Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "Tom Perez Subtly Explains DNC's Motivation to Rig 2020 Iowa Caucus" video.

Nah. But you would be crazy to think he will be locked up for this.
19
@mountaindweller777 True. Until they hold a primary where they claim it means something. And if that primary didn't mean anything that's fraud, illegal, and they should not be able to do that even under our lax laws.
7
Jimmy has covered this. But don't let that stop you from saying stupid shit.
7
Tom's not being subtle.
7
Lack of evidence mostly.
6
Don't get me wrong I wouldn't be surprised if we found some evidence. But as of now it's lacking.
6
@geddydesmond451 Regarding, "TDS seems to dictate that the DNC only cheats against its own party." Actually it's the lack of evidence. But don't let that stop you from strawmanning stupid shit like this.
5
@geddydesmond451 Regarding, "evidence?" Yeah. Evidence dipshit. Regarding, "Pretty sure there is evidence they cheat." Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide evidence of cheating in the general election if you want to believe it happened. But here you are. Not providing it.
4
@paulxbsog1972 Regarding, "backpeddling means nothing." What? You just said that jimmy wouldn't cover this in your OP. In reality he already has. You are a liar. I hope it's just stupid but I have to wonder at this point if it's more nefarious and you willfully spreading BS.
4
@geddydesmond451 Regarding, "you parrot the msm argument that was used against bernie in 2016" What the actual fuck are you babbling about? I have evidence of cheating against bernie in 2016. I ask again if you have any evidence but I assume that if you say more it will continue to be nonsensical bullshit.
3
Being able to rig your own election is not the same as rigging a general election. Provide proof or STFU.
3
@geddydesmond451 Regarding, "whats with the constant namecalling?" It's relatated to the constant stupid shit you say. Regarding, "Triggered much?" Talking to people who make me feel like I'm living in the movie idiocracy is frustrating. Regarding, "Jordan just explained to you they cheated." In the general? Because that is what you are claiming. Just because I have evidence someone cheats on their wife doesn't mean I can just assume they are also cheating on their taxes. I can think they wouldn't have a problem cheating on their taxes. But I can't just assume they do and act like I have evidence of it. Regarding, "But now you need evidence." I ALWAYS need evidence to hold a belief. Regarding, "Too bad for me I'm having this conversation with someone who calls everyone stupid and/or dipshit." Not everyone. Just because I do it to you don't mean I do it to everyone. It's like you are trying to prove my point about your lack of intelligence. So no evidence huh? I'm remarkably unsurprised by that.
2
@geddydesmond451 Long story short you have no evidence of cheating in the general election. Thanks for clearing that up now please shut up and stop making everyone dumber. Thanks for that in advance.
2
@geddydesmond451 You are not everyone. What a narcissist you must be.
2
@geddydesmond451 "At least youre persistent." If there is evidence of cheating in the general I want to know about it. But you have none.
2
@geddydesmond451 No evidence huh? You have all the time in the world to do everything other than that don't you?
2
@kylehorvath9295 Among the sources I cited I just told you to watch the video we are talking on. That was dumb of me. But at least I get to have a good laugh at myself.
2
@paulxbsog1972 Regarding, "i said they didnt cover it correctly and they didnt" Jimmy covered this exact story. Why am I even addressing you at this point. Regarding, "this entire "fraudsquad" take came from angered tulsi supporters." I was a bernie supporter and think fraud squad is spot on. Regarding, "they know theyre wrong." Please just STFU.
2
@paulxbsog1972 Regarding, "actual election fraud is called gerrymandering." Thanks captain obvious. Holy shit are you stupid.
2
@paulxbsog1972 "the truth sent you into insults." It's pretty impossible to tell the difference between you and flat earther right now. They like to say the same shit when I call them morons.
2
@paulxbsog1972 "yeah you are "stupid"" Talking to you at all is pretty dumb of me. Fair point.
2
@geddydesmond451 Regarding, "I readily admit its an assumption." LMFAO. You, two seconds ago, "evidence? Pretty sure there is evidence they cheat." Regarding, "I assume because the DNC has been cheating for years that they didnt suddenly stop to make a fair election for Trump." It's pretty stupid to think that rigging your own party election is the same as rigging a general election. It's clearly not and is an apples to oranges comparison that requires EVIDENCE. But don't let that stop you from making that logical leap. And it is a logical leap. Don't pretend otherwise the way you have been all this time until finally being forced to admit you have no evidence. Regarding, "You dont admit shit." I don't have to admit lying about evidence but you do. Regarding, "You just talk shit" I know being pressed for evidence must have been very hard on you. Sorry not sorry I don't give a fuck about what you think and only care about what you can prove and you can't prove jack shit. Regarding, "No thoughtful conversation." I'm not going to lie this is really funny coming from you. Thanks for the laugh.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 I'm familiar with what you speak but it's still not evidence. I'd happily have it all investigated better than it is now. I do away with "proprietary information" when it comes to elections so that it can all be investigated and all the machines can be opened up. I again wouldn't be surprised if we did find good evidence some day. But as of now we don't.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 Get the audit. I support it happening. That might lead to evidence. If the general was rigged I want to know. But to make that conclusion I need the evidence first.
