Indeed. Let's see how it plays out in court, where both ends of the story have a chance to make their case and shoot down the other one.
Instead of blindly believing "our" side like obedient sheep.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rudy is presenting his evidence, legal arguments to the people.
- Thread starter Chuz Life
- Start date
Instead of blindly believing "our" side like obedient sheep.
DrLove
Diamond Member
I'm watching Rudy the Clown - He's HILARIOUS!!
Hundreds of thousands -
Nay MILLIONS of fraudulent ballots arrived on food trucks and space ships!!
Soros and Dominion done it!!
Hundreds of thousands -
Nay MILLIONS of fraudulent ballots arrived on food trucks and space ships!!
Soros and Dominion done it!!
- Thread starter
- #24
It's not really that. We just recognize sore-loser excuse-making when we see it. You fuckers don't care about the "sanctity of the vote". You're just grasping at straws. It's typical Trump - attack what you don't like, think up legal excuses later.
Trump campaign holds news conference in DC
video.foxnews.com
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
Trump lost -> therefore fraud -> make up excuses. Yawn.
Don't go away angry. Just go away.
Your logic above is destroyed by an honest answer to this one simple question.
"If Biden (or anyone else) is declared the winner, when it is provable that they benefited by fraudulent counts or votes. . . . Are they legitimately the winner?"
Yes or no.
Not if you've found enough fraudulent votes to change the outcome. But you're not going to do that. Trump's team isn't even really trying to do that. Trump is merely trying to stir up his idiot supporters so they'll back him when he tries to override the outcome.
As presented by Rudy in the video link.
They are in fact talking about numbers (and corruption) significant enough to affect the outcome.
Do you or do you not want our elections to be legitimate?
Back in the day, circa 9/11 and before, he seemed to have something to offer. Now he's just "whacky uncle Rudy".Wow. Rudy is nuts, isn't he?
Trump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
Cause it is alleged.... They have gone to court a number of times and been rejected... That is how the system works...
Rudy and Trump have no proof so they are just undermining democracy...
Lets be clear this is a slam dunk election... Biden might have not won by a landslide but it was a very clear win...
Massive Election Fraud is very hard to get away without leaving evidence... There is no evidence...
Trump's definition of "legitimate" is, "I win" - and if he doesn't win, it's clearly because the election was illegitimate. So, no, I don't care about your twisted definition of "legitimate".Do you or do you not want our elections to be legitimate?
- Thread starter
- #28
Trump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
Cause it is alleged.... They have gone to court a number of times and been rejected... That is how the system works...
Rudy and Trump have no proof so they are just undermining democracy...
Lets be clear this is a slam dunk election... Biden might have not won by a landslide but it was a very clear win...
Massive Election Fraud is very hard to get away without leaving evidence... There is no evidence...
Give me a fucking example of what you tardz will accept as evidence. Just one fucking example.
- Thread starter
- #29
Trump's definition of "legitimate" is, "I win" - and if he doesn't win, it's clearly because the election was illegitimate. So, no, I don't care about your twisted definition of "legitimate".Do you or do you not want our elections to be legitimate?
If Trump wins with fraudulent votes.
Would that election be "legitimate" in your view?
- Mar 1, 2008
- 49,914
- 17,306
- 2,250
Trump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
All allegations of fraud have been investigated or are being investigated. To date, none are substantiated.
What I find odd is how this wasn't an issue for Republicans before.
Clearly not, not even possible as some cases have not even been filed yet.
So it's clear that you (even as a mod) are doing your part to "fix" the election (and discussions) towards a Biden win, yourself.
Andrew C. McCarthy
Wed, November 18, 2020, 4:54 PM CST
Realistically speaking, the legal battle over the 2020 election is over. As I explained over the weekend, from President Trump’s perspective, that battle is beset by a fatal mismatch between (a) what his campaign is in a position to allege and prove, and (b) the remedy — i.e., the potential number of votes that could swing from Biden to Trump. That problem was already apparent last week, when the campaign filed its original complaint in the Williamsport federal court. It became insurmountable Sunday, when the campaign amended its complaint, stripping out the main fraud claims.
