The Lawsuits

[BeaverFever]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Again, what you want to believe has little resemblance to contextual reality.

And you're doing that thing again you like to do when you get desperate. You're asking people to ignore the obvious. In context that isn't what I said.

“Contextual reality!”  ? Is that Republican-speak like “Alternative facts”?
 

Speaking of ignoring the obvious let me ask you a third time:  what is your position on minority rights?

Edited November 21, 2020 by BeaverFever

[Infidel Dog]

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Two fake claims in memes can’t hide that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Populism is not simply peaceful protests. 
 

Also you’re still dodging the quest about minority rights. Why is that?

What I said was the million maga march as peaceful protest was a display of populism. What we see in Portland and other areas of anarcho-Marxist sparked riot are examples of mob rule.

If you're asking us not to notice that then one more time you're wanting us to ignore the obvious.

As to minority rights, again I'm going to ask you to define your terms. Do you mean like do I think guys who want to believe they're woman should have the right to say compete in female weight lifting tournaments? That sort of thing. If so the answer is "not really." I'm not sure what that has to do with democracy, which is what we were discussing.

For America, I do believe in Constitutional rights and I think they should cover minorities pretty well when applied correctly.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

“Contextual reality!”  ? Is that Republican-speak like “Alternative facts”?

No. I notice you like to ignore context when it's inconvenient to you. That is ignoring reality. Try to stop doing that.

[sharkman]

On 11/19/2020 at 12:32 PM, sharkman said:

Wow.  In the above video linked to by betsy, 17,000 provisional ballots were cast in Pittsburgh.  15,000 of those came into vote on voting day and were told they had already voted.  The video has dozens of different examples of nonsense like this.  Another example is people in democrat cities were allowed to "cure" their faulty ballot, but in other areas of the state, or in republican heavy precincts, they were not given this opportunity.  

This is documented and has many witnesses.  It's exactly what won the Bush\Gore legal case for Bush.  And there are dozens of different ways in which the votes were shifted to Biden.  

...

A longtime employee of the city of Detroit, Jessie Jacob was assigned to voting duties for the election.  She swore in an affidavit(under threat of perjury) that her supervisors instructed her to do several things.  Don't ask for drivers license or any photo ID.  Adjust the mailing date of the absentee ballots so they wouldn't appear late.  This is in direct violation of what Justice Alito directed them to do.  So mailed ballots coming in on the 4th, 5th or 6th, were counted when they were not allowed to.

She witnessed voters being coached on who to vote for.  She observed a large number of people showing up to vote that had already voted with absentee ballots, they were permitted to vote twice.   She was instructed to not look for any deficiencies in the ballots.  She was instructed to not look for signatures in the absentee ballots.  

Rudy says he has 220 affidavits just like this one in Michigan alone.  Multiple affidavits saw a truck pull up to the Detroit Center at 4:30 in the morning and people ran over because they thought it was food.  It was thousands and thousands of ballots.  In garbage cans, bags,  and cardboard boxes.  An employee of Dominion and 2 republican watchers were the only non dem counters present.  60,000 to 100,000 ballots are the estimate.  Many of these ballots were double and triple counted.  

The witnesses swear to the fact that these ballots were for Biden only.  No down ticket, Biden only.  This is disgusting, and I'm telling you this election was a sham.

There are also over 10 precincts in Michigan and Pennsylvania that had over 100% of registered voter turn out.  This just doesn't happen.  Never.  But these precincts saw 200 and 300% of registered voter turn out.  The fix was in.

I'm going to put this altogether in one post.  This is just some of what the Trump legal team has affidavits on.  They are keeping their Dominion evidence close to the chest, but if they can prove what they are asserting(and they have a witness who was in the room, standing beside Chavez as the votes were being switched(president of Venezuela when he used Dominion to win))then there will be some explosive results when this reaches the Supreme Court of the land.   And that is where a case of this magnitude should be decided, IMHO.

The key servers and hard drives that were quarterbacking the US election from Germany have been seized.  Several MSM organizations have "fact checked" this and said it's bunk.  But these are the same sad groups that wouldn't even try to corroborate the Steele Dossier, and just ran with it for 3 years.  This demonstrates that they are unreliable as fact checkers.  Time will tell.

