We know Lefties hate Russian interference, how about Big Tech / Social Media election interference..are you okay with that?

[Indeependent]

I love all the butthurt after 4 years of being obnoxious about everything.

Being pro-US is obnoxious?

No, Trump has been obnoxious about pretty much everything the last 4 years.

Successful is the word you look for.

Yes, some success, and I agreed with some of his policies, but he was just way too obnoxious as a person, otherwise he might have had a second term.

Everyone always knew who they were voting for and the current election results are still up in the air.

Trump lost, and he knows it. Claimed fraud again yesterday but with no proof, just fartsmoke.

The "victories" are statistically impossible.
Even in the Blueist areas in NYS, no one party gets over 95% of the vote; it just never happens.

Except no one has real proof of that.

The "victories" are impossible.

Except nobody has any real proof, just a lot of fartsmoke and butthurt.

Just like GW's Housing Bubble...
No evidence but it happened.

Plenty of evidence for the housing bubble. For election fraud, nothing concrete so far.

See Post #42.
SCOTUS will decide.

Just cuz Trump stacked SCOTUS in his favour, doesn't mean that they'll support any nonsense whatsoever. So far, there's been NO solid evidence. And even you know that.

You made me think about the concept of evidence and realized that 99% of cases where a verdict is agreed is due to rather weak links between the evidence that infers that something occurred and the evidence, usually lacking, that a particular person or group committed the act that resulted in a trial.

The old adage of Beyond The Shadow Of a Doubt does not apply in the real world...
The Columbo, or CSI, effect has influenced people to believe that there must be solid evidence to convince a jury or jurist.
This is, in reality not the legal threshold.
The threshold is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
93+% of law suits are settled out of court because no one wants to spend the money, even when the claimant will eventually win because the expense is not worth the time and money.

If you watch real life criminal shows that drag you through the actual cases that result in life imprisonment or the death penalty, 99+% of them do not have solid evidence to back up the penalty...
The Jury and Jurist decide upon the outcome via the legal mechanism of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The events and results of Election night go way beyond the threshold of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Except that no one ever shows any solid proof. What y'all waiting for to present some?

I've seen solid proof.
You haven't because, like myself, you've been trained by movies and TV shows to think you have to see someone actually walking up to the ballot machine and manipulating the ballot.
I used to think like you until I took several law classes and learned that's not the way the legal system works.

 

[Norman]

I love all the butthurt after 4 years of being obnoxious about everything.

Being pro-US is obnoxious?

No, Trump has been obnoxious about pretty much everything the last 4 years.

Successful is the word you look for.

Yes, some success, and I agreed with some of his policies, but he was just way too obnoxious as a person, otherwise he might have had a second term.

Everyone always knew who they were voting for and the current election results are still up in the air.

Trump lost, and he knows it. Claimed fraud again yesterday but with no proof, just fartsmoke.

The "victories" are statistically impossible.
Even in the Blueist areas in NYS, no one party gets over 95% of the vote; it just never happens.

Except no one has real proof of that.

The "victories" are impossible.

Except nobody has any real proof, just a lot of fartsmoke and butthurt.

Just like GW's Housing Bubble...
No evidence but it happened.

Plenty of evidence for the housing bubble. For election fraud, nothing concrete so far.

See Post #42.
SCOTUS will decide.

Just cuz Trump stacked SCOTUS in his favour, doesn't mean that they'll support any nonsense whatsoever. So far, there's been NO solid evidence. And even you know that.

You made me think about the concept of evidence and realized that 99% of cases where a verdict is agreed is due to rather weak links between the evidence that infers that something occurred and the evidence, usually lacking, that a particular person or group committed the act that resulted in a trial.

The old adage of Beyond The Shadow Of a Doubt does not apply in the real world...
The Columbo, or CSI, effect has influenced people to believe that there must be solid evidence to convince a jury or jurist.
This is, in reality not the legal threshold.
The threshold is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
93+% of law suits are settled out of court because no one wants to spend the money, even when the claimant will eventually win because the expense is not worth the time and money.

If you watch real life criminal shows that drag you through the actual cases that result in life imprisonment or the death penalty, 99+% of them do not have solid evidence to back up the penalty...
The Jury and Jurist decide upon the outcome via the legal mechanism of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The events and results of Election night go way beyond the threshold of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Except that no one ever shows any solid proof. What y'all waiting for to present some?