1
@geddydesmond451 Regarding, "if someone reported uncle handsy Joe just sniffed another little girls hair, would you still run around demanding proof/evidence and calling everyone who didnt agree with you names?" The report of joe sniffing a girls hair is the evidence dipshit. I wouldn't need to have to ask for evidence. I'd already have it. Obviously. I call you names because you are not smart.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 Regarding, "Evidence is what justifies the Audit." Can you be more specific? I thought the audit was required by law? Or maybe I'm just thinking about the ballots being turned over. Regarding, "one way or the other, is what the Audit hopes to find." I'm not sure about your phrasing but hopefully you agree with what I'm about to say. An audit should only hope to find the truth. It shouldn't hope to find wrongdoing. But if there is wrongdoing it should out it. Regarding, " I agree there is no Proof at this time that has been admitted into court." I think you are a bit wrapped up in semantics. Evidence and proof are synonyms. The only real distinction people tend to make is in that they tend to consider "proof" to mean evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt or the like. But call it what you want... proof of cheating or evidence of cheating... they mean the same thing to me. Regarding, "We definitely need Election Transparency for future elections so these questions cannot arise." The whole system should be reformed from top to bottom. Sadly I don't think that's about to happen anytime soon.
1
@graywalkerjoin3rdparty74 Regarding, "I distinguish between the terms." I concede there is a difference. I told you where I think that difference is. It's very similar to your explanation and I think we are essentially say the same thing but only slightly differently. But ultimately they are synonyms. That treasure in your analogy is also rightfully called evidence. Both the map and the treasure are things you can point at and cite. Neither are just a "gut feeling" or "faith."
1
@earlviney5212 Regarding, "Because its impossible." It's clearly not. GWB stole a general election.
1
@kylehorvath9295 Regarding, "He is just speculating bud." He is doing more than that. "Speculating" better describes who you think JJ Watt is going to sign with. The OP is, "Well Hope you realize that DNC is very much capable of rigging the Presidential election too." except are they? They offer no evidence and expect us to just take their claim and agree with it. Regarding, "DNC unequivocally rigged the 2016 primary" Yup. Regarding, "there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence they interfered in 2020 as well" The DNC says Pete won the Iowa caucus. That's more than circumstantial evidence. But that's in the primary. Being able to rig a game being played on your home court in your hometown with a referees you are hiring for the game isn't the same as rigging another game. The primary is not the general. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Regarding, "I don't think it's crazy to suspect foul play in the general election too." I don't doubt their is foul play afoot. But ultimately I need evidence and there is none when it comes to the general. Regarding, "I however personally think the DNC didn't interfere in the general" We agree on this. Don't get me wrong I'd quickly changes this opinion if given some good evidence and wouldn't be shocked if some did come out but as of now I don't have it and I'm not going to pretend I do. Regarding, "The DNC and its donor base really don't care if Biden or Trump get elected" Meh. Lots of money spent on the general says otherwise. If it didn't matter I don't think the rich would set their money on fire like that. That said I agree that it doesn't matter much. But it does matter a little. Regarding, "The underlying detail that no one seems to address is that many people (Right and left) have little to no confidence in our electoral system and feel alienated by said system." I agree. Regarding, "Its not blantant fraud (i.e. changing votes)" Are you sure? Exit polls in the 2016 primary indicated widespread election fraud in the "democratic" primary. And now they barely even do exit polls. Regarding, "The average person realizes their voice has little sway on the political system and aren't educated enough in civics, economics, communication, law, or other subjects to properly articulate this feeling of marginalization." Even if they can articulate it and understand it that doesn't do much. The system is rigged top to bottom. Regarding, "At the end of the day are you going to trust a pick pocket with your car?" No. Regarding, "No evidence they're a car thief, just a pick pocketer right." I have contempt and hatred for the DNC. I think they are crooked and corrupt. I think they would happily cheat in the general if they thought they would get away with it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if evidence of cheating was found. But right now I don't have that. So I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
1
@kylehorvath9295 Regarding, "beyond the wikileaks stuff" If you don't know about what happened in the Iowa caucus be sure to check it out. It's appalling. If you really want to check it out some of the stories I'd recommend (and I'm not going to put up links because youtube tends to not allow them. you should have all you would need by checking out articles such as...) "Iowa Democrats won’t correct errors on caucus tally sheets, emails show" from the chicago tribune "What a Surprise! DNC’s Shadow App Founder is a Pete Buttigieg Supporter — App Crashed and Now Pete Is Ahead of Bernie – How About That!" by the gateway pundit "Iowa autopsy report: DNC meddling led to caucus debacle" politico Long story short bernie crushed in iowa but the party conspired to give the state to pete. Just recently tom said the quiet part out loud when he just talked about how important he knows momentum is in elections. That's why they didn't let bernie get what was rightfully his. Status Coup just did a video on youtube talking about it titled, "Tom Perez Subtly Explains DNC's Motivation to Rig 2020 Iowa Caucus"
1
@kylehorvath9295 Regarding, "I was mistaken" No problem. It happens. Regarding, "I just saw the "your wrong show me proof" mentality" I never said they were wrong. (full disclosure I did think they were wrong and would not be able to provide evidence) but I do want proof. I want that from everybody for pretty much everything. Regarding, "facebook" I happily don't do facebook. Sorry. Regarding, "Thanks again for a genuine and thoughtful response! Cheers!" You as well. Cheers.
1
@kylehorvath9295 A couple other things you might want to check out that aren't this include: and I'm going to try and provide links this time... https://tdmsresearch.com/2016/06/20/45/ Also there is the stanford study from the 2016 "democratic" primary. I can't seem to find it because I suspect google are suppressing it's ability to be found but I did find this article that references it and mostly just tries to discredit it (I think, I confess I didn't read it all and just skimmed). https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
1
@kylehorvath9295 Hopefully those links show. I've posted twice with them. If they didn't let me know.
1