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.
He's kept up with all the court cases, where the evidence of fraud was introduced. And after almost 60 cases alleging fraud, not a single one of them has said "yes there is evidence of significant fraud"
The explanation of how the court works is the same, whether from a liberal or a conservative.No, he hasn't.
I actually read everyone's posts.
When someone yells, "Yes! I was right! My side won!" and ridicules a video of a guy who looks like a Liberal explaining how the court works, I know I'm wasting my time.
no where in that does he say there isnt any evidence,,,he didnt disagree,,,theres a lot of evidence,,,At best, with the election as a whole, the democrats can argue that republicans didn't prove fraud, but they can in no way say that it did not occur, or that it wasn't likely. And we all know that they will never tighten election security. Never.The source code is gone so that can't be proven.Yea people think the SCOTUS ruled that Trumps case was bad on his merits. This is not true. They didn't even hear it. The facts have not been proven incorrect and all still stand as stated. He was just denied the chance to review his case.
Oh, we were quite clear that the piece of shit lawsuit from Texas was going to be thrown out on standing.
Here's my post on the matter the day after the turd petition as submitted by the Texas AG:
Its more theater for dipshits.
First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
Second, the States in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
....
Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution. There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and...www.usmessageboard.com
That YOU didn't understand the standing issue until the SUpreme Court laid it out for you doesn't mean that anyone else was similarly limited. That shit was super obvious.
Um, Trumps legal team, which has a few decades more experience than you do, says the same thing I do.
You mean the same team that has lost case after case? The one contradicted by judge after judge?
The Supreme Court denied the Texas AG's turd petition on standing. Exactly as I and dozens and dozens of others predicted.
How did we know it, but you didn't?
Where did the SCOTUS say that the laws weren't changed illegally?
Where has any court said they were changed illegally?
Show me any court, federal or state, that has come to this conclusion. These issues were already adjudicated. The State courts found no such violations. And the federal courts that ruled on them ALSO found no such violations.
So who are you citing?
"Disprove whatever I imagine" is the same hapless nonsense that Flat Earthers, Birthers and Truthers use.
There's no evidence to back the 'stolen election' conspiracy.
The Attorney General disagrees:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's a reason that Trump's attorneys NEVER made the legal argument in court that fraud had ever occurred.
You've been played, prog.
Says you. Barr says this:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'. You've been had yet again, Prog. You're easy to trick because you seek out people to lie to you. Which explains why you keep citing OAN.
And explains why you're so consistently contradicted by everyone from the CISA, to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager, to the Attorney General to the actual election results.
no where in that does he say there isnt any evidence,,,he didnt disagree,,,theres a lot of evidence,,,At best, with the election as a whole, the democrats can argue that republicans didn't prove fraud, but they can in no way say that it did not occur, or that it wasn't likely. And we all know that they will never tighten election security. Never.The source code is gone so that can't be proven.Yea people think the SCOTUS ruled that Trumps case was bad on his merits. This is not true. They didn't even hear it. The facts have not been proven incorrect and all still stand as stated. He was just denied the chance to review his case.
Oh, we were quite clear that the piece of shit lawsuit from Texas was going to be thrown out on standing.
Here's my post on the matter the day after the turd petition as submitted by the Texas AG:
Its more theater for dipshits.
First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
Second, the States in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
....
Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution. There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and...
That YOU didn't understand the standing issue until the SUpreme Court laid it out for you doesn't mean that anyone else was similarly limited. That shit was super obvious.
Um, Trumps legal team, which has a few decades more experience than you do, says the same thing I do.
You mean the same team that has lost case after case? The one contradicted by judge after judge?
The Supreme Court denied the Texas AG's turd petition on standing. Exactly as I and dozens and dozens of others predicted.
How did we know it, but you didn't?
Where did the SCOTUS say that the laws weren't changed illegally?
Where has any court said they were changed illegally?
Show me any court, federal or state, that has come to this conclusion. These issues were already adjudicated. The State courts found no such violations. And the federal courts that ruled on them ALSO found no such violations.
So who are you citing?
"Disprove whatever I imagine" is the same hapless nonsense that Flat Earthers, Birthers and Truthers use.
There's no evidence to back the 'stolen election' conspiracy.
