BIDEN SHOULD CONCEDE!!! Lt. Gen. McInerney

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just dismissed the GOP bid to overturn the election as did a Federal appeals court. After both the State court and a federal count have shot down Trump, will he ask the Supreme Court to hear the case? He might but the chance of them hearing it is about zero. If they don't, that will be the end of the road for Trump in PA. With all counties and the state having certified the election and Trump's last suit settled in court, PA will make the Dec 8th deadline as will Nevada. With a democrat governor and legislature and Trump's suit failing in the state supreme court, Nevada will meet the Dec 8th deadline. What happens in Georgia and Arizona would be irrelevant because Biden will have the electoral votes needed. Making the Dec 8th deadline ends any further challenges in those states.

Vox is as ridiculous and biased as the judges who have ruled against Trump. No evidence ? The videos are all over the internet, and have been for 3+weeks, of Republican poll watchers being denied the ability to do their jobs.

 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just dismissed the GOP bid to overturn the election as did a Federal appeals court. After both the State court and a federal count have shot down Trump, will he ask the Supreme Court to hear the case? He might but the chance of them hearing it is about zero. If they don't, that will be the end of the road for Trump in PA. With all counties and the state having certified the election and Trump's last suit settled in court, PA will make the Dec 8th deadline as will Nevada. With a democrat governor and legislature and Trump's suit failing in the state supreme court, Nevada will meet the Dec 8th deadline. What happens in Georgia and Arizona would be irrelevant because Biden will have the electoral votes needed. Making the Dec 8th deadline ends any further challenges in those states.

Vox is as ridiculous and biased as the judges who have ruled against Trump. No evidence ? The videos are all over the internet, and have been for 3+weeks, of Republican poll watchers being denied the ability to do their jobs.

Dude, Rudy explicitly admitted that he wasn't even arguing that fraud occured. This from the very ruling you're ignoring:

You're being played, Protectionist.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
Because the Republican dominated legislatures are not Democrat frauders and pathetic RINOs. Because the same thing goes for the US Supreme Court.

Did you think these judges in Trump cases have been impartial ? Like I said, we'll come back and look at all this a few days from now. :biggrin:
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
I saw Rudy arguing his case at the Pennsylvania Senate hearing. I watched it for over an hour. Rudy and Jenna both argued repeatedly that fraud occured, and presented a dozen eyewitnesses who all testified about the fraud they saw, and in some cases, participated in.

YOU are who is being played.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
Because the Republican dominated legislatures are not Democrat frauders and pathetic RINOs. Because the same thing goes for the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has expressed zero interest in overturning the results of any State's election. You're fantasizing, based on nothing.

And both of the judges I just cited are life long republicans. The latter, a Trump appointee. And you ignored him just as completely as you did any other ruling......because he didn't say what you want to believe.

As you ignore anything or anyone that doesn't say what you want to believe. Your record of predicting future outcomes has been poor so far for that very reason.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
I saw Rudy arguing his case at the Pennsylvania Senate hearing. I watched it for over an hour. Rudy and Jenna both argued repeatedly that fraud occured, and presented a dozen eyewitnesses who all testified about the fraud they saw, and in some cases, participated in.

YOU are who is being played.
That wasn't a senate hearing. That wasn't held at the State House or any government building. It was held at a ballroom in a Hyatt Regency. No one was even sworn in.

And if this evidence is as damning as you claim, why didn't Trump's team present it IN COURT when filing their legal arguments?

Remember, Gulliani wasn't even arguing that fraud occured in his legal arguments. What they are telling you at the Hyatt Regency and what they are arguing in court are wildly different.

They're playing you, Protectionist.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
The Supreme Court has expressed zero interest in overturning the results of any State's election. You're fantasizing, based on nothing.

And both of the judges I just cited are life long republicans. The latter, a Trump appointee. And you ignored him just as completely as you did any other ruling......because he didn't say what you want to believe.

As you ignore anything or anyone that doesn't say what you want to believe. Your record of predicting future outcomes has been poor so far for that very reason.
Oh yeah ? And did you talk to the members of the Supreme Court earlier today ? They came over your house for coffee and donuts ?

And I have no record of predicting anything other than that Trump will be declared winner of the 2020 election, and will be re-elected. That has not yet been determined.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,012
Reaction score
15,835
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
The Supreme Court has expressed zero interest in overturning the results of any State's election. You're fantasizing, based on nothing.

And both of the judges I just cited are life long republicans. The latter, a Trump appointee. And you ignored him just as completely as you did any other ruling......because he didn't say what you want to believe.

As you ignore anything or anyone that doesn't say what you want to believe. Your record of predicting future outcomes has been poor so far for that very reason.
Oh yeah ? And did you talk to the members of the Supreme Court earlier today ? They came over your house for coffee and donuts ?