Back to the "no evidence", after mountains of evidence presented.

Then why has everything been thrown out of court, even by judges that Trump appointed.

Number 1...These judges, unlike the SCOTUS, do not have lifetime jobs.
Number 2...They are scared shitless. I personally would not want to need Secret Service agent surrounding me for the rest of my life.
Judges, by the way, are part of the political machine and attend Party meetings.
They are told how to judge cases and which cases to put at the bottom of the docket.
Keep in mind that judges also need to pay bills and can't afford to lose their jobs.

I've seen shit you wouldn't believe and it's depressing, regardless of party affiliation.

"In Pennsylvania, the judiciary is chosen through partisan elections. Partisan elections involve judges political party to be listed on the ballot. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not always elected judges through this process."

They are electing activists, not judges.

 

[Indeependent]

I love all the butthurt after 4 years of being obnoxious about everything.

Being pro-US is obnoxious?

No, Trump has been obnoxious about pretty much everything the last 4 years.

Successful is the word you look for.

Yes, some success, and I agreed with some of his policies, but he was just way too obnoxious as a person, otherwise he might have had a second term.

Everyone always knew who they were voting for and the current election results are still up in the air.

Trump lost, and he knows it. Claimed fraud again yesterday but with no proof, just fartsmoke.

The "victories" are statistically impossible.
Even in the Blueist areas in NYS, no one party gets over 95% of the vote; it just never happens.

Except no one has real proof of that.

The "victories" are impossible.

Except nobody has any real proof, just a lot of fartsmoke and butthurt.

Just like GW's Housing Bubble...
No evidence but it happened.

Plenty of evidence for the housing bubble. For election fraud, nothing concrete so far.

See Post #42.
SCOTUS will decide.

Just cuz Trump stacked SCOTUS in his favour, doesn't mean that they'll support any nonsense whatsoever. So far, there's been NO solid evidence. And even you know that.

You made me think about the concept of evidence and realized that 99% of cases where a verdict is agreed is due to rather weak links between the evidence that infers that something occurred and the evidence, usually lacking, that a particular person or group committed the act that resulted in a trial.

The old adage of Beyond The Shadow Of a Doubt does not apply in the real world...
The Columbo, or CSI, effect has influenced people to believe that there must be solid evidence to convince a jury or jurist.
This is, in reality not the legal threshold.
The threshold is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
93+% of law suits are settled out of court because no one wants to spend the money, even when the claimant will eventually win because the expense is not worth the time and money.

If you watch real life criminal shows that drag you through the actual cases that result in life imprisonment or the death penalty, 99+% of them do not have solid evidence to back up the penalty...
The Jury and Jurist decide upon the outcome via the legal mechanism of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The events and results of Election night go way beyond the threshold of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Except that no one ever shows any solid proof. What y'all waiting for to present some?

Back to the "no evidence", after mountains of evidence presented.

Then why has everything been thrown out of court, even by judges that Trump appointed.

Number 1...These judges, unlike the SCOTUS, do not have lifetime jobs.
Number 2...They are scared shitless. I personally would not want to need Secret Service agent surrounding me for the rest of my life.
Judges, by the way, are part of the political machine and attend Party meetings.
They are told how to judge cases and which cases to put at the bottom of the docket.
Keep in mind that judges also need to pay bills and can't afford to lose their jobs.

I've seen shit you wouldn't believe and it's depressing, regardless of party affiliation.

"In Pennsylvania, the judiciary is chosen through partisan elections. Partisan elections involve judges political party to be listed on the ballot. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not always elected judges through this process."

They are electing activists, not judges.

Absolute BULLSEYE!

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers have nothing but excuses.

 

[Indeependent]

Right wingers have nothing but excuses.

LWers...
50 years of welfare and political correctness and social failure.
I need concrete proof that either ideology works and you have none.

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers have nothing but excuses.

LWers...
50 years of welfare and political correctness and social failure.
I need concrete proof that either ideology works and you have none.

lol. The proof is right wingers have no fine capital solutions either.

According to some on the right, we have the richest Poor on the planet.

