Federal judge dismisses Trump campaign Pennsylvania lawsuit

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Grimpachi

Even though Regan pulled some BS with the Iran Contra and jacked the country with trickle-down economics I still liked him.

At the time I hated Regan - obviously from afar - but looking back there hasn't been a President since fit to lace his boots.

Not a great fan of his economic and fiscal policies but the man had a presence that hasn't been matched since.

Reagan was a populist president. For some reason people related to him.

But, he isn’t ranked very high historically: en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You know my general stance on things but even though I was passionately opposed to his politics back then - I more or less still am - I could still recognise and acknowledge his strengths.
That has only increased with time.

You just knew he was a man of action and he would see things through to the end.

He was also prone to the odd gaffe.....but he got away with them.
Maybe because he didn't come across as arrogant, dismissive, egotistical and full of his own self-importance.
He encouraged discussion and debate but was steely resolute and Statesman like.

This got me to wondering if there is any record of Reagan's thoughts on Trump.
I couldn't find anything but there is this from his youngest son;

"I don't mean to be blunt but we've got a bunch of grifters there in the White House,” he said.

"The spinelessness in the face of this pathological entity in the White House right now would shock him. I know his character and I know what would horrify him and I know this administration would.”

www.independent.co.uk... .html

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Grimpachi

Even though Regan pulled some BS with the Iran Contra and jacked the country with trickle-down economics I still liked him.

At the time I hated Regan - obviously from afar - but looking back there hasn't been a President since fit to lace his boots.

Not a great fan of his economic and fiscal policies but the man had a presence that hasn't been matched since.

Reagan was a populist president. For some reason people related to him.

But, he isn’t ranked very high historically: en.wikipedia.org...

Meh. As the first president I protested, in real time, he was a treasonous senile old man. A celebrity president that raised taxes, spent ridiculously, couldn't have been more in bed with the MIC, aggravated the wealth gap, and did so antagonisticly (blaming the poor & punching downward). He ushered in the modern day conservative approach to corporatism (consumer protections and small business protections diminished while big business was overwhelmingly favored). Environmental protections were cast aside. But the thing that perhaps most changed the way America went forward (and became much more corrupt) was the privatization of government. Reagan hired friends' businesses that the government used to replace what the government previously handled and in turn, lost all degree of oversight. Our tax dollars quickly lost accountability. Corporations that directed state programs. Private prisons. The domino effect that led to companies like Halliburton. Meanwhile he demonized and handicapped state-run programs so they could point a finger at them and claim 'See... that doesn't work. Now let me just hire my good ole friend over here to do this job.' Corporatism still isn't working.

a reply to: Annee

Looking through the link you provided he's actually quite well regarded.

a reply to: okrian

Ha Ha.

In the USA Margaret Thatcher is highly regarded.
My thoughts on Thatcher echo your's on Reagan.

a reply to: Freeborn

Ha. There's a reason for that.

a reply to: okrian

Best of mates by all accounts.....not that that's any recommendation; Thatcher was also big pals with General Pinochet and Jimmy Saville!

5-D chess folks.. just wait another 4 years it will all make sense then.

Reagan had some accomplishments that no one has toped since. Outspent the USSR which helped lead to its downfall and the end of the cold war. Faked them out with the star wars anti-ballistic missile program leading to a drawdown in nuclear arms.



Reagan had his faults as all do, but I wish we had a president like him now.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wouldn't mind Trump loosing if the Democrats had a decent candidate, Biden and Harris are not whom I would like to see run this country. Can't the Dems get a decent candidate these days?

As they say. A one-eyed man is a king in the land of the blind.


Who, BTW, would you like it to be instead of Biden on the Dem side?

I wouldn't have minded that woman from Hawaii that ran for the presidency, or even Bernie would have probably been better than Biden and Harris. Kind of dislike that Harris woman.

Tulsi wouldnt have toed the line, thats why they ran her out as fast as they could before she started getting more popular, and attempted to silence her campaign on social media.......which is why she was debating a lawsuit

a reply to: Willtell

Another fake media post left up by donttreadonme.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Annee

I don't see them siding for what seems to be so many baseless claims. They have mostly been almost laughed out of court.

I thought the info provided though may shed some light on the claims that going to SCOTUS is such a win for Trump when it's showing it is unlikely it will be a triumph.

SCOTUS would lose all credibility.

Nervous?

The Trump Presidency is based on the foundation of legal loopholes that Trump espouses.

He did it with his taxes, he has done it with a number of things.

Trump may be egocentric, but you won't dismiss his genuis. Especially an outsider that bested establishment politicians.

Trump has hired the best people to read through constitutional interpretations, they've wargamed this very scenario.

We've been conditioned to expect the usual status quo that know one ever considered a legal path to victory, via courts.

It'll be the first in the nation and a rude awakening to the states, get your s# together and UPDATE.

There is NO EMOTION in the courts. That's what Trump know best.

We're chill.

Y'all look like fools.

a reply to: Arnie123

Did you know Trump has practically revived the book industry?

I look forward to future history books on this era.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Willtell

An Obama appointed judge. In the trash he goes.

On May 17, 2012, President Obama nominated Brann to be a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Is that comment based on your indepth knowledge of the case and facts heard in this particular case, or just because he didn't do want you wanted him to?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Willtell
Folks are hoping the SCOTUS will corruptly overturn a LEGAL process just to give Trump the election are leaning on a very thin thread

What if fraud and other broken laws prevented that legal process from being accurate?

That is a whole lot of huge "what if's" you have there, without ANY proof. Ultimately, you are saying that the most powerful man on the planet, with every resource at his disposal, cannot prove to a single court that there was any fraud in any scale large enough to change the outcome.

Trump even told you what he was going to do if he lost. He was going to blame mail in voting. I cannot work out why Republicans are saying that there are suspicious numbers of mail in votes for Democrats when Trump told Repblicans to avoid voting by mail!! Guess what...more people voted for Biden via mail than for Trump. Shocker.

It's a pretty simple to work out his playbook. "I lost..it is fraud!!!". Nope.
Ask yourself this, he's been banging on about voter fraud for a very, very long time and what did he do about it? Nothing. He lost and wants to save face. Trump cannot handle being a loser in anything, we all know that and that sort of personality means he will lie and cheat and fight to protect his image, no matter what the cost. Good grief, the guy has pretty much withdrawn from work since the result. Toys, pram, throwing.

People have been banging on saying "it's obviously fraud" but if it is obvious, tell us why is there no evidence of this proven in court? And please don't use the "he's saving the big evidence for later" rubbish. That is entirely guesswork and not a single thing points towards this.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Willtell
And this REPUBLICAN judge as far as I know is NOT a secret democrat.

Maybe, but he is an Obama appointee, so more than likely he is just another RINO swamp rat.

When you say "more than likely" I take it that you have some evidence about that? Or did he just do something you didn't agree with so you had a bit of a paddy?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, you don't accept the Election result

Not with the obvious fraud that occurred, no.

and now you don't accept a Judge's ruling.

Not when it is contrary to logic and reason.

A clear pattern is emerging.

Yes, it is. The seditious treasonous rat bastards are being exposed.

The obvious fraud that Trump can't prove you mean? That must be one hell of a legal team he's got there..

originally posted by: bluesilver

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Willtell
Folks are hoping the SCOTUS will corruptly overturn a LEGAL process just to give Trump the election are leaning on a very thin thread

What if fraud and other broken laws prevented that legal process from being accurate?

That is a whole lot of huge "what if's" you have there, without ANY proof. Ultimately, you are saying that the most powerful man on the planet, with every resource at his disposal, cannot prove to a single court that there was any fraud in any scale large enough to change the outcome.

Trump even told you what he was going to do if he lost. He was going to blame mail in voting. I cannot work out why Republicans are saying that there are suspicious numbers of mail in votes for Democrats when Trump told Repblicans to avoid voting by mail!! Guess what...more people voted for Biden via mail than for Trump. Shocker.

It's a pretty simple to work out his playbook. "I lost..it is fraud!!!". Nope.
Ask yourself this, he's been banging on about voter fraud for a very, very long time and what did he do about it? Nothing. He lost and wants to save face. Trump cannot handle being a loser in anything, we all know that and that sort of personality means he will lie and cheat and fight to protect his image, no matter what the cost. Good grief, the guy has pretty much withdrawn from work since the result. Toys, pram, throwing.

People have been banging on saying "it's obviously fraud" but if it is obvious, tell us why is there no evidence of this proven in court? And please don't use the "he's saving the big evidence for later" rubbish. That is entirely guesswork and not a single thing points towards this.

To add, Trump also suggested to vote twice-

“Let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote,” the president said. “If it isn’t tabulated, they’ll be able to vote.”

www.nytimes.com...

While that doesn’t mean everyone did indeed vote twice, I’m sure there were some of his followers who did exactly that.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Annee

I don't see them siding for what seems to be so many baseless claims. They have mostly been almost laughed out of court.

I thought the info provided though may shed some light on the claims that going to SCOTUS is such a win for Trump when it's showing it is unlikely it will be a triumph.

SCOTUS would lose all credibility.

Nervous?



Trump is a genius?
He's hired the best people?
I can only assume this is sarcasm, surely?




The Trump Presidency is based on the foundation of legal loopholes that Trump espouses.

He did it with his taxes, he has done it with a number of things.

Trump may be egocentric, but you won't dismiss his genuis. Especially an outsider that bested establishment politicians.

Trump has hired the best people to read through constitutional interpretations, they've wargamed this very scenario.

We've been conditioned to expect the usual status quo that know one ever considered a legal path to victory, via courts.

It'll be the first in the nation and a rude awakening to the states, get your s# together and UPDATE.

There is NO EMOTION in the courts. That's what Trump know best.

We're chill.

Y'all look like fools.

Friends close and enemies closer. Always. He brought in people who he could use. They all did spectacular by the way. When they did not follow policy and he was done with them he moved on.

He even said nice things when they were let go. Then if those let go fired back or wrote a book he torched them. He should have.

Everything Trump has done since in office has been legal. All of it. The issue is that politicians are not supposed to be in office to fix things in the modern age. They are there to keep the money flowing. He stopped that. Take away a persons money and they will get desperate. As they all did.

No, it will all play out. If it is done legally then votes will be dismissed. The Progressives will then yell that Trump is suppressing the vote. Then, if it works the way it should, the electorate will be decided and Trump will remain president.

If not, then we all see what happened clear as day. It has fractured the nation but it was not Donald Trump who did it. He is the president who finally exposed it. The first since JFK to be honest.

Their best play was to actually leave him in office. Now, nothing will get done in DC and the SCOTUS has the votes to prevent widespread social reform but if could come to a city near you.