And I have no record of predicting anything other than that Trump will be declared winner of the 2020 election, and will be re-elected. That has not yet been determined.
Show us any indication that the Supreme Court is interested in overturning any State's election results.

You can't. There is no such indication. You've imagined it.

You're making us promises about the Supreme Court.....yet you can't back that up. You've been wrong on the outcome of essentially EVERY legal challenge, giving us excuses after the fact for why the rulings suddenly have to be ignored.

And the basis of your willful ignorance is always the same: you ignore them if they contradict you. If they contradict you, then even a Trump appointee can't be trusted. Your absurd standards of credibility are literally confirmation bias. And that's a terrible basis of prediction.....as demonstrated by your terrible record on predicting outcomes.

You're being played.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
That wasn't a senate hearing. That wasn't held at the State House or any government building. It was held at a ballroom in a Hyatt Regency. No one was even sworn in.

And if this evidence is as damning as you claim, why didn't Trump's team present it IN COURT when filing their legal arguments?

Remember, Gulliani wasn't even arguing that fraud occured in his legal arguments. What they are telling you at the Hyatt Regency and what they are arguing in court are wildly different.

They're playing you, Protectionist.
1. It WAS a Senate hearing held with members of the Pennsylvania Senate.

2. Doesn't matter where it was.

3. I saw Rudy arguing his case at the Pennsylvania Senate hearing. I watched it for over an hour. Rudy and Jenna both argued repeatedly that fraud occured, and presented a dozen eyewitnesses who all testified about the fraud they saw, and in some cases, participated in. YOU are who is being played.

Some people have to be told twice.
 
Last edited:

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
That wasn't a senate hearing. That wasn't held at the State House or any government building. It was held at a ballroom in a Hyatt Regency. No one was even sworn in.

And if this evidence is as damning as you claim, why didn't Trump's team present it IN COURT when filing their legal arguments?

Remember, Gulliani wasn't even arguing that fraud occured in his legal arguments. What they are telling you at the Hyatt Regency and what they are arguing in court are wildly different.

They're playing you, Protectionist.
1. It WAS a Senate hearing held with member of the Pennsylvania Senate.
No, it wasn't. A press conference at a Hyatt Regency being attended by a member of the PA senate doesn't make it a 'senate hearing' anymore than Nancy Pelosi getting her hair done is a 'House Judiciary Committee' meeting.

It wasn't called by the PA senate, it wasn't authorized by the PA senate, it wasn't held at any government building, lett alone the State House........nor was anyone even sworn in.

It was a press conference in a hotel ballroom.

You're being played.
 

HaShev

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
2,565
Points
265
Maybe so. Maybe not. But one party is going to have egg on their face. That is a fact.
That's the Republican Party for embracing batshit crazy loon conspiracy theories.

Oh yeah, and losing the Presidency.
View attachment 422851
Voters: "You got beat by over six million votes!"

Rump: "'tis but a flesh wound"
I want to remind you that the Bennet cartoon
That candycorn posted and you mimick is a plagiarism (whether intentional or not) of mine done many times in the Political cartoon humor forum (one about Pelosi and her pen mightier then the sword comment, while acting as if her lost battles to impeach /coup remove the President was nothing but a flesh wound.) So you guys are proving your constant deflection issues while also mimicking Bidens nature to always plagiarize.
Come on guys, try to be original!

View attachment 422878
Candyass is a shill from Langley and pogo has shown as well he has no interest in facts so when losing arargument,that’s what they always retreat to, :laughing0301: thank god for the ignore list.
But out of the trolling and forum flooding top posts they serve a purpose.
1)to help top post our commentaries that normally are burried or censored
2)I GET to keep them tied up all day and busy in here in order to keep them from splattering paint on our statues, looting, breaking windows, burning, defacating on the sidewalk, and touching our kids.
3) I get to reflect back in a mirror their standards and reasoning that always revert back to what they hate about themselves doing and are merely displacing and deflecting, therefore teaching social science and the psychology of group behavior.
4)I get some great memes from it:
View attachment 423202
Again...zero idea what you're talking about. You seem pretty angry. Perhaps you should try to seek some help for your issues.
You keep blaming me for your reading comprehension issues, as if that's my fault.
I can not use popup books in this fornat just to humor you. ;-)
You are deflecting again, how many smiley faces and funny memes do I need for you to notice that your trolling is humorous to me not infuriating.
So why are YOU so angry if you are choosing so wisely your path?
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
Show us any indication that the Supreme Court is interested in overturning any State's election results.

You can't. There is no such indication. You've imagined it.

You're making us promises about the Supreme Court.....yet you can't back that up. You've been wrong on the outcome of essentially EVERY legal challenge, giving us excuses after the fact for why the rulings suddenly have to be ignored.

