Election Coverage And Results Thread

[spat]

I think most, as evidenced even in this thread, lack the honesty to ever accept he lost legitimately. It is simply too hard for them to pivot mentally and so they blame fraud. Psychologically very common behavior and we all do it to some extent. Look how angry people get when forced to even consider, just a little, that perhaps they are wrong.

Hell,I think you’re one of the few here who can even put dialogue to your thoughts. The rest can’t do anything but post absurd links and juvenile but irrelevant remarks about my wife.

I wrote this on October 10 and it has proven :

Most people on the right said "you can't conduct a fair election with these rules" months ago, when the mail in vote rules were changed.

There were many lawsuits about it.

Why would you be surprised that those people are questioning the integrity of the election now ?

 

[spat]

Ok.

Do you think something will change?

Certainly things will change.

I am not prepared to predict the nature of those changes, but this is obviously going to SCOTUS.

I think it's safe to say at least some votes will be thrown out. Will it be enough ? maybe ?

 

[Darth]

Certainly things will change.

I am not prepared to predict the nature of those changes, but this is obviously going to SCOTUS.

I think it's safe to say at least some votes will be thrown out. Will it be enough ? maybe ?

Is there evidence to bring to SCOTUS?

 

[spat]

Is there evidence to bring to SCOTUS?

You don't think there is ?

 

[Darth]

You don't think there is ?

What I think is irrelevant.

Is there evidence to bring to the SCOTUS?

 

[spat]

What I think is irrelevant.

Is there evidence to bring to the SCOTUS?

What I think is also irrelevant.

 

[Darth]

What I think is also irrelevant.

Right until you make a claim that things will change.

 

[spat]

Right until you make a claim that things will change.

You think *nothing* is going to change in the next 3 weeks ?

Did your invisible ferrari tell you that ?

 

[Darth]

You think *nothing* is going to change in the next 3 weeks ?

Did your invisible ferrari tell you that ?

I have no reason to believe that anything will change.

 

[holdover]

Take it with a grain of salt, I have no idea if its true or not , One of the things Giuliani said he had, was stacks of mail in, tri folded ballots, all filled in perfectly by a machine, All for Joe Biden, and none of the mail in ballots were folded. meaning they were never mailed .


True or not? I dont know.

 

[holdover]

I have no reason to believe that anything will change.

I think your going to be surprised. Well, one of us will be anyways.

 

[spat]

Is there evidence to bring to SCOTUS?

Ok, I'll bite though.

Yes, there is evidence they will be bringing to SCOTUS.

Evidence that the executive changed the rules for mail in ballots in contravention to PA law.

Evidence that some counties allowed "ballot curing" and others did not, in violation of equal protection.

SCOTUS rules on law, they will not decide if there was fraud, they will decide if the measures in place to prevent it were sufficient and legal.

Or did you have some fanciful notion where they would have Roberts comparing signatures to see if they matched and reviewing audit trails from voting machines ?

 

[Darth]

I think your going to be surprised. Well, one of will be anyways.

Ok.

And you know when I'll be surprised? When the evidence is presented.

 

[Darth]

Ok, I'll bite though.

Yes, there is evidence they will be bringing to SCOTUS.

Evidence that the executive changed the rules for mail in ballots in contravention to PA law.

Evidence that some counties allowed "ballot curing" and others did not, in violation of equal protection.

SCOTUS rules on law, they will not decide if there was fraud, they will decide if the measures in place to prevent it were sufficient and legal.

Or did you have some fanciful notion where they would have Roberts comparing signatures to see if they matched and reviewing audit trails from voting machines ?

Can't wait to see it.

 

[spat]

Can't wait to see it.

You can see it now.

The new rules are public record, as are the laws they violate.

 

[Darth]

You can see it now.

The new rules are public record, as are the laws they violate.

So what are we waiting for? If this evidence has been provided, what's the hold up?

 

[spat]

So what are we waiting for? If this evidence has been provided, what's the hold up?

You can't file a case with SCOTUS until you have worked your way through the lower courts.


Do you even know how this works ?

 

[Darth]

You can't file a case with SCOTUS until you have worked your way through the lower courts.


Do you even know how this works ?

So it's just an issue of time?

 

[spat]

So it's just an issue of time?

Yes.

This has been destined to go to SCOTUS since long before the election.

It was obvious.

 

[holdover]

Ok.

And you know when I'll be surprised? When the evidence is presented.

You will be. These are professionals , they are not kids making things up because they are mad. Why any lawyer would go to court with no evidence is beyond my comprehension. the notion is childish

 

[Darth]

Yes.

This has been destined to go to SCOTUS since long before the election.

It was obvious.

Ok then. All the evidence is there and it's just a time thing. I'm eagerly waiting.

 

[holdover]

Ok then. All the evidence is there and it's just a time thing. I'm eagerly waiting.

EXACTLY!

 

[Darth]

You will be. These are professionals , they are not kids making things up because they are mad. Why any lawyer would go to court with no evidence is beyond my comprehension. the notion is childish

Well, no. I mean 50% off the time lawyers are in fact wrong.

Hence we have winners and losers.

 

[holdover]

makes no sense.

 

[Darth]

EXACTLY!

Great.

I'll check back on this thread on 1/21/20.

 

[holdover]

Wont take that long

 

[holdover]

Spat is telling you right. it has to go through the court system.

 

[spat]

Ok then. All the evidence is there and it's just a time thing. I'm eagerly waiting.

Here's an analysis from no less than Alan Dershowitz about what he believes will end up before SCOTUS.

He doesn't think they will prevail, but only because he doesn't think they can call enough votes into question. He believes the legal reasoning is sound.

Honestly for someone with such strong opinions on the subject I would have expected you to be better informed about the process.

Dershowitz: Trump Has 'Two or Three Legal Constitutional Paths' -- 'I Don't Think that the Election Is Going to Be Reversed'

During this week's broadcast of FNC's "Sunday Morning Futures," constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said there was still a legal path forward for the Trump campaign to win the presidency, but he did not think it was likely. | Clips

www.breitbart.com

 

[holdover]

BARTIROMO: President Trump’s legal team has just three weeks left to gather enough evidence of fraud to contest the 2020 election results in court, something Sidney Powell, one of the lead attorneys on the case, says she can do. SIDNEY POWELL, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, I fully expect we will be able to prove all of it in court within the next two weeks, although the fraud case itself doesn’t have to be done within the two weeks.

They have weeks left to produce evidence. Nobody is going to know Jack shit until then. even CNN and FOX wont know.

 

[Darth]

Here's an analysis from no less than Alan Dershowitz about what he believes will end up before SCOTUS.

He doesn't think they will prevail, but only because he doesn't think they can call enough votes into question. He believes the legal reasoning is sound.

Honestly for someone with such strong opinions on the subject I would have expected you to be better informed about the process.

Dershowitz: Trump Has 'Two or Three Legal Constitutional Paths' -- 'I Don't Think that the Election Is Going to Be Reversed'

During this week's broadcast of FNC's "Sunday Morning Futures," constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said there was still a legal path forward for the Trump campaign to win the presidency, but he did not think it was likely. | Clips

www.breitbart.com

The problem is of course your glaring intellectual dishonesty. You didn't account for that. That may be where the confusion is arising.

If you'll notice you moved from "prove there was no fraud" to "we're waiting to get to the SCOTUS to present the case."

But it's OK, big news is coming tomorrow.