2020 Presidential Race

All of these cases were tossed on technicalities, dumbass ones at that. They were not tossed because they couldn't be proven. MSNBC/CNN don't tell radical leftists like bowl this

Here's a line from a Wisconsin case where the judge specifically found Trump had standing and let him make his case. Guess what... Trump lost.

"This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff “asks that the Rule of Law be followed.” (Pl. Br., ECF No. 109.) It has been."

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.92761/gov.uscourts.wied.92761.134.0_4.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarcoVol
NPR saying they have seen proof isn't proof it's a report and likely a fake one
Ratensperger saying people have threatened him isn't proof.
Just like people saying the election was stolen wasnt proof. Just like redit circulating some chart with no back up isnt proof. Just like saying no audit is proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarcoVol
Your Democrat buds also have attacked Rand Paul and shot Steve Scalise. You guys are dangerous when you don't get your way.
Not a Dem and you know it. Huge Rand Paul fan. Again not answering the question. So Cruz is so brave but these judges are so scared? Come on man.
 
Whatever you think of the electors, Pence has no authority to "reject" any of them.

Seems like Pence swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If he felt that the election was conducted in such a way that it cannot be reconciled with the Constitution, then it would seem he'd have to make a decision on which way to go. I wouldn't get upset over it though; politicians are too much pansies to go out on a limb; and above all, Pence is just another politician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave
You first have to prove that such a vote was fraudulent to begin with. Simply saying it, does not make it so. In the words of Judge Stephanos Bibas, from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump) :

"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."

-- Judge Stepanos Bibas, from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a Trump appointee, while dismissing a case brought forth by legal representatives of the 2020 Trump Campaign.

Somehow it always seemed that court cases were all about "charges", and the courts were all about "proof" - whether the charges can be shown to be valid. Something similar to a person is charged with murder (while according to the prosecution is absolutely guilty), but he's supposedly innocent until the court says otherwise. Apparently the courts are a bit fickle about who has merit ... or standing.
 
He could have made a reasonable point about people gathering in front of his house. But instead embellish what happened to whip up more outrage.
Why do you assume that is the case. If I was threatening you I would stop and act peaceful when the police arrived. I'm not saying that is what happened,but you are willing to say he is in the wrong without any proof. What in antifa's past makes you think it was a peaceful gathering?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSD82
Why do you assume that is the case. If I was threatening you I would stop and act peaceful when the police arrived. I'm not saying that is what happened,but you are willing to say he is in the wrong without any proof. What in antifa's past makes you think it was a peaceful gathering?
It was recorded.
 
But they claim to have proof except when asked to show it in court. If that proof doesn't include data and information then what is it exactly?

Someone can have allegations of impropriety; but if they don't have actual access to machines and votes, they don't have proof. What if your neighbor kidnapped your daughter, and you knew, but you couldn't legally get inside his house to take pictures etc to provide proof? This is all about access to ballots and machines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave
Seems like Pence swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If he felt that the election was conducted in such a way that it cannot be reconciled with the Constitution, then it would seem he'd have to make a decision on which way to go.
I guess he could throw all the certificates in a trash can and light it on fire, but what would that accomplish?
 
Someone can have allegations of impropriety; but if they don't have actual access to machines and votes, they don't have proof. What if your neighbor kidnapped your daughter, and you knew, but you couldn't legally get inside his house to take pictures etc to provide proof? This is all about access to ballots and machines.

If your neighbor accuses you of selling drugs because they saw some people enter your house and leave 10min later, are you then under obligation to let them in to prove you don’t sell drugs?

I can make ridiculous analogies too.
 

So a Chinese company rented space from a Trump company and paid rent to a Trump company. That's how business works. Now if they just passed the money without actually occupying any space, there could be an issue. This BS is an issue because we basically had the first president in recent history who accomplished something outside politics vs lifer politicians who routinely profit from their political connections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave

VN Store



Back
Top