First day of hearings is over.....

Port Tack said:
What evidence?
Click to expand...
RQAA.
Port Tack said:
Every fucking accusation has been investigated by republicans close to the president.
Every one of them has testified that they were all bullshit and never happened. Giuliani is like the only one who agreed with the president and he investigated nothing. Sidney Powell has come out and said "anyone who believed what I was saying at the time is an idiot". That's the only truthful thing I have heard her say.
Click to expand...
You can't wish the evidence away, dude.
Port Tack said:
Where is this fucking evidence?
Click to expand...
RQAA.
Port Tack said:
You would think those closest to Trump would have seen this evidence and they all testified that it wasn't there and they told the jackass at the time, he would not believe them, He could not accept being a fucking loser and neither can you.
Click to expand...
You can't lose what never took place.
Port Tack said:
I guess that's all it takes for a Trump Nazi like you to continues to parrot your Fuhrer's lies. No you can't "wish away the evidence" but when there is fucking none there you don't have to.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone fallacy. I've already shown you a fair bit of evidence.
 
martin said:
Pennsylvania is one of your two states; not sure of the other you referred to but didn't identify. The case you mention is under appeal to the state supreme court.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. No court has authority to choose the electors for any State.
martin said:
The lower court which issued the ruling, written by a Republican judge, held that because the state constitution provides that electors must be "present" there can be no mail in voting at all in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...
He is correct.
martin said:
We'll see how this narrow reading goes over with the higher court which has thrown out already another suit challenging the mail in statute,
Click to expand...
It is not a narrow reading. No court has authority to change the constitution of the State of Pennsylvania.
martin said:
a stature widely praised by both parties when the legislature passed it with a solid Republican majority.
Click to expand...
The legislature does not have authority to change the constitution of the State of Pennsylvania.
martin said:
Just last week the Republican dominated U.S. Supreme Court, in yet another Pennsylvania case, rejected a Republican candidate's emergency appeal for the Court to disallow absentee ballots in his race that were not dated thereby violating the mail in ballot statute, so votes that are legally improper under the state are legal votes nonetheless.
Click to expand...
No. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have authority to change the constitution of the State of Pennsylvania nor the Constitution of the United States.
martin said:
Must make a Trumper's head spin.
Click to expand...
No. You are simply throwing any spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
 
LurchAddams said:
LOL. Barr just told everyone he knew there was no fraud. There were case after case in each state challenging Biden's win - all thrown out - many by judges twump appointed.

These trolls will try to look for any stupid angle.
Click to expand...

You can't wish the evidence away by pointing to Barr.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you know the other case is a WI case, its been said enough times for even the most illiterate poster to be aware of it.......until some court overturns it, it is law......the WI case was affirmed by the state supreme court.....sucks to be a supporter of the Pastyfaced Pedophile who's the first president put in office by an unconstitutional election......as far as the recent PA case, it matters not to me which Republican candidate beats Fetterman in November......
Click to expand...

No court has authority to overturn it. No court has authority to change the constitution of the State of Wisconsin.
 
LurchAddams said:
Just tell our friend, Into the Night, that if he's concerned there was a stolen election in 2020 he needs to ask:

Ivanka

Barr

Stepien

Miller (Jason not the vampire one)

All trump-appointed judges who threw out the bullshit cases.

Don't talk to us - go to the source!

I'm so glad I have that gutter troll on ignore. He still spams me - just just never read his shit, reply to whatever thread he's spamming me on and tell him to fuck off. Many like him do that. I don't know why. They're staying on ignore. I will never read their troll garbage.
Click to expand...

You can't wish the evidence away by pointing at anyone, dude.
 
Into the Night said:
You can't wish the evidence away by pointing to Barr.
Click to expand...

You've not watched the hearings. It wasn't just Barr. It was every Republican in trump's circle telling twump he lost. He even lost Ivanka.

His daughter finally screwed him, just not the way he wanted.

Fuck you for your intentional dishonesty.

Do better. You are weak.
 
martin said:
You’re like a miffed chic, flailing and insulting because she didn’t get her way. Biden wins without Wisconsin. The Pennsylvania case is as good as dead, the mail in statute Republican legislators applauded until Biden got the votes sure to be upheld, your precious legalism we’ve been hearing about all these months on its way down the drain. If you’d care for a fuller explanation say so, nicely.
Click to expand...

Biden can't win what never took place. He was not elected. He was installed.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....you've already got the PA case overturned and Trump convicted and the Dems retaining the House in November.......counting chickens you will raise from scrambled eggs...
Click to expand...

Consider: the court ruled that the provision in the Constitution that the voter be "present" meant voting by absentee ballot was entirely disallowed in Pennsylvania. But when the provision was written absentee voting didn't exist. What the language in all likelihood forbids is proxy voting, someone casting his ballot at the voting location then saying, "And now I'll vote for my wife". In absentee voting this requirement is met by the voter's signature, testifying that he or she and not someone else has executed the ballot. That majorities of both parties in the Legislature supported the bill establishes that they regarded the provision as Constitutional; so will the Supreme Court..
 
Religions are coherent, WOKE is the opposite of coherent, and this is on purpose.

I called WOKE a religion, but is is actually a cult.
 
WOKE is not trying to give us truth as a religion does , they give us Anti-Truth.....because there is only power.....they are that Regressive.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Religions are coherent, WOKE is the opposite of coherent, and this is on purpose.

I called WOKE a religion, but is is actually a cult.
Click to expand...

Religions are cults. WOKE isn't one of them, however. It's an invented and incoherent word for incoherent people.
 
martin said:
Consider: the court ruled that the provision in the Constitution that the voter be "present" meant voting by absentee ballot was entirely disallowed in Pennsylvania. But when the provision was written absentee voting didn't exist. What the language in all likelihood forbids is proxy voting, someone casting his ballot at the voting location then saying, "And now I'll vote for my wife". In absentee voting this requirement is met by the voter's signature, testifying that he or she and not someone else has executed the ballot. That majorities of both parties in the Legislature supported the bill establishes that they regarded the provision as Constitutional; so will the Supreme Court..
Click to expand...

sorry......no......but even if you were right.....at the present moment the fact remains that the election of 2020 was unconstitutional......which means the PastyFaced Pedophile is the first president put in office by means other than a legal constitutional election......
 
Hawkeye10 said:
WOKE is not trying to give us truth as a religion does , they give us Anti-Truth.....because there is only power.....they are that Regressive.
Click to expand...

So far you've failed to say anything about the meaning of the word. Literally, it is supposed to mean social awareness, especially of racial and social injustice (try something new and look it up), and awareness is good not a bad thing, but the word connotes ridicule of such awareness, as if callously closing your eyes to it is what smart guys do, and it is exactly what many Righties are inclined to do. The purpose of "WOKE" then is to turn awareness of social and racial injustice back on those who express it as sissified.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Except that being all about feelings as they negate facts and the intellect makes them more a cult.
Click to expand...

Your an idiot. Cult leaders prefer people bury their intellect in exchange for total submission to them, the cult leader.

That's what a cult is, you supercilious dork.

I swear, total morons look at you and say, "take it down a notch".

Speaking of "submitting" to someone - how's TOP?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top