US Capitol rioters await Trump pardons

[John D. Brey]

Fine. You won't mind, then, if I laugh scornfully in the face of the next American who says, "we are a nation of laws?"

I think you might misunderstand the law? We have a jury of the alleged criminal's peers because we understand some of the limits of a written law. The prosecution doesn't get to determine the case no matter how versed in the law and the case. Donald J. Trump was just judged by a jury of his peers, 150 million jurors, and found not guilty.

The prosecution had four years, in court, and in the media, to make sure every single juror understood what was being alleged. Four full years, nearly twenty-four hours a day, the media tried Donald J. Trump for the alleged crime of being a patriot willing to use the power the Constitution afforded him.

He's not only been acquitted by the ultimate jury of his peers, but the jurors have awarded him something for the false accusations against him: a mandate to throw out the bums who lied, cheated, and stole their way to power four years ago.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think you might misunderstand the law? We have a jury of the alleged criminal's peers because we understand some of the limits of a written law. The prosecution doesn't get to determine the case no matter how versed in the law and the case. Donald J. Trump was just judged by a jury of his peers, 150 million jurors, and found not guilty.

The prosecution had four years, in court, and in the media, to make sure every single juror understood what was being alleged. Four full years, nearly twenty-four hours a day, the media tried Donald J. Trump for the alleged crime of being a patriot willing to use the power the Constitution afforded him.

He's not only been acquitted by the ultimate jury of his peers, but the jurors have awarded him something for the false accusations against him: a mandate to throw out the bums who lied, cheated, and stole their way to power four years ago.



John

That is some special pleading you got there, mister. First, a jury is generally presented with something called "evidence" -- you might have heard of it. And the accused isn't permitted to offer them all sorts of rewards and goodies (and punish their enemies!) if they let him off in spite of the evidence.

Now, if you'll just presented your evidence that those "bums" lied, cheated and styole their way to power. Hah! Bet you don't. Even in over 60 court cases, Trump's most capable defenders never did that!

 

[John D. Brey]

I think there are a lot of reasons people pulled that lever. I thonk it's fair to assume a lot of them didn't know that.

Fair enough. What do you think they did know that made them pull the lever for Trump?

Note my quoted comment was based on Donald Trump's election denialism that you are asserting justified a violent riot against the last election results that Trump lost.

"Election denial" is a term cooked up by the prosecution. I am not an election denier. I am a reasonably educated and reasonably objective observer of an election that was a farce by any reasonable standard of judgment. That's why nothing the prosecution has cooked up has convinced even a majority of voters that the election wasn't stolen.

Case in point. The false winners of the last election made the fool-hearty gamble of making this election a referendum on the last. They really believed that by making sure the legacy media spewed the term "election deniers" to the high heavens, they could make people disbelieve their lying eyes. It didn't work. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people, or even a majority, all of the time.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

That is some special pleading you got there, mister. First, a jury is generally presented with something called "evidence" -- you might have heard of it. And the accused isn't permitted to offer them all sorts of rewards and goodies (and punish their enemies!) if they let him off in spite of the evidence.

Now, if you'll just presented your evidence that those "bums" lied, cheated and styole their way to power. Hah! Bet you don't. Even in over 60 court cases, Trump's most capable defenders never did that!

You appear to be spoon-fed by the leftist media conglomerate.

They like to say that Trump lost every court case concerning his belief that the election was stolen. But the truth is that every court denied him the ability to bring the case. He didn't lose any case. That's another leftist media falsehood. The courts denied him the ability to make a case. And for good, legal, reasons.

The President Elect, was denied the opportunity to bring a case concerning the election fraud, because according to the election, fraudulent though it was, he was no longer the sitting President (no longer President Elect). The courts used that logic to deny him, properly, the ability to bring a case. The court's correct logic was that since by the results of the election, he lost the election, he therefore can't use his executive, Constitutional, ability as President Elect, to bring a case concerning the election.

That's why Vice President Mike Pence will never sniff power again in the Republican Party. If he understood what was going on, he would have known that President Trump was merely wanting him to hold off authenticating the election results until he, President Elect Trump, was able to use his executive powers to try the phony election before it was deemed fair by means of Mike Pence signing off on it. Once Mike Pence signed off on it, President Trump was no longer afforded his Constitutional right to question the election, prior to his loss of his executive rights, and thus his power to try the election.

