|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 14, 2020 9:13:52 GMT -5
Well if PBS is involved, that changes it.
Do you ever read what you're writing and think "it's possible that non basement dwellers might read and analyze this post"? You wrote paragraphs of blubbering. Bring something real, tangible, provable and not hypotheticals, then we have something to talk about. Until then, it's literally the exact sour grapes blubber as prior to Trump's impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 14, 2020 13:12:11 GMT -5
Could you point to which specific part of the Constitution's "specific processes" have been violated by the "current etiquette?" Also, Trump's campaign has dropped its lawsuit in Arizona, so I'm wondering, how exactly are they going to "take it to the supreme court" if they're not willing to have their case even heard by a lower court? Did you also know that Trump's lawyer in Maricopa County started out that case by insisting that they were "not alleging fraud" or suggesting that "anyone is stealing the election"? Hmmm did you know that the chairman of the Federal Elections Commision says he believes there is massive fraud taking place in PA, WI, and Michigan? He says “ Otherwise they would allow the observers to go in. ... State law allows those observers to be in there, and if they're not, the law is not being followed, making this an illegitimate election. ” He also says “It just seems unimaginable to me that you could have down ballot races where Republicans are winning across the board -- and that happened across the country (the Democrats failed to flip any state legislature, failed to win any [new] seats in the US Congress) and yet the president is losing in all of these states.” Holy shit, a Trump appointee lied to the media? Who cares if he's the chairman of the FEC, an organization that Trump allowed to become completely toothless? Did you know people can go on TV and say whatever the fuck they want? But when the rubber hits the road, and Trump's lawyers are facing a judge, do you know what they have said every single time? "We are not alleging fraud, we have no evidence of fraud, we aren't alleging anything that could possibly overturn the presidential election," and why would they say that in court? Lawyers face serious consequences for lying in court, unlike on TV, so whose words am I going to take seriously: a Trump appointee bullshitting the media, or lawyers who are in a situation where lying could threaten their careers?
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 15, 2020 20:00:59 GMT -5
Hmmm did you know that the chairman of the Federal Elections Commision says he believes there is massive fraud taking place in PA, WI, and Michigan? He says “ Otherwise they would allow the observers to go in. ... State law allows those observers to be in there, and if they're not, the law is not being followed, making this an illegitimate election. ” He also says “It just seems unimaginable to me that you could have down ballot races where Republicans are winning across the board -- and that happened across the country (the Democrats failed to flip any state legislature, failed to win any [new] seats in the US Congress) and yet the president is losing in all of these states.” Holy shit, a Trump appointee lied to the media? Who cares if he's the chairman of the FEC, an organization that Trump allowed to become completely toothless? Did you know people can go on TV and say whatever the fuck they want? But when the rubber hits the road, and Trump's lawyers are facing a judge, do you know what they have said every single time? "We are not alleging fraud, we have no evidence of fraud, we aren't alleging anything that could possibly overturn the presidential election," and why would they say that in court? Lawyers face serious consequences for lying in court, unlike on TV, so whose words am I going to take seriously: a Trump appointee bullshitting the media, or lawyers who are in a situation where lying could threaten their careers? Bullshit. Provide evidence they have said anything of the sort. Bet you have a highly respected source. Re: Etiquette Nothing requires he concedes just because the Orwellian media has decided who they want to win. UMIV has been slapped down by federal judges this week. An illegitimate practice impacted the outcome of this election. And it isn't going to stand.
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 15, 2020 20:25:19 GMT -5
Holy shit, a Trump appointee lied to the media? Who cares if he's the chairman of the FEC, an organization that Trump allowed to become completely toothless? Did you know people can go on TV and say whatever the fuck they want? But when the rubber hits the road, and Trump's lawyers are facing a judge, do you know what they have said every single time? "We are not alleging fraud, we have no evidence of fraud, we aren't alleging anything that could possibly overturn the presidential election," and why would they say that in court? Lawyers face serious consequences for lying in court, unlike on TV, so whose words am I going to take seriously: a Trump appointee bullshitting the media, or lawyers who are in a situation where lying could threaten their careers? Bullshit. Provide evidence they have said anything of the sort. Bet you have a highly respected source. lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-campaign-lawyer-admits-to-judge-our-search-for-evidence-of-fraud-produced-obvious-lies-and-spam/What's next? You going to say that his own lawyer's voice from a court recording is fake news?
