The Dems stole the 2020 POTUS election...period, end of story!
Unfortunately, that train has left the station. The important point now is to get the truth out there so it won't happen again.
|
|
|
|
|
The Dems stole the 2020 POTUS election...period, end of story!
Unfortunately, that train has left the station. The important point now is to get the truth out there so it won't happen again.
Notice how the haters are belittling anyone who even questions the election farce? That's what the cancel culture does.Originally Posted by dawg80
Because it is fake news. Like Holocaust denial.
If you read back through this thread, you'll find a lot of belittling and insulting comments. Mostly they're directed at those who don't believe there was widespread fraud.
Does this really carry the ring of truth to you?
81 cases and "no one allowed" the evidence to be heard? At all? Haven't we linked to cases with rulings on the merits in this thread? Do we think those were decided without considering all the evidence? Why would the attorneys not present all their evidence if they have it?
These crack lawyers couldn't find anyone to even hear them?
Does this seem like the most likely explanation?
A case has to be pretty flawed in the the pleadings for no evidence to be considered...
Preface.....I’m not being argumentative with this question. Truly seeking to understand the legal process. Have no experience and don’t plan to.
Dismissing on merit seems counterintuitive. Shouldn’t it be dismissed on lack of merit? In order to do that, shouldn’t the court have to hear all the testimony, read all the affidavits, watch all the video, and then determine that all of that is either false or insufficient? And the result is that all those offering false testimony are punished? If they haven’t even heard evidence, how can it be dismissed on merit?
“Dismissed on the merits” just means that the merits of the case were considered, but did not establish a cause of action. In a summary judgment, that means the court essentially is saying “even if everything that you are saying is true, it still doesn’t constitute a violation of the law or entitle you to the relief you are requesting.”
Exactly! no evidence, no testimony was heard/seen.
In 81 cases you think a judge just decided (for funsies?) that even though the preliminary evidence was awesome, he didn't want to hear any of it?
Because in all 81 cases these judges are in the bag for the left?
This seems more reasonable to you than the idea that the "evidence" they wanted to present wasn't really evidence at all (or they just had nothing to begin with)? Even leaving beside the places that in this thread you can see some of the reasons for the dismissals or denials or even withdrawals?
If we weren't talking about this election, and someone approached you with this idea. And just this - no details about what was being disputed, would it seem likely?
Like if it was a liberal complaining - "I tried to sue the city to get them to raise taxes and 81 times in 81 courts (while making a number of different arguments for higher taxes) they refused to listen to my evidence, but don't you think I probably have great evidence and I'm being suppressed?" Would you buy that? Even just that? It'd be possible of course, but. . .
There IS evidence out there, that's the point.
The Dems stole the 2020 POTUS election, period.
So you've said.
But 81 courts have refused to even consider any of it? Per the list above.
That's a lot of judges to be in the pocket of the Left. Or to be incompetent to the point of not being able to see this amazing evidence for the proof that it is.
But I guess that's the theory? That all the courts are out to cover things up? All of them? If they're all in Democratic pockets even after all the Bush and Trump appointments through the years and judge-appointing being a McConnell priority for so long, that's just kind of surprising.
On the other hand, if the "evidence" isn't what it's being made out to be, you know that could be another explanation here.
I know you also said that the evidence was all destroyed, too.
So that would be another explanation. That is a different case. I suppose it's possible as well. I think that's also somewhat unlikely, but I'll acknowledge you've mentioned that as an explanation for all the losses in court (so it wouldn't necessarily have to be 81 corrupt or inept judges). But then it wouldn't be "out there" so maybe you're talking about evidence other than that which you think was destroyed?
There is different types of evidence. And yeah, lots of the physical evidence has been destroyed. Which is why I have been saying congrats to all the commie bastards, you got away with it, and the train has left the station. Now, it is also true that Rudy G. and some others, who knew the evidence was there, assumed it would continue to be there, especially after the SC justice issued an order to freeze in place all documentation, such as the original ballots, but the Dems thumbed their noses at that order and went about destroying evidence anyway.
The Dems stole the 2020 POTUS election and have gotten away with it.
Well. Ok.
But since the evidence is all gone we just have to take your word for it now? Or you and Rudy? And that's also why the court cases are going so poorly? The evidence can't be presented because it's all gone. I mean, that makes a kind of sense in terms of reconciling how you'd get 80 something undercover "bad" judges with mountains of evidence not being presented (and explains why).
I still don't find that a compelling argument, but I am genuinely curious as to the thought process. Really.
And I just want to make sure I understand your argument fairly. I've been accused of arguing straw men. I couldn't argue against "it's all gone so I can't show you but you have to take my word for it" anyway (even if I wanted to) but it wouldn't be fair for me to try to argue past you in that kind of situation.
Thank you for answering.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote