How the November Election was probably stolen...without a trace

[DGS49]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

 

[Mac1958]

"Blinded". Ironic.

 

[Billy000]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

Not stolen. You’re all just pathetic sore losers. That kind of immaturity and childishness goes with being republican.

 

[sealybobo]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

I can show you more evidence republicans stole 2000. And republicans tried to steal this years election with many of the same tactics including in 2000 republicans started a riot and stopped the Florida recount.

Only this time trump lost five states. It was too big to rig.

 

[d0gbreath]

A fraud case that big would've attracted better lawyers than Sidney and Rudy.

 

[EvMetro]

"Blinded". Ironic.

Irony. You didn't read the article, but you comment on the blindness comment.

 

[EvMetro]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

I can show you more evidence republicans stole 2000. And republicans tried to steal this years election with many of the same tactics including in 2000 republicans started a riot and stopped the Florida recount.

Only this time trump lost five states. It was too big to rig.

This thread is not about 2000 election.

 

[Mac1958]

"Blinded". Ironic.

Irony. You didn't read the article, but you comment on the blindness comment.

I read his post, snowflake.

Tough shit.

 

[sealybobo]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

I can show you more evidence republicans stole 2000. And republicans tried to steal this years election with many of the same tactics including in 2000 republicans started a riot and stopped the Florida recount.

Only this time trump lost five states. It was too big to rig.

This thread is not about 2000 election.

It didn’t happen this time. In fact trump Rudy and mr pillow are all being sued. Now they get to tell the jury what evidence they had. You’ll see. They had none.

 

[BrokeLoser]

"Blinded". Ironic.

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

Not stolen. You’re all just pathetic sore losers. That kind of immaturity and childishness goes with being republican.

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

I can show you more evidence republicans stole 2000. And republicans tried to steal this years election with many of the same tactics including in 2000 republicans started a riot and stopped the Florida recount.

Only this time trump lost five states. It was too big to rig.

A fraud case that big would've attracted better lawyers than Sidney and Rudy.

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

You're a special kind of stupid.

Hmmm...weird.
Lots of LefTard participation yet no rational response or logical refutation.
More of the filthy same.

 

[Lastamender]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

"Probably" ? The election was stolen.

 

[JLW]

Give it a friggin rest OP. You all just come across as pathetic losers.

 

[sealybobo]

A fraud case that big would've attracted better lawyers than Sidney and Rudy.

Some say this coup might have had a better chance of being pulled off if the lawyers were slicker. So I reminds me of when trump said he would surround himself with the best and brightest.

And it’s not just Rudy and a couple other cooky loyers. Trump has had falling outs with hundreds of people in four years. If he only surrounds himself with the best why all the falling outs and firings?

 

[sealybobo]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

"Probably" ? The election was stolen.

Probably is a way to say anything you want. It’s like when rush used to say , “what if”. Then he makes up whatever premise he wants and republicans are brainwashed idiots.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

The courts acted for appearances only in what they believed was best for the country, because the Demonicrats are evil and they caved into they and what had occurred. The fix was in. Imagine the courts clearly stating fuck, the Democrats cheated this time, oh boy, all else equal the Democrat party is dead. Imagine how that would impact the world. Sure it would be the right thing to do, the right thing is often the hardest and the courts didn't go there.

Just mail-in ballots alone could have been enough. First USPS can't be trusted to do anything, I've seen first hand theft. Most of all the Deomincrats know full well how the laziest among us lean left, so they used COVID as an excuse. Watch out, if the Demonicrats have their way they'll invite all kinds of loopholes, such as same day on-demand registration, and vote at the click of the smart phone that owns you.

And it's one thing to know the Demonicrats cheated, another to prove it. That's how the world works, and when you're running shit the shit's run how you want to run it.....Demonicrats are evil, they're only for their elite, the rest is trickery.

 

[d0gbreath]

Some say this coup might have had a better chance of being pulled off if the lawyers were slicker. So I reminds me of when trump said he would surround himself with the best and brightest.

And it’s not just Rudy and a couple other cooky loyers. Trump has had falling outs with hundreds of people in four years. If he only surrounds himself with the best why all the falling outs and firings?

Psychopaths seem wonderful from a distance. Hanging around one on a regular basis will cause you to stop liking them.

 

[sealybobo]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

"Probably" ? The election was stolen.

That claim that the election was rigged has already been debunked. You should start a thread if you’re serious. You won’t be the first but they usually only last a couple pages. No evidence. So probably is a way to wonder aloud without evidence. To ponder. Republicans do this a lot.

 

[Rogue AI]

The problem wasn't Trump's claims. The problem was the resolutions. Courts had no interest in tossing out any legitimate votes along with any illegitimate votes. What Trump should have sued for was clarification and verification of votes in any state in which the rules were changed or election laws violated by officials.

 

[sealybobo]

Some say this coup might have had a better chance of being pulled off if the lawyers were slicker. So I reminds me of when trump said he would surround himself with the best and brightest.

And it’s not just Rudy and a couple other cooky loyers. Trump has had falling outs with hundreds of people in four years. If he only surrounds himself with the best why all the falling outs and firings?

Psychopaths seem wonderful from a distance. Hanging around one on a regular basis will cause you to stop liking them.

So a lot of these guys who like trump and go to work for him quickly realize he’s a mad man and they run. Or get fired if they push back. Books will be written.

 

[Lastamender]

Courts Repeatedly Ignored Merits Of Trump’s Election Claims

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen.

thefederalist.com

The linked article is quite detailed and assumes that the reader has both a three-digit IQ and an attention span greater than that of a common housefly, but it outlines and clearly explains the phoniness of the "no evidence" and "80 courts have spoken" Narratives about this past Presidential election.

There are ultimately three or four different lines of legitimate inquiry - all involving apparent election wrongdoing - in which various courts chose, either through cowardice (USSC) or political expediency (PA Supreme Court), to reject cases and possible serious inquiries into activities that very easily could have reversed the electoral results in enough states to shift the ultimate result to President Trump.

The main question quickly shifts from "why is 40% of the electorate convinced that the election was fixed?" to "Why is there not an armed rebellion over this electoral travesty?"

I don't expect the Leftists here to read this; they are blinded by whatever-it-is, but the facts are what they are, and this election was stolen. Sorry.

"Probably" ? The election was stolen.

Probably is a way to say anything you want. It’s like when rush used to say , “what if”. Then he makes up whatever premise he wants and republicans are brainwashed idiots.

The election was stolen. Period.