Orangeburst
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 46,981
- Likes
- 107,416
That's because the election was rigged with vote by mail fraud well before the first votes were cast; to say the plan was flawed because it was ill conceived and poorly implemented would be unbelievably generous and misleading. Dems had a goal to circumvent election rules, and they did it.
I also think it's incredibly suspicious that none of the claims of election fraud were brought before a court of law were found to be credible. It leads me to believe that either there was no widespread election fraud as claimed on social media OR that there was multi state and district collusion of judges to find that the evidence being presented wasn't credible.
Really it boils down to whether or not social media "claims" weigh more than the judgment of legal experts?
It's the same system that existed four years earlier when the gangster won, Earl. There was no fraud. The gangster conned all of his dumb redneck supporters--who then went out and threatened poll workers and later attacked the Capitol. Police officers died as a result of lies told by the president--that IS unprecedented. He belongs in prison--and MAGA? MAGA belong in a basic learn-how-to-think rationally camps.
One is just foolish to deny that fraud took place..the question is how much
It's more incredibly suspicious that courts refused to hear cases on grounds that there was no proof. Generally it seems that trials are all about the presentation of "fact" and whether those "facts" are legitimate and amount to proof of a wrongdoing. Pretty convenient for government to cover so easily for another part of the government ... something like you can't fight city hall because we won't let you.
Most cases have been dismissed with a ruling that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing without any evidence ever being presented. Federal judges don’t want to touch these cases because they’re career killers and just may be killers.
If you can’t show you were injured by the defendant’s “actions” then you don’t have a claim, that’s a very basic concept that comes into play all the time and people are pretending it’s some suspicious technicalityMost cases have been dismissed with a ruling that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing without any evidence ever being presented. Federal judges don’t want to touch these cases because they’re career killers and just may be killers.
We don't have a respectable, credible justice system. Nor is it full of judges or "Legal experts" with integrity. C'mon now, lmao.I also think it's incredibly suspicious that none of the claims of election fraud were brought before a court of law were found to be credible. It leads me to believe that either there was no widespread election fraud as claimed on social media OR that there was multi state and district collusion of judges to find that the evidence being presented wasn't credible.
Really it boils down to whether or not social media "claims" weigh more than the judgment of legal experts?
We don't have a respectable, credible justice system. Nor is it full of judges or "Legal experts" with integrity. C'mon now, lmao.