The Attorney General disagrees:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's a reason that Trump's attorneys NEVER made the legal argument in court that fraud had ever occurred.
You've been played, prog.
Says you. Barr says this:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'. You've been had yet again, Prog. You're easy to trick because you seek out people to lie to you. Which explains why you keep citing OAN.
And explains why you're so consistently contradicted by everyone from the CISA, to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager, to the Attorney General to the actual election results.
why would you lie about what he said???no where in that does he say there isnt any evidence,,,he didnt disagree,,,theres a lot of evidence,,,At best, with the election as a whole, the democrats can argue that republicans didn't prove fraud, but they can in no way say that it did not occur, or that it wasn't likely. And we all know that they will never tighten election security. Never.The source code is gone so that can't be proven.Yea people think the SCOTUS ruled that Trumps case was bad on his merits. This is not true. They didn't even hear it. The facts have not been proven incorrect and all still stand as stated. He was just denied the chance to review his case.
Oh, we were quite clear that the piece of shit lawsuit from Texas was going to be thrown out on standing.
Here's my post on the matter the day after the turd petition as submitted by the Texas AG:
Its more theater for dipshits.
First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
Second, the States in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
....
Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution. There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and...
That YOU didn't understand the standing issue until the SUpreme Court laid it out for you doesn't mean that anyone else was similarly limited. That shit was super obvious.
Um, Trumps legal team, which has a few decades more experience than you do, says the same thing I do.
You mean the same team that has lost case after case? The one contradicted by judge after judge?
The Supreme Court denied the Texas AG's turd petition on standing. Exactly as I and dozens and dozens of others predicted.
How did we know it, but you didn't?
Where did the SCOTUS say that the laws weren't changed illegally?
Where has any court said they were changed illegally?
Show me any court, federal or state, that has come to this conclusion. These issues were already adjudicated. The State courts found no such violations. And the federal courts that ruled on them ALSO found no such violations.
So who are you citing?
"Disprove whatever I imagine" is the same hapless nonsense that Flat Earthers, Birthers and Truthers use.
There's no evidence to back the 'stolen election' conspiracy.
The Attorney General disagrees:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's a reason that Trump's attorneys NEVER made the legal argument in court that fraud had ever occurred.
You've been played, prog.
Says you. Barr says this:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'. You've been had yet again, Prog. You're easy to trick because you seek out people to lie to you. Which explains why you keep citing OAN.
And explains why you're so consistently contradicted by everyone from the CISA, to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager, to the Attorney General to the actual election results.
Of a stolen election, yes he does.
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no fraud that would have changed the outcome. There's no evidence of a stolen election.
You've been played like a fiddle. Eagerly, and at your request.
Texas should send the SCOTUS a swiss colony gift basket and a thank you note. If they're pseudo-legal horseshit had been affirmed, every state from California to New York would have dragged Texas to court every time they tried to redistrict or make changes to their election law.
Texas, or ANY state lacks standing in any elections but their own.
why would you lie about what he said???no where in that does he say there isnt any evidence,,,he didnt disagree,,,theres a lot of evidence,,,At best, with the election as a whole, the democrats can argue that republicans didn't prove fraud, but they can in no way say that it did not occur, or that it wasn't likely. And we all know that they will never tighten election security. Never.The source code is gone so that can't be proven.Yea people think the SCOTUS ruled that Trumps case was bad on his merits. This is not true. They didn't even hear it. The facts have not been proven incorrect and all still stand as stated. He was just denied the chance to review his case.
Oh, we were quite clear that the piece of shit lawsuit from Texas was going to be thrown out on standing.
Here's my post on the matter the day after the turd petition as submitted by the Texas AG:
Its more theater for dipshits.
First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
Second, the States in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
....
Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution. There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and...
That YOU didn't understand the standing issue until the SUpreme Court laid it out for you doesn't mean that anyone else was similarly limited. That shit was super obvious.
Um, Trumps legal team, which has a few decades more experience than you do, says the same thing I do.
You mean the same team that has lost case after case? The one contradicted by judge after judge?
The Supreme Court denied the Texas AG's turd petition on standing. Exactly as I and dozens and dozens of others predicted.
How did we know it, but you didn't?
Where did the SCOTUS say that the laws weren't changed illegally?