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 15, 2020 21:53:05 GMT -5
Nope. Just point out that is one case, not all of them like you said. Based on today's fact checking standards, your original point is entirely false.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 15, 2020 22:36:29 GMT -5
Keep going Q. We need to get to the truth behind how dear leader could lose..... I mean not win...I mean get cheated, fuck I'm new to this. Yes, even conservative outlets and trump himself are acknowledging Bidens "victory", but I know your election law background will show the real light.
Have you ever noticed how the old "I am, coincidentally enough, a studied master at (insert whatever topic the board is talking about)" tony shtick fit so seamlessly into becoming a "studied scholar in (insert subject needed to defend trump)" sheep? Guy was ahead of his time really.
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 16, 2020 1:03:51 GMT -5
Ever notice how I've claimed expert status on nothing despite being an expert of many things and you're trying to ad hominem a person I am not? I don't think you have.
Court cases have consequences.
If you're cool with illegitimate elections, experts who are not me would inform you that is an extremely unfortunate position to take.
One of the things I am an expert on though is how you are dumb. So I am not surprised.
If the court cases combined go nowhere, it is a miscarriage of justice for the nation. And you cheer like a jackass. Oblivious of the consequences. No surprise again though as I am an expert on you being dumb.
Anyone notice you and the confused spewer of falsehoods and mistruths arrive within hours of each other after months of inactivity? I bet they have and think it is sad.
It's not over yet princess. Quit pretending it is. It reminds us about your problem with being dumb.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 16, 2020 5:50:15 GMT -5
Keep going Q. We need to get to the truth behind how dear leader could lose..... I mean not win...I mean get cheated, fuck I'm new to this. Yes, even conservative outlets and trump himself are acknowledging Bidens "victory", but I know your election law background will show the real light. Have you ever noticed how the old "I am, coincidentally enough, a studied master at (insert whatever topic the board is talking about)" tony shtick fit so seamlessly into becoming a "studied scholar in (insert subject needed to defend trump)" sheep? Guy was ahead of his time really. I don’t think that you or CQ honestly believes that Biden beat Trump. I think you are two despicable buffoons who are glad that Biden cheated, and are glad the media is in the tank to sell it. “By any means necessary” and all. You be glad when conservatives are punished like they deserve, all the way until you find out that the system has you down as “conservative,” too.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 16, 2020 6:03:12 GMT -5
Hmmm did you know that the chairman of the Federal Elections Commision says he believes there is massive fraud taking place in PA, WI, and Michigan? He says “ Otherwise they would allow the observers to go in. ... State law allows those observers to be in there, and if they're not, the law is not being followed, making this an illegitimate election. ” He also says “It just seems unimaginable to me that you could have down ballot races where Republicans are winning across the board -- and that happened across the country (the Democrats failed to flip any state legislature, failed to win any [new] seats in the US Congress) and yet the president is losing in all of these states.” Holy shit, a Trump appointee lied to the media? Who cares if he's the chairman of the FEC, an organization that Trump allowed to become completely toothless? Did you know people can go on TV and say whatever the fuck they want? But when the rubber hits the road, and Trump's lawyers are facing a judge, do you know what they have said every single time? "We are not alleging fraud, we have no evidence of fraud, we aren't alleging anything that could possibly overturn the presidential election," and why would they say that in court? Lawyers face serious consequences for lying in court, unlike on TV, so whose words am I going to take seriously: a Trump appointee bullshitting the media, or lawyers who are in a situation where lying could threaten their careers? So “the rubber hits the road” with affidavits. To sign an affidavit is to testify, and subjects you to all penalties of perjury should you be lying. Well there are hundreds (could be over a thousand by now) of people swearing that they witnessed fraud who are not free to “say whatever the fuck they want.” ...but you know this. Just as you know of the videos of vote counters putting up barricades to prevent their “vote counting” activities from being observed. Why would they do that? [news jingle] Some fag on TV “This is not the voter fraud you’re looking for” CQ and Andrew “This is not the voter fraud I’m looking for.” Same fag “Biden is president elect” CQ and Andrew “Biden is president elect.” Same fag “There is no need for any further examination, investigation, or reflection.” CQ and Andrew “There is no need for further examination, investigation, or reflection.” Same fag “In fact, only a raging moron would think otherwise.” Cq and Andrew “ Hahahaa, raging morons!”