When the media constantly claimed that every court proved the election wasn't stolen, they were lying through their teeth. They knew that the courts were saying that since President Trump was no longer President, thanks to the enormous stupidity of Mike Pence, Donald J. Trump was now a mere citizen in President Elect Biden's courts and thus no longer had the Constitutional right to question, or try, the election as President Elect.

For four years the population has been fed a giant lie by the media that the courts proved the election was fair. They proved nothing of the sort. They didn't even try. And any reasonably intelligent person should understand why the January 6 patriots wanted to lynch Mike Pence. It was because he denied President Trump the possibility of using his Constitutional powers as President Elect to prove that the election was stolen before the authentication of the election made it a foregone conclusion it wasn't. Every argument or court case after Mike Pence's treasonous stupidity was doomed to failure. Had he not done what he did, a case would have been brought, the facts would have been heard, and the Supreme Court would have almost surely rendered a verdict making Donald J. Trump what he is now, four years ago.

Biden's justice department raided President Trump's residence fearing he might have stashed away evidence to use if ever he became President again. And though he didn't stash it there, he likely has it. Only time will tell if he will determine it's worth it to prosecute the case now that the American people have already rendered a verdict in his favor. Stay tuned.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You appear to be spoon-fed by the leftist media conglomerate.

They like to say that Trump lost every court case concerning his belief that the election was stolen. But the truth is that every court denied him the ability to bring the case. He didn't lose any case. That's another leftist media falsehood. The courts denied him the ability to make a case. And for good, legal, reasons.

The President Elect, was denied the opportunity to bring a case concerning the election fraud, because according to the election, fraudulent though it was, he was no longer the sitting President (no longer President Elect). The courts used that logic to deny him, properly, the ability to bring a case. The court's correct logic was that since by the results of the election, he lost the election, he therefore can't use his executive, Constitutional, ability as President Elect, to bring a case concerning the election.

That's why Vice President Mike Pence will never sniff power again in the Republican Party. If he understood what was going on, he would have known that President Trump was merely wanting him to hold off authenticating the election results until he, President Elect Trump, was able to use his executive powers to try the phony election before it was deemed fair by means of Mike Pence signing off on it. Once Mike Pence signed off on it, President Trump was no longer afforded his Constitutional right to question the election, prior to his loss of his executive rights, and thus his power to try the election.

When the media constantly claimed that every court proved the election wasn't stolen, they were lying through their teeth. They knew that the courts were saying that since President Trump was no longer President, thanks to the enormous stupidity of Mike Pence, Donald J. Trump was now a mere citizen in President Elect Biden's courts and thus no longer had the Constitutional right to question, or try, the election as President Elect.

For four years the population has been fed a giant lie by the media that the courts proved the election was fair. They proved nothing of the sort. They didn't even try. And any reasonably intelligent person should understand why the January 6 patriots wanted to lynch Mike Pence. It was because he denied President Trump the possibility of using his Constitutional powers as President Elect to prove that the election was stolen before the authentication of the election made it a foregone conclusion it wasn't. Every argument or court case after Mike Pence's treasonous stupidity was doomed to failure. Had he not done what he did, a case would have been brought, the facts would have been heard, and the Supreme Court would have almost surely rendered a verdict making Donald J. Trump what he is now, four years ago.

Biden's justice department raided President Trump's residence fearing he might have stashed away evidence to use if ever he became President again. And though he didn't stash it there, he likely has it. Only time will tell if he will determine it's worth it to prosecute the case now that the American people have already rendered a verdict in his favor. Stay tuned.



John

Your entire argument is that the 2020 election lawsuits weren't decided on their merits; instead, the courts prevented Trump from having his day in court due to procedural or jurisdictional reasons, not because the evidence was found lacking. This is only minimally accurate, in spite of your claim that it is the whole reason.

On your argument that courts denied Trump's team the opportunity to bring cases, I think that your perspective argues that the courts dismissed Trump's cases based on procedural grounds, such as standing or jurisdiction, rather than evaluating evidence directly. This is only partly true—many cases were indeed dismissed for procedural reasons. However, not all cases were dismissed without examining evidence. Some judges did review the claims, and in those cases, the courts found the evidence insufficient or speculative, not meeting the burden of proof required to challenge certified election results.

