(12-10-2020 03:29 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Nobody really expects these states where everything is all screwed up to just come out and admit that there were major problems.

They are all in CYA mode, never mind that in the minds of half the country, their state is now a laughing stock, unable to run an election cleanly and get their votes counted in a timely matter.

Look at Florida and how screwed up their elections were in the past. This time, they had everything wrapped up on Election night. It can be done but not if you have a certain party who happens to control the 'machinery' and has a pre-determined outcome as your goal.

Florida is quite obviously a fraudulent election, Biden was clearly winning early on the 3rd before all the illegal votes were cast.

(12-10-2020 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 11:43 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 10:16 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 01:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So if a few morons claimed the 2016 election was stolen, that makes it okay for millions of morons to claim the 2020 election was stolen?

For Gods sake man, Hillary conceded in no time and that election was much much much closer. There is NO comparison to what trump and his minions are doing here to 2016. And throw in that he's likely only doing this to raise money, makes it even worse.

75,000,000 people voted for Trump. The majority of them believe there was fraudulent activity based on events seen on election night via broadcast and web media. Those events were followed up with eye-witness legally sworn testimony of fraudulent activities as well as statistical analysis.

There's a meme that's been floating around recently that states:

Quote:One anonymous whistle-blower was OK to impeach the President but 1000s of sworn affidavits on fraud not worth investigating?

For 75 MILLION people, the idea that ONE person can accuse Trump of wrong-doing results in both Democrats and the media going full-throttle on delegitimizing his presidency seemed like a witch hunt. Watching those same politicians and media outlets not only disregard the overwhelming evidence of election fraud but actively censuring it only reinforces the belief of election fraud for those 75,000,000 people.


You don't have to agree that fraud occurred, but to discount very serious and firmly grounded concerns places you in the complicit category.

They. Aren't. That's why the courts are ALL rejecting them! Wake up my good man. You're missing life.

Can I ask a question and expect an honest answer?

Is a decision by a court always correct simply because the court ruled the way it did?

Of course not, but we're a nation of laws...and we rely on courts heavily.

But you have to look at the bigger picture. The election related lawsuits aren't narrowly being defeated by the courts at a rate of like 30-26, they're losing them like 55-1.

There is no there there. Courts have to rely on proof and facts. These suits lack them both, and the shellacking bears that out.

EDIT: And no, not all of them were dismissed by Obama judges. That's an ignorant belief by even the dumbest of fools.

Some cases which were filed prior to the election were tossed because the party had no injury.

Some cases which were filed after the election were tossed because it was after-the-fact.

Both of those scenarios happened to Republicans filing in PA.

They were not allowed to bring a case before the election or after the election.

That means the court was saying you can't question or challenge the law - period.

To claim that all cases were tossed due to lack of proof or facts is the primary talking point from the left trying to hold on to a fraudulent election.

Quote:With today’s additions of Wyoming and Ohio, a total of 21 states – including Texas – are signed on or seek to be signed on to the Supreme Court lawsuit challenging the elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Since Texas filed the suit, over 20 states have joined. As it now stands, the following states are seeking a Supreme Court remedy to the November 3 election: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida.

Link

(12-10-2020 02:58 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  DC and 22 states file in support of GA, PA, WI, MI.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF
CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GUAM, HAWAII,
ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA,
NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA,
OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS,
AND WASHINGTON AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
BILL OF COMPLAINT

And this is how civil wars start.

(12-10-2020 04:11 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:With today’s additions of Wyoming and Ohio, a total of 21 states – including Texas – are signed on or seek to be signed on to the Supreme Court lawsuit challenging the elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Since Texas filed the suit, over 20 states have joined. As it now stands, the following states are seeking a Supreme Court remedy to the November 3 election: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida.

Link

(12-10-2020 02:58 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  DC and 22 states file in support of GA, PA, WI, MI.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF
CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GUAM, HAWAII,
ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA,
NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA,
OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS,
AND WASHINGTON AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
BILL OF COMPLAINT

And this is how civil wars start.

Elvis has left the building and still can't do math.

(12-10-2020 04:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 04:11 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:With today’s additions of Wyoming and Ohio, a total of 21 states – including Texas – are signed on or seek to be signed on to the Supreme Court lawsuit challenging the elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Since Texas filed the suit, over 20 states have joined. As it now stands, the following states are seeking a Supreme Court remedy to the November 3 election: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida.

Link

(12-10-2020 02:58 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  DC and 22 states file in support of GA, PA, WI, MI.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF
CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GUAM, HAWAII,
ILLINOIS, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA,
NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA,
OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS,
AND WASHINGTON AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
BILL OF COMPLAINT

And this is how civil wars start.

Elvis has left the building and still can't do math.

Yep. It's 20 states not 22...unless the Dems are already counting DC, US Virgin Islands and Guam as states.

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

(12-10-2020 02:55 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:38 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  PA Responds :

"The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2....FINAL.pdf

So--math doesnt matter. The election was flawless because we said it was---but---whatever you do----dont make us reverify those signatures.....because they are super duper perfect.....trust us

If your math is based on absurd assumptions then yes, it doesn't matter.

Then audit the signatures and prove it. There isnt any fraud, right? Then why is everyone so afraid of checking them? Seems like that would put this issue to bed once and for all.

106 GOP House members have filed an amicus brief in support of Texas' legal action.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...atives.pdf

(12-10-2020 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 03:11 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Michigan responds :

The Constitution has entrusted the states to determine their electors in a presidential election. Consistent with Michigan law, the State of Michigan has certified its presidential vote and the election in Michigan is over. The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis. This Court should summarily dismiss the motion to file the bill of complaint. To do otherwise would make this Court the arbiter of all future national elections.

The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true. That claim has been rejected in the federal and state courts in Michigan, and just yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch effort to request an audit. Not only is the complaint meritless here, but its jurisdictional flaws abound and provide solid ground to dispose of this action.

And this is what I find the most distressing. Its pretty obvious to even the most common layman that the plain english laws of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan that the laws were broken (especially in Pennsylvania). Yet---those courts wont even listen to arguments? At some point, the gas lighting by public officials who just want to let the fraudulent vote stand simply becomes a farce.

Because the arguments aren't valid. Nothing these states did have been shown to disenfranchise any voters nor count votes that were never cast by the voters.

Courts, with good reason, are VERY reluctant to not count votes from people who are acting in good faith to exercise their constitutional right of voting.

None of this means there was any grand fraud perpetrated.

Not to mention that the vast majority of these so called arguments are just people who don't know what the **** they're talking about!

There is no need to disinfranchise anyone. Just follow the law. Kick out the votes that are not legal. If that cant be done, there are other options---as the legislature makes that decision. You can revote. You can use the existing vote minus the votes that are disallowed. You can let the legislature decide, as they are ELECTED officials--so its simply representative government at work. Heck, the reality is it doesnt change a thing unless all 4 states flip---so in 3 out of 4 cases, it is actually irrelevant to the big picture.

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

For us that question these things - this tweet is a conservative political commentator, does he have a source for this information? Huge if true but there are a lot lies flying from Twitter right now on both sides.

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

So do you, so I guess you'd recognize the smell.

So, go ahead and do what you do. Shoot the messenger and then do some character assassination of the person who authored the tweet.

(12-10-2020 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

So do you, so I guess you'd recognize the smell.

So, go ahead and do what you do. Shoot the messenger and then do some character assassination of the person who authored the tweet.

Just because you believe everything you read on Twitter doesn't mean everyone has to.

So what's the source?

(12-10-2020 05:50 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

So do you, so I guess you'd recognize the smell.

So, go ahead and do what you do. Shoot the messenger and then do some character assassination of the person who authored the tweet.

Just because you believe everything you read on Twitter doesn't mean everyone has to.

So what's the source?

The source is some guy connected to the election commission. I think he has a buddy that's on the commission.

We've learned our lesson -- that's the only source y'all accept as gospel. No more sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses for us. From now on, it's "because some guy said so" all the way!

(12-10-2020 05:55 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:50 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

So do you, so I guess you'd recognize the smell.

So, go ahead and do what you do. Shoot the messenger and then do some character assassination of the person who authored the tweet.

Just because you believe everything you read on Twitter doesn't mean everyone has to.

So what's the source?

The source is some guy connected to the election commission. I think he has a buddy that's on the commission.

