One of the problems with tyranny is that it increases.

Americans born today think torture, kill lists, groping, and wiretapping are perfectly acceptable.

There was a time when you didn't need a driver license. Later driver licenses were required. Driver licenses then needed a photo. Later you needed a written exam. A driving test was then required. Later you needed a medical test. A car inspection was required. Later you needed liability insurance. Driver license fees increased and fingerprints were required. Soon DNA samples, microchip implants, and vaccines will be needed to get a license.

why would you use reddit?

https://archive.ph/90WC1

This website is unhinged.

Every single court case that has been brought, and there have been many has not just failed, it's been laughed out of court.

Not every single case, I can think of at least one exception, but certainly the vast majority of cases have been dismissed on technical grounds: usually lack of standing to sue. The cases weren't "laughed out of court" because the evidence was bad -- although I admit than in some cases it was bad -- but because the petitioner had no legal right to sue. The evidence was not considered.

Which of course is the point: with very few exceptions, the claims of fraud have not been investigated or heard in the courts, they have merely been dismissed without considering the evidence. When Bill Barr said that the DoJ found no evidence of any election fraud, he was telling the truth because the DoJ did not investigate or look for election fraud. There are hundreds of people who have sworn affidavits on penalty of perjury that they witnessed election fraud, and the DoJ simply failed to investigate, then said they found no evidence fraud.

Prior to 2016, it was prohibitively expensive and difficult to contest an election result or call for a recount. But after 2016, the laws were amended to make it almost impossible. Only the second-place losing candidate can sue, and only if the winning margin is less than 1% of the votes. (Note to anyone considering election fraud: make sure you win by more than 1%.)

Under the current laws, the quality of evidence is irrelevant. Almost all of the people who tried to sue for a recount had no standing to sue, or the court simply had no jurisdiction to hear the case. When you hear about a lawsuit being thrown out, remember that this means the evidence was never even looked at not that the evidence was poor.

The courts routinely ignore election officials breaking the laws, e.g. destroying paper ballots after they are counted, voting machines being connected to the internet, ballots being counted behind closed doors without observers from the other party being allowed to watch, evidence of tampering of data on voting machines, etc. Prior to November 2020 these were known problems that the media was prepared to talk about, especially Democrat accusations that Republicans have stolen elections. But after November 2020 the media started calling claims of fraud "unprecedented", and that it is virtually treason to question the results.

Barrack Obama won his first nomination for the Illinois senate in 1996 by successfully accusing all four of his Democrat opponents of electoral fraud and having them removed from the ballot, leading to him standing unopposed. Then in 2020 Obama told Trump to stop whining about losing and that accusations of election fraud were endangering democracy.

The evidence doesn't legally matter because the laws are designed to make it seem like there is election oversight but in fact there are loopholes big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through.

And when all else fails, do what Maricopa County election officials did: simply refuse to cooperate with subpoenas.

Good video! I'm watching Satisfy customers who come to papa's burgeria io