You have no "pwoof" just goofy conspiracy theories.You can’t accept proof when it comes to your Messiah
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have no "pwoof" just goofy conspiracy theories.You can’t accept proof when it comes to your Messiah
What did Trump mean by that?
You have no "pwoof" just goofy conspiracy theories.
I got a souvenir jar of pee for a campaign contribution.You can’t accept proof when it comes to your Messiah
He was looking for votes in an audit. What would be the MOE of finding 11,000 bad votes?What Trump meant was that he didn’t care if it was a fair count, only that he wins.
You mean just like Al Gore and Florida?Trump only wanted them to find 11,000 votes….For ME!
Learn to accept your status as "
loser" in the election.
Al Gore wanted all the votes in Florida counted. Bush’s Secretary of State wanted to keep stopping the count and declare GW the winnerYou mean just like Al Gore and Florida?
I got a souvenir jar of pee for a campaign contribution.
![]()
Al Gore wanted all the votes in Florida counted. Bush’s Secretary of State wanted to keep stopping the count and declare GW the winner
That's not true and you know it.Al Gore wanted all the votes in Florida counted.
Tim Kaine's buying with his purple nose......
That is exactly the truthThat's not true and you know it.
What a crock. Cases that were brought were almost all simply dismissed on one “procedural” ground or another.
Face facts. Nobody wanted to touch at hot potato.
Regardless of whether the cheating that took place sufficed to garner the Biden “win,” it is still a fascinating topic. What if it had resulted in the loser being declared the winner? What is the remedy for that when courts decline to even entertain any suits?
Just as you did in 2020.Learn to accept your status as "loser" in the election.
Stop with the BS.That is exactly the truth
You got your senile hero and the damage he did. Good for you.Just as you did in 2020.
![]()
Special counsel report says Trump would've been convicted for Jan. 6 'unprecedented criminal effort'
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith said his team “stood up for the rule of law” as it investigated President-elect Donald Trump’s...www.post-gazette.com
So now all the news junkies will have their next bowl of pablum, and be able to shriek about how they KNEW all along that Trump was a criminal, and he tried to overthrow the government, blah, blah, blah.
But here is the question I would like to address (and get some serious pondrification from others). What if Trump was right? What if the combination of the suppressed Hunter Biden Laptop story, Zuckerberg's half-billion dollar campaign to illegally buy Biden votes, vote harvesting in Atlanta and elsewhere, and shenanigans with voting rules by various Secretaries of State truly did amount to stealing the 2020 election?
If it makes it easier, imagine that the result went the opposite way, and all of those factors favored Trump. How should Biden have acted in that case?
If a sitting Presidential KNOWS that the election was stolen - knows it for a fact - and there is no legal remedy for the theft, how should s/he respond?
DO NOT use this space to re-argue whether Trump was right or not. PRESUME that he was right. How should he have handled it?
How many stages of grief will you need to resolve your loser syndrome?Your Orange Shit Stain Hero is a pathological liar. He has never been right once.
The "procedural grounds" that were the basis for the dismissal were mostly the fact that there was no substantial evidence.
Not exactly. Courts are supposed to assess procedural grounds like standing. But they aren’t supposed to misuse those procedural grounds to evade having to decide a case on the merits. And the latter is what happened.You actually have to show the courts that you have reasonable evidence before they allow a proceedings to begin.
This discussion isn’t about your simple-minded and distorted spin on other cases."Everybody Knows it" - Guiliani's primary argument - is not reasonable evidence.