-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
-2
0250 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Never going to happen.

Willing to bet $1000 there's no "new election" do-over. The constitution has no such process (and it actually articulates the opposite, if anything).

1
0250 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think you're unfortunately 1000% correct... I mean this isn't a movie for God's sake! There are rules, and these rules (for better or for worse) are outlined in a small, but incredibly important document called the US Constitution that establishes the federal government.

A cinematic, explosion-filled military takeover of the federal government, inspired by discovery of election fraud, isn't how any of this works, Lol. We need amendments, constitutional arguments and court rulings

-1
0250 -1 points ago +2 / -3

That sounds nice and exciting and all, but the military follows the constitution, correct? Do you think a majority of the military will disobey their commander in chief, military generals and defy the rules in the constitution, all to rectify fraud? Or will they obey leadership and follow orders? I'm not exactly holding my breath for some huge military-driven takedown of the entire federal government

1
0250 1 point ago +2 / -1

Don't mean to sound defensive. Sorry if I came off that way. And I essentially finished explaining my position: How will fraud invalidate an already signed-off election and reinstall Trump as the rightful winner, when 2/3rds of Congress combined with a passive Supreme Court are, constitutionally speaking, the only vehicles of change? Fraud being discovered after an election only does one thing: It prosecutes the criminals involved. Is that the goal?

I remember In 2016 there was a pretty large voter fraud conspiracy in North Carolina and the dude(s) behind the scheme were arrested and convicted for forging fake votes. But absolutely nothing came of it because the election was already certified, so why do we expect something different?

-2
0250 -2 points ago +5 / -7

You hit the nail on the head. 100% correct. Nothing will come from this audit at all.

What concerns me is Cyber Ninjas has refused to reveal their methods, which will only act as further ammo from the media to dismiss the findings. If we don't even know how they reached a conclusion of fraud, the media will have a field day with that.

-4
0250 -4 points ago +6 / -10

Incoming downvotes

There's only ONE possible way Trump is reinstalled: 2/3rds of Congress would need to ratify an amendment that says the sitting, confirmed president can be removed if sufficient fraud is shown. The constitution tells us that after January 6th (when Congress confirms the electoral college votes that the states agreed upon) the President is inaugurated on Jan 20th. There's no extra caveat in the constitution that says this can be undone. - That's it. End of story.

The remedy for fraud must happen before January 6th, even if massive fraud is shown. OR 2/3 of Congress the courts, and likely SCOTUS change the constitution. There's no "next move" outlined in the constitution.

Don't believe me? If you think I'm wrong, comment below and let's talk again in two weeks when nothing comes from this audit.

0
0250 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ok don't want to be a mood killer - I'm hoping a fellow pede can just explain this... The constitution says that once the states sign off on the election and Congress confirms it (on January 6th), the president is inaugurated on January 20th. There's no caveat or exception outlined in the constitution saying:

".....Unless rampant fraud is discovered, in which case we'll send in the rightful winner after inauguration."

So can a fellow pede please explain "objectively* and constitutionally what happens next after sufficient fraud is shown? I haven't seen any legal evidence that shows Trump can just waltz in with evidence of rampant fraud and become president again. Even if the entire thing was fraudulent, the states signed off and Congress confirmed the results, so what else can be done? The only viable path I can even think of is a constitutional amendment which would have to be ratified by 2/3rd of Congress, is that the plan?

13
0250 13 points ago +15 / -2

No, your math and reasoning are just wrong. If you want to downvote me, fine, but try and rebut me with a logical discussion.

Your biggest logical flaw is: Right now, MOST 18-65 year olds are eligible for the vaccine and have been for over three weeks. My friend group of 25-26 year olds is 40% vaccinated. It's one thing to be vaccine skeptical, it's another to be ignorant. How can we win if we all fall for basic illogical reasoning with no research...?

So let's do that math again with this information:

330M Americans with 60M kids equals 270M adults. Most vaccines require two doses, so 200M administered shots mean at LEAST ~85M to ~140M people are partially or fully vaccinated. Around 35-50% of the adult population, (it's probably closer to 45-50%) This shouldn't be surprising.

4
0250 4 points ago +6 / -2

If you express dissenting opinions or question a commonly held Q theory, your comment will be removed. I can't help but notice the community and moderators do not tolerate questions, criticisms or just general skepticism regarding the validity of Q or the plan. They'll label you a shill, a bot, or just outright delete your comment instead of engaging in rational discussion.

Twenty bucks says my comment will be removed in 24 hours...

2
0250 2 points ago +4 / -2

The graph simply correlates the average overall political leaning of a county with vaccination rates. This logic would be true if:

  1. Being a Trump voter and refusing vaccination are 100% biconditional. They're simply not. There are plenty of vaccinated Trump voters and there are also plenty of non-vaccinated Democrats and Libertarians. (i.e: Ivanka, Melania Trump being vaccinated, also Latinos and blacks being more vaccine-hesitant, yet more likely to vote blue)

  2. As of yesterday 50% of Americans (now around 51%) have already received at least one shot already. This kind of throws a wrench in your reasoning, no?

Science 101 tells us not to draw drastic conclusions about causation from simple, weak correlations. Hope I'm not down-dooted for dissenting deductive reasoning.

1
0250 1 point ago +2 / -1

She posted the photo herself on Instagram. You can't be delusional enough to think she posted a photoshopped image of herself taking the vaccine, right? Occam's razor, dude

1
0250 1 point ago +1 / -0

What about prince Andrew? Very little media coverage at all about his relationship with Epstein