Where has any court said they were changed illegally?
Show me any court, federal or state, that has come to this conclusion. These issues were already adjudicated. The State courts found no such violations. And the federal courts that ruled on them ALSO found no such violations.
So who are you citing?
"Disprove whatever I imagine" is the same hapless nonsense that Flat Earthers, Birthers and Truthers use.
There's no evidence to back the 'stolen election' conspiracy.
The Attorney General disagrees:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's a reason that Trump's attorneys NEVER made the legal argument in court that fraud had ever occurred.
You've been played, prog.
Says you. Barr says this:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'. You've been had yet again, Prog. You're easy to trick because you seek out people to lie to you. Which explains why you keep citing OAN.
And explains why you're so consistently contradicted by everyone from the CISA, to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager, to the Attorney General to the actual election results.
Of a stolen election, yes he does.
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no fraud that would have changed the outcome. There's no evidence of a stolen election.
You've been played like a fiddle. Eagerly, and at your request.
why do you keep editing his comment???why would you lie about what he said???no where in that does he say there isnt any evidence,,,he didnt disagree,,,theres a lot of evidence,,,At best, with the election as a whole, the democrats can argue that republicans didn't prove fraud, but they can in no way say that it did not occur, or that it wasn't likely. And we all know that they will never tighten election security. Never.The source code is gone so that can't be proven.Yea people think the SCOTUS ruled that Trumps case was bad on his merits. This is not true. They didn't even hear it. The facts have not been proven incorrect and all still stand as stated. He was just denied the chance to review his case.
Oh, we were quite clear that the piece of shit lawsuit from Texas was going to be thrown out on standing.
Here's my post on the matter the day after the turd petition as submitted by the Texas AG:
Its more theater for dipshits.
First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
Second, the States in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
....
Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution. There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and...
That YOU didn't understand the standing issue until the SUpreme Court laid it out for you doesn't mean that anyone else was similarly limited. That shit was super obvious.
Um, Trumps legal team, which has a few decades more experience than you do, says the same thing I do.
You mean the same team that has lost case after case? The one contradicted by judge after judge?
The Supreme Court denied the Texas AG's turd petition on standing. Exactly as I and dozens and dozens of others predicted.
How did we know it, but you didn't?
Where did the SCOTUS say that the laws weren't changed illegally?
Where has any court said they were changed illegally?
Show me any court, federal or state, that has come to this conclusion. These issues were already adjudicated. The State courts found no such violations. And the federal courts that ruled on them ALSO found no such violations.
So who are you citing?
"Disprove whatever I imagine" is the same hapless nonsense that Flat Earthers, Birthers and Truthers use.
There's no evidence to back the 'stolen election' conspiracy.
The Attorney General disagrees:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's a reason that Trump's attorneys NEVER made the legal argument in court that fraud had ever occurred.
You've been played, prog.
Says you. Barr says this:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'. You've been had yet again, Prog. You're easy to trick because you seek out people to lie to you. Which explains why you keep citing OAN.
And explains why you're so consistently contradicted by everyone from the CISA, to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager, to the Attorney General to the actual election results.
Of a stolen election, yes he does.
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no fraud that would have changed the outcome. There's no evidence of a stolen election.
You've been played like a fiddle. Eagerly, and at your request.
And by lie, you mean quote?
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There is no evidence of a stolen election. You've been duped because you wanted to be lied to, prog. You eagerly and consciously sought out people to tell you the lies you wanted to hear.
How's that working out for you.
Texas should send the SCOTUS a swiss colony gift basket and a thank you note. If they're pseudo-legal horseshit had been affirmed, every state from California to New York would have dragged Texas to court every time they tried to redistrict or make changes to their election law.
Texas, or ANY state lacks standing in any elections but their own.
I said the same. That it would open the door to 50 states suing the other 50 states. The USSC would never see the end of it ,or have time to handle the caseload.
That's why they first cut the caseload with the 11th amendment.
why do you keep editing his comment???why would you lie about what he said???no where in that does he say there isnt any evidence,,,he didnt disagree,,,theres a lot of evidence,,,At best, with the election as a whole, the democrats can argue that republicans didn't prove fraud, but they can in no way say that it did not occur, or that it wasn't likely. And we all know that they will never tighten election security. Never.The source code is gone so that can't be proven.Yea people think the SCOTUS ruled that Trumps case was bad on his merits. This is not true. They didn't even hear it. The facts have not been proven incorrect and all still stand as stated. He was just denied the chance to review his case.