What is left of the lawsuit cannot conceivably change the result in Pennsylvania. For that reason, the court will probably not even rule on it — even if we assume for argument’s sake that the campaign and its two co-plaintiffs (voters residing in the Commonwealth) have standing to sue, which is doubtful. And, to repeat what I laid out over the weekend, without reversing the election result in Pennsylvania, the president has no chance to reverse the nationwide result (which would minimally require winning Pennsylvania plus two other states).
To some extent, the campaign has gotten a bad rap for dropping its main counts, which alleged that there were gross improprieties, amounting to fraud, in Pennsylvania’s tabulation of the vote. Abandoning these counts seemed inexplicable Sunday, given that the campaign was simultaneously alleging massive fraud on television.
In fact, there is an explanation. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling that destroys the viability of those counts (and probably the remaining counts, too — I’ll come to that). In scrambling to respond to that ruling — which is binding on the federal district court where the campaign’s lawsuit is filed — the campaign shed the fraud-related counts. The lawyers should not be faulted for doing that. The fault lies in pressing ahead with a narrower suit that could not change the outcome of the race in Pennsylvania, even in the unlikely event that the campaign prevailed.
To cut to the chase, all that remains of the Trump campaign’s complaint is the claim that voters in pro-Trump counties were denied equal protection of law because mail-in voters in pro-Biden counties — mainly Philadelphia and Allegheny counties (Pittsburgh is in the latter) — were invited by election boards to cure defects in their ballots. Even if there were arguably merit to this claim (doubtful), it may only involve a few hundred votes, and certainly not more than a few thousand. That’s not enough. By current count, presumptive president-elect Biden leads President Trump by 83,000 votes. Since I’ve already made this point several times (see, e.g., here and here), perhaps it’s best to quote what the Third Circuit said just last Friday (my italics): For a party
www.yahoo.com
Wed, November 18, 2020, 4:54 PM CST
Realistically speaking, the legal battle over the 2020 election is over. As I explained over the weekend, from President Trump’s perspective, that battle is beset by a fatal mismatch between (a) what his campaign is in a position to allege and prove, and (b) the remedy — i.e., the potential number of votes that could swing from Biden to Trump. That problem was already apparent last week, when the campaign filed its original complaint in the Williamsport federal court. It became insurmountable Sunday, when the campaign amended its complaint, stripping out the main fraud claims.
What is left of the lawsuit cannot conceivably change the result in Pennsylvania. For that reason, the court will probably not even rule on it — even if we assume for argument’s sake that the campaign and its two co-plaintiffs (voters residing in the Commonwealth) have standing to sue, which is doubtful. And, to repeat what I laid out over the weekend, without reversing the election result in Pennsylvania, the president has no chance to reverse the nationwide result (which would minimally require winning Pennsylvania plus two other states).
To some extent, the campaign has gotten a bad rap for dropping its main counts, which alleged that there were gross improprieties, amounting to fraud, in Pennsylvania’s tabulation of the vote. Abandoning these counts seemed inexplicable Sunday, given that the campaign was simultaneously alleging massive fraud on television.
In fact, there is an explanation. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling that destroys the viability of those counts (and probably the remaining counts, too — I’ll come to that). In scrambling to respond to that ruling — which is binding on the federal district court where the campaign’s lawsuit is filed — the campaign shed the fraud-related counts. The lawyers should not be faulted for doing that. The fault lies in pressing ahead with a narrower suit that could not change the outcome of the race in Pennsylvania, even in the unlikely event that the campaign prevailed.
