Electoral Vote Prediction

So you want a dictatorship where you get to pick the leader rather than the people. Biden won Trump lost get over it will you stop your whining?

No, we want free and clear elections. Trump won! A lot more to come, This is far from over...
 
No, we want free and clear elections. Trump won! A lot more to come, This is far from over...
LMAO It was a free and clear election ask Barr he declared no voter fraud. Ask Chris Krebs he said "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised." Trump also agreed in every court case there was no voter fraud. Here read it yourself.
20201128_153648.jpg


Funny you same the same thing as Trump it's far from over, it's over. Trump has lost 43 lawsuits Dec 14 will see the final nail in Trumps coffin. Nothing can change the election results, Trump is trying to raise as much money for himself as he can, it's a joke and Trump is the head clown.
 
LMAO It was a free and clear election ask Barr he declared no voter fraud.
View attachment 95862

Funny you same the same thing as Trump it's far from over, it's over. Trump has lost 43 lawsuits Dec 14 will see the final nail in Trumps coffin. Nothing can change the election results, Trump is trying to raise as much money for himself as he can, it's a joke and Trump is the head clown.
As usual, try again. :rolleyes: derp
 
Just what I expect out of the likes of you! A woman volunteers to work so we can exercise our sacred voting right by poll watching, sees wrong doing and testifies to that fact and as*****s like you make sneering comments about her. Well get off your a** and do something besides snipe.

Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises a citizens vote and is a grave theft of the citizens civil rights. This cannot be tolerated or it will get ugly.
You started the personal attack's by sneering at the volunteer.
So, "sneering", which usually refers to a facial expression, is forbidden, got it; the punishment is a personal attack. You seem to make up lots of rules.
But, you really ought to research your "hero" (sneering as I write this).
No need to rely on the media, you can go right to court documents:https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/mich-election-ruling.pdf
According to the ruling and her affidavit, she was not a volunteer but a paid IT contractor working at a voting site. After comparing Ms. Carone's to the other affidavits submitted in the case by individuals who were there, the judge concluded her "allegations simply are not credible." This was well before the hearing video. If you watched the whole hearing you would have seen fact-checking from authoritative sources on what she said. The point of the post was to show the seemingly ludicrous depths that the effort to overturn the election has sunk to.
I would commend doing research at the source document level to anyone, right or left. Much better than repeating the narrative of whichever establishment you think you identify with. Better yet, try not to identify with either establishment but make your own choices.
 
So, "sneering", which usually refers to a facial expression, is forbidden, got it; the punishment is a personal attack. You seem to make up lots of rules.
But, you really ought to research your "hero" (sneering as I write this).
No need to rely on the media, you can go right to court documents:https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/mich-election-ruling.pdf
According to the ruling and her affidavit, she was not a volunteer but a paid IT contractor working at a voting site. After comparing Ms. Carone's to the other affidavits submitted in the case by individuals who were there, the judge concluded her "allegations simply are not credible." This was well before the hearing video. If you watched the whole hearing you would have seen fact-checking from authoritative sources on what she said. The point of the post was to show the seemingly ludicrous depths that the effort to overturn the election has sunk to.
I would commend doing research at the source document level to anyone, right or left. Much better than repeating the narrative of whichever establishment you think you identify with. Better yet, try not to identify with either establishment but make your own choices.

The problem you have is all these ruling are not rulings on the merits. The affidavits are preliminary evidence, used to substitute for actual testimony. They are ok, but must be taken at face value as they are not subject to cross examination. When, and more importantly IF, these witnesses take the stand in court they will be subject to both direct and cross examination -- and the truth will come out thru that process. That is how our system works.
 
The problem you have is all these ruling are not rulings on the merits. The affidavits are preliminary evidence, used to substitute for actual testimony. They are ok, but must be taken at face value as they are not subject to cross examination. When, and more importantly IF, these witnesses take the stand in court they will be subject to both direct and cross examination -- and the truth will come out thru that process. That is how our system works.
Generally true, but the problem you have is that, to change an election, fraud or mistake needs to be shown. Fraud has a higher standard for evidence up front than other issues:
“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." This means the plaintiffs must describe "the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud."
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/civil-rules-procedure-dec2017_0.pdf, Rule 9(b). Also https://www.financialpoise.com/frcp-rule-9-fraud/
This is why the cases we've seen are either not alleging fraud or are being thrown out if they do because of shoddy evidence, which judges do have to evaluate in fraud cases. Fraud can be alleged in the court of public opinion, as is being done in spades and without proof, but getting it through the courts is a different issue and doesn't seem to be happening.
 
Generally true, but the problem you have is that, to change an election, fraud or mistake needs to be shown. Fraud has a higher standard for evidence up front than other issues:
“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." This means the plaintiffs must describe "the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud."
See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/civil-rules-procedure-dec2017_0.pdf, Rule 9(b). Also https://www.financialpoise.com/frcp-rule-9-fraud/
This is why the cases we've seen are either not alleging fraud or are being thrown out if they do because of shoddy evidence, which judges do have to evaluate in fraud cases. Fraud can be alleged in the court of public opinion, as is being done in spades and without proof, but getting it through the courts is a different issue and doesn't seem to be happening.
Be careful what interweb lawyers you listen to. Fed Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) deals with the pleading, not the evidence. As I said before, the affidavits are the preliminary evidence. Depending on the motion, judges have certain standards to weigh that evidence. The instant case was for injunctive relief (which is hard to get). That's it. Has zero bearing on the underlying fraud case.
 
Be careful what interweb lawyers you listen to. Fed Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) deals with the pleading, not the evidence. As I said before, the affidavits are the preliminary evidence. Depending on the motion, judges have certain standards to weigh that evidence. The instant case was for injunctive relief (which is hard to get). That's it. Has zero bearing on the underlying fraud case.
Actually, the case involving Ms. Carone sought injunctive relief, a protective order and an independent audit; all were denied. In addition to the alleged fraud requiring particularity, the state statute requires plaintiffs prove that an injunction should be granted, once again placing importance on the evidence submitted with the plead. Surely allegations of wide-spread fraud supported by lots of detail would be worthy of one or more of those remedies, especially in the case with the import of a presidential election? I understand the issue of an audit is back with the judge. I would love to see him call a hearing and subject Ms. Carone to cross-examination, as would all late-night comedians.
 
The country will be much better off without Trump. Trumps own people say there was no voter fraud. Trumps lawyers in court say there was no voter fraud.
View attachment 95843

I can't tell you about Biden/Harris yet but I will as the months go on.

Edit. We thought Trump/Pence would do a great job for the country but they didn't. They did such a horrible job people like me switched their vote for President.
I think Trump/Pence did an amazing job. The direction Biden/Harris want to take our country in scares the living shit out of me!
 
As usual, there’s that reading comprehension problem. Try again :rolleyes: derp
Rubbing your nose in Trumps lose just makes my day :rolleyes: dullard. Every time a lawsuit get tossed everyone laughs.
20201112_171232.jpg
 
They can recount the fraudulent ballots as many times as they want. They’ll