Someone mentioned it earlier already, but I'll say it again, it is truly sad how manipulated you are. I would recommend some reading for you so that you can see how you have been triggered and led by an authoritarian reflex, but, I know it would be a waste of time. You have the tragic combination of both lacking the desire to understand and the capacity to understand. You tick of every box on the F-scale and the populist playbook was designed specifically for stooges like you. Make no mistake, you are a stooge; wallow in your ignorance and misinformed beliefs that are so easily played.
-
160
-
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Commode flusher wrote:
As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about, are wrong, and have been misled by the people on Twitter who you rely on to form your opinions.
Few cases brought by Trump and his supporters in Georgia (or elsewhere) were actually based on factual allegations of voting fraud. Most were cases claiming procedural defects in the election. Of the "fact" based cases in Georgia:
------------------------
Boland v. Raffensberger, Case No. 2020-CV-343018 (Fulton County, GA) was dismissed for, amongst other reasons:
"Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest."
"Count I, which alleges that 20,312 people may have voted illegally in Georgia, relies upon a YouTube video which purportedly is based upon United States Postal Service mail forwarding information."
---------------------------------
Wood v. Raffensberger, Case No. 20-cv-5155-TCB was dismissed for, amongst other reason:
Allegations that Dominion voting machines switched votes from Trump to Biden were "astonishingly speculative"
--------------------------------
So Trump's lawyers do what you do -- they just make stuff up facts and declare victory. That works on a message board, but in court it never works, because the judge or fact finder is legally compelled to analyze what is being alleged. That's why Sidney Powell is being (1) indicted and (2) disbarred.
"Fourth, even if the Court were to examine the merits of this action, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
That means they didn't look at the merits and "relief" is what the court can do if the claim is true. The judge isn't willing to or can't declare a redo on the election so the case is tossed.
"Allegations that Dominion voting machines switched votes from Trump to Biden were "astonishingly speculative""
Democrats were worried about vote switching on Dominion machines before the 2020 election. They even demonstrated how easy it was to do.
Nope. Reading comprehension problems with you (amongst other reason you should be dismissed). That means the court DID look at the merits and dismissed the case.
"The allegations in the Complaint rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts."
"Count I, which alleges that 20,312 people may have voted illegally in Georgia, relies upon a YouTube video which purportedly is based upon United States Postal Service mail forwarding information."
40 -
Sally Vix wrote:
I know a lot of idiots and they would NOT want to be grouped in with Flagpole.
Maybe that's because they are idiots.
61 -
nothing but dumb wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Yet you believe everything the Democrats believe... lol.
I'm pretty sure that believing Trump is a turd, isn't a uniquely Democrat belief.
You've been spoon fed a narrative.
011 -
Theodor W. Adorno wrote:
Someone mentioned it earlier already, but I'll say it again, it is truly sad how manipulated you are. I would recommend some reading for you so that you can see how you have been triggered and led by an authoritarian reflex, but, I know it would be a waste of time. You have the tragic combination of both lacking the desire to understand and the capacity to understand. You tick of every box on the F-scale and the populist playbook was designed specifically for stooges like you. Make no mistake, you are a stooge; wallow in your ignorance and misinformed beliefs that are so easily played.
Yet you don't know what any of these boxes are and certainly couldn't explain why they shouldn't be checked.
014 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Commode flusher wrote:
As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about, are wrong, and have been misled by the people on Twitter who you rely on to form your opinions.
Few cases brought by Trump and his supporters in Georgia (or elsewhere) were actually based on factual allegations of voting fraud. Most were cases claiming procedural defects in the election. Of the "fact" based cases in Georgia:
------------------------
Boland v. Raffensberger, Case No. 2020-CV-343018 (Fulton County, GA) was dismissed for, amongst other reasons:
"Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest."
"Count I, which alleges that 20,312 people may have voted illegally in Georgia, relies upon a YouTube video which purportedly is based upon United States Postal Service mail forwarding information."
---------------------------------
Wood v. Raffensberger, Case No. 20-cv-5155-TCB was dismissed for, amongst other reason:
Allegations that Dominion voting machines switched votes from Trump to Biden were "astonishingly speculative"
--------------------------------
So Trump's lawyers do what you do -- they just make stuff up facts and declare victory. That works on a message board, but in court it never works, because the judge or fact finder is legally compelled to analyze what is being alleged. That's why Sidney Powell is being (1) indicted and (2) disbarred.