About the role of Mike Pence in certifying results, I think you view Pence’s certification of the electoral votes as effectively closing the door on Trump's ability to use executive powers to challenge the results. However, you need to understand that the certification process is typically a formal step in recognizing the electoral outcome, not a step where legal disputes are generally settled. Trump’s team still had opportunities to bring cases prior to the certification, as many cases were filed and adjudicated before this final step.

Your claim that the "media lied" by reporting the courts found no evidence of fraud reflects a skepticism toward mainstream news outlets' framing of the cases. Media reporting often focused on how many judges, including some appointed by Trump, found insufficient evidence to overturn the election or rejected claims that could have affected the outcome.

Regarding Constitutional Powers and Election Challenges, your argument implies that Trump, as President, had unique legal standing or powers to challenge the election as a sitting or “President-Elect” (though “President-Elect” is a term generally used only for the incoming president). In reality, election disputes are handled through legal avenues accessible to [B}any candidate[/B], not unique executive powers.

Your claim that Biden’s Department of Justice raided Trump’s residence fearing hidden evidence adds a speculative layer to the argument, suggesting ongoing distrust in the legal system and implying the existence of evidence that has not been publicly presented. However, the search warrant and investigation related to classified documents focused on the potential mishandling of sensitive materials, not on any election evidence.

To suppose that January 6th participants saw Pence as responsible for blocking Trump's legal pathway is based on an interpretation of Pence’s role that doesn’t align with any constitutional or procedural norms.

So while it’s true that procedural dismissals played a role, you are pretending that many judges didn't cite any lack of compelling evidence to substantiate the scale of fraud alleged, which ultimately shaped public understanding of the cases.

Try again.

 

[John D. Brey]

That is some special pleading you got there, mister.

As you know, theology, or philosophy is more my forte. I don't generally like debating politics.

But Tuesday night was near and dear to me since I was treated like President Trump in what was formerly my favorite forum where I spent my time for over twenty years. When, four years ago, I argued what I'm putting forth now, and with far lest zeal then then now, a leftist running the forum kicked me out of the forum without cause, other than that I supported and argued for Trump. Mind you I had almost never proffered a political view, and was the most active member for twenty years. Nevertheless, I was removed, without argumentation, or recourse, and have never returned.

When someone was removed for the forum for a legitimate cause they usually gave a time frame for when they could return. When I looked to see my time frame, the person in charge had written in capital letters NEVER.



John

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As you know, theology, or philosophy is more my forte. I don't generally like debating politics.

But Tuesday night was near and dear to me since I was treated like President Trump in what was formerly my favorite forum where I spent my time for over twenty years. When, four years ago, I argued what I'm putting forth now, and with far lest zeal then then now, a leftist running the forum kicked me out of the forum without cause, other than that I supported and argued for Trump. Mind you I had almost never proffered a political view, and was the most active member for twenty years. Nevertheless, I was removed, without argumentation, or recourse, and have never returned.

When someone was removed for the forum for a legitimate cause they usually gave a time frame for when they could return. When I looked to see my time frame, the person in charge had written in capital letters NEVER.



John

That sucks that happened to you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As you know, theology, or philosophy is more my forte. I don't generally like debating politics.

But Tuesday night was near and dear to me since I was treated like President Trump in what was formerly my favorite forum where I spent my time for over twenty years. When, four years ago, I argued what I'm putting forth now, and with far lest zeal then then now, a leftist running the forum kicked me out of the forum without cause, other than that I supported and argued for Trump. Mind you I had almost never proffered a political view, and was the most active member for twenty years. Nevertheless, I was removed, without argumentation, or recourse, and have never returned.

When someone was removed for the forum for a legitimate cause they usually gave a time frame for when they could return. When I looked to see my time frame, the person in charge had written in capital letters NEVER.



John

Well I haven't suggested anything of the kind (nor do I have any power in that regard). I'm simply responding to your arguments, which I find seriously wanting.

 

[John D. Brey]

Some judges did review the claims, and in those cases, the courts found the evidence insufficient or speculative, not meeting the burden of proof required to challenge certified election results.

Part of the issue is precisely what you're calling the "burden of proof." That burden was insurmountable once the bar had been raised to having to throw out a duly elected President. Once the election determined Biden was President Elect, now, it wasn't a case of determining the truth of the election, now it was that if it was fraudulent, a duly elected President, signed off on by the previous Vice President, would have to be thrown out of office, and potentially prosecuted for a crime.

