There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

We all know the Election was rigged.

Taiwan knows.
China knows. (DUH)
India knows.
Ukraine knows. (DUH again)
Russia knows. (see above)
Switzerland knows.
Britain knows.
Venezuala knows. (double DUH)
Columbia knows. ( triple DUH)
Reublicans know.
Independents know.
and yes, even
Democrates know.


We all know the Election was rigged.
We all know Trump won.

As for who is President in 2021, it all depends on how many judges are now bought and owned by the Democratic Party.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Terms And Conditions Of Use
Is There Civilization Without Civility

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Based on your question I am really starting to doubt you ever presented a case as you stated. Do you just bust down the door and demand a judge hear your case? Nope. Mediation. Pre-trail talks. Discovery. You think you can wrap that up for the US election in a few weeks? Took Congress 3 years to prove there was no collusion and I have yet to see any evidence there.

Time is against those trying to get an actual hearing instead of presenting evidence and it being 'thrown out' by Progressive Judges. This is a fact. Like in PA where the ruling was they should have come forward earlier with inquiry. Uhm, Alito, prior to the election based on post election day voting made a ruling. So explain why it would not be able to move forward.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: yuppa

Any fraud? What, even just a tiny one? To disenfranchise millions of votes?

Come off it, have a sense of perspective.

There were 2 Reps who tried to use their dead Mothers' votes, maybe they think the election should be overturned for them?

Yes. ANY FRAUD.

With 250 million potential voters, not possible, and that is a fact.., you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. You deal with the fraud.

In your world, you do what..install a dictator?

No.Make it a holiday. All votes should be paper ballots,with a FINGERPRINT. Cant fake fingerprints on a large scale.

A logistical nightmare..so everyone has to give their fingerprints..how about just some DNA?..I think not. Many people do not want their fingerprints, or DNA catalogued by the govt

I f they have nothing to hide right?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: johnnylaw16
Nope. Mediation. Pre-trail talks. Discovery. You think you can wrap that up for the US election in a few weeks?

Literally all of that stuff happens after you file a case. If a judge orders mediation, it is after a complaint is filed. Discovery starts after a complaint is filed and often after dismissal motions are heard. Pre-trial talk occur (not surprisingly) just before trial, at the very end of the case.

Based on your statements I am beginning to surmise (as I suppose others are too) that you have little experience in this area.

Time is against those trying to get an actual hearing instead of presenting evidence and it being 'thrown out' by Progressive Judges. This is a fact. Like in PA where the ruling was they should have come forward earlier with inquiry. Uhm, Alito, prior to the election based on post election day voting made a ruling. So explain why it would not be able to move forward.

You are confusing two separate cases. Alito entered an emergency injunction stating that ballots had to be separated in a case concerning whether ballots could be accepted after a certain date. The case saying that they should have brought an
"earlier inquiry" was a different challenge to the constitutionality of PA's mail in voting law. The PA supreme court denied that challenge on two grounds: (1) there was a provision of the statute that prevented challenges to it after a certain date, and (2) it was inappropriate to wait until after the election after people had made use of the law in good-faith, to challenge the law and seek to disqualify their votes.

Or just believe that it must be because the judge's were bought off





Mediation,

It's fine anyways. If bidden wins, that just means it's the rights turn to wreck the city every night for the next few years. Reeeeeeeee fests are allowed now, and I am sure the DA will just play catch and release when we are wreckin the place. Right? Right?

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
We all know the Election was rigged.

Taiwan knows.
China knows. (DUH)
India knows.
Ukraine knows. (DUH again)
Russia knows. (see above)
Switzerland knows.
Britain knows.
Venezuala knows. (double DUH)
Columbia knows. ( triple DUH)
Reublicans know.
Independents know.
and yes, even
Democrates know.


We all know the Election was rigged.
We all know Trump won.

As for who is President in 2021, it all depends on how many judges are now bought and owned by the Democratic Party.

Watch out--we have a geography buff in our midst now. Look at that list of countries.

Come back when you want to take on the ideas that have been posted in this thread. Saying everyone knows and judges are bought off are not meaningful retorts to anything in this thread.

Why do you believe that everyone knows? Why do you believe that judges were bought off?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

originally posted by: TKDRL
It's fine anyways. If bidden wins, that just means it's the rights turn to wreck the city every night for the next few years. Reeeeeeeee fests are allowed now, and I am sure the DA will just play catch and release when we are wreckin the place. Right? Right?

Free hall passes? Count me in.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: yuppa

Any fraud? What, even just a tiny one? To disenfranchise millions of votes?

Come off it, have a sense of perspective.

There were 2 Reps who tried to use their dead Mothers' votes, maybe they think the election should be overturned for them?

Yes. ANY FRAUD.

With 250 million potential voters, not possible, and that is a fact.., you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. You deal with the fraud.

In your world, you do what..install a dictator?

No.Make it a holiday. All votes should be paper ballots,with a FINGERPRINT. Cant fake fingerprints on a large scale.

A logistical nightmare..so everyone has to give their fingerprints..how about just some DNA?..I think not. Many people do not want their fingerprints, or DNA catalogued by the govt

I f they have nothing to hide right?

Really? take a poll, see who's in on this. I bet plenty of people with "nothing to hide" as you say..are not interested in giving the govt, their prints or DNA.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: yuppa

Any fraud? What, even just a tiny one? To disenfranchise millions of votes?

Come off it, have a sense of perspective.

There were 2 Reps who tried to use their dead Mothers' votes, maybe they think the election should be overturned for them?

Yes. ANY FRAUD.

With 250 million potential voters, not possible, and that is a fact.., you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. You deal with the fraud.

In your world, you do what..install a dictator?