 

 

[Infidel Dog]

Georgia Gov. Kemp Teases Audit of Election Results

Quote

Gov. Brian Kemp certified the state's slate of 16 presidential electors, but acknowledged that will still permit President Donald Trump's legal team to officially call for a recount.

The move will "formalize the certification," but it "paves the way for the Trump campaign to pursue other legal options and a separate recount if they choose," Kemp said Friday night, per The Associated Press.

Kemp expressed concerned the completed Georgia audit looked only at ballots, not the signatures on the absentee ballot applications or absentee ballot envelopes.

 

[Michael Hardner]

The thread doesn't explain that Jesse Jacob's testimonial was rejected by a judge.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Georgia Gov. Kemp Teases Audit of Election Results

 

What's the point?  Even if they find a recount reverses the result, it would still be the will of the rapists and you would disagree with it. 

[sharkman]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thread doesn't explain that Jesse Jacob's testimonial was rejected by a judge.

And if his ruling is sound, then they'll come to the same decision at SCOTUS.

 

[Infidel Dog]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What's the point?  Even if they find a recount reverses the result, it would still be the will of the rapists and you would disagree with it. 

???

I don't think you understand the issue.

They did a recount but they didn't check for irregularities in the ballots that would have disqualified them. The governor says they could still do that under the law.

Has nothing to do with different definitions of democracy.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

???

I don't think you understand the issue.

They did a recount but they didn't check for irregularities in the ballots that would have disqualified them. The governor says they could still do that under the law.

Has nothing to do with different definitions of democracy.

Sure it does.  Either side wins due to the vote count being correct, and it's just the gang rapists getting their way, right?

So why do you care?

Or are your gang rapists to be trusted more than their gang rapists?

 

[Infidel Dog]

I don't why you guys have such a problem understanding the difference between absolute majority rule and voting under the rule of law. Absolute democratic rule is gang rapist rules but voting under a predefined set of rules with checks and balances is just the law. In America's case it's the law of a Republic. America is a Republic not a pure democracy.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't why you guys have such a problem understanding the difference between absolute majority rule and voting under the rule of law. Absolute democratic rule is gang rapist rules but voting under a predefined set of rules is just the law. In America's case it's the law of a Republic. America is a Republic not a pure democracy.

So where it suits you, you would like the votes if they are in your favour?  Otherwise, wolves and gang rapists.

Shouldn't you be rising up, or something?

[Infidel Dog]

No. That isn't what I said. I'm not sure what you're having a problem understanding.

It's like the words go into you head and are shredded. What comes out the other side is what you want to believe.

I said there are laws governing a democratic vote. The majority would not necessarily win. It can though.

What you seem to be pushing for is something like what we saw during the Occupy movement where members of their society would meet and decide what they'd do with their little society day by day by the snapping of fingers in compliance or rejection of what was proposed.

How'd that work out for them?

America voting under constitutional law has been around for centuries.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

No. That isn't what I said. I'm not sure what you're having a problem understanding.

It's like the words go into you head and are shredded. What comes out the other side is what you want to believe.

I said there are laws governing a democratic vote. The majority would not necessarily win. It can though.

What you seem to be pushing for is something like what we saw during the Occupy movement where members of their society would meet and decide what they'd do with their little society day by day by the snapping of fingers in compliance or rejection of what was proposed.

How'd that work out for them?

America voting under constitutional law has been around for centuries.

Yes, it's like I said.  You like the democracy that works for you.  Your gang rapists. 

No problem understanding.

[Infidel Dog]

No. And repeating it doesn't make it true.

I'm saying frantically waving your freak flag of "Democracy" like the label is a be-all, end-all in itself that can never go wrong and this can never be challenged is silly. 

"Democracy" as screamed for by the mob becomes gang rapist democracy. Voting under the predefined rule of law doesn't have to be the same thing. I approve of the latter and disavow the former.

This is pretty basic. I don't understand why you can't see there needs to be a line.

What you seem to be doing is just flapping terms around as symbols of your implied righteousness without giving any thought to what they actually mean or imply.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[sharkman]

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, it's like I said.  You like the democracy that works for you.  Your gang rapists. 

No problem understanding.

This is a classic troll post, you must be bored.

Edited November 21, 2020 by sharkman
Sp

[Infidel Dog]

I try to be understanding. Once the infection takes hold they don't seem to be able to help themselves.

