bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,164
- 47,312
- Thread starter
- #101
They're lies.Lies.It has nothing to do with the law, moron. It has to do with death threats.No, they aren't all leftwing nuts. Some of them are just cowards.Nothing qualifies as proof with leftwing nuts. Biden could barbeque a baby on the capital steps and you turds would claim he didn't nothing wrong.Do you honestly believe anyone is going to listen to commercials in your links? If so, that explain why you support Don the Con.
This sounds like some rightwing radio host, because he starts pushing emergency food supplies and shit right in the middle of the video.
Anyone can get video and do a voice over. I can do it. It's called Adobe After Effects, a video editing program.
ROLF. He's youTuber, moron. He has to have ads on his videos because youTube has demonized his videos. Your sleazy attempt to deflect from the content of the video is duly note.
Demonetized? Most posters I would suspect meant to say demonetized but with you I'm not sure. Voice overs from wingnuts are not proof of anything.
And 'left wing nuts' also including essentially every judge to hear the nonsense you're peddling?
Or.....they just know the law better than you do.
Says you, citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about.
Per the actual judges adjudicating these cases, its a very different story:
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."
Trump v. BOOCKVAR
Or the Supreme Court itself:
"The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
But neither Judge Brann nor the Supreme Court understand the law, huh?
Smiling.....but you've got it figured out?
The judge is a Bush appointee, which means he's probably a weasel. Roberts was also a Bush appointee.
Quotes. You just call them lies because you don't like the outcomes of the cases.
But tell us again why I should ignore the Supreme Court and Justice Brann....and instead believe you, citing yourself.
For the giggles.