No.Make it a holiday. All votes should be paper ballots,with a FINGERPRINT. Cant fake fingerprints on a large scale.

A logistical nightmare..so everyone has to give their fingerprints..how about just some DNA?..I think not. Many people do not want their fingerprints, or DNA catalogued by the govt

I f they have nothing to hide right?

Yuppa, we may agree on more than appears at first blush. I’d be all for a fingerprint system if everyone were automatically fingerprinted at birth and all you needed to do to vote was present your fingerprint. The problem with ID laws is that not everyone needs or has one. Signature verification is also a very imprecise science. Fingerprint voting solves that. But unfortunately it’s not easily implemented.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: johnnylaw16

to my understanding there’s hundreds of people coming forward saying this was a fraudulent and rigged election.

Yes, to "your" uninformed "understanding" it probably does look like there is an avalanche of evidence amassing. Trump talks about it every day. Rudy sits there and tells you up and down that they have hundreds--no thousands--of affidavits attesting to election fraud. It's just inconceivable that people like me can't see it. That is, until you scrutinize things a bit more.

Here a few points to consider:

- Though I've said this ad nauseam, if there were any credible evidence of voter fraud, Trump would be putting it forward in court. He is not. That is the first and most important indicator that evidence of fraud does not exist and Trump does not have the evidence that he claims to have outside of court.
- But then why have all of these people come forward? They can't all be liars, can they? No. Some, likely are liars, spurred on by Trump's incessant calls for evidence and feeling that they will help him by attesting to falsehoods (like the guy claiming that votes for Trump were weighted at less than vote for Biden--that's a lie). Most are testifying not to evidence of fraud but rather "fishy" things that I saw. So-and-so put an ballot in a wrong pile. I saw a van pull up where it shouldn't have been. People weren't doing things as I understand that they should have been done. I saw someone sketchy doing something that looked sketchy. I wasn't allowed to get as close to the person I was monitoring as I think that I should have been.. These people probably do believe that they witnessed something nefarious or potentially nefarious, but in reality just don't understand what they saw.
- How do I know that this is the case--I wasn't there, I don't know what they did or didn't see? True. But see point one. Trump has a team of highly-compensated, well-educated attorneys. They are scouring through this evidence, wading through the bull#, looking for anything that they can hold up in court. Yet, they have found nothing to put forward in court. Why is that? See point 2, the evidence isn't what is claimed.

Well my “uninformed” mind does know these hearings are more for gathering evidence than presenting it to a court of law. So there’s that....

What is the point of gathering evidence if not to put it before a court????

Umm... I’m pretty sure it will be presented to a court, these are not court proceedings.

Hm. Why are they wasting time with hearings and not directly presenting it to the court then? It won't be. It already would have been presented if it was going to be presented.

Wouldn't you want to gather as much evidence as you can before you go to court? Can new evidence in a case not be introduced to the courts? I'm fairly certain it can.

Sure (while it is still in the trial court and not judgment has been entered). But the point is that Trump has been and is claiming to already have the evidence. If that were the case, the move would be to submit the evidence so that his cases weren’t immediately dismissed, and then hold the press conferences to tell everyone else.

That’s not entirely true. If you can prove that the new evidence was unobtainable at the time of the SSC trial and it would’ve effected the outcome of the SSC decision, it can be introduced at the time of appeal.

Sorry what are you referring to by “SSC”?

Haha there's a whistleblower hehe, he
says he witnessed them steal 50000 votes.
He is a poll watcher. He objected when he
saw the fraud but nothing was done.

We don't want China to be in the WH now do we. I doubt this great country will let Biden in.
Too many evils associated with the man.

Don't want creepy joe even if you don't like it.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
Haha there's a whistleblower hehe, he
says he witnessed them steal 50000 votes.
He is a poll watcher. He objected when he
saw the fraud but nothing was done.

We don't want China to be in the WH now do we.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Link?

This thread is about putting forward actual evidence, not random claims and conjecture.

He was just interviewed by Greg on
Newsmaxtv.com.




reply to: johnnylaw16

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Not bought off. Installed. There is a difference. No confusion on how trials move forward either. I was simply trying to state those are all things that can happen in a court case but how can it be done so soon. I was talking in broad terms.

I was not confusing two cases either I was simply comparing.

Now, the PA Supreme Court ruling someone that they should come forward 'before' a crime occurred is pretty telling. Because in that statement, they are stating that something did occur but it is too late to discuss.

This is not about the disqualification of someone's vote either. I know the media likes to use that line like Trump wants honest voting people to lose their rights but that also is bs.

It is not a judges right to interpret the law but to follow it. That is the difference between the Progressive and the Constitutionalist judges that are appointed and why it is so important to follow and enforce the law not decide how it should be applied.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Now, the PA Supreme Court ruling someone that they should come forward 'before' a crime occurred is pretty telling. Because in that statement, they are stating that something did occur but it is too late to discuss.

This happens all the time in legal practice. Statutes of limitation are in place for this very reason. Laches, the equitable doctrine on which the PA decision is based, is a long-established doctrine that has been in effect for centuries. There was over a year in which plaintiffs could have challenged the law and they chose not to. Nothing odd about the outcome here.

This is not about the disqualification of someone's vote either. I know the media likes to use that line like Trump wants honest voting people to lose their rights but that also is bs.

It is not a judges right to interpret the law but to follow it. That is the difference between the Progressive and the Constitutionalist judges that are appointed and why it is so important to follow and enforce the law not decide how it should be applied.

Interpreting the law is literally the definition of a judge’s job. Judges across the ideological spectrum interpret the law; that is what they are their to do. You seem to not like how certain judges have interpreted the law, but the problem is not the they interpreted the law—it is that they did not interpret it as you see fit.