The Lawsuits

[BeaverFever]

3 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Well, I have good news for you Beave, the truth.  Is gonna.  Set.  You.  Free.  I promise.  For you I envision a Christmas that you will never forget.  

It’s gonna be a lean Christmas for you being short $100 and all

Edited November 20, 2020 by BeaverFever

[sharkman]

Good one, but that would make your Christmas even better, no?

[BubberMiley]

[sharkman]

There was no widespread fraud in 2000 and SCOTUS decided the election result.  
 

This one is not widespread in the sense that it’s only in several key states, all the ones that stopped counting the night of November 3.  Once SCOTUS rules on it, then the Trump presidency will either be over or not.

 I see that Obama was interviewed yet again, trash talking Trump.  I’ve never seen a former president trash talk like this.  And it’s because he’s worried.

Something strange is also happening to President Trump.  He’s not tweeting like a teenager anymore.  He’s not in full freak out mode like you’d expect, whenever Obama goads him.  Not sure what’s going on there.

[BubberMiley]

It appears Trump is now just trying to sow chaos in the hopes that it will give him leverage so he can cut a deal for immunity from prosecution for himself and his crooked family. I don't think it's going to work.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, sharkman said:

Something strange is also happening to President Trump.  He’s not tweeting like a teenager anymore.  He’s not in full freak out mode like you’d expect, whenever Obama goads him.  Not sure what’s going on there.

Handcuffs? 

Edited November 20, 2020 by bcsapper

[Argus]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Handcuffs? 

Ritalin?

[Argus]

4 hours ago, sharkman said:

I see that Obama was interviewed yet again, trash talking Trump.  I’ve never seen a former president trash talk like this.  And it’s because he’s worried.

You've never seen an existing president trash talking the former president for four straight years after an election, either. You think maybe that changed things?

[Infidel Dog]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

You've never seen an existing president trash talking the former president for four straight years after an election, either. You think maybe that changed things?

You have to get over this idea that Hillary was president.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

26 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Handcuffs? 

Censorship. Same thing, kind of, I guess.

[Infidel Dog]

5 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Trump won Utah. I don't know who Rino Romney thinks he's representing.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Censorship. Same thing, kind of, I guess.

I think it's better known as damage limitation. 

[Infidel Dog]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think it's better known as damage limitation. 

Is that what Dorsey's calling it now? Makes as much sense as the other made-up nonsense that comes squirting out both sides of his furry mouth, I guess.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

Is that what Dorsey's calling it now? Makes as much sense as the other made-up nonsense that comes squirting out both sides of his furry mouth, I guess.

I don't know who Dorsey is.  If he upsets you, I would probably agree with him.

[Cannucklehead]

31 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Trump won Utah. I don't know who Rino Romney thinks he's representing.

Utah is not a country.  

[Infidel Dog]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know who Dorsey is.  If he upsets you, I would probably agree with him.

Really you don't know who Jack Dorsey is but you want to offer expertise on why Trump is using Dorsey's platform (Twitter) less these days?

Typical. 

This is Jack Dorsey:

Oh and Canucklehead Mitt Romney is supposed to be representing the people of Utah - not attacking their choice for President. If he opposes the view of the people of Utah he should resign.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Really you don't know who Jack Dorsey is but you want to offer expertise on why Trump is using Dorsey's platform (Twitter) less these days?

 

When did I do that? I thought I was responding to your post.

[Infidel Dog]

You somehow got the idea that the President might be in some way "Handcuffed" from reacting to Obama's attacks.

It's right up there above. Not sure why I have to be explaining your comments to you.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You somehow got the idea that the President might be in some way "Handcuffed" from reacting to Obama's attacks.

It's right up there above. Not sure why I have to be explaining your comments to you.

Yeah, but what does it have to do with the the fellow with the beard.  I was responding to you, and handcuffing seems a reasonable attempt by those around him to get him to shut up.  Argus's Ritalin idea is good too. 

I like straight jackets, but I think I've mentioned those before with regard to Trump.

[Cannucklehead]

17 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Really you don't know who Jack Dorsey is but you want to offer expertise on why Trump is using Dorsey's platform (Twitter) less these days?

Typical. 

This is Jack Dorsey:

Oh and Canucklehead Mitt Romney is supposed to be representing the people of Utah - not attacking their choice for President. If he opposes the view of the people of Utah he should resign.