And the basis of your willful ignorance is always the same: you ignore them if they contradict you. If they contradict you, then even a Trump appointee can't be trusted. Your absurd standards of credibility are literally confirmation bias. And that's a terrible basis of prediction.....as demonstrated by your terrible record on predicting outcomes.

You're being played.
I don't HAVE TO show indications of the Supreme Court's interest. I haven't done that for hundreds of cases, yet the Supreme court reviewed and ruled on all those cases.

Looks like you're trying to convince me (and yourself) that Trump won't be re-elected. Nobody knows the answer to that right now, or what the SCOTUS will do, or what the state legislatures will do.

Relax, sit back and watch it play out. You don't know any more than anybody else right now, and you're not impressing anybody.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
Show us any indication that the Supreme Court is interested in overturning any State's election results.

You can't. There is no such indication. You've imagined it.

You're making us promises about the Supreme Court.....yet you can't back that up. You've been wrong on the outcome of essentially EVERY legal challenge, giving us excuses after the fact for why the rulings suddenly have to be ignored.

And the basis of your willful ignorance is always the same: you ignore them if they contradict you. If they contradict you, then even a Trump appointee can't be trusted. Your absurd standards of credibility are literally confirmation bias. And that's a terrible basis of prediction.....as demonstrated by your terrible record on predicting outcomes.

You're being played.
I don't HAVE TO show indications of the Supreme Court's interest.
When you're making up elaborate promises of how the Supreme Court is going to rule....yeah, you kinda do.

You have nothing to back your fantasies about the Supreme Court somehow overturning the election results and giving Trump the election.

Nothing at all. Which is exactly my point.

You're expressing your hopes and dreams. Not what the evidence suggests. Which is why your record on predicting the outcome of these legal challenges has been so abysmal. And why you've been reduced to ignoring any source that contradicts you.

Even a Trump appointed judge tossing Trump's claims out of court for lack of evidence and lack of merit.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,521
Reaction score
14,906
Points
2,180
Maybe so. Maybe not. But one party is going to have egg on their face. That is a fact.
That's the Republican Party for embracing batshit crazy loon conspiracy theories.

Oh yeah, and losing the Presidency.
View attachment 422851
Voters: "You got beat by over six million votes!"

Rump: "'tis but a flesh wound"
I want to remind you that the Bennet cartoon
That candycorn posted and you mimick is a plagiarism (whether intentional or not) of mine done many times in the Political cartoon humor forum (one about Pelosi and her pen mightier then the sword comment, while acting as if her lost battles to impeach /coup remove the President was nothing but a flesh wound.) So you guys are proving your constant deflection issues while also mimicking Bidens nature to always plagiarize.
Come on guys, try to be original!

View attachment 422878
Candyass is a shill from Langley and pogo has shown as well he has no interest in facts so when losing arargument,that’s what they always retreat to, :laughing0301: thank god for the ignore list.
But out of the trolling and forum flooding top posts they serve a purpose.
1)to help top post our commentaries that normally are burried or censored
2)I GET to keep them tied up all day and busy in here in order to keep them from splattering paint on our statues, looting, breaking windows, burning, defacating on the sidewalk, and touching our kids.
3) I get to reflect back in a mirror their standards and reasoning that always revert back to what they hate about themselves doing and are merely displacing and deflecting, therefore teaching social science and the psychology of group behavior.
4)I get some great memes from it:
View attachment 423202
Again...zero idea what you're talking about. You seem pretty angry. Perhaps you should try to seek some help for your issues.
You keep blaming me for your reading comprehension issues, as if that's my fault.
I can not use popup books in this fornat just to humor you. ;-)
You are deflecting again, how many smiley faces and funny memes do I need for you to notice that your trolling is humorous to me not infuriating.
So why are YOU so angry if you are choosing so wisely your path?
I apologize. You're really not that interesting so I could either waste time trying to figure out what you are trying to say or just wait to see if you're ever going to get back on topic. I chose the latter. Still waiting.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
No, it wasn't. A press conference at a Hyatt Regency being attended by a member of the PA senate doesn't make it a 'senate hearing' anymore than Nancy Pelosi getting her hair done is a 'House Judiciary Committee' meeting.

It wasn't called by the PA senate, it wasn't authorized by the PA senate, it wasn't held at any government building, lett alone the State House........nor was anyone even sworn in.

It was a press conference in a hotel ballroom.

You're being played.
HA HA.
1. It was NOT a "press conference". A few members of the press may have been there, but that doesn't make it a press conference. The press goes everywhere. What else is new ?

