The mail in vote was not legit and you know it. You knew it going in.
|
|
|
|
|
The mail in vote was not legit and you know it. You knew it going in.
It was legit, and all the courts keep telling you that. In the courtroom, facts are what matter - not beliefs.Originally Posted by PawDawg
You just aren’t happy with the result when there is greater voter turnout.
Supposed mailed ballots is not a "turnout".
But real mailed ballots is.
Why would it be surprising that there were more mailed ballots this year? Many states made that easier. Many people took advantage of that.
If they were only “supposed”, the Trump campaign never put forth evidence to prove they were anything other than actual votes. Some 50 cases dropped or dismissed. That tells you how little proof there really is to support this belief that you keep gripping to.
Which was totally in keeping with the excuse making he was doing for months and months before the election. His internal polling told him he was a long shot to win...so he started casting doubt on the election early. The goal was to be "winning" before the mail-in ballots were counted in PA and other places.
The mail-in vote acted basically as was predicted by pollsters and election consultants across the political spectrum.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Of relevance:
1-55 is pretty bad, but also a little misleading. Overall results not much better necessarily from a more balanced standpoint, but I guess 0-11, with 7 technically outstanding is marginally less shocking.
https://thedispatch.com/p/analyzing-...gal-challenges
To get these results (whether you think they're 1-55 or 0-11 with hopes for the other 7) a lot of people have helped out.
Trump raises more than $170 million appealing on false election claims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...9f8_story.html
Much of the money raised since the election is likely to go into an account for the president to use on political activities after he leaves office, while some of the contributions will go toward what is left of the legal fight.“There’s not really a legal mechanism that would prevent somebody from enriching themselves with the contributions that they receive into their leadership PAC in the same way that personal-use restrictions would prohibit that for a campaign committee,”But, to be fair:“Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an ‘official election defense fund’ are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaign’s debt or funding his post-presidential political operation,” said Brendan Fischer, who directs federal regulatory work at the Campaign Legal Center, which supports greater restrictions on money in politics. “The average donor who gives in response to Trump’s appeal for funds to ‘stop the fraud’ likely doesn’t realize that their money is actually retiring Trump’s debt or funding his leadership PAC.”
For some of the president’s die-hard supporters, the fact that most of the money goes toward the leadership PAC is not a concern.
Joshua T. Hosler Retweeted
Joshua T. Hosler
@JoshuaHosler
Biden's staff is saying Kamala's staff are leaking negative information against Biden. So it begins!
9:59 AM · Dec 10, 2020·Twitter Web App
Republicans are like gossipy high schoolers.
They're not likely to push Biden out until after year 2 so that they can try to have 10 years for Harris and 12 years overall.
They were dropped by liberal judges.
Mostly conservative judges including Trump appointees, actually.
🤪
His three appointees to the Supreme Court bounced his cases out of court twice this week.
I remember at Barrett's hearing the Dems said she would just rubber-stamp anything Trump sent up to the SC. I watched the hearings, and Dem after Dem, all reading from the same script faxed to them by Soros (faxed because the old coot hasn't figured out email yet). The Dems, and you too Goosey, I remember you too saying this was unConstitutional for the Senate to confirm a nominee before an election, yes sir, you said it. And you went on to say Trump was doing this ONLY because he knew Barrett would follow his bidding.
We, on the other hand, told you as a Godless, evil libtard, you are clueless about honesty and integrity, since you libs lack both traits, and you simply did not understand when Barrett stated emphatically she was not going to be a puppet of ANYONE, but would instead apply the law, not make it, she meant it. Well...I am not surprised she and the other Trump appointees applied the law, and if indeed this is what they think is supported by the Constitution, then it must be.
WHICH IS WHY I POSTED AT THAT TIME, EVERYONE, INCLUDING LEFTIST DEMS, SHOULD SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF "CONSERVATIVE" JUSTICES! There will come times....many, many times, and this is one such case already, when you Leftists will applaud the ruling of the SC because it happened to also fit your political agenda. Now, imagine if this situation was reversed, we all know how the liberal justices would have ruled in support of Biden or another Dem candidate pursuing a similar ruling...the Constitution be damned!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