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 16, 2020 12:44:35 GMT -5
Ever notice how I've claimed expert status on nothing ... If the court cases combined go nowhere, it is a miscarriage of justice for the nation. If you're admittedly not an expert on anything (especially constitutional law), then how can you possibly know a priori that the combined court cases must go somewhere lest it be a miscarriage of justice? What if every allegation is thoroughly investigated and sees its day in court, and there really is no there there? How would the guy you worship losing fair and square be a miscarriage of justice? And since you ignored it before, can you please point to the part of the constitution that would be applicable to show that votes were illegal? Finally, Utah has allowed universal mail-in voting for almost 10 years now, so should we toss their results, too? What about all the Republican senators, members of congress, state senators and state representatives that won in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada? Should those results also be tossed?
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 16, 2020 12:57:50 GMT -5
Holy shit, a Trump appointee lied to the media? Who cares if he's the chairman of the FEC, an organization that Trump allowed to become completely toothless? Did you know people can go on TV and say whatever the fuck they want? But when the rubber hits the road, and Trump's lawyers are facing a judge, do you know what they have said every single time? "We are not alleging fraud, we have no evidence of fraud, we aren't alleging anything that could possibly overturn the presidential election," and why would they say that in court? Lawyers face serious consequences for lying in court, unlike on TV, so whose words am I going to take seriously: a Trump appointee bullshitting the media, or lawyers who are in a situation where lying could threaten their careers? So “the rubber hits the road” with affidavits. To sign an affidavit is to testify, and subjects you to all penalties of perjury should you be lying. Well there are hundreds (could be over a thousand by now) of people swearing that they witnessed fraud who are not free to “say whatever the fuck they want.” I want every single one of those sworn affidavits to be held up to the light of day; don't you? But why don't we look at Michigan, where most of those "hundreds" of affidavits come from? Did you know you can download the text of the affidavits here? www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-files-suit-in-michigan-citing-irregularities-incompetence-and-unlawful-vote-counting/ Why don't you go ahead and read them and point out to me anything in there that could overturn the 146,000 or so votes that Biden is leading by in Michigan?
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 16, 2020 13:10:45 GMT -5
Also, I know that conservatives are basically the most humorless cunts to have ever existed, but can we not take a moment to admit that Rudy Giuliani giving a press conference in a landscaping company's parking lot next to a crematorium and a dildo store (probably because his staff booked the wrong Four Seasons) is fucking hilarious?
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 16, 2020 17:09:35 GMT -5
I don't need to be an expert on the Constitution to understand the Constitution. What a stupid idea. But I guess that's what happens when you spend your whole life believing the experts, despite the fact that the experts seem to have a terrible track record when it comes to being correct about the things they speak on.
The rest of your assumptions are pretty stupid and so I'm not even going to bother addressing them. If you truly believe more people voted for Joe Biden than voted for your hero Obama, you must be a pretty simple-minded moron. Or, you might acknowledge that Biden's numbers are a direct result of an unconstitutional process involving Universal mail-in voting.
I have already mentioned the 14th Amendment with regards to equal protections under the law and demonstrated that mail-in votes which require no prior verification with regards to the identity of the person casting the ballot are not providing equal protection to all citizens and are therefore unconstitutional. I didn't even need to go to law school to know that.