To cut to the chase, all that remains of the Trump campaign’s complaint is the claim that voters in pro-Trump counties were denied equal protection of law because mail-in voters in pro-Biden counties — mainly Philadelphia and Allegheny counties (Pittsburgh is in the latter) — were invited by election boards to cure defects in their ballots. Even if there were arguably merit to this claim (doubtful), it may only involve a few hundred votes, and certainly not more than a few thousand. That’s not enough. By current count, presumptive president-elect Biden leads President Trump by 83,000 votes. Since I’ve already made this point several times (see, e.g., here and here), perhaps it’s best to quote what the Third Circuit said just last Friday (my italics): For a party
to have standing to enjoin the counting of ballots . . . such votes would have to be sufficient in number to change the outcome of the election. . . . See, e.g., Sibley v. Alexander (“Even if the Court granted the requested relief, plaintiff would still fail to satisfy the redressability element of standing because enjoining defendants from casting the votes . . . would not change the outcome of the election”).
Checkmate in Pennsylvania for the Trump Campaign
Realistically speaking, the legal battle over the 2020 election is over. As I explained over the weekend, from President Trump’s perspective, that battle is beset by a fatal mismatch between (a) what his campaign is in a position to allege and prove, and (b) the remedy -- i.e., the potential...
Shelzin
Equal Opportunity Asshole
- Jul 15, 2012
- 7,610
- 4,171
- 928
- Banned
- #32
Agreed. I still hope we get this... Not just for the United States... But for any and every country. I don't want the US meddling in the democratic process of other countries either. IF that is indeed the case.Indeed. Let's see how it plays out in court, where both ends of the story have a chance to make their case and shoot down the other one.But I'm thinking if this stuff is true... Then we've been meddling in other countries elections. Wouldn't you like to prove that otherwise?
Instead of blindly believing "our" side like obedient sheep.
E-voting without fraud
David Bismark demos a new system for voting that contains a simple, verifiable way to prevent fraud and miscounting -- while keeping each person's vote secret.
Persistence Of Memory
Diamond Member
- Oct 1, 2019
- 5,128
- 4,220
- 1,940
My God. All 50 states were defrauded. All the senate elections. House elections...Local electionsTrump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
He was able to win last time with fraudulent votes and it didn't bother yous.Trump's definition of "legitimate" is, "I win" - and if he doesn't win, it's clearly because the election was illegitimate. So, no, I don't care about your twisted definition of "legitimate".Do you or do you not want our elections to be legitimate?
If Trump wins with fraudulent votes.
Would that election be "legitimate" in your view?
jbrownson0831
Diamond Member
- Jul 27, 2020
- 22,737
- 20,138
- 2,288
We aren't poor yet, Sleepy Joe hasn't taken over.If you knew anything about evidence, you’d know that Rudy and his fellow hacks don’t have any.Trump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
poor trump cultists
Right down to the election of the dog catcher they all cheated!~My God. All 50 states were defrauded. All the senate elections. House elections...Local electionsTrump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
Again, we're working on different definitions of legitimate. Like Trump, you start with the conclusion and work backwards: "Trump lost, so the election must have been illegitimate, let's dig up excuses that support that conclusion".Trump's definition of "legitimate" is, "I win" - and if he doesn't win, it's clearly because the election was illegitimate. So, no, I don't care about your twisted definition of "legitimate".Do you or do you not want our elections to be legitimate?
If Trump wins with fraudulent votes.
Would that election be "legitimate" in your view?
It's painfully transparent. You're in denial. Get over it.
jbrownson0831
Diamond Member
- Jul 27, 2020
- 22,737
- 20,138
- 2,288
There was no coronahoax code for the libbers to abuse with mailins before.Trump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
All allegations of fraud have been investigated or are being investigated. To date, none are substantiated.
What I find odd is how this wasn't an issue for Republicans before.
- Thread starter
- #40
My God. All 50 states were defrauded. All the senate elections. House elections...Local electionsTrump campaign holds news conference in DC
Why can not all Americans agee that we can not have one person one vote without first addressing ALL of the situations where there is alleged fraud?
If you want to have an independent determined way to restore integrity to our elections and then to have a revote.
I'll go along with you on that.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 150
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 310
- Replies
- 133
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 401
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 148
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 37
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 41K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 24
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 104K
- Replies
- 16K
- Views
- 276K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8032
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-