Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Schumer TRASHES Republicans indulging Trump's false claims of voter fraud" video.

No one has any duty to confer legitimacy on a fraud. Quite the opposite, in fact.
4
@richardowens9061 The fraud we have proof of through witness testimony, analytical evidence, and videographic evidence. Stop shilling, and look at the evidence.
3
@richardowens9061 None of them want to touch it. Please note how many dismiss the case on technicalities, without even hearing any evidence.
2
@richardowens9061 Trump's legal team has held multiple hearing events where witnesses testified to, among other things, a) observers being kept out of the room (which in one case then had its windows boarded up), complete with video evidence b) observers being ejected then denied re-entry to ballot-counting places, once again complete with video evidence c) observers being told that the counting was over for the evening, after which point (after a pause) poll workers continued counting votes in violation of election law. Again, complete with video evidence (I'm beginning to see a pattern here, aren't you?) d) poll workers putting ballots through the counting machines half a dozen times e) discrepancies between voter registries amounting to 80%+ of eligible voters in precinct after precinct throughout Detroit, more than enough to swing Michigan f) Thousands of votes from people who are confirmed to have not voted, voted under their married name, moved out of the area and voted elsewhere, listed an address that in fact is a commercial property, and in many cases doesn't even exist g) statistical anomalies like 99.4% of votes being for Joe Biden amounting to tens / hundreds of thousands of votes in several states, which are obviously fraudulent, and more than enough to swing the election. Your insistence that there is "no evidence" is obviously false to the point of absurdity, and completely untenable.
2
@richardowens9061 It's also illegal to lie under oath, which is what it means if you lie on a sworn affidavit, of which they have thousands at this point. The courts have signaled that they seem to require them to account for every single individual fraudulent vote, in numbers sufficient to overturn elections in multiple states, for the court in any one state to even begin to listen to any evidence for that state. They can't begin to make the argument anywhere until they've finished making the argument everywhere. Legalistic nonsense, but there it is. Most normal human beings would look at the statistical analysis of the results from vote dumps in multiple states in the small hours of 4 November, then look at a broad sampling of the ballot issues from those states -- or even simply at the way observers were systematically ejected from the rooms where the votes were counted -- and conclude that yeah, this was a fraudulent process with results that are not credible, much less certifiable.
2
@richardowens9061 Look up the Gettysburg hearings, among others. You might have to go somewhere other than YouTube, which may have censored them by now.
2
@richardowens9061 By the way, this evidence was also presented in the filing of the Texas suit to the Supreme Court.
2
@richardowens9061 I did read part of the Texas suit that went to SCOTUS, which outlines some of the fraud I mentioned. Richard, at this point you're just being obtuse, claiming there is "no evidence". And now, you're trotting out the ad hominem attacks, and your underlying motivation for denying the clear evidence that has been presented on multiple occasions. A huge number of people have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I get it. Your reaction, which is not uncommon among the Establishment class of governors and judges, goes a long way to explaining why they would cooperate to oust Trump as long as they could ostensibly keep their own hands clean. Trouble is, we're watching, and we'll remember. These Establishment politicians are unlikely to be re-elected.
2
@richardowens9061 "Just STOP! You're embarrassing yourself!" -- "HYPOCRISY!" You might want to quietly reflect on which of us those phrases apply to, here. Anyway, yes, elections are the foundation of democracy. If the elections have no integrity, the democracy has no integrity. That is why we must a) scrupulously follow the rules of those elections, laid down by the Constitution (and, by the way, violated by courts and other bodies in this case) and b) thoroughly investigate any evidence of fraud we find, and when we find that evidence of fraud, it needs to be examined in the courts. The absurd idea that this is dismissed on the technical detail that somehow there is no one with any standing to bring that evidence (voters, the candidates, election observers, the state legislatures who are supposed to set the rules), or that there is no time that evidence can be brought (neither before nor after the election, apparently), or that no court is the appropriate court to hear that evidence, is bringing us to the point of crisis. I wish Biden were telling the truth when he says he wants to "unite the country", because honestly the only way to do that at this point is to pause the process and have a hearing about the evidence we've found and following it wherever it leads. The fact that he isn't doing this, is damaging my confidence in his honesty and integrity, possibly beyond repair.
2
@richardowens9061 I've repeatedly listed the evidence, (eyewitness, videographic, analytical) that has been presented in public hearings and in court filings. The biggest weakness of your polemics here (well, until the point where you came unglued and started hurling ad hominem attacks) is the clear absurdity of your claim that there is none. "Anyone who participates in elections is expected to abide by the rules". I agree wholeheartedly. And when those rules are broken wholesale, the only appropriate action is to challenge the result. Like 77% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats, I believe (based on the evidence I have seen) this election was stolen. We have proof, and all we need is one body in this process to stand up and honestly follow the clear implications of that fact. This is complicated by the fact that much of our political and media Establishment hates Trump as much as you do, (and the media establishment is feeding you a steady diet of lies, which you're regurgitating here) but those can be overcome. By the way, there is no point in time at which it will cease to matter, that (for the past month) the American Presidential Election of 2020 was stolen, no matter what YouTube or anyone else has to say. Facts are stubborn things, as the saying goes.
2
@richardowens9061 At this point we're going around in circles, I'm afraid. I've told you about the types of evidence I've seen and heard, and the magnitude of that evidence. Your response has been, "There isn't any evidence", which is utterly absurd based on what I've seen and heard, so I'm really not going to believe you, and puzzled that you refuse to even consider what I have to say. But then, you're demonstrating more Trump Derangement Syndrome, which doesn't do a whole lot for me except convince me further that there's a huge amount of unreasoning visceral hatred out there for Trump, and that hatred can motivate people to be blind to evidence that's right in front of them. I've seen this before too, on Twitter and other social media, even from Establishment figures I expected to be more thoughtful. It's not a happy thing for me to consider that this might be what the all-too-human members of our political class are like, but honestly, it explains a lot about why the evidence of voter fraud isn't getting more traction. At this point I'm wondering whether you're just a troll who's trying to convince me that the positions you're expressing are wrong. When the only thing the person you're debating could do to convince you of their position is to convince you they don't genuinely hold it, it's probably time to wrap up the debate. Do you have any rational closing remarks to make? (Rational, now.)
2
@richardowens9061 Your rules of evidence are conveniently set to eliminate all evidence. You are not arguing in good faith.
2
@richardowens9061 Nah, they're just being inconsistent with rules of evidence. Video, witness testimony, expert witnesses with analytical testimony -- all of it is admissible. I guess they're all Trump-deranged, or want someone else to stand up for the truth. It happens. But, it only takes one to stand up, and the rest follow. =)
2
@richardowens9061 I'm hardly isolated. 77% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats think this election was stolen. By the way, this ought to worry you far more than it seems to.
2
@richardowens9061 There's the name-calling again. Have you considered that instead, you might be wrong?
2