Courts have already ruled that Gavin Newsom overstepped his bounds in California by changing election laws without going through the legislature to send ballots to every registered voter in the state. It was noted that this lawsuit was not going to result in an over turn of the election in California. But that was just the result of that first case. I also don't have to be a constitutional expert to understand the concept of precedent. A precedent was just laid down that can then be pointed to in later cases that are relevant to the election.
For someone who seems to like to throw around legal terms, you sure do throw around a lot of dumb shit that also makes it clear if you are an attorney you're not a very good one. Absolutely no concept of how court cases build off of each other in our system? Seems kind of like the reasoning a paralegal would engage in.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 16, 2020 17:36:17 GMT -5
So “the rubber hits the road” with affidavits. To sign an affidavit is to testify, and subjects you to all penalties of perjury should you be lying. Well there are hundreds (could be over a thousand by now) of people swearing that they witnessed fraud who are not free to “say whatever the fuck they want.” I want every single one of those sworn affidavits to be held up to the light of day; don't you? But why don't we look at Michigan, where most of those "hundreds" of affidavits come from? Did you know you can download the text of the affidavits here? www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-files-suit-in-michigan-citing-irregularities-incompetence-and-unlawful-vote-counting/ Why don't you go ahead and read them and point out to me anything in there that could overturn the 146,000 or so votes that Biden is leading by in Michigan? Or why don’t you read one and then explain why it shows that it should NOT be investigated any further. Why are you so dead set on declaring the matter over and settled? Are you not so confident that full investigation would put Biden over? For my part, I am decidedly not confident that even a full investigation (to the extent that the US is even capable any more) would put Trump over. I am willing to risk egg on my face that may come when full and complete investigations reveal Joe Biden beat “the pants off”Trump, as Joe would say. But I want to see for sure
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 16, 2020 20:54:05 GMT -5
Or why don’t you read one and then explain why it shows that it should NOT be investigated any further. Why are you so dead set on declaring the matter over and settled? Are you not so confident that full investigation would put Biden over? For my part, I am decidedly not confident that even a full investigation (to the extent that the US is even capable any more) would put Trump over. I am willing to risk egg on my face that may come when full and complete investigations reveal Joe Biden beat “the pants off”Trump, as Joe would say. But I want to see for sure Seems to be a lot of 'trying to find common ground' here, especially towards the end. Reads a lot different than some previous posts on the subject. I don't think you're going to find many level headed Americans who disagree with seeing the allegations to their conclusions. We have been poking a little fun at the fact that zero of them have made it past a judge essentially laughing at them, but if number 281 of 284 is the one, let's see it. It just doesn't seem like a very likely outcome and seems pretty easy to toss it in with trumps history of baseless litigation hoping he could lawyer his way out of a loss. But it could not be sour grapes by a guy who has a set in stone precedent of frivolous suits and is indeed THE BIGGEST ORGANIZED CRIME COVER UP IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND A COMPLETE DISMANTLING OF OUR DEMOCRACY IN FRONT OF OUR EYES. I have heard nobody say "stop the process and just award a winner" except loon trumpers. But for the 984325th time, I don't watch any cable news or local news, so it's pretty tough for me to keep up with the 'you're just saying what so and so said on such and such network' or the even more baseless 'you just do what you're told by your fake news media programming' arguments. So I guess I should hold out judgment that there are people advocating for not letting trump try to sic lawyers on a loss.
|
|
|
Post by cybergod on Nov 17, 2020 5:25:47 GMT -5
Woooo. Comrade Q COMIN' WITH THE LATIN! Dude must have been a "Law & Order" junkie. Or maybe "The Practice".
I can't hang with this guy. Glad I left the thread.
Oh yeah, as usual, we have the usual silly hyperbole from Comrade Andrew: "THE BIGGEST ORGANIZED CRIME COVER UP IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND A COMPLETE DISMANTLING OF OUR DEMOCRACY IN FRONT OF OUR EYES."
Care to give us a few examples of democracy being dismantled, Andrew? Under President Trump, of course. Because I can remember a few under the Mulatto- in-Chief. Here's just one:
Mandatory enrollment in government-sponsored health care plans, with financial punishment for disloyal citizens (subjects?) who won't OBEY.