That's the bar that every court, every judge, deemed too high to be met without a court case which couldn't occur because the bar was set so high for what would be required to begin the case in the first place.

Once Biden was made President Elect, the only way a court would allow a case to examine the legitimacy of the election, would be a court that was prepared to open a case against a sitting President Elect that would portend the possiblity of armed insurrections. Once Biden was made President Elect, no court in the land would allow the case to land in court for good reasons. You would have to have evidence that you'd win the case before the case could be brought, and you couldn't prove you had the evidence to win until a court case allowed the evidence to be accumulated, collated, and presented, which might take quite a long time.

The media, and Biden's people, then framed the truth of the matter to claim anyone denying the election was fair to be an "election denier" since, in their twisting of the truth, the courts denied the evidence met the burden of proof when Biden and the media were fully aware that the burden of proof was that you'd almost have to prove your case 100% before you brought it since the case would require a sitting President to be forcefully removed and potentially imprisoned.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As you know, theology, or philosophy is more my forte. I don't generally like debating politics.

Then you know the importance of exegesis, and how dangerous eisegesis is. Politics tends to grip us by the short and curlies (emotionally speaking, of course), and eisegesis all too often becomes our final argument. I think that's happening in your arguments on this particular subject.

 

[John D. Brey]

Well I haven't suggested anything of the kind (nor do I have any power in that regard). I'm simply responding to your arguments, which I find seriously wanting.

Right. Nevertheless, it's been my lived-experience that the farther you go to the left of things, the more rabidly sure the person becomes that they're the owner and purveyor of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. When you own the truth, why should you have to debate and argue. Why should you have to acquire ballots the old fashioned way. Anyone who disagrees should just be thrown in jail, called Hitler, or removed from any rights or privileges afforded non-neanderthals.

Who could not have noticed this proclivity in the media and Hollywood stars supporting Harris. Even some Democrats asked why Biden was having lunch with Hitler? Why Harris graciously conceded to a fascist? Why media personalities cried on camera. . . These are things people do who were too high on their own supply.

Trump's victory has merely provided me an opportunity, after four years, to vent a bit. I promise you it will be short-lived at which time I'll gladly return to my solipsistic theological rants.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Then you know the importance of exegesis, and how dangerous eisegesis is. Politics tends to grip us by the short and curlies (emotionally speaking, of course), and eisegesis all too often becomes our final argument. I think that's happening in your arguments on this particular subject.

Just a quick note. Anyone who's familiar with my theological beliefs knows that I reject the idea that eisegesis is dangerous. There is no exegesis without eisegesis. And the belief that you can exegete "objectively" is the greatest falsehood there could ever be. You might be able to exegete "literally" without too much eisegesis. But the literal meaning of a written text, in law, or theology, dispenses with the spirit of the author, and usually the spirit of the law, or the prophet. Exegeting literally is a lexicographer's game. And the names I've given to lexicographers in the past could legitimately get me booted from this forum.



John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just a quick note. Anyone who's familiar with my theological beliefs knows that I reject the idea that eisegesis is dangerous. There is no exegesis without eisegesis. And the belief that you can exegete "objectively" is the greatest falsehood there could ever be. You might be able to exegete "literally" without too much eisegesis. But the literal meaning of a written text, in law, or theology, dispenses with the spirit of the author, and usually the spirit of the law, or the prophet. Exegeting literally is a lexicographer's game. And the names I've given to lexicographers in the past could legitimately get me booted from this forum.



John

Well, that's a perspective, I suppose. The point of exegesis is to make a concerted attempt to understand the meaning of a text based on what the author of that text wrote. Eisegesis is the opposite -- the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading, which allows the interpreter to inject his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

If all you want from any scriptural or philosophical source is confirmation of what you already believe, eisegesis is certainly going to be your best bet.

 

[Heyo]

Part of the issue is precisely what you're calling the "burden of proof." That burden was insurmountable once the bar had been raised to having to throw out a duly elected President. Once the election determined Biden was President Elect, now, it wasn't a case of determining the truth of the election, now it was that if it was fraudulent, a duly elected President, signed off on by the previous Vice President, would have to be thrown out of office, and potentially prosecuted for a crime.

That's the bar that every court, every judge, deemed too high to be met without a court case which couldn't occur because the bar was set so high for what would be required to begin the case in the first place.