"Fourth, even if the Court were to examine the merits of this action, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
That means they didn't look at the merits and "relief" is what the court can do if the claim is true. The judge isn't willing to or can't declare a redo on the election so the case is tossed.
"Allegations that Dominion voting machines switched votes from Trump to Biden were "astonishingly speculative""
Democrats were worried about vote switching on Dominion machines before the 2020 election. They even demonstrated how easy it was to do.
They aren't saying they didn't look at the merits. They're saying they don't need to look at the merits.
Also, you do understand "astonishingly speculative" means without merit.
30 -
09
-
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
From Eggers et al, “No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election”: “Lott’s claims … do not withstand scrutiny.”
Theirs is not the only peer-reviewed article rebutting Lott at length. You seem ready to reject any number of arguments out of hand based on possible ulterior motives of those advancing the arguments. But you’re not given pause by the fact that Lott served in the Trump administration? (Note: I’m not actually saying Lott is wrong for that reason, and I recognize doing so as a fallacy. I just think it should be clear to others that he didn’t approach the question as a neutral observer whose sole fidelity is to law and the fair conduct of elections. And it seems less than consistent of you to harp on the prospect of bias as eroding confidence … when you critique only one side for that).
30 -
FYI, after Lott published his reply, an answer appeared from Grimmer, Harro, and Eggers. Again, they argue that his findings lack merit. I’ve raised the specter of ulterior motives or bias, so you may wonder what kind of Libs would do this. Feel free to check out their reply at the website of the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford. Eggers himself is at Unof Chicago (not exactly Berkeley or Oberlin, that).
10 -
Running out of tinfoil wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
From Eggers et al, “No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election”: “Lott’s claims … do not withstand scrutiny.”
Theirs is not the only peer-reviewed article rebutting Lott at length. You seem ready to reject any number of arguments out of hand based on possible ulterior motives of those advancing the arguments. But you’re not given pause by the fact that Lott served in the Trump administration? (Note: I’m not actually saying Lott is wrong for that reason, and I recognize doing so as a fallacy. I just think it should be clear to others that he didn’t approach the question as a neutral observer whose sole fidelity is to law and the fair conduct of elections. And it seems less than consistent of you to harp on the prospect of bias as eroding confidence … when you critique only one side for that).
This discussion is all about nothing.
The macro event is that, in America, we have never put the opposition leader in chains. this is a game changer that one side chose to support. we see who is on their side Nov 24’. This is the red line Obama spoke of.
End of story. that’s the news.
05 -
Nah. You’ve done plenty to establish yourself as a fundamentally unserious person with all your “commie” posts and a host of other drivel. You are correct that prosecuting a popular politician is a very serious matter with potentially disastrous consequences. If you had ever proceeded through an extended discussion in the manner of one earnestly trying to get at the facts and determine the best outcome on the basis of law and shared principles, I’d welcome more of that from you on this point.
Alas, you chose a different path.
40 -
Running out of tinfoil wrote:
Nah. You’ve done plenty to establish yourself as a fundamentally unserious person with all your “commie” posts and a host of other drivel. You are correct that prosecuting a popular politician is a very serious matter with potentially disastrous consequences. If you had ever proceeded through an extended discussion in the manner of one earnestly trying to get at the facts and determine the best outcome on the basis of law and shared principles, I’d welcome more of that from you on this point.
Alas, you chose a different path.
Oh it’s very serious. if you believe for a fraction of a second that that isn’t the drumbeat of thought from the other side then you are a child. Doubt I just came up with that one. this play is directly from Communism political philosophy. where have you ever seen this move in an American Democracy? you most definitely align with Communists whether you want to own it or not. it is what it is. you hunted down the political opposition leader in a 2-party American Democracy and put that leader in chains, in order to control the general election. that’s exactly what you did. you can’t sugar coat that. That’s how your mind works. You were willing to cross the line from Democracy to Communism. that’s what defines the philosophy. Win at all costs.
01 -
Noyankee wrote:
Running out of tinfoil wrote:
From Eggers et al, “No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election”: “Lott’s claims … do not withstand scrutiny.”
