If Trump were to run in 2024, a new poll shows he will easily win.

[protectionist]

Trump's own hand-picked Attorney General confirmed there was no widespread fraud.

Got a link ? Let's see it. I know liberals use words differently. You twist them to how you want them to be interpreted. That's why I never believe a word you say.

 

[protectionist]

Because you're not offering any proof to corroborate their claims. They could be Trump sycophants like you and lie through their teeth like you and make up complete bullshit.

You need proof, gramps; and clearly you have none. Clearly no one has any or courts would have heard it and accepted it.

You got the proof (and plenty more to come) and everybody here knows it. You wanna tell us what your definition of "proof" would be ?

Your little Hillary Clinton MO doesn't fly. You can't just "say it didnt happen. It'll be your word against theirs." No pup. Their words are sworn court testimony. Yours are hot air.

 

[Faun]

So you don't even know that the evidence was submitted, but the courts wouldn't/didn't look at it, because they all didn't want to bring politics into the courtroom. No ? Even THAT you don't know ? Or maybe you're just pretending again.

You 2 clowns aren't going anywhere with your baseless claims. I've got the goods, and the more I show it, you (and everybody else here) knows it.

That evidence was submitted?

Prove it.

Post a link to a court filing showing that evidence was included in the lawsuit...

 

[protectionist]

Because you're not offering any proof to corroborate their claims. They could be Trump sycophants like you and lie through their teeth like you and make up complete bullshit.

You need proof, gramps; and clearly you have none. Clearly no one has any or courts would have heard it and accepted it.

That has nothing to do with why they didn't examine the evidence. They couldn't conclude that there was no proof, when they didnt look at what was claimed to be the proof.

Tripped yourself up on that one, puppy. You need to be more careful.

 

[Faun]

Stupid clod. Sworn affidavits ARE proof. You think somebody with no axe to grind, is going to risk years of prison time, by committing perjury ? The only way they can be safe from that, is tell the TRUTH. It's as good as the words of a dying man.

LOL

No, they're not proof, gramps. You're demented. Anybody can say anything in an affidavit.

Remember her...?

She swore in an affidavit that she saw tens of thousands of ballots being scanned multiple times. That proved to be bullshit, i.e., NOT proof.

Remember him...?

He swore in an affidavit that ballots were being backdated to make them legal. That proved to be bullshit as he later admitted he didn't even write the affidavit he signed and he recanted his claims, i.e., NOT proof.

 

[Faun]

Got a link ? Let's see it. I know liberals use words differently. You twist them to how you want them to be interpreted. That's why I never believe a word you say.

LOLOL

No worries, you won't believe Trump's own Attorney General either when you hear him refute claims of fraud. Anyone who refutes your hallucinations merely becomes a member of your delusional conspiracy.

 

[Faun]

You got the proof (and plenty more to come) and everybody here knows it. You wanna tell us what your definition of "proof" would be ?

Your little Hillary Clinton MO doesn't fly. You can't just "say it didnt happen. It'll be your word against theirs." No pup. Their words are sworn court testimony. Yours are hot air.

The claims are yours, gramps.

As is the burden of proof.

 

[Faun]

That has nothing to do with why they didn't examine the evidence. They couldn't conclude that there was no proof, when they didnt look at what was claimed to be the proof.

Tripped yourself up on that one, puppy. You need to be more careful.

You're making shit up again. In cases that were dismissed due to lack of evidence or lack of merit, the court looked at the evidence. In those cases, the court determined the case could not proceed because the evidence presented to the court didn't support the claims made in the lawsuit.

 

[protectionist]

That evidence was submitted?

Prove it.

Post a link to a court filing showing that evidence was included in the lawsuit.

What a stupid post. Everybody knows evidence was submitted, and rejected without being examined. The Supreme court stopped the one from Texac AG Paxton for "lack of standing" which has nothing to do with merit. The court never looked at the evidence.

“The state of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the court said in a brief order shutting down the case.