Oh, we were quite clear that the piece of shit lawsuit from Texas was going to be thrown out on standing.
Here's my post on the matter the day after the turd petition as submitted by the Texas AG:
Its more theater for dipshits.
First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
Second, the States in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
....
Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution. There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and...
That YOU didn't understand the standing issue until the SUpreme Court laid it out for you doesn't mean that anyone else was similarly limited. That shit was super obvious.
Um, Trumps legal team, which has a few decades more experience than you do, says the same thing I do.
You mean the same team that has lost case after case? The one contradicted by judge after judge?
The Supreme Court denied the Texas AG's turd petition on standing. Exactly as I and dozens and dozens of others predicted.
How did we know it, but you didn't?
Where did the SCOTUS say that the laws weren't changed illegally?
Where has any court said they were changed illegally?
Show me any court, federal or state, that has come to this conclusion. These issues were already adjudicated. The State courts found no such violations. And the federal courts that ruled on them ALSO found no such violations.
So who are you citing?
"Disprove whatever I imagine" is the same hapless nonsense that Flat Earthers, Birthers and Truthers use.
There's no evidence to back the 'stolen election' conspiracy.
The Attorney General disagrees:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's a reason that Trump's attorneys NEVER made the legal argument in court that fraud had ever occurred.
You've been played, prog.
Says you. Barr says this:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'. You've been had yet again, Prog. You're easy to trick because you seek out people to lie to you. Which explains why you keep citing OAN.
And explains why you're so consistently contradicted by everyone from the CISA, to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager, to the Attorney General to the actual election results.
Of a stolen election, yes he does.
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no fraud that would have changed the outcome. There's no evidence of a stolen election.
You've been played like a fiddle. Eagerly, and at your request.
And by lie, you mean quote?
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There is no evidence of a stolen election. You've been duped because you wanted to be lied to, prog. You eagerly and consciously sought out people to tell you the lies you wanted to hear.
How's that working out for you.
thats not what its all about,,It’s BDS when you make up phony allegations of fraud because you’re brain can’t accept Trump lost the election.its not BDS when we can talk about actual policy,,Biden Derangement Syndrome.
It can strike so quickly.
unlike the TDS we have seen the last 4 yrs...
just remember that going forward,,
while TDS caused 4 yrs of complaining about tweets, if biden gets in we will talk about policy and the fact our president is in the pocket of china,,,
You see, according to Trump supporters, Texas had to take away the votes of four states to protect the Republic.Didn't you guys just try and disenfranchise like 20 million people to overturn an election you lost?
you post his comment and then say it says something it doesnt,,, stop lying,,why do you keep editing his comment???why would you lie about what he said???no where in that does he say there isnt any evidence,,,he didnt disagree,,,theres a lot of evidence,,,At best, with the election as a whole, the democrats can argue that republicans didn't prove fraud, but they can in no way say that it did not occur, or that it wasn't likely. And we all know that they will never tighten election security. Never.The source code is gone so that can't be proven.Yea people think the SCOTUS ruled that Trumps case was bad on his merits. This is not true. They didn't even hear it. The facts have not been proven incorrect and all still stand as stated. He was just denied the chance to review his case.
Oh, we were quite clear that the piece of shit lawsuit from Texas was going to be thrown out on standing.
Here's my post on the matter the day after the turd petition as submitted by the Texas AG:
Its more theater for dipshits.
First, Texas doesn't have standing for the election laws in other states. This alone ends any viable legal challenge. But wait, there's more!
Second, the States in question have found no violations of their own election laws. The issues have been adjudicated. Killing the legal challenge again. But lets kick the dead horse, shall we?
....
Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI
Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution. There are no constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is not a investigatory court. They require proof and sate and...
That YOU didn't understand the standing issue until the SUpreme Court laid it out for you doesn't mean that anyone else was similarly limited. That shit was super obvious.
Um, Trumps legal team, which has a few decades more experience than you do, says the same thing I do.
