Make 2mrw better than 2day
The truly amazing thing is, everybody should be delighted that freedom of speech is being defended - at long last. After years of erosion. Whether anything will come of it is another matter, but at least a move has finally been made. Something that benefits us all and something we can all get behind. Or so you would think.
But no - ORANGE MAN BAAAAAAAAAA-D!
Für eure Sicherheit
So as hated as Clinton was, a lot of people voted for her - probably because they didn't want Trump.
And a lot of people voted for Trump because they didn't want Clinton.
Like a lot of elections, it was about choosing the least bad option. My point was if the Dems could find a decent candidate then they'd probably win quite easily. As NQ alludes to though, that's easier said than done.