Once Biden was made President Elect, the only way a court would allow a case to examine the legitimacy of the election, would be a court that was prepared to open a case against a sitting President Elect that would portend the possiblity of armed insurrections. Once Biden was made President Elect, no court in the land would allow the case to land in court for good reasons. You would have to have evidence that you'd win the case before the case could be brought, and you couldn't prove you had the evidence to win until a court case allowed the evidence to be accumulated, collated, and presented, which might take quite a long time.

The media, and Biden's people, then framed the truth of the matter to claim anyone denying the election was fair to be an "election denier" since, in their twisting of the truth, the courts denied the evidence met the burden of proof when Biden and the media were fully aware that the burden of proof was that you'd almost have to prove your case 100% before you brought it since the case would require a sitting President to be forcefully removed and potentially imprisoned.



John

Without interrupting your conversation too much, just a short question/logic test:
If the 2020 election was chaotic, and the 2024 election was fair, is it then correct to say that under Trump the people who were responsible for the election failed, and under Biden they succeeded?

 

[Viker]

I think you might misunderstand the law? We have a jury of the alleged criminal's peers because we understand some of the limits of a written law. The prosecution doesn't get to determine the case no matter how versed in the law and the case. Donald J. Trump was just judged by a jury of his peers, 150 million jurors, and found not guilty.

The prosecution had four years, in court, and in the media, to make sure every single juror understood what was being alleged. Four full years, nearly twenty-four hours a day, the media tried Donald J. Trump for the alleged crime of being a patriot willing to use the power the Constitution afforded him.

He's not only been acquitted by the ultimate jury of his peers, but the jurors have awarded him something for the false accusations against him: a mandate to throw out the bums who lied, cheated, and stole their way to power four years ago.



John

That's not at all how criminal law works.

 

[F1fan]

Part of the issue is precisely what you're calling the "burden of proof." That burden was insurmountable once the bar had been raised to having to throw out a duly elected President. Once the election determined Biden was President Elect, now, it wasn't a case of determining the truth of the election, now it was that if it was fraudulent, a duly elected President, signed off on by the previous Vice President, would have to be thrown out of office, and potentially prosecuted for a crime.

That's the bar that every court, every judge, deemed too high to be met without a court case which couldn't occur because the bar was set so high for what would be required to begin the case in the first place.

Once Biden was made President Elect, the only way a court would allow a case to examine the legitimacy of the election, would be a court that was prepared to open a case against a sitting President Elect that would portend the possiblity of armed insurrections. Once Biden was made President Elect, no court in the land would allow the case to land in court for good reasons. You would have to have evidence that you'd win the case before the case could be brought, and you couldn't prove you had the evidence to win until a court case allowed the evidence to be accumulated, collated, and presented, which might take quite a long time.

The media, and Biden's people, then framed the truth of the matter to claim anyone denying the election was fair to be an "election denier" since, in their twisting of the truth, the courts denied the evidence met the burden of proof when Biden and the media were fully aware that the burden of proof was that you'd almost have to prove your case 100% before you brought it since the case would require a sitting President to be forcefully removed and potentially imprisoned.



John

You got duped by a conspiracy theory. Your posts fail because you assume these false right wing ideas are true or plausible. There's no evidence that they are. And there is evidence of an election fraud criminal conspiracy that involved Trump. That you aren't familiar with the facts of these matters means your posts are irrelevant and easily dismissed.

 

[John D. Brey]

Without interrupting your conversation too much, just a short question/logic test:

Hey. This is your conversation as much as anyone.

If the 2020 election was chaotic, and the 2024 election was fair, is it then correct to say that under Trump the people who were responsible for the election failed, and under Biden they succeeded?

That's a good question. And it also opens a new can of worms since most conservatives believe the Covid lockdowns were partly an attempt to mess with Trump's Presidency. I believe the liberals used Covid as a means of causing chaos and division. It was under the guise of the Covid lockdowns that more people than usual voted by ballot. And so truckloads of ballots were prepared and dropped off in the middle of the night in order to guarantee, under the guise of the Covid lockdowns, and Covid hysteria, that Biden would win.

Case in point. Both the Democrats and the Republicans preached day and night that this would be the most important election of our lifetimes. And both Democrats and Republicans believed that to be the case. And yet, miraculously, fewer votes were cast this election than last. In fact, the chart earlier in this thread show that there was an anomaly in the last election. For some reason there were millions more votes last year than there were the previous two elections, or this election?