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognisable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

That order says nothing at all about the merits of Mr Paxton’s voter fraud claims, which were broadly the same as Mr Trump’s

Some context is required here. When a plaintiff files a lawsuit – and this is not just true of election cases, by the way – they must convince the court that they have a right under the law to do so. The legal term for this is “standing”.

If the plaintiff does not have that right, the case fails at the first hurdle and everything else becomes irrelevant. That is what happened here.

Texas was trying to sue four other states – Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin – over their handling of mail-in ballots for the presidential election.

Under the US Constitution, however, each state gets to decide how it runs its own election. Texas might not like how, say, Pennsylvania chooses to do things, but legally it has no say on the matter. The only way to challenge Pennsylvania’s rules is from within Pennsylvania.

This works both ways. Democrats in California, for example, could not sue Texas for something like voter suppression. It’s none of their business.

So, Mr Paxton’s lawsuit did not get far enough for any of its claims to be considered. The Supreme Court ruled Texas had no standing to bring the case in the first place, and that was that.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-case-donald-trump-described-as-the-big-one-in-election-fight/news-story/96c65468751165608642ac78d8ffb3e4

 

[Faun]

What a stupid post. Everybody knows evidence was submitted, and rejected without being examined. The Supreme court stopped the one from Texac AG Paxton for "lack of standing" which has nothing to do with merit. The court never looked at the evidence.

“The state of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the court said in a brief order shutting down the case.

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognisable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

That order says nothing at all about the merits of Mr Paxton’s voter fraud claims, which were broadly the same as Mr Trump’s

Some context is required here. When a plaintiff files a lawsuit – and this is not just true of election cases, by the way – they must convince the court that they have a right under the law to do so. The legal term for this is “standing”.

If the plaintiff does not have that right, the case fails at the first hurdle and everything else becomes irrelevant. That is what happened here.

Texas was trying to sue four other states – Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin – over their handling of mail-in ballots for the presidential election.

Under the US Constitution, however, each state gets to decide how it runs its own election. Texas might not like how, say, Pennsylvania chooses to do things, but legally it has no say on the matter. The only way to challenge Pennsylvania’s rules is from within Pennsylvania.

This works both ways. Democrats in California, for example, could not sue Texas for something like voter suppression. It’s none of their business.

So, Mr Paxton’s lawsuit did not get far enough for any of its claims to be considered. The Supreme Court ruled Texas had no standing to bring the case in the first place, and that was that.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-case-donald-trump-described-as-the-big-one-in-election-fight/news-story/96c65468751165608642ac78d8ffb3e4

Dumbfuck, I'm talking about the claims of fraud you're posting.

Show a lawsuit which was based your claims was filed in court...

 

[protectionist]

You're making shit up again. In cases that were dismissed due to lack of evidence or lack of merit, the court looked at the evidence. In those cases, the court determined the case could not proceed because the evidence presented to the court didn't support the claims made in the lawsuit.

That's not why they were dismissed, except in some of the cases where lying Democrat judges pretended to look at the evidence, and then just threw the case out. In doing so, some of these judges made assinine remarks, like in the cases where Trump's lawyers submitted sworn affidavits that poll watchers were not allowed to watch the vote counting, the judge said the lawyers had not submitted evidence that poll watchers were not allowed to watch the vote counting.

Well, YES they did. That's exactly what they submitted, Some of these cases were a joke and the judges were not even trying to look impartial. Open, blatant bias.

Example : Judge Matthew Brann in Pennsylvania Supreme Court

There were two core allegations. First, that Republican observers had been prevented from properly watching the vote count. Second, that some voters (mostly in Democratic-leaning counties) had been given a chance to cure technical defects with their ballots, while others (mostly in Republican-leaning counties) had not.

So what does Brann come out and say ?

“None of these allegations claim that the Trump campaign’s watchers were treated differently than the Biden campaign’s watchers,” Judge Brann noted in his judgment, addressing the campaign’s first argument.

Huh ? That is EXACTLY what they alleged and claimed. And why should it matter if the Democrat poll watchers had been hindered ? (they werent) Even if poll watchers from both parties had been prevented from watching, this still should have invalidated the vote count process.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/donald-trump-says-judges-have-refused-to-look-at-the-evidence-of-voter-fraud-is-he-right/news-story/d4f1fd532cfa6e9ccebc45793f0f6ab3

 

[protectionist]

Dumbfuck, I'm talking about the claims of fraud you're posting.