2. It did not have A MEMBER of the PA Senate. It had many members of the senate + members of the PA House of Representitives too. Here's a few who attended >>

Senate Majority Policy Committee Chair David Argall (R-Berks/Schuylkill); Senate Majority Leader-Elect Kim Ward (R-39); State Rep. Dan Moul (R-91); State Rep. Rob Kauffman (R-89); and State Rep Paul Schemel (R-90); among other lawmakers joined Senator Doug Mastriano (R-Adams/Cumberland/Franklin/York), in this historic hearing.

You're being played.
1606712320532.png
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,630
Reaction score
6,956
Points
1,130
That wasn't a senate hearing. That wasn't held at the State House or any government building. It was held at a ballroom in a Hyatt Regency. No one was even sworn in.

And if this evidence is as damning as you claim, why didn't Trump's team present it IN COURT when filing their legal arguments?

Remember, Gulliani wasn't even arguing that fraud occured in his legal arguments. What they are telling you at the Hyatt Regency and what they are arguing in court are wildly different.

They're playing you, Protectionist.
1. It WAS a Senate hearing held with member of the Pennsylvania Senate.
No, it wasn't. A press conference at a Hyatt Regency being attended by a member of the PA senate doesn't make it a 'senate hearing' anymore than Nancy Pelosi getting her hair done is a 'House Judiciary Committee' meeting.

It wasn't called by the PA senate, it wasn't authorized by the PA senate, it wasn't held at any government building, lett alone the State House........nor was anyone even sworn in.

It was a press conference in a hotel ballroom.

You're being played.
HA HA.
1. It was NOT a press conference. A few members of the press may have been there, but that doesn't make it a press conference. The press goes everywhere. What else is new ?

2. It did not have A MEMBER of the PA Senate. It had many members of the senate + members of the PA House of Representitives too. Here's a few who attended >>

Senate Majority Policy Committee Chair David Argall (R-Berks/Schuylkill); Senate Majority Leader-Elect Kim Ward (R-39); State Rep. Dan Moul (R-91); State Rep. Rob Kauffman (R-89); and State Rep Paul Schemel (R-90); among other lawmakers joined Senator Doug Mastriano (R-Adams/Cumberland/Franklin/York), in this historic hearing.

You're being played. View attachment 423286

For it to be a 'senate hearing' it has to be called by the Senate or House. This wasn't. This was a press conference with members of the Senate and House in attendance. It was not sanctioned by the PA Senate or House, it wasn't convened by any PA Senate or House committee. Nor was it held at any state building. Nor was anyone sworn in.

It was a press conference at a hotel ballroom.


And again, if the 'evidence' was so damning, why didn't Trump's lawyers present it at any of their court hearings contesting the election?

Gulliani didn't even ARGUE that fraud had occured in court. You're being played.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
When you're making up elaborate promises of how the Supreme Court is going to rule....yeah, you kinda do.

You have nothing to back your fantasies about the Supreme Court somehow overturning the election results and giving Trump the election.

Nothing at all. Which is exactly my point.

You're expressing your hopes and dreams. Not what the evidence suggests. Which is why your record on predicting the outcome of these legal challenges has been so abysmal. And why you've been reduced to ignoring any source that contradicts you.

Even a Trump appointed judge tossing Trump's claims out of court for lack of evidence and lack of merit.
Are you drunk ? I didn't make any promise regarding rulings from the US Supreme Court. YOU are who is You're expressing your hopes and dreams by stating the Supreme Court will not rule on Trump's challenges.

You don't have a speck of information with which to substantiate that. You are just blustering and blabbering what you hope will happen. You are BORING.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
40,704
Reaction score
7,915
Points
1,830
For it to be a 'senate hearing' it has to be called by the Senate or House. This wasn't. This was a press conference with members of the Senate and House in attendance. It was not sanctioned by the PA Senate or House, it wasn't convened by any PA Senate or House committee. Nor was it held at any state building. Nor was anyone sworn in.

It was a press conference at a hotel ballroom.

And again, if the 'evidence' was so damning, why didn't Trump's lawyers present it at any of their court hearings contesting the election?

Gulliani didn't even ARGUE that fraud had occured in court. You're being played.
You are just playing with words. You call it whatever you want to call it. I don't give a rat's ass what you call it. It was a hearing with many senators and representitives of the PA legislature.

That makes it very significant, especially when you consider that these are the people who select electors to the electoral college (not the court hacks). That's all that matters.

And please stop displaying your idiocy. I just told you twice (3rd time now) that in the hearing, Guiliani ARGUED that fraud had occured in court, and a dozen of his witnesses testified there about the fraud too. I watched them on TV (Newsmax) for over an hour. Are you well ?

Here they all are on video. Go ahead a WATCH It and go ahead and WATCH THEM argue that fraud had occured, and specifically where, when, how, and who. >>

 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top