- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147486
30 Jan 22
@vivify said“ Trump lost 60 different legal challenges, including from the Supreme Court. ”
Like the OP says: a "legal challenge" must be made. So this will be determined in the courts. For example, when Trump lost 60 different legal challenges, including from the Supreme Court.
Conservatives are quite amusingly pretending they didn't see the OP mention this. Probably because Trump's SIXTY losses still stings.
why do you continually lie about this?
do you really think this?
30 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidhttps://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/
“ Trump lost 60 different legal challenges, including from the Supreme Court. ”
why do you continually lie about this?
do you really think this?
More than 60 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies failed because they were unable to prove their allegations.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
30 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidMott, stop taking hashish. You're being ungrammatical again.
makes one question why are democrats our election system as is.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147486
@vivify saidwe have never had our day in court...period! it is not a question of win or lose, as you keep claiming
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/08/joe-biden/joe-biden-right-more-60-trumps-election-lawsuits-l/
More than 60 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies failed because they were unable to prove their allegations.
"“One wonders what this court waits for,” Thomas wrote, according to the Times. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.
“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” the judged added. "
https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2021/2/23/22297522/justice-thomas-thinks-supreme-court-should-have-heard-pennsylvania-election-lawsuits-mail-in-ballot
30 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidYour link is not about election fraud. In fact, fraud is not mentioned even once in your link. That Pennsylvania case was about about whether the mail-in ballot date could've been extended or not. That's it.
we have never had our day in court...period! it is not a question of win or lose, as you keep claiming
"“One wonders what this court waits for,” Thomas wrote, according to the Times. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.
“The decision to leave election l ...[text shortened]... /justice-thomas-thinks-supreme-court-should-have-heard-pennsylvania-election-lawsuits-mail-in-ballot
More proof you don't read your own sources. I'm guessing there's some right-wing blogger you follow who you just copied and pasted this from.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147486
30 Jan 22
@vivify saidwho is trying to limit this to fraud only? there was fraud, unauthorized officials changing voting rules, republican overseers kicked out, illegal ballot harvesting, ballots with no signatures ect
Your link is not about election fraud. In fact, fraud is not mentioned even once in your link. That Pennsylvania case was about about whether the mail-in ballot date could've been extended or not. That's it.
More proof you don't read your own sources. I'm guessing there's some right-wing blogger you follow who you just copied and pasted this from.
Each thing individually would not be enough to overturn, bit when combined would.
30 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidWrong. From your link:
Each thing individually would not be enough to overturn, bit when combined would.
"Politico reported that about 10,000 Pennsylvania ballots arrived during the extended three-day window, “well short of the number that could have imperiled Joe Biden’s 80,555-vote victory.”
Even if the Supreme Court overturned votes received after the extension, Biden would've still won Pennsylvania.
So whether this was heard by SCOTUS or not would've changed nothing.
30 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidI know, reality is hard.
“ Trump lost 60 different legal challenges, including from the Supreme Court. ”
why do you continually lie about this?
do you really think this?
30 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidExcept none of that happened.
who is trying to limit this to fraud only? there was fraud, unauthorized officials changing voting rules, republican overseers kicked out, illegal ballot harvesting, ballots with no signatures ect
Each thing individually would not be enough to overturn, bit when combined would.
Don't worry, Trump still loves you.
30 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidAnd your lies enable them.
Exactly.
And who determines if it is a lie or not? This is a very real threat to democracy if we actually have one, but I doubt that. The majority are not being represented in government and it is obvious. The wealthy minority determine policy.
30 Jan 22
@Mott-The-Hoople
And you are EXACTLY right about those cases not being about winning OR losing.
They were ALL about running out the clock but with someone of your limited brainpower, having drunk the koolaid SO long you can't figure any of that out.
31 Jan 22
@suzianne saidYou are projecting your self shame onto others again. You enable the wealthy minority and you know it. You repeat their lies and want to censor the truth.
And your lies enable them.
When democrats are censored you hate it, yet you still support cancel culture. Your hypocrisy is evident.
31 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidThat was exactly my point. More laws to criminalize potentially innocent people and it
Sounds like questioning any election result is considered a lie. What about when a real election fraud outcome happens? The truth will be considered a lie. Right?
slaps freedom of speech right in the face. No thanks. Another sham law by the democrats.
@earl-of-trumps saidFalse. The OP states that a legal challenge must be made.
That was exactly my point. More laws to criminalize potentially innocent people
You and your conservative dipsh¡ts can try to pretend you didn't see it all you want.