If this was the most important election in our lifetime, why weren't there as many votes as there were last time? There were many more votes last time because under the guise of Covid, and thus more ballot voting, the deep state saw an opportunity to close down counting on Election night, which has never happened before, in order to allow truck loads of ballots to be brought in in the middle of the night. Even Trump got more votes last election because in order to disguise the guise they had to include some votes for him to make it look kosher.

John

 

[Heyo]

Case in point. Both the Democrats and the Republicans preached day and night that this would be the most important election of our lifetimes. And both Democrats and Republicans believed that to be the case. And yet, miraculously, fewer votes were cast this election than last. In fact, the chart earlier in this thread show that there was an anomaly in the last election. For some reason there were millions more votes last year than there were the previous two elections, or this election?


View attachment 99811

According to that chart, the anomaly is 2024. 2020 saw a doubling in votes for both Dems and Pubs. 2024 saw a massive reduction only in Dem votes. Strange, isn't it?

 

[John D. Brey]

You got duped by a conspiracy theory.

And yet you don't bother to back your statement up with one iota of argumentation or documentation. You therefore seem to justify my earlier claim that leftists believe they have so much Truth that they don't need to argue or document it, but merely make claims and demonize anyone who doesn't accept the claims.

Your posts fail because you assume these false right wing ideas are true or plausible.

On the other hand, you seem to assume these ideas aren't true, and are implausible, simply because they come from the right. Your criteria for correctness and plausibility seems to be your own leftist predisposition. My beliefs and observations appear to be considered incorrect simply because I espouse them, and I'm right of center, irrespective of whether they're factually true or false.

I consider it a genuine danger/problem when the criteria for what is true is purely political.

There's no evidence that they are.

Do you dispute that both parties, Democrat and Republican, argued vehemently that this would be the most important election in our lifetime? Then why were there considerably fewer votes this time than last?

Did Democrats and Republican voters not believe this was the most important election in our lifetime?

Did fewer voters vote this time? I doubt it.

I believe the deep state who hate Trump manufactured millions of ballots and distributed them in the middle of the night four years ago. I believe they shut down counting so they could distribute the ballots in the cover of night.

They finished counting Pennsylvania on election night this year. Why did it take so long to count the votes last election? If you say it's because there were so many more mailed in ballots last election, I will say that that's the same reason why there were millions of votes last election that mysteriously disappeared this election. All of those mail-in ballots provided an opportunity to not have to win the election the old-fashioned way, but in a newfangled manner, that recognizes the undeniable and inarguable rightness of the left.

And there is evidence of an election fraud criminal conspiracy that involved Trump. That you aren't familiar with the facts of these matters means your posts are irrelevant and easily dismissed.

As I noted earlier, these facts were dismissed when I pointed them out real time four years ago. I was dismissed, kicked out of a religion forum, I had participated in for over twenty years, simply for pointing out these alleged lies and conspiracies in the face of a leftist in charge of the forum. For saying less than I've said in this thread, I was locked out of the forum and told to never return.

The person in charge of that forum shared your proclivity to use your political leanings as the criteria for truth and justice. If it's right of center, its a lie. If it's a lie, the person spouting it is a fascist or Hitler.

So I've remained mostly quiet about these things for four years. But now the fascism of the left has been brought out into the light and defeated in a fair and righteous election. So I'll vent for a few posts and then return to my theological musings.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

According to that chart, the anomaly is 2024. 2020 saw a doubling in votes for both Dems and Pubs. 2024 saw a massive reduction only in Dem votes. Strange, isn't it?

As I noted earlier, there was a decrease in votes for both Democrats and Republicans this year. But the decrease was greater for Democrats since more of the fake ballots were cast for Biden last election. But not all of the fake ballots were cast for Biden. The conspirators knew they had to throw in some Trump votes or else the ruse would be too obvious. Voila. This election Democrats and Republicans both lost the votes that were manufactured last election. Trump lost the few they threw in to cover up the ruse, and Harris lost the lion's share that were manufactured for Biden. Both Democrats and Republicans got out the vote this year. And next election the numbers will be similar to this year. Some day last election will be seen to stick out like a sore thumb that the left won't want to look at or worry about too much.

John