Show a lawsuit which was based your claims was filed in court...

I just did, idiot. The US Supreme Court.

And Post # 1831 shows another one. What are you trying to pull ? Are you trying to convince readers here that evidence of fraud had never even been submitted to the courts ?

Now I've got some music work to attend to. I have major things in life besides this little forum. But before I go, here's some more proof that you never read the many PAGES of evidences that I submitted, and you dont know what you're talking about.

QUIZ # 1 on 2020 election fraud (many more to follow) >>

1. Who said >> "both of us were concerned that the violations of the secrecy of the ballot that we witnessed could be or were being used to manipulate which ballots were placed in the 'problem ballots' box,"

2. What did Phil Kline say ?

3. David Shestokas - who's he ? Did he question something ?

 

[otto105]

So you don't even know that the evidence was submitted, but the courts wouldn't/didn't look at it, because they all didn't want to bring politics into the courtroom. No ? Even THAT you don't know ? Or maybe you're just pretending again.

You 2 clowns aren't going anywhere with your baseless claims. I've got the goods, and the more I show it, you (and everybody else here) knows it.

We have 50-State certification, and you have drunks and false affidavits.

We have the court rulings finding no evidence of election fraud.

We have state reviews, independent reviews and all matter of reviews on our side.


You have nothing.

 

[otto105]

That's not why they were dismissed, except in some of the cases where lying Democrat judges pretended to look at the evidence, and then just threw the case out. In doing so, some of these judges made assinine remarks, like in the cases where Trump's lawyers submitted sworn affidavits that poll watchers were not allowed to watch the vote counting, the judge said the lawyers had not submitted evidence that poll watchers were not allowed to watch the vote counting.

Well, YES they did. That's exactly what they submitted, Some of these cases were a joke and the judges were not even trying to look impartial. Open, blatant bias.

Example : Judge Matthew Brann in Pennsylvania Supreme Court

There were two core allegations. First, that Republican observers had been prevented from properly watching the vote count. Second, that some voters (mostly in Democratic-leaning counties) had been given a chance to cure technical defects with their ballots, while others (mostly in Republican-leaning counties) had not.

So what does Brann come out and say ?

“None of these allegations claim that the Trump campaign’s watchers were treated differently than the Biden campaign’s watchers,” Judge Brann noted in his judgment, addressing the campaign’s first argument.

Huh ? That is EXACTLY what they alleged and claimed. And why should it matter if the Democrat poll watchers had been hindered ? (they werent) Even if poll watchers from both parties had been prevented from watching, this still should have invalidated the vote count process.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/donald-trump-says-judges-have-refused-to-look-at-the-evidence-of-voter-fraud-is-he-right/news-story/d4f1fd532cfa6e9ccebc45793f0f6ab3

Nothinburger for sale

 

[protectionist]

Nothinburger for sale

Just one silly voice wasted in the windm babbling bit stuff from 2 years ago, and scared stiff to talk about what's going on right now >>>

same with Faun. Hides out here to avoid the current events with screwball Biden.

Zone1 - Biden Race Policy Just Went Off the Charts

We always knew Biden was a full-fledged anti-white racist. He has shown it by decades of support for Affirmative Action discrimination. He recently made waves with it, in his atrocious "American Rescue Plan" (which ought to be renamed > ARP as long as you're not white). Thankfully, the courts...

www.usmessageboard.com

Is Shapiro Death Penalty Announcement a "Game Changer" ?

On Feb. 16, dramatic change for Pennsylvania. Gov. Josh Shapiro announced that he would ask the state legislature to abolish capital punishment. He promised not to sign any execution warrants as governor, and to grant a reprieve to any inmate whose execution already is scheduled. This is a...

www.usmessageboard.com

Zone1 - Liberals: You Claim Trump Is "Racist" ? How ? What ? When ?