You mean the same team that has lost case after case? The one contradicted by judge after judge?
The Supreme Court denied the Texas AG's turd petition on standing. Exactly as I and dozens and dozens of others predicted.
How did we know it, but you didn't?
Where did the SCOTUS say that the laws weren't changed illegally?
Where has any court said they were changed illegally?
Show me any court, federal or state, that has come to this conclusion. These issues were already adjudicated. The State courts found no such violations. And the federal courts that ruled on them ALSO found no such violations.
So who are you citing?
"Disprove whatever I imagine" is the same hapless nonsense that Flat Earthers, Birthers and Truthers use.
There's no evidence to back the 'stolen election' conspiracy.
The Attorney General disagrees:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's a reason that Trump's attorneys NEVER made the legal argument in court that fraud had ever occurred.
You've been played, prog.
Says you. Barr says this:
Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no evidence of a 'stolen election'. You've been had yet again, Prog. You're easy to trick because you seek out people to lie to you. Which explains why you keep citing OAN.
And explains why you're so consistently contradicted by everyone from the CISA, to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager, to the Attorney General to the actual election results.
Of a stolen election, yes he does.
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There's no fraud that would have changed the outcome. There's no evidence of a stolen election.
You've been played like a fiddle. Eagerly, and at your request.
And by lie, you mean quote?
“to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
There is no evidence of a stolen election. You've been duped because you wanted to be lied to, prog. You eagerly and consciously sought out people to tell you the lies you wanted to hear.
How's that working out for you.
And by 'edit', you mean directly quote: “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
Keep running, Prog.
I would never do that,, dems dont like the competition,,thats not what its all about,,It’s BDS when you make up phony allegations of fraud because you’re brain can’t accept Trump lost the election.its not BDS when we can talk about actual policy,,Biden Derangement Syndrome.
It can strike so quickly.
unlike the TDS we have seen the last 4 yrs...
just remember that going forward,,
while TDS caused 4 yrs of complaining about tweets, if biden gets in we will talk about policy and the fact our president is in the pocket of china,,,
In other words, you’ll still be spouting conspiracy theories and nonsense that no sane reasonable person believes.
You see, according to Trump supporters, Texas had to take away the votes of four states to protect the Republic.Didn't you guys just try and disenfranchise like 20 million people to overturn an election you lost?
Because these guys clearly have no idea what it is to be a Republic.
He's kept up with all the court cases, where the evidence of fraud was introduced. And after almost 60 cases alleging fraud, not a single one of them has said "yes there is evidence of significant fraud"I cannot have a discussion with you because it's obvious you only read the sites that make you happy and you don't keep up with events on a daily basis.
Become a responsible adult and get back to me in about a week or do.
My 'side' is the citizen who wants safeguards that elections are not being negated by corrupt life time politicians who don't care about the little people.I'm glad you believe your side when they are saying nothing is wrong. Now watch as nothing is done to safeguard election integrity in the next four years. Even if you believe the elections were as shiny as the freaking snow, it will be telling that the ruling class is fine with crap voting machines, unsupervised vote counting, and woeful voter Identification. Biden won't lift a finger to improve our elections, a person's only chance to have any input on how they are governed. How bad is it that the people who take our money can't be bothered with border or election security?I think he should do something even more important. He needs to make it so all Americans can trust that voting is a real exercise.
Very VERY simple way to do that.
That's a start.
- Stop spreading all the FUCKING BULLSHIT about fake "fraud".
- Fucking GROW A PAIR and admit you lost, as did "captured" John McCain, as did Romney, as did Kerry and Gore and H.W. and every defeated candidate before him with the exception of John Adams. FFS even Hillary Clinton did it and she doesn't even have a pair to grow so Rump was out-paired by a woman.
- Refrain from installing lackeys at the post office to try to sabotage the system by cutting down votes.
- Refrain from your desperate phone calls to governors and state legislators begging them to disregard their own state laws and the will of their own people just so Numero Uno can have yet another fake magazine cover to beat off with
- Quit egging on extremists to intimidate the electorate brownshirt-style with "Stand by" bullshit
- Quit exhorting more extremists to storm their state capitals and plan out abducting and executing the governor
- MAN THE FUCK UP when they do that and denounce it.
