China Whistleblower Photos of Alleged Chinese Counterfeit Ballot Printing Operation

a reply to: Gryphon66

Who cares about court Dems showed us the law doesn't matter, so you'll live with those consequences.

We need extra-legal remedies

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who cares about court Dems showed us the law doesn't matter, so you'll live with those consequences.

We need extra-legal remedies

You seem to be proving my comment that Trump supporters do not care about the rule-of-law or our Constitution.

I've heard so much for decades from self-appointed right-wing vigilantes about their "2nd Amendment Solutions", yet, to this time, have seen virtually nothing. So many chances to stand up for your beliefs, yet, nothing.

Yet, maybe this time it will be different ... I too believe there will be blood.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Doctor Smith
I guess these fake ballots is one way to generate 95% to 107% voter turnout, LOL.

All you have to do is prove that in court.

Which Trump et. al. have failed to do over 40 times.

No, Trump's cases were not even heard in court, the Judges had the opinion that it would not change the result most times so they denied the case. That is not the same as going to court. One way is an opinion, the other way is a legal ruling.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you admit to actually voting for Biden then you will be only the second one (of what I have seen) that has on ATS. But if you didn’t vote at all then you won’t be the second.

a reply to: JBurns

When the petitions fall on deaf ears, then the other remedies become legal.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Doctor Smith
I guess these fake ballots is one way to generate 95% to 107% voter turnout, LOL.

All you have to do is prove that in court.

Which Trump et. al. have failed to do over 40 times.

No, Trump's cases were not even heard in court, the Judges had the opinion that it would not change the result most times so they denied the case. That is not the same as going to court. One way is an opinion, the other way is a legal ruling.

By definition, the judge "heard" the cases and found them lacking. It is exactly the same as going to court.

This is an absurd semantic argument.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you admit to actually voting for Biden then you will be only the second one (of what I have seen) that has on ATS. But if you didn’t vote at all then you won’t be the second.

No one has asked me who I voted for.

I voted against Trump, as I did in 2016.

How did you vote, since we're asking personal questions for some reason.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes. When one "addresses the court", he's talking to the judge. They are the one and the same. In some cases the court consists of more than one judge but that is irrelevant.

The person in the black robe and gavel-ready is probably by all means a "Judge," but anyone who doesn't want to be considered a rank amateur should remember the following:

Address Seated Judge as "Your Honor" or "The Court"

blogs.findlaw.com...

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: JBurns

When the petitions fall on deaf ears, then the other remedies become legal.

Well, no petitions have fallen on deaf ears, you guys just haven't gotten the ruling you wanted (which is most cases would require that the rule of law be set aside along with the Constittuion.

The "other remedies" you guys usually banter are not legal; however, I am unconcerned as those are usually, to use a metaphor "all hat no cattle."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Same as 2016, for Trump...mostly to make heads explode in 2016. But he actually had policies that worked until the economy was sabotaged in fear. Trump is better suited to recover from it than Biden.

We have already seen Biden’s failures with Cash for Clunkers, Obamacare, service industry over manufacturing jobs and continued lopsided trade with other countries like China and others in the Pacific Rim Trade Agreement.

Under Trump, China would not move on Taiwan. Biden will ether be forced to drag the US into war by treaty or by breaking it force us into worse conflict at a later date.

But so long as people have a president that they think is their buddy when he can’t even remember his own name let alone yours...

a reply to: Ahabstar

Ah.

Thanks.

The so-called "Trump economy" maintained the exact trendlines of the previous five years.

Perhaps if Mr. Trump had not tried to ignore COVID and had acted responsibly when he was made aware of what it was, drastic steps would not have been required to try to contain the pandemic.

We all have ideas about what will happen, I guess we'll see.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did Joe deploy two hospital ships, one to NYC and one to LA to assist as the local health authorities dictated? Why don’t we hear about those ships? Was a decision made to squander that resource like the temp hospitals built and abandoned by July?

Joe still says he doesn’t understand how the vaccine is going to be dispersed, meanwhile anyone that has either of the two debates on as background noise could tell Joe that Trump said the military was going to help with the logistics and actual administration if need be.

Seriously Joe is just this side of Abe Simpson yelling at a cloud.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Did Joe deploy two hospital ships, one to NYC and one to LA to assist as the local health authorities dictated?

No. But then, a typical citizen does not have the authority to do so. Does we?

originally posted by: Phage

Does we?

I wasn’t gonna bring up the coincidence of Joe breaking his leg and you not being “as busy at work” as to be able to join us again since the election...

a reply to: Ahabstar

I wasn’t gonna bring up the coincidence of Joe breaking his leg and you not being “as busy at work” as to be able to join us again since the election..

Good plan. Because it would seem to be some sort of really goofy connection.
People might think you were some kind of nut.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Doctor Smith

If they have proof, they need to take it to court.

Every time (with perhaps one exception) Trump et. al, have gone to court with these claims thus far, they have lost and in most cases have been chastised even by TRUMP NOMINATED JUDGES for the irrationality, sloppiness and outright dishonesty of the filings.

Interestingly, Trumps has so far mostly been going to court over procedural issues, not allegations of fraud. It looks like hos lawyers don't believe that there was mass fraud.

In fact, several judges have questioned Trump, et. al.'s attorney's directly and the attorneys are on record under oath stating clearly that they have no evidence of "massive voter/election fraud."

That doesn't dissuade the faithful though.

Do you have a document or something? A clip? Smells like BS to me. They wouldn't probably go criminally because they are against the clock. They want to 1st win the election. And they should be able to in my opinion unless the judges are just too afraid. Think about how they would be attacked by the media, the DNC.

originally posted by: Ahabstar

originally posted by: Phage

Does we?

I wasn’t gonna bring up the coincidence of Joe breaking his leg and you not being “as busy at work” as to be able to join us again since the election...

We can only pray it's an ankle bracelet he has to wear to stay out of prison. They are hopefully too ashamed he was the one the Democrats chose to run for President. But that sounds like Q. Which I don't pay attention to.

a reply to: Phage

So you don’t train dogs for covert ops?

a reply to: Ahabstar

I trained my golden (Tucker) to go get a tennis ball.

It wasn't that hard to do, actually.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Doctor Smith
I guess these fake ballots is one way to generate 95% to 107% voter turnout, LOL.

All you have to do is prove that in court.

Which Trump et. al. have failed to do over 40 times.

No, Trump's cases were not even heard in court, the Judges had the opinion that it would not change the result most times so they denied the case. That is not the same as going to court. One way is an opinion, the other way is a legal ruling.

By definition, the judge "heard" the cases and found them lacking. It is exactly the same as going to court.

This is an absurd semantic argument.

How about a link to these 40 cases? Let’s see where they were brought, the case numbers, the presiding judge and his ruling. Get to work, because 40 of those is gonna be a pain to type out- but you seem to have great sources who are obviously giving you real info, right? Or have you just been parroting what you hear on MSNBC?

Hint: Trump has only brought 3 cases.