Trump KNEW Dems would cheat. He said it at the debate. He set you up.
Hello January 25, 2021, 11:51:23 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Trump KNEW Dems would cheat. He said it at the debate. He set you up.  (Read 157 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(Hidden)

« on: December 01, 2020, 05:32:11 am »

It's just a theory... Trump repeatedly said that Dems would cheat with mail in ballots. It was a talking point at the debate. You think that someone on his team didn't say, "hey, this is serious, let's prepare."? Just a question.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2020, 12:15:50 pm »

You're right - it is just a theory... or a claim.  He never provided any evidence to support this belief and has since never provided any proof.  So it seems like it was just another of his spurious claims.

I'm certain people on his team prepared - evidenced by the number of lawsuits that were filed shortly afterwards.  The problem is the proof... which a court will require.  And, in court, perjury is a thing... so they can't lie.  And in every instance where a case was brought before a judge, the prepared and organised team produced... nothing.  And/or admitted that their claim was... not quite right ("there was a non-zero number of people in the room" being the most famous response).

So I think you're right - they did prepare.  But sadly for them, there was nothing actually that went wrong and so they couldn't continue. 

Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2020, 01:13:49 am »

You're right - it is just a theory... or a claim.  He never provided any evidence to support this belief and has since never provided any proof.  So it seems like it was just another of his spurious claims.

I'm certain people on his team prepared - evidenced by the number of lawsuits that were filed shortly afterwards.  The problem is the proof... which a court will require.  And, in court, perjury is a thing... so they can't lie.  And in every instance where a case was brought before a judge, the prepared and organised team produced... nothing.  And/or admitted that their claim was... not quite right ("there was a non-zero number of people in the room" being the most famous response).

So I think you're right - they did prepare.  But sadly for them, there was nothing actually that went wrong and so they couldn't continue. 



Well that's just factually ridiculous. Sure some of the claims and lawsuits have been tossed, but the appeals process means it's going to the SCOTUS. So you claiming that it's spurious or whatever means nothing because we already established that this would happen and it would go to the top. You're claiming victory before the process has played out, and that's dumb. Just today a video was released of them pulling ballots out from under a table after they told everyone they were done.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2020, 02:08:18 am »

You're right - it is just a theory... or a claim.  He never provided any evidence to support this belief and has since never provided any proof.  So it seems like it was just another of his spurious claims.

I'm certain people on his team prepared - evidenced by the number of lawsuits that were filed shortly afterwards.  The problem is the proof... which a court will require.  And, in court, perjury is a thing... so they can't lie.  And in every instance where a case was brought before a judge, the prepared and organised team produced... nothing.  And/or admitted that their claim was... not quite right ("there was a non-zero number of people in the room" being the most famous response).

So I think you're right - they did prepare.  But sadly for them, there was nothing actually that went wrong and so they couldn't continue. 



Well that's just factually ridiculous. Sure some of the claims and lawsuits have been tossed, but the appeals process means it's going to the SCOTUS. So you claiming that it's spurious or whatever means nothing because we already established that this would happen and it would go to the top. You're claiming victory before the process has played out, and that's dumb. Just today a video was released of them pulling ballots out from under a table after they told everyone they were done.

You do know that’s not how your legal system works, right? You know what “with prejudice” means in a court judgement, right?

Because if you knew these two things, and still posted this... you are either lying to desperately try and cover up how terribly wrong you’ve got things, or you’re utterly ignorant. I really hope it’s the former and not the latter...

When you say some of the suits have been tossed... that would be all of them except for 1... last I checked, that wold be 31-1 against Trump’s comparing so far. Not a great record...

As I’m sure you understand what “with prejudice” means, I know you’ll understand it can’t go down the full appeals process easily (they have to ask the appeals judge to disregard the previous judges ruling... providing evidence for why they shlkld do so... as they haven’t provided evidence in the first place, how that is going to work is... well... it’s not...). And this can continue right the way up to SCOTUS, assuming people keep wanting to fund him (which looks like they are... which is terribly sad!). But they will also have no choice but to strike it down if no evidence is presented.

So you must somehow think that, for some unknown reason, they’re willing to let alll their cases get struck down in the lower courts for lack of evidence... just to present a bunch of evidence to SCOTUS... but why on Earth would anyone do it that way? Why wouldn’t they present evidence right the way up? Makes no sense... well, it does if there’s no evidence to present...

So then they will go vis the court of public opinion, via the state legislatures... which allows them to say all kinds of things with no fear of perjury. But so far, that doesn’t look to be going so well either (with Guiliani’s star witness looking... and sounding... completely unhinged...). And also note that the same star witness has not been allowed to give this testimony in a court... for obvious reasons I should think! 🤣

Do you really see this going well for Trump? What’s the logical reason why so much evidence hasn’t been shared that at least some of the lower courts should be saying... actually, there’s a case here...? Even Trump and other Republican appointed judges are saying: nope.

Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2020, 02:22:38 am »

Dude. You got a lot to say, but it's based on a false premise. We know that cheating occured. We know it. It's a fact. I literally don't give a shit about what the corrupt court said. Like I told you already. We already knew this would go to the SCOTUS and that those minor court decisions would be appealed, 6 months ago... So
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2020, 02:25:34 am »

Dude. You got a lot to say, but it's based on a false premise. We know that cheating occured. We know it. It's a fact. I literally don't give a shit about what the corrupt court said. Like I told you already. We already knew this would go to the SCOTUS and that those minor court decisions would be appealed, 6 months ago... So

Oh dear... so now we’re going deeper down the rabbit hole are we? Really??? So now the courts are corrupt to... not just the voting, not just the electors... but now the courts too. So everyone is corrupt that doesn’t believe that Trump won? Is that the case?

Yeah yeah, the idea that Trump thinks he can win at SCOTUS is well known about... *yawn*. Already ready for that too...

But then, if they dismiss the case, they must be corrupt too... right?!
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2020, 02:29:04 am »

Oh jeez nobody wants to read about you dripping with precum at the idea that you might be right. But you're still not providing anything at all really
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2020, 02:31:01 am »

Oh jeez nobody wants to read about you dripping with precum at the idea that you might be right. But you're still not providing anything at all really

Well no, that’s because it’s not down to me to provide you anything. That would be the logical fallacy of reversing the burden of proof again... if you remember me teaching you about that from before? Remember the chocolate teapot example I talked you through?

You’re the one making the claims - the burden of proof is on you.
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2020, 02:32:56 am »

Really? Like a video of them taking suitcases full of ballots from under the table right after they asked all the ballot counters to leave? An actual video of that happening?
Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

 
Jump to: