(11-24-2020 04:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I actually *found* a place that had .22 long shells. I bought the last brick of them.

Had to present ID.

Damn racists. Using a dilatory tactic to suborn a fundamental right.

How are poor people who cannot ride a bus to get their free ID ever going to be able to buy ammo or get a blood test?

If course "some" people just don't want people of color to have .22 longs or CBCs.

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 05:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So I am going to attempt one answer.

'Is there any evidence [of voting fraud] beyond hearsay and claims'.

Yes. There is. I surmise lad doesnt have a flipping clue what an affidavit is considered to be.

Lolz.

What do the affidavits allege?

My guess would be...voting fraud.

What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 05:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What do the affidavits allege?

My guess would be...voting fraud.

What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

So argues Old Smoky, who was a fan of investigating the idea that Trump called up Putin and offered his soul in exchange for emails detailing Hillary's yoga classes.
You guys have burnt up your right to demand "evidence" or logic.

Enjoy your smoked turkey today, Lad. So apropos...

The problem with all these lawsuits is that you can't really prove voter fraud after the fact. So what you need are adequate preventive controls up front.

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 05:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What do the affidavits allege?

My guess would be...voting fraud.

What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

I was critical of your 'no evidence' statement there lad. It would be best if either you characterize correctly of read a little bit better. But the original misstatement of yours still stands regardless.

(11-26-2020 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My guess would be...voting fraud.

What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

I was critical of your 'no evidence' statement there lad. It would be best if either you characterize correctly of read a little bit better. But the original misstatement of yours still stands regardless.

He is just parroting the MSM when he uses the terms "no evidence" or baseless" or "lies".

(11-26-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My guess would be...voting fraud.

What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

So argues Old Smoky, who was a fan of investigating the idea that Trump called up Putin and offered his soul in exchange for emails detailing Hillary's yoga classes.
You guys have burnt up your right to demand "evidence" or logic.

Enjoy your smoked turkey today, Lad. So apropos...

I assume there must have been some meetings between the Biden campaign and Dominion, a la the Trump campaign and Russian assets. They found those meetings yet?

(11-26-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

So argues Old Smoky, who was a fan of investigating the idea that Trump called up Putin and offered his soul in exchange for emails detailing Hillary's yoga classes.
You guys have burnt up your right to demand "evidence" or logic.

Enjoy your smoked turkey today, Lad. So apropos...

I assume there must have been some meetings between the Biden campaign and Dominion, a la the Trump campaign and Russian assets. They found those meetings yet?

Held at the same place of your boy Steele meeting his Russian asset. Proof in the same place as your proof of Russian collusion.

Smoke

(11-26-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My guess would be...voting fraud.

What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

So argues Old Smoky, who was a fan of investigating the idea that Trump called up Putin and offered his soul in exchange for emails detailing Hillary's yoga classes.
You guys have burnt up your right to demand "evidence" or logic.

Enjoy your smoked turkey today, Lad. So apropos...

My original comment was related to lads screech about no evidence only claims and hearsay.

To repeat lad seemingly has zero clue about evidence.

Second lad seemingly misconstrues 'successfully stating a claim' as (again) no evidence.

Thirdly now lad starts to think his original statement was not what he said, now harps on the new standard.

Kind of par for the course I now realize.

If I were lad I wouldnt jump in a week later as a churlish jerk after the fact with a completely different standard on top of it. The best thing as a cherry on top is that yall have gotten him to do his double down dance on swallowing the Russian collusion **** can that he bought lock stock and sinker from the get go.

Everyone have a good turkey day

The problem with voter fraud is that is virtually impossible to prove after the fact. Once you've gotten away with it, you've gotten away with it. What are needed are better prevention controls.

(11-26-2020 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My guess would be...voting fraud.

What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

I was critical of your 'no evidence' statement there lad. It would be best if either you characterize correctly of read a little bit better. But the original misstatement of yours still stands regardless.

You were critical of it without actually addressing my response - it’s not like your retort was filled with the explanation fo the evidence brought forth.

Looks like I continue to hit closer to home, despite your criticisms that don’t have much weight, because they don’t actually provide a counter position backed up with details.

Quote:” Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020...c564068df6

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-26-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 11:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What kind of fraud? We talking about changing votes? Impersonating voters? Dead people voting?

Is this an issue in a specific state, or nationwide? What's the scope of the alleged issue?

Perhaps you should RTFM. There are a number of ongoing suits in several jurisdictions minc you. I would have assumed that you had when you yelp about no evidence beyond hearsay. Or is that the best that your talking points give you?

I take it you have not? If that is the case your previous comments about the cases and the effects on the nation seem pretty much like a premature detonation, wouldnt you agree?

Any news on the suits that you were so critical of me being critical of? Have they been proven to be chock full of verifiable claims of voter fraud?

I was critical of your 'no evidence' statement there lad. It would be best if either you characterize correctly of read a little bit better. But the original misstatement of yours still stands regardless.

You were critical of it without actually addressing my response - it’s not like your retort was filled with the explanation fo the evidence brought forth.

