You seem to have inserted a passage into Gadianton's post.
One of his paragraphs ran:
As Canpakes has said, it doesn't appear that you yourself believe that there was fraud. Ajax doesn't either, in fact, he posted as if Trump had lost and how sad that was, until it sunk in that he's supposed to baselessly join the chorus and cry, "Fraud! Fraud!" in the hopes that if enough people say it, it will make for a revolution.
In your quote, it has been changed to:
As Canpakes has said, it doesn't appear that you yourself believe that there was fraud. Ajax doesn't either, in fact, he posted as if Trump had lost and how sad that was, the jenius sucks so much mushroom cock his mouth begins to salivate in hungry anticipation whenever the fox news intro flashes across his screen. Only when his domination is complete as Trump pushes the jenius’ face into the pillow with his meaty forearm does the jeius know glorious release, until it sunk in that he's supposed to baselessly join the chorus and cry, "Fraud! Fraud!" in the hopes that if enough people say it, it will make for a revolution.
You appear to have added the bolded and underlined portion - I presume inadvertently?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Interesting piece in the National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... eam-Trump/ It asks the question we should all be asking: In the cases where Trump's claims got a hearing on the merits, why did he fail to introduce any evidence of fraud?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Interesting piece in the National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... eam-Trump/ It asks the question we should all be asking: In the cases where Trump's claims got a hearing on the merits, why did he fail to introduce any evidence of fraud?
for the folks playing at home, Res is conveniently leaving out the notion of stipulated facts.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
Added to the list of things I never thought I'd see: live coverage of the electoral college casting votes. I wonder if John King is using the magic board...
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has affirmed the trial court's rejection of Trump's election challenge in that state. After recounts in Dane and Milwaukee County did not change the results of the election, Trump filed for an election contest in those counties. After a trial, at which no evidence of election fraud was introduced or argued, the trial court upheld the election results.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. Trump raised four challenges. First, it asked the court to invalidate the ballots of every person who applied for an absentee ballot on the basis that they were involuntarily confined after the Supreme Court ruled before the election that the COVID pandemic was not a sufficient basis to do so, whether or not the person actually qualified for that status. In other words, even if you qualified as involuntarily confined, Trump tried to throw out your ballot if you requested your absentee ballot after a certain date. The court rejected that claim as having no basis in reason or law, and described it as "wholly without merit.:
The other three bases were: Written applications for absentee ballots that appear on the ballot envelopes, used when voters apply for absentee ballots in person, don't count as the required "written applications" for an absentee ballot; ballots that had witness address information partially filled out by election officials; and absentee ballots put in drop boxes at Democracy in the Park events were the product of illegal early voting. The court held that all three were barred by laches. The first two had been used in past elections and the third could have been objected to before the election.
Several opinions were issued. Although described as a "majority" opinion, the lead opinion is a plurality of four Justices. Two Justices joined in the result through a separate concurring opinion. The author of the plurality opinion also filed a concurring opinion that basically tells the election commission and the legislature that they really should make things clearer between now and the next election. One of the Justices who voted in the plurality joined that opinion. The three dissenters filed two dissents among them.
There are no other pending cases that are in a position to affect today's EC vote.
Last edited by Res Ipsa on Mon Dec 14, 2020 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Interesting piece in the National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... eam-Trump/ It asks the question we should all be asking: In the cases where Trump's claims got a hearing on the merits, why did he fail to introduce any evidence of fraud?
Because that's not part of the gas lighting process.
Interesting piece in the National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... eam-Trump/ It asks the question we should all be asking: In the cases where Trump's claims got a hearing on the merits, why did he fail to introduce any evidence of fraud?
for the folks playing at home, Res is conveniently leaving out the notion of stipulated facts.
Irrelevant to the fact that this isn't proof and evidence.
So what happened in Wisconsin?
Judge Ludwig denied the state’s claims that the campaign lacked standing. Instead, he gave the campaign the hearing they asked for — the opportunity to call witnesses and submit damning exhibits. Yet, when it got down to brass tacks, the morning of the hearing, it turned out there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case. The president’s counsel basically said: Never mind, we don’t need to present all our proof . . . we’ll just stipulate to all the relevant facts and argue legal principles.
In the end, after all the heated rhetoric, what did they tell the court the case was really about? Just three differences over the manner in which the election was administered — to all of which, as Ludwig pointed out, the campaign could have objected before the election if these matters had actually been of great moment.
There was no there there. Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.”
Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most rigged election in history, the campaign didn’t think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, “Never mind.”
Interesting piece in the National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... eam-Trump/ It asks the question we should all be asking: In the cases where Trump's claims got a hearing on the merits, why did he fail to introduce any evidence of fraud?
for the folks playing at home, Res is conveniently leaving out the notion of stipulated facts.
For the folks playing at home, Sub is a mendacious twit. Here is the opinion based on the stipulated facts: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... -134_0.pdf See any evidence of fraud discussed there? This judge gave Trump a TRIAL ON THE MERITS. All he argued was statutory interpretation. If he'd introduced a fraud claim, the trial court would have had to rule on it.
Sub implies that the Wisconsin Election Commission agreed in a court pleading that there was fraud. C'mon Sub. Quote the stipulation. You can't because you haven't read it.
You're a dishonest piece of crap.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