And, we no longer have right wing laws against being Poor such as vagrancy.

 

[Indeependent]

Right wingers have nothing but excuses.

LWers...
50 years of welfare and political correctness and social failure.
I need concrete proof that either ideology works and you have none.

lol. The proof is right wingers have no fine capital solutions either.

According to some on the right, we have the richest Poor on the planet.

And, we no longer have right wing laws against being Poor such as vagrancy.

lol. The proof is right wingers have no fine capital solutions either.

Thanks for being somewhat honest.

Trump's campaign was based on the fact that Rs suck but you had your head up your ass simply because he ran as an R.

 

[Taz]

I love all the butthurt after 4 years of being obnoxious about everything.

Being pro-US is obnoxious?

No, Trump has been obnoxious about pretty much everything the last 4 years.

Successful is the word you look for.

Yes, some success, and I agreed with some of his policies, but he was just way too obnoxious as a person, otherwise he might have had a second term.

Everyone always knew who they were voting for and the current election results are still up in the air.

Trump lost, and he knows it. Claimed fraud again yesterday but with no proof, just fartsmoke.

The "victories" are statistically impossible.
Even in the Blueist areas in NYS, no one party gets over 95% of the vote; it just never happens.

Except no one has real proof of that.

The "victories" are impossible.

Except nobody has any real proof, just a lot of fartsmoke and butthurt.

Just like GW's Housing Bubble...
No evidence but it happened.

Plenty of evidence for the housing bubble. For election fraud, nothing concrete so far.

See Post #42.
SCOTUS will decide.

Just cuz Trump stacked SCOTUS in his favour, doesn't mean that they'll support any nonsense whatsoever. So far, there's been NO solid evidence. And even you know that.

You made me think about the concept of evidence and realized that 99% of cases where a verdict is agreed is due to rather weak links between the evidence that infers that something occurred and the evidence, usually lacking, that a particular person or group committed the act that resulted in a trial.

The old adage of Beyond The Shadow Of a Doubt does not apply in the real world...
The Columbo, or CSI, effect has influenced people to believe that there must be solid evidence to convince a jury or jurist.
This is, in reality not the legal threshold.
The threshold is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
93+% of law suits are settled out of court because no one wants to spend the money, even when the claimant will eventually win because the expense is not worth the time and money.

If you watch real life criminal shows that drag you through the actual cases that result in life imprisonment or the death penalty, 99+% of them do not have solid evidence to back up the penalty...
The Jury and Jurist decide upon the outcome via the legal mechanism of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The events and results of Election night go way beyond the threshold of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Except that no one ever shows any solid proof. What y'all waiting for to present some?

Back to the "no evidence", after mountains of evidence presented.

Then why has everything been thrown out of court, even by judges that Trump appointed.

Number 1...These judges, unlike the SCOTUS, do not have lifetime jobs.
Number 2...They are scared shitless. I personally would not want to need Secret Service agent surrounding me for the rest of my life.
Judges, by the way, are part of the political machine and attend Party meetings.
They are told how to judge cases and which cases to put at the bottom of the docket.
Keep in mind that judges also need to pay bills and can't afford to lose their jobs.

I've seen shit you wouldn't believe and it's depressing, regardless of party affiliation.

So basically, you have nothing, just innuendos...

 

[Taz]

I love all the butthurt after 4 years of being obnoxious about everything.

Being pro-US is obnoxious?

No, Trump has been obnoxious about pretty much everything the last 4 years.

Successful is the word you look for.

Yes, some success, and I agreed with some of his policies, but he was just way too obnoxious as a person, otherwise he might have had a second term.

Everyone always knew who they were voting for and the current election results are still up in the air.

Trump lost, and he knows it. Claimed fraud again yesterday but with no proof, just fartsmoke.

The "victories" are statistically impossible.
Even in the Blueist areas in NYS, no one party gets over 95% of the vote; it just never happens.

Except no one has real proof of that.

The "victories" are impossible.

Except nobody has any real proof, just a lot of fartsmoke and butthurt.

Just like GW's Housing Bubble...
No evidence but it happened.

Plenty of evidence for the housing bubble. For election fraud, nothing concrete so far.

See Post #42.
SCOTUS will decide.

