BIDEN SHOULD CONCEDE!!! Lt. Gen. McInerney

[protectionist]

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.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just dismissed a GOP bid to overturn the election

Trump’s terrible week in court continues with another Pennsylvania ruling.

www.vox.com

Federal appeals court firmly rejects a Trump election lawsuit: "Calling an election unfair does not make it so"

The Trump campaign can’t stop losing election lawsuits.

www.vox.com

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]

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.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just dismissed a GOP bid to overturn the election

Trump’s terrible week in court continues with another Pennsylvania ruling.

www.vox.com

Federal appeals court firmly rejects a Trump election lawsuit: "Calling an election unfair does not make it so"

The Trump campaign can’t stop losing election lawsuits.

www.vox.com

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:

The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18.

You're being played, Protectionist.

 

[protectionist]

Will we, though? Your promises of 'just you wait and see!' haven't amounted to much. Trump's legal failures are legend. He just had his ass handed to him twice in Pennsylvia alone, once from a life long republic, the other from his own appointee.
"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here"

And before that, this ruling last week.

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

But this time its different, huh? This time it won't be like ALL the other failures because....

....why?

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.

 

[protectionist]

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

The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18.

You're being played, Protectionist.

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]

Will we, though? Your promises of 'just you wait and see!' haven't amounted to much. Trump's legal failures are legend. He just had his ass handed to him twice in Pennsylvia alone, once from a life long republic, the other from his own appointee.
"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here"

And before that, this ruling last week.

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

But this time its different, huh? This time it won't be like ALL the other failures because....

....why?

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]

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

The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18.

You're being played, Protectionist.

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]

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]

Stop watching CNN.

The c stands for CIA.

Looks not very promising for Biden.

Mods are being ordered to censor anything about the election fraud.
This is an information WAR,..

Censorship is the final installment of a fascist state.

lol

USMB is a ‘state.’

Too funny.

 

[Skylar]

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]

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.

 

[Angelo]

lol

USMB is a ‘state.’

Too funny.

and true, not out of context

 

[Skylar]

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]

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, 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]

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]

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]

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, 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]

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.

 

[Skylar]

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]

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]

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. >>