Looks like I continue to hit closer to home, despite your criticisms that don’t have much weight, because they don’t actually provide a counter position backed up with details.

Quote:” Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020...c564068df6

I was critical of it because it was so fing stupid. QED. I guess in lad world 'no evidence' and 'failure of a lawsuit' mean the same thing. I guess in lad-world an affidavit somehow falls under the auspice of 'no evidence, hearsay, and conjecture'.

I suggest you actually read a bit before you go full tits piping and wing flapping.

Perhaps when you read the entire decision, instead of the Vox snippet, you might understand. The lawyers there made a horrible 'mismatch' between the claims brought, and the relief sought.

But, in your weird as **** 'truth by snippet' world you are seemingly oblivious to what exactly is happening --- let alone your dumb as fk statement of 'no proof'.

And, by the way, you should be bright enough to understand a failure of 'proof' does NOT mean 'no evidence'.

Good fing grief. I realy do suggest some reading comprehension classes before your wing flapping at some point.

This is seemingly what debating a myna bird must feel like.

I mean, you dont even fking understand the only issue in the decision you cite so breathtakingly above boils down to the this one sentence: "Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time." Had you understood that, and understood what the requested amendment would do, and actually reading the original complaint, and the first amendment, you might know a little more of the background and why your cry of pretty much dumb as dirt statement of 'no evidence, only hearsay' is kind of rank stupid. But you havent, you havent, you havent, and you still dont, apparently. Yay. Still doesnt keep you from being a churlish twit (again) about being called out on your original 'no evidence anywhere anyway anyhow' statement, though, does it? Lolz.

Any more deep incisive words of wisdom from the boy wonder?

By the way boy wonder, you do realize that this lawsuit, in the current form, does not bring a fraud claim? So interestingly, the affidavits denoting those actions simply fell by the wayside legally speaking in the context of this *current* lawsuit as it stands.

I suggest you actually try and keep up on stuff you keep peep peep peeping so incisively and horrendously breathlessly about.

lad always reminds me of the Black Knight here

His willingness to fight to the bitter end in a lost cause would make him a worthy defender of the Alamo.

I've always thought Tadamichi Kuribayashi.

Its like he thinks I am saying 'Trump really won and all the lawsuits (if any) will win' -- But his original statement of 'nothing but claims and hearsay' is just kind of stupid. I guess he doesnt understand that the affidavits in the cases actually *are* (by definition) some proof and some evidence of the claims as filed (i.e. the target of his original historonic rant, for the record).

In the one that just got shot down at the 3rd Circuit, the Trump legal beagles deep sixed the counts at the outset that the affidavits supported. Then they now try to re-amend to add them back in. If lad had actually read the fing decision it said just that --- instead lad goes full 'churlish by isolated paragraph which has no fing bearing'. Simply because he really hates to admit that his original rant was just that --- a rant detailing his wanted outcome without regard to any true meaning of the word.

Good grief.

I couldnt care less if any Trump lawsuits succeed; most (if not all) won't. I'm not even commenting on that aspect. But lad is in 'riled up' mode, and as such funnily refuses to note what an abjectly stupid comment his original one there is.

(11-27-2020 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I've always thought Tadamichi Kuribayashi.

Its like he thinks I am saying 'Trump really won and all the lawsuits (if any) will win' -- But his original statement of 'nothing but claims and hearsay' is just kind of stupid. I guess he doesnt understand that the affidavits in the cases actually *are* (by definition) some proof and some evidence of the claims as filed (i.e. the target of his original historonic rant, for the record).

In the one that just got shot down at the 3rd Circuit, the Trump legal beagles deep sixed the counts at the outset that the affidavits supported. Then they now try to re-amend to add them back in. If lad had actually read the fing decision it said just that --- instead lad goes full 'churlish by isolated paragraph which has no fing bearing'. Simply because he really hates to admit that his original rant was just that --- a rant detailing his wanted outcome without regard to any true meaning of the word.

Good grief.

I couldnt care less if any Trump lawsuits succeed; most (if not all) won't. I'm not even commenting on that aspect. But lad is in 'riled up' mode, and as such funnily refuses to note what an abjectly stupid comment his original one there is.

Good grief is right.

Your entire argument boils down to “the definition of an affidavit is that it is a piece of evidence,” as opposed to “you’re wrong because the evidence shows X, Y, and Z.”

Sorry, but you’re literally writing multiple paragraph screeds about semantics.

(11-28-2020 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I've always thought Tadamichi Kuribayashi.

Its like he thinks I am saying 'Trump really won and all the lawsuits (if any) will win' -- But his original statement of 'nothing but claims and hearsay' is just kind of stupid. I guess he doesnt understand that the affidavits in the cases actually *are* (by definition) some proof and some evidence of the claims as filed (i.e. the target of his original historonic rant, for the record).

In the one that just got shot down at the 3rd Circuit, the Trump legal beagles deep sixed the counts at the outset that the affidavits supported. Then they now try to re-amend to add them back in. If lad had actually read the fing decision it said just that --- instead lad goes full 'churlish by isolated paragraph which has no fing bearing'. Simply because he really hates to admit that his original rant was just that --- a rant detailing his wanted outcome without regard to any true meaning of the word.