....And we all know who nullified that penalty, don't we Andrew? That's right: DJT!
Just a few, ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF DEMOCRACY-DISMANTLING is all I'm asking of ya, 'Drew. Because I'm sure you can rattle 'em all off, quickly.
....By the way, we don't have a Democracy. We have a representative republic. Often called a constitutional republic.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 17, 2020 6:41:32 GMT -5
Low information Andrew has heard nobody say “stop the process and award a winner?”
...and yet that’s what each and every movie star and gay news anchor has called for
...and every sign that seems to indicate that the process is going to be stopped and a inner declare is reacted to by Andrew doing a little victory jig
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 17, 2020 8:57:57 GMT -5
Pretty obvious by now that Andrew/CC hate this country, despite both of them paying for their existence with tax dollars.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 17, 2020 8:59:39 GMT -5
Cyber, your lack of reading comprehension and utter inability to pick up humor in anything is unmatched.
Garth, your closeted frustration with life grows more outwardly obvious with each post of yours. Just find a swamp boyfriend and live a happy life brother, it's 2020 nobody will judge you and your partner and your appointment viewing of strictly mens gymnastics. Projecting your obsession with gays and with television programming on those with differing political views is some real repressed southern Baptist shit.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 17, 2020 9:02:42 GMT -5
Pretty obvious by now that Andrew/CC hate this country, despite both of them paying for their existence with tax dollars. There ya go, when in doubt or losing an argument just pull out the old 'sad, you just hate America' card like a 65 year old lady on Facebook. Now, get back in the law library and show a little teeth to all the blustery about slam dunk cases of fraud, you little limp dick weasel.
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 17, 2020 10:23:55 GMT -5
Losing an argument? To you? 🤣 You have yet to make a single-point beyond demonstrating your hatred for the country.
You've demonstrated it by being 100% okay with illegitimate elections as long as those elections insert the person you would prefer in office. Or, you just don't understand the dangers that engaging in such activities present for the legitimacy of the government moving forward. So which is it? Do you hate this country or are you just dumb?
It's also rather amusing to me that you think I need to go research legal terms in order to deal with your drivel.
Strong legal cases take time to build. Especially when you need to establish precedent first. I would think that someone who considers himself to be such a mental gargantuan would already understand this concept. Apologies if I gave you more credit than you deserved.
Also, I find it tremendously ironic that a person who has engaged in statutory rape and is also a farmhand for an illegal marijuana grow would call me a weasel. But that's what you folks over on the left do. Project.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 17, 2020 11:58:15 GMT -5
How about acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that the election was run as fair as any other election? Oh no, dear leader says otherwise so ignore what's in front of your face and look in the shadows.
Well have fun you rat faced weasel, the rest of us will be living in reality of the here and now when you and your other basement dwelling losers decide to rejoin society and attempt to pick up the pieces of the wreck your life has become.
|
|
|
Post by HumanAgent on Nov 17, 2020 12:45:24 GMT -5
Unity fellas, unity!
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 17, 2020 14:06:53 GMT -5
How about acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that the election was run as fair as any other election? Oh no, dear leader says otherwise so ignore what's in front of your face and look in the shadows. Well have fun you rat faced weasel, the rest of us will be living in reality of the here and now when you and your other basement dwelling losers decide to rejoin society and attempt to pick up the pieces of the wreck your life has become. 110 million mail-in votes would say that this election was not run just as Fair as any other election. You guys are hilarious when it comes to ignoring the numbers you don't like. The rest of your flailing attempts at insults are pretty funny though. I can't speak for Garth but my life has not changed one bit since November 3rd and won't change very much after the next president is sworn in regardless who it is. I'm fairly certain everyone that is left here owns their own home, and I'll even include you and your double-wide with that group. I realize it's not likely that a double-wide will have a basement, so at least you're not projecting on that one. If Joe Biden becomes president after all of the court cases have concluded, most Trump supporters will just go back to living their lives as they already were. If Donald Trump secured Victory through litigation, the side you cheer for is going to go set cities on fire. So as far as I'm concerned, Sue Baby Sue is the equivalent of burn baby burn. Not that I want the cities to be burned down. Just that if they are it will be your side that did it and so I can say hahaha at you one more time.