We've learned our lesson -- that's the only source y'all accept as gospel. No more sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses for us. From now on, it's "because some guy said so" all the way!

You know all a sworn affidavit changes is "because some guy said so" is now on paper.

So anyway, some dude on twitter isn't valid source. I've sourced everything I've posted.

(12-10-2020 05:58 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:55 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:50 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

So do you, so I guess you'd recognize the smell.

So, go ahead and do what you do. Shoot the messenger and then do some character assassination of the person who authored the tweet.

Just because you believe everything you read on Twitter doesn't mean everyone has to.

So what's the source?

The source is some guy connected to the election commission. I think he has a buddy that's on the commission.

We've learned our lesson -- that's the only source y'all accept as gospel. No more sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses for us. From now on, it's "because some guy said so" all the way!

You know all a sworn affidavit changes is "because some guy said so" is now on paper.

So anyway, some dude on twitter isn't valid source. I've sourced everything I've posted.

Sure, but with some actual skin in the game.


But whatever.

(12-10-2020 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 03:11 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Michigan responds :

The Constitution has entrusted the states to determine their electors in a presidential election. Consistent with Michigan law, the State of Michigan has certified its presidential vote and the election in Michigan is over. The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis. This Court should summarily dismiss the motion to file the bill of complaint. To do otherwise would make this Court the arbiter of all future national elections.

The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true. That claim has been rejected in the federal and state courts in Michigan, and just yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch effort to request an audit. Not only is the complaint meritless here, but its jurisdictional flaws abound and provide solid ground to dispose of this action.

And this is what I find the most distressing. Its pretty obvious to even the most common layman that the plain english laws of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan that the laws were broken (especially in Pennsylvania). Yet---those courts wont even listen to arguments? At some point, the gas lighting by public officials who just want to let the fraudulent vote stand simply becomes a farce.

Because the arguments aren't valid. Nothing these states did have been shown to disenfranchise any voters nor count votes that were never cast by the voters.

Courts, with good reason, are VERY reluctant to not count votes from people who are acting in good faith to exercise their constitutional right of voting.

None of this means there was any grand fraud perpetrated.

Not to mention that the vast majority of these so called arguments are just people who don't know what the **** they're talking about!

There is no need to disinfranchise anyone. Just follow the law. Kick out the votes that are not legal. If that cant be done, there are other options---as the legislature makes that decision. You can revote. You can use the existing vote minus the votes that are disallowed. You can let the legislature decide, as they are ELECTED officials--so its simply representative government at work. Heck, the reality is it doesnt change a thing unless all 4 states flip---so in 3 out of 4 cases, it is actually irrelevant to the big picture.

Actually it only takes 3.. And I just don't see any way Michigan can conclude there was enough illegal voting for Biden to make a 160,000 vote difference. There is certainly reasonable doubt that Trump lost Michigan, but is it likely that he didn't lose that state?

(12-10-2020 05:55 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:50 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

So do you, so I guess you'd recognize the smell.

So, go ahead and do what you do. Shoot the messenger and then do some character assassination of the person who authored the tweet.

Just because you believe everything you read on Twitter doesn't mean everyone has to.

So what's the source?

The source is some guy connected to the election commission. I think he has a buddy that's on the commission.

We've learned our lesson -- that's the only source y'all accept as gospel. No more sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses for us. From now on, it's "because some guy said so" all the way!

He can be wrong as well. If something looks wrong does not mean all of it are bad or fraud. Lets say 100 are bad votes with 55 of them are Biden's and 45 are for Trump. The chances are that Trump could lose votes as well. Would it help Trump win? Nope, not enough to overcome the lost by Trump.

(12-10-2020 05:50 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

So do you, so I guess you'd recognize the smell.

So, go ahead and do what you do. Shoot the messenger and then do some character assassination of the person who authored the tweet.

Just because you believe everything you read on Twitter doesn't mean everyone has to.

So what's the source?

You should tell your buddy RWT, he is always believing what he says in Twitter...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(12-10-2020 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 05:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

No surprise there. After all Tommie has guaranteed there was no fraud in Michigan. Cleanest election ever. Whatever he says, the truth is likely about 180 degrees from it.

Source it. Smells like twitter BS.

You wouldn’t know BS if it was spread on your sandwich. You’ve proven that numerous times.