Once they're fully formed pod people it's all point and scree.

It's like:

You blasphemed against the holy word!

Screee!

You spoke the unspeakable term, "gang rapist." This means you are a gang rapist.

Screeee!

Sometimes their inability to adopt common sense makes them a little pathetic and  I can't help feeling sorry for them.

[-TSS-]

Perhaps the election-process needs more centralism and less federalism. If there are 50 sets of rules how elections are conducted it is bound to lead to a mess.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, sharkman said:

This is a classic troll post, you must be bored.

Bored?  On a Saturday when the EPL is on DAZN?  Not bloody likely!

I still have time to come on here for a good laugh, though.

 

5 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

You spoke the unspeakable term, "gang rapist." This means you are a gang rapist.

Screeee!

Sometimes their inability to adopt common sense makes them a little pathetic and  I can't help feeling sorry for them

Yeah, I really can't get past the whole gang rapist thing, and nobody has any kind of explanation for it.

For instance, aren't all those people who voted for Trump gang rapists? 

If Trump gets the election overturned by Republican lawmakers in those states where he is whining the loudest, wouldn't those lawmakers have been elected by gang rapists?

If the election had turned out the opposite result, would you be pushing for a Biden presidency, because Trump was elected by a majority of gang rapists?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Edited November 22, 2020 by bcsapper

[Guest]

Oops, there goes Pennsylvania!

"It is not in the power of this Court to violate the Constitution,"

A Republican judge too!  You'd think he would side with Trump regardless, right?

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

Ouch!!!

Although I do think, in all fairness, that the two voters that Rudy used to try and get the state's votes invalidated should be allowed to cure their votes now.  They could make a TV show out of it.

[Shady]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, it's like I said.  You like the democracy that works for you.  Your gang rapists. 

No problem understanding.

No, you’re a Trump Hater hypocrite.  You’re fine with states violating their election law.  You’re fine with Republicans having to get court orders in order to have their observers closer than 30 feet to observe ballot counting.  You’re good with the FBI falsifying evidence in order to obtain warrants to spy on members of the Trump administration.  You’re fine with destroying the credibility of any institution in order to delegitimize Trump.  And then, after all of that, you Trump Hater hypocrites have the nerve to champion the rule of law.  You Trump Hater hypocrites are the scum of the earth.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Bored?  On a Saturday when the EPL is on DAZN?  Not bloody likely!

I still have time to come on here for a good laugh, though.

 

Yeah, I really can't get past the whole gang rapist thing, and nobody has any kind of explanation for it.

For instance, aren't all those people who voted for Trump gang rapists? 

If Trump gets the election overturned by Republican lawmakers in those states where he is whining the loudest, wouldn't those lawmakers have been elected by gang rapists?

If the election had turned out the opposite result, would you be pushing for a Biden presidency, because Trump was elected by a majority of gang rapists?

Enquiring minds want to know!

As far as I know Joe Biden is the only rapist.  He digitally raped one of his staffers.  Classy guy.  Just another example of Trump Hater hypocrisy.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Shady said:

No, you’re a Trump Hater hypocrite.  You’re fine with states violating their election law.  You’re fine with Republicans having to get court orders in order to have their observers closer than 30 feet to observe ballot counting.  You’re good with the FBI falsifying evidence in order to obtain warrants to spy on members of the Trump administration.  You’re fine with destroying the credibility of any institution in order to delegitimize Trump.  And then, after all of that, you Trump Hater hypocrites have the nerve to champion the rule of law.  You Trump Hater hypocrites are the scum of the earth.

Yeah, me and that Republican judge in my last post there...

Ouch, I say!  Ouch!!

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Shady said:

As far as I know Joe Biden is the only rapist.  He digitally raped one of his staffers.  Classy guy.  Just another example of Trump Hater hypocrisy.

Yeah, he should be investigated, and if there is enough evidence, charged. Anyone who is accused of any sexual impropriety should be investigated and charged, if such charges are appropriate, no matter who they are. 

Let the courts decide.

[Infidel Dog]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I really can't get past the whole gang rapist thing, and nobody has any kind of explanation for it.

Can't get past appears to be your way of admitting you're determined to remain ignorant of the rationale behind the metaphor. It's been explained to you enough times that I don't think another go round is going to help you though, so I'll pass. 

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Infidel Dog