|
|
|
Post by cybergod on Nov 17, 2020 17:02:33 GMT -5
^^^ Andrew has both scenarios covered. If Trump's litigation is thwarted: he gets to live in liberal La La Land, and make excuses for the resultant over-taxed, tepid economy led by a doddering, old, demented fool until The Ho takes over in 2023 and creates a Cabinet position for a BLM representative. If Trump somehow triumphs by PROVING that Dominion servers & software were illegally tampered with?...Then Andrew can TAKE TO THE STREETS with his black "brothers" (who are just dying to find a white savior, don't cha know) and LEAD THE REBELLION and restore justice to this great nation. His dream will finally come to fruition, when he raises the BLM banner at the White House. It's kinda weird....the only person I've ever heard of that entertained such a strange fantasy was named Charles Manson. Know any chicks that are into LSD, Andrew? I hear the Spahn Ranch is still available for group activities....
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 18, 2020 5:10:08 GMT -5
How about acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that the election was run as fair as any other election? Care to lay out any of that evidence? It’s so fair that several mathematic formulas designed to detect fraud, detect fraud It was so much “fair like every other election” that there was unprecedented use of mail in ballots - avoided heretofore because they’re so susceptible to fraud.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 18, 2020 9:22:09 GMT -5
How about acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that the election was run as fair as any other election? Care to lay out any of that evidence? It’s so fair that several mathematic formulas designed to detect fraud, detect fraud It was so much “fair like every other election” that there was unprecedented use of mail in ballots - avoided heretofore because they’re so susceptible to fraud. trumps own created and appointed election security official that came out and said it was a secure election. Think about what you're alleging. Why even have the election go off if what you're saying is true. Where was any word of any of this when you were blubbering about a trup landslide victory?
|
|
|
Post by ghostoftc on Nov 18, 2020 13:08:03 GMT -5
Chris Krebs was not directly appointed by Donald Trump and if you take a quick look at his professional career you will see that he is connected in a very strong way to both the companies that produce the ballot machines and the deep State on the left.
Does it embarrass you that you have a really long history of listening to the wrong people?
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 19, 2020 8:29:32 GMT -5
How about acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that the election was run as fair as any other election? Care to lay out any of that evidence? It’s so fair that several mathematic formulas designed to detect fraud, detect fraud It was so much “fair like every other election” that there was unprecedented use of mail in ballots - avoided heretofore because they’re so susceptible to fraud. Could you please tell us more about these mathematical formulas designed to detect fraud?
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 19, 2020 10:54:26 GMT -5
Care to lay out any of that evidence? It’s so fair that several mathematic formulas designed to detect fraud, detect fraud It was so much “fair like every other election” that there was unprecedented use of mail in ballots - avoided heretofore because they’re so susceptible to fraud. Could you please tell us more about these mathematical formulas designed to detect fraud? There’s Benford’s law, which I’m sure you’ll google and scoff at (then tell me “it’s not math, it’s statistics!”). It was cited as evidence of Iran’s rigged election 10 years ago (is that one a baseless conspiracy theory too?). There are also other statistical “anomalies” such as the numbers of ballots which are only marked in for president and no other vote marked -Biden voters shattered a record there, while Trump’s votes follow the natural pattern, just as with benford’s law. Neither of these are proof of voter fraud in the same way as upping your wife’s life insurance and buying sleeping pills the week before she drowns in the tub is proof you killed her. But it does point strongly in that direction You’re not fooling anyone here, and neither is Andrew. Neither of you believe that Joe got in legitimately, but are happy with the steal. Both you chuds think that the electoral college is a scam, believe that Joe won the popular vote and so even if he cheated to get the presidency, he’s the “rightful winner.”
|
|