Just cuz Trump stacked SCOTUS in his favour, doesn't mean that they'll support any nonsense whatsoever. So far, there's been NO solid evidence. And even you know that.

You made me think about the concept of evidence and realized that 99% of cases where a verdict is agreed is due to rather weak links between the evidence that infers that something occurred and the evidence, usually lacking, that a particular person or group committed the act that resulted in a trial.

The old adage of Beyond The Shadow Of a Doubt does not apply in the real world...
The Columbo, or CSI, effect has influenced people to believe that there must be solid evidence to convince a jury or jurist.
This is, in reality not the legal threshold.
The threshold is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
93+% of law suits are settled out of court because no one wants to spend the money, even when the claimant will eventually win because the expense is not worth the time and money.

If you watch real life criminal shows that drag you through the actual cases that result in life imprisonment or the death penalty, 99+% of them do not have solid evidence to back up the penalty...
The Jury and Jurist decide upon the outcome via the legal mechanism of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The events and results of Election night go way beyond the threshold of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Except that no one ever shows any solid proof. What y'all waiting for to present some?

I've seen solid proof.
You haven't because, like myself, you've been trained by movies and TV shows to think you have to see someone actually walking up to the ballot machine and manipulating the ballot.
I used to think like you until I took several law classes and learned that's not the way the legal system works.

Again, you show no proof of any kind.

 

[Indeependent]

I love all the butthurt after 4 years of being obnoxious about everything.

Being pro-US is obnoxious?

No, Trump has been obnoxious about pretty much everything the last 4 years.

Successful is the word you look for.

Yes, some success, and I agreed with some of his policies, but he was just way too obnoxious as a person, otherwise he might have had a second term.

Everyone always knew who they were voting for and the current election results are still up in the air.

Trump lost, and he knows it. Claimed fraud again yesterday but with no proof, just fartsmoke.

The "victories" are statistically impossible.
Even in the Blueist areas in NYS, no one party gets over 95% of the vote; it just never happens.

Except no one has real proof of that.

The "victories" are impossible.

Except nobody has any real proof, just a lot of fartsmoke and butthurt.

Just like GW's Housing Bubble...
No evidence but it happened.

Plenty of evidence for the housing bubble. For election fraud, nothing concrete so far.

See Post #42.
SCOTUS will decide.

Just cuz Trump stacked SCOTUS in his favour, doesn't mean that they'll support any nonsense whatsoever. So far, there's been NO solid evidence. And even you know that.

You made me think about the concept of evidence and realized that 99% of cases where a verdict is agreed is due to rather weak links between the evidence that infers that something occurred and the evidence, usually lacking, that a particular person or group committed the act that resulted in a trial.

The old adage of Beyond The Shadow Of a Doubt does not apply in the real world...
The Columbo, or CSI, effect has influenced people to believe that there must be solid evidence to convince a jury or jurist.
This is, in reality not the legal threshold.
The threshold is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
93+% of law suits are settled out of court because no one wants to spend the money, even when the claimant will eventually win because the expense is not worth the time and money.

If you watch real life criminal shows that drag you through the actual cases that result in life imprisonment or the death penalty, 99+% of them do not have solid evidence to back up the penalty...
The Jury and Jurist decide upon the outcome via the legal mechanism of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The events and results of Election night go way beyond the threshold of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Except that no one ever shows any solid proof. What y'all waiting for to present some?

Back to the "no evidence", after mountains of evidence presented.

Then why has everything been thrown out of court, even by judges that Trump appointed.

Number 1...These judges, unlike the SCOTUS, do not have lifetime jobs.
Number 2...They are scared shitless. I personally would not want to need Secret Service agent surrounding me for the rest of my life.
Judges, by the way, are part of the political machine and attend Party meetings.
They are told how to judge cases and which cases to put at the bottom of the docket.
Keep in mind that judges also need to pay bills and can't afford to lose their jobs.

I've seen shit you wouldn't believe and it's depressing, regardless of party affiliation.

So basically, you have nothing, just innuendos...

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

 

[Taz]

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

Arguments (on youtube!) aren't proof. Got a smoking gun? No? That's what everyone except you already knows.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

lol. The proof is right wingers have no fine capital solutions either.