And it will never happen since Rump is way WAY too much of a goddam WIMP to man up to it, as anyone who's watched him plop out all those pathetic whiny 3am tweets knows well.
My "side"??
I don't have a "side". My "side" is the Constitution of the United States, the rule of law and the concept of consent by the governed. What would your "side" be?
I think Trump should stand up for the Republic. He should demand a voting system that can be demonstrably fair. I do not think he should seek another term. I think he should do something even more important. He needs to make it so all Americans can trust that voting is a real exercise. Once the system is in place, he and Pence should recuse themselves and Americans should have another election with a proven system. If Biden and Harris win with an actual election process, so be it, that is the will of the people. From my perspective, if Trump does not do this, the Republic is over. There will be no need to vote because voting machines and vote counters can fix an election any way the ruling class desires. I'm thinking this is the last chance ordinary citizens have to have any say in how they are governed. If Trump does not act, voting is pointless, and ruling class will have absolute power.
A duly elected President of this Nation is empowered to legislate jack squat under the existing Constitution.[ see Articles I & II] Trump NEVER had and NEVER will have the power to change existing law by fiat!I think Trump should stand up for the Republic. He should demand a voting system that can be demonstrably fair.
Earth to DustyInfinity...Trump has been and forever will be the Divider-in-Chief and could never display the necessary leadership for such even if he had the desire or the platform for such exercise. He's an idiot interested in his personal well being and gives little about the electorate, as proven for the last four years by his conduct! Besides, directly below you claim voting will not be needed. You appear very confused!He needs to make it so all Americans can trust that voting is a real exercise.
And just how is the absence of voting to be reconciled with the Constitution and the bicameral Legislature and the Executive Branch? Have you really thought that through??There will be no need to vote because voting machines and vote counters can fix an election any way the ruling class desires.
If Trump does not act, voting is pointless, and [the] ruling class will have absolute power.
why do you keep editing his comment???
I've run into his type. That insist you quote everything they said, and not just the meaningful section. Because they want to hide behind all the other bullshit, they can claim you didn't pay attention to.And by 'edit', you mean directly quote: “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
Keep running, Prog.
I know right,,, they are all over the board and then call you crazy,,why do you keep editing his comment???I've run into his type. That insist you quote everything they said, and not just the meaningful section. Because they want to hide behind all the other bullshit, they can claim you didn't pay attention to.And by 'edit', you mean directly quote: “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
Keep running, Prog.
Most have a share in this...But your side is based on how much you can take from your fellow citizen and interfering on how fellow citizens live.I'm glad you believe your side when they are saying nothing is wrong. Now watch as nothing is done to safeguard election integrity in the next four years. Even if you believe the elections were as shiny as the freaking snow, it will be telling that the ruling class is fine with crap voting machines, unsupervised vote counting, and woeful voter Identification. Biden won't lift a finger to improve our elections, a person's only chance to have any input on how they are governed. How bad is it that the people who take our money can't be bothered with border or election security?I think he should do something even more important. He needs to make it so all Americans can trust that voting is a real exercise.
Very VERY simple way to do that.
That's a start.
- Stop spreading all the FUCKING BULLSHIT about fake "fraud".
- Fucking GROW A PAIR and admit you lost, as did "captured" John McCain, as did Romney, as did Kerry and Gore and H.W. and every defeated candidate before him with the exception of John Adams. FFS even Hillary Clinton did it and she doesn't even have a pair to grow so Rump was out-paired by a woman.
- Refrain from installing lackeys at the post office to try to sabotage the system by cutting down votes.
- Refrain from your desperate phone calls to governors and state legislators begging them to disregard their own state laws and the will of their own people just so Numero Uno can have yet another fake magazine cover to beat off with
- Quit egging on extremists to intimidate the electorate brownshirt-style with "Stand by" bullshit
- Quit exhorting more extremists to storm their state capitals and plan out abducting and executing the governor
- MAN THE FUCK UP when they do that and denounce it.
And it will never happen since Rump is way WAY too much of a goddam WIMP to man up to it, as anyone who's watched him plop out all those pathetic whiny 3am tweets knows well.
My "side"??
I don't have a "side". My "side" is the Constitution of the United States, the rule of law and the concept of consent by the governed. What would your "side" be?