Good grief.

I couldnt care less if any Trump lawsuits succeed; most (if not all) won't. I'm not even commenting on that aspect. But lad is in 'riled up' mode, and as such funnily refuses to note what an abjectly stupid comment his original one there is.

Good grief is right.

Your entire argument boils down to “the definition of an affidavit is that it is a piece of evidence,” as opposed to “you’re wrong because the evidence shows X, Y, and Z.”

Sorry, but you’re literally writing multiple paragraph screeds about semantics.

What is the semantics of “smoke”?

(11-28-2020 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I've always thought Tadamichi Kuribayashi.

Its like he thinks I am saying 'Trump really won and all the lawsuits (if any) will win' -- But his original statement of 'nothing but claims and hearsay' is just kind of stupid. I guess he doesnt understand that the affidavits in the cases actually *are* (by definition) some proof and some evidence of the claims as filed (i.e. the target of his original historonic rant, for the record).

In the one that just got shot down at the 3rd Circuit, the Trump legal beagles deep sixed the counts at the outset that the affidavits supported. Then they now try to re-amend to add them back in. If lad had actually read the fing decision it said just that --- instead lad goes full 'churlish by isolated paragraph which has no fing bearing'. Simply because he really hates to admit that his original rant was just that --- a rant detailing his wanted outcome without regard to any true meaning of the word.

Good grief.

I couldnt care less if any Trump lawsuits succeed; most (if not all) won't. I'm not even commenting on that aspect. But lad is in 'riled up' mode, and as such funnily refuses to note what an abjectly stupid comment his original one there is.

Good grief is right.

Your entire argument boils down to “the definition of an affidavit is that it is a piece of evidence,” as opposed to “you’re wrong because the evidence shows X, Y, and Z.”

Sorry, but you’re literally writing multiple paragraph screeds about semantics.

In each case there is evidence. As opposed to your wild assed screed that there is none.

As for 'semantics' I'll go with door #1 marked as 'definition' as opposed to door #2 which is marked 'malformed definition and logic followed by screaming about semantics'. Sound good to ya there lad?

Oh and I forgot, door #2 has an inside label of 'watch the myna bird try his damndest to change the thesis in a continued churlish manner'.

I'm gonna do something a little more productive than trying to keep a churlish lad semantics and strawman arguments from expanding with the full force of his semantic righteousness and refusal to denote he was simply dead wrong in his original crying rant --- there is a gopher chewing up the coastal near the barn. Trying to decide whether to use a gas bomb that looks like a huuuge cherry bomb on him or just go full Bill Murray with some tannerite.

Keep the ranting loud there lad.

(11-28-2020 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-28-2020 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 07:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I've always thought Tadamichi Kuribayashi.

Its like he thinks I am saying 'Trump really won and all the lawsuits (if any) will win' -- But his original statement of 'nothing but claims and hearsay' is just kind of stupid. I guess he doesnt understand that the affidavits in the cases actually *are* (by definition) some proof and some evidence of the claims as filed (i.e. the target of his original historonic rant, for the record).

In the one that just got shot down at the 3rd Circuit, the Trump legal beagles deep sixed the counts at the outset that the affidavits supported. Then they now try to re-amend to add them back in. If lad had actually read the fing decision it said just that --- instead lad goes full 'churlish by isolated paragraph which has no fing bearing'. Simply because he really hates to admit that his original rant was just that --- a rant detailing his wanted outcome without regard to any true meaning of the word.

Good grief.

I couldnt care less if any Trump lawsuits succeed; most (if not all) won't. I'm not even commenting on that aspect. But lad is in 'riled up' mode, and as such funnily refuses to note what an abjectly stupid comment his original one there is.

Good grief is right.

Your entire argument boils down to “the definition of an affidavit is that it is a piece of evidence,” as opposed to “you’re wrong because the evidence shows X, Y, and Z.”

Sorry, but you’re literally writing multiple paragraph screeds about semantics.

In each case there is evidence. As opposed to your wild assed screed that there is none.

As for 'semantics' I'll go with door #1 marked as 'definition' as opposed to door #2 which is marked 'malformed definition and logic followed by screaming about semantics'. Sound good to ya there lad?

Oh and I forgot, door #2 has an inside label of 'watch the myna bird try his damndest to change the thesis in a continued churlish manner'.

I'm gonna do something a little more productive than trying to keep a churlish lad semantics and strawman arguments from expanding with the full force of his semantic righteousness and refusal to denote he was simply dead wrong in his original crying rant --- there is a gopher chewing up the coastal near the barn. Trying to decide whether to use a gas bomb that looks like a huuuge cherry bomb on him or just go full Bill Murray with some tannerite.

Keep the ranting loud there lad.

Going to hunt a gopher instead of arguing with one?

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content...7-2020.pdf


Upholds injunction issued earlier in the week, finds “Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14”

Oopsie doopsie some more rampant miscarriages of no evidence I guess.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/rice-unive...violators/

Hey Rice made the news!