OK , all you liberals who like to go around saying that Donald Trump is a racist, I have a question for you. Upon what do you base that statement ? Please state one thing that Trump has said or done within the last 10 years, that would give you that impression ? (because I don't have the...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[protectionist]

LOL

No, they're not proof, gramps. You're demented. Anybody can say anything in an affidavit.

Remember her...?

She swore in an affidavit that she saw tens of thousands of ballots being scanned multiple times. That proved to be bullshit, i.e., NOT proof.

Remember him...?

He swore in an affidavit that ballots were being backdated to make them legal. That proved to be bullshit as he later admitted he didn't even write the affidavit he signed and he recanted his claims, i.e., NOT proof.

"proved to be bullshit" Yeah ? who says so ? You ?

"he later admitted". Oh ? who says so ? You ?

 

[protectionist]

We have 50-State certification, and you have drunks and false affidavits.

We have the court rulings finding no evidence of election fraud.

We have state reviews, independent reviews and all matter of reviews on our side.


You have nothing.

You have nothing but false certifications

You have court rulings from openly biased Democrat judges, who didn't even look at the evidence. Why ? Because they knew it would keep Biden out of the White House.

That's OK. Soon Biden will be going from the White House to the Big House (or the nuthouse)

 

[otto105]

Just one silly voice wasted in the windm babbling bit stuff from 2 years ago, and scared stiff to talk about what's going on right now >>>

same with Faun. Hides out here to avoid the current events with screwball Biden.

Zone1 - Biden Race Policy Just Went Off the Charts

We always knew Biden was a full-fledged anti-white racist. He has shown it by decades of support for Affirmative Action discrimination. He recently made waves with it, in his atrocious "American Rescue Plan" (which ought to be renamed > ARP as long as you're not white). Thankfully, the courts...

www.usmessageboard.com

Is Shapiro Death Penalty Announcement a "Game Changer" ?

On Feb. 16, dramatic change for Pennsylvania. Gov. Josh Shapiro announced that he would ask the state legislature to abolish capital punishment. He promised not to sign any execution warrants as governor, and to grant a reprieve to any inmate whose execution already is scheduled. This is a...

www.usmessageboard.com

Zone1 - Liberals: You Claim Trump Is "Racist" ? How ? What ? When ?

OK , all you liberals who like to go around saying that Donald Trump is a racist, I have a question for you. Upon what do you base that statement ? Please state one thing that Trump has said or done within the last 10 years, that would give you that impression ? (because I don't have the...

www.usmessageboard.com

You mean another solid unemployment claims number this week.

Yeah, let's talk about that.

The election fraud dick waving is old.

 

[otto105]

You have nothing but false certifications

You have court rulings from openly biased Democrat judges, who didn't even look at the evidence. Why ? Because they knew it would keep Biden out of the White House.

That's OK. Soon Biden will be going from the White House to the Big House (or the nuthouse)

Nope, completely legal State Certifications by both red and blue states.

And a President Biden.

All, while you keep pissing your pants.

 

[protectionist]

The election fraud dick waving is old.

It's about time you got around to that >>

Zone1 - Liberals: You Claim Trump Is "Racist" ? How ? What ? When ?

OK , all you liberals who like to go around saying that Donald Trump is a racist, I have a question for you. Upon what do you base that statement ? Please state one thing that Trump has said or done within the last 10 years, that would give you that impression ? (because I don't have the...

www.usmessageboard.com

Zone1 - Biden Race Policy Just Went Off the Charts

We always knew Biden was a full-fledged anti-white racist. He has shown it by decades of support for Affirmative Action discrimination. He recently made waves with it, in his atrocious "American Rescue Plan" (which ought to be renamed > ARP as long as you're not white). Thankfully, the courts...

www.usmessageboard.com

Is Shapiro Death Penalty Announcement a "Game Changer" ?

On Feb. 16, dramatic change for Pennsylvania. Gov. Josh Shapiro announced that he would ask the state legislature to abolish capital punishment. He promised not to sign any execution warrants as governor, and to grant a reprieve to any inmate whose execution already is scheduled. This is a...

www.usmessageboard.com