Theirs is not the only peer-reviewed article rebutting Lott at length. You seem ready to reject any number of arguments out of hand based on possible ulterior motives of those advancing the arguments. But you’re not given pause by the fact that Lott served in the Trump administration? (Note: I’m not actually saying Lott is wrong for that reason, and I recognize doing so as a fallacy. I just think it should be clear to others that he didn’t approach the question as a neutral observer whose sole fidelity is to law and the fair conduct of elections. And it seems less than consistent of you to harp on the prospect of bias as eroding confidence … when you critique only one side for that).
This discussion is all about nothing.
The macro event is that, in America, we have never put the opposition leader in chains. this is a game changer that one side chose to support. we see who is on their side Nov 24’. This is the red line Obama spoke of.
End of story. that’s the news.
You couldn't be more wrong. The "macro event" is that we had a President that engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of a federal election. That is the game changer. End of story.
70 -
And you started before that leader with Russian Collusion. this didn’t just happen in the last few months
04 -
Noyankee wrote:
Running out of tinfoil wrote:
Nah. You’ve done plenty to establish yourself as a fundamentally unserious person with all your “commie” posts and a host of other drivel. You are correct that prosecuting a popular politician is a very serious matter with potentially disastrous consequences. If you had ever proceeded through an extended discussion in the manner of one earnestly trying to get at the facts and determine the best outcome on the basis of law and shared principles, I’d welcome more of that from you on this point.
Alas, you chose a different path.
Oh it’s very serious. if you believe for a fraction of a second that that isn’t the drumbeat of thought from the other side then you are a child. Doubt I just came up with that one. this play is directly from Communism political philosophy. where have you ever seen this move in an American Democracy? you most definitely align with Communists whether you want to own it or not. it is what it is. you hunted down the political opposition leader in a 2-party American Democracy and put that leader in chains, in order to control the general election. that’s exactly what you did. you can’t sugar coat that. That’s how your mind works. You were willing to cross the line from Democracy to Communism. that’s what defines the philosophy. Win at all costs.
You fervently support a guy that asks you to ignore the results of the election and you have the nerve to pretend to care about democracy?
80 -
Whatever you think he may or may not have done this time is irrelevant. at the end of the day, you are trying to bypass the vote. That’s the simplest method to win. 100% effective in every Communist nation in History.
06 -
i dont understand words wrote:
Noyankee wrote:
Oh it’s very serious. if you believe for a fraction of a second that that isn’t the drumbeat of thought from the other side then you are a child. Doubt I just came up with that one. this play is directly from Communism political philosophy. where have you ever seen this move in an American Democracy? you most definitely align with Communists whether you want to own it or not. it is what it is. you hunted down the political opposition leader in a 2-party American Democracy and put that leader in chains, in order to control the general election. that’s exactly what you did. you can’t sugar coat that. That’s how your mind works. You were willing to cross the line from Democracy to Communism. that’s what defines the philosophy. Win at all costs.
You fervently support a guy that asks you to ignore the results of the election and you have the nerve to pretend to care about democracy?
I fervently support American Democracy 2-party system vote. Donald Trump can handle himself.
now, as you refer to me as a fervent supporter then why is it that I never heard the words that you accuse? I never once heard him ask me to ignore the results of an election, maybe you could drum up some text somewhere but I never heard your claim. therefore that claim must’ve been pretty low key if a fervent supporter like me never heard it. I doubt you did either.
what I saw was people carrying flags that got a little out of hand by some perhaps but flags don’t do so well against guns so seemed pretty docile to me.
what I heard was Trump saying Peaceful.
you guys make sh*t up to win at all costs. you aren’t honestly afraid of an old lady carrying a flag. ain’t no way. as much of a weakling as you are, even I can’t imagine you are that weak.
this was a mission from day 1 to take down the opposition leader and re control the vote. that’s Communism my friend when there is no realistic choice on the other side because you have them in chains.
03 -
Noyankee wrote:
Whatever you think he may or may not have done this time is irrelevant. at the end of the day, you are trying to bypass the vote. That’s the simplest method to win. 100% effective in every Communist nation in History.
Why don't you name a few countries that you believe are communist since this is word you regularly throw around?
20 -
Noyankee wrote:
Whatever you think he may or may not have done this time is irrelevant. at the end of the day, you are trying to bypass the vote. That’s the simplest method to win. 100% effective in every Communist nation in History.
I heard that the day after Trump releases his new Report on the Georgia election results, he's going to release a Report regarding the Marl-Agal bathrooms. That Report is going to blow the lid off the toilet narratives we've been fed by the liberal media.
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.