Its not their choice of President that he's talking about.  Stop playing dumb.  

[Infidel Dog]

If they voted Trump, he's their choice for President. That's a basic fact. It's called reality. Come join us some day.

And BCs if you want to get technical you were responding to me, responding to you, responding to Sharkman and Jack Dorsey runs Twitter which is the platform that's been censoring Trump.

But here's something more interesting...

Kayleigh McEnany just had a press conference where she reminded fake news that the vaccine is coming quick because Trump pushed for it. So Bejing Biden and Commie Cuomo can give up on their totalitarian fantasies of using the Chi Comm flu to teach the public when they can come out of their houses or talk to their friends or family.

And if you'd like to know how the 71 million Trump voters are dealing with this 'Shut up, stay in your houses and accept the Coup' idea here's an example of what one of the 71 million are thinking - but the techno-fascists want to make it as difficult for you to see it as possible so you'll have to jump through a few of YouTube's hoops.

 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

You have to get over this idea that Hillary was president.

Trump trash talking Obama

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, sharkman said:

There was no widespread fraud in 2000 and SCOTUS decided the election result.  
 

This one is not widespread in the sense that it’s only in several key states, all the ones that stopped counting the night of November 3.  Once SCOTUS rules on it, then the Trump presidency will either be over or not.

 I see that Obama was interviewed yet again, trash talking Trump.  I’ve never seen a former president trash talk like this.  And it’s because he’s worried.

Something strange is also happening to President Trump.  He’s not tweeting like a teenager anymore.  He’s not in full freak out mode like you’d expect, whenever Obama goads him.  Not sure what’s going on there.

SCOTUS did not decide the election result. Bush v Gore was a dispute over the size and scope of a mandatory recount but the initial count was so close Bush winning the state by only a couple thousand votes  

 

Of course back then the Republican hypocrites were arguing that a recount was unnecessary and would cause unjustified suspicion of Bush’s presidency.... the total opposite of their bullshit arguments now...despite Trump losing by tens of thousands of votes   

 

On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately.^[1] On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay for Bush, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm."^[

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Trump won Utah. I don't know who Rino Romney thinks he's representing.

Romney is an ACTUAL Republican, been one all his life, vs the johnny-come-lately former democrat Trump.

[Infidel Dog]

He's a Rino Republican or what Canadians might call a Progressive Conservative - both coming from what I might call the Argus Right which is more like some kind of right when convenient but less and less so as real right.

A person could still be real right and think Trump was a Dick but if you use Trump's dickishness to reject what I'll call 'Trumpism' which is national pride, your country first, lower taxes, less regulation, anti-globalism, property, speech and self-protection rights that would be what I'll call 'Argus Right.'

Here's something interesting to all factions, if true, and I'm not sure it is: 

Quote

In a series of floor speeches, the lawmaker from Huntsville, Alabama, has been spelling out that path that he told Secrets would lead to a Trump win. Ironically, it's a process Democrats tried in 2005 and 2017 to deny former President George W. Bush and Trump electoral votes.

His argument is fairly simple: Congress votes to ratify state electoral votes, and this year, it should throw out those from states where the vote count is in question. The result would be that neither Trump nor Joe Biden would have enough to win, leaving it to the House to pick the president.

In that vote, the Constitution stipulates that each state gets just one vote, and since 26 House delegations are majority-Republican, “House Republicans control the election of the next president of the United States," Brooks said.

I don't remember hearing that bit about the Democrats trying it but this next bit I do expect if things go so far that the vote by congress thing is actually considered:

Quote

There is one hang-up that the courts will have to settle first, however. In voting to reject a state’s electoral vote count, it is unclear if the one state, one vote rule is to be followed or if all House 435 members in the Democratic-controlled chamber get a vote.

“The Constitution says that in the election of the president by the House, you vote by state delegation. So, the fight, the legal fight, will be whether the same standard applies to this part of the election of the president. So, I'm sure the Democrats will argue that it's the majority of 435 that make the determination. The Republicans would be wise to argue that there are 50 votes won by each state, and that makes the determination. Now, what will happen? I don't know,” Brooks said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/heres-how-trump-wins-take-fight-to-house-where-rules-favor-gop

Edited November 20, 2020 by Infidel Dog