Thanks for being somewhat honest.

Trump's campaign was based on the fact that Rs suck but you had your head up your ass simply because he ran as an R.

It's good old fashioned Republicans who hate Trump the most. The shit bags in the Lincoln Project are proof
of this. They like an insular corrupt party, with globalist values and alliances.
Mitt Romney, the ghost of John McCain, John Kasich, Jeff Flake, Paul Ryan, Carly Fiorina, etc.

Not worth a dime, any of them. They should all be wrapped with fishing nets and dumped in the ocean.

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers have nothing but excuses.

LWers...
50 years of welfare and political correctness and social failure.
I need concrete proof that either ideology works and you have none.

lol. The proof is right wingers have no fine capital solutions either.

According to some on the right, we have the richest Poor on the planet.

And, we no longer have right wing laws against being Poor such as vagrancy.

lol. The proof is right wingers have no fine capital solutions either.

Thanks for being somewhat honest.

Trump's campaign was based on the fact that Rs suck but you had your head up your ass simply because he ran as an R.

The left could have accomplished more with Your guy.

 

[Indeependent]

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

Arguments (on youtube!) aren't proof. Got a smoking gun? No? That's what everyone except you already knows.

So you're saying that unless CNN presents the information, it's not proof?
You used smoking gun incorrectly...
The insinuations are the smoking gun which leads to the presumption of a bullets.
I suggest you watch some YouTube videos to understand how the our legal system works in real life, not CNN Life.

 

[danielpalos]

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

Arguments (on youtube!) aren't proof. Got a smoking gun? No? That's what everyone except you already knows.

So you're saying that unless CNN presents the information, it's not proof?
You used smoking gun incorrectly...
The insinuations are the smoking gun which leads to the presumption of a bullets.
I suggest you watch some YouTube videos to understand how the our legal system works in real life, not CNN Life.

Yet, none of the Courts seem to agree with your hearsay.

 

[Indeependent]

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

Arguments (on youtube!) aren't proof. Got a smoking gun? No? That's what everyone except you already knows.

So you're saying that unless CNN presents the information, it's not proof?
You used smoking gun incorrectly...
The insinuations are the smoking gun which leads to the presumption of a bullets.
I suggest you watch some YouTube videos to understand how the our legal system works in real life, not CNN Life.

Yet, none of the Courts seem to agree with your hearsay.

If you were a judge, you would also be scared shitless.
It will wind up before the SCOTUS

 

[Moonglow]

Explain how they interfered.

I’m curious to know if election interference in general is what bothers them or if it’s and issue of who / what interferes and how said inference changes the end result.

 

[Moonglow]

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

Arguments (on youtube!) aren't proof. Got a smoking gun? No? That's what everyone except you already knows.

So you're saying that unless CNN presents the information, it's not proof?
You used smoking gun incorrectly...
The insinuations are the smoking gun which leads to the presumption of a bullets.
I suggest you watch some YouTube videos to understand how the our legal system works in real life, not CNN Life.

Yet, none of the Courts seem to agree with your hearsay.

If you were a judge, you would also be scared shitless.
It will wind up before the SCOTUS

If it has merit they will yet it is not a given.

 

[Taz]

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

Arguments (on youtube!) aren't proof. Got a smoking gun? No? That's what everyone except you already knows.

So you're saying that unless CNN presents the information, it's not proof?
You used smoking gun incorrectly...
The insinuations are the smoking gun which leads to the presumption of a bullets.
I suggest you watch some YouTube videos to understand how the our legal system works in real life, not CNN Life.

Your only "proof" is arguments on youtube. Admit it, you have nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

It's obvious you haven't been watching the arguments on YouTube.
I can't do your homework for you.

Arguments (on youtube!) aren't proof. Got a smoking gun? No? That's what everyone except you already knows.

So you're saying that unless CNN presents the information, it's not proof?
You used smoking gun incorrectly...
The insinuations are the smoking gun which leads to the presumption of a bullets.
I suggest you watch some YouTube videos to understand how the our legal system works in real life, not CNN Life.

Yet, none of the Courts seem to agree with your hearsay.

If you were a judge, you would also be scared shitless.
It will wind up before the SCOTUS

So what; you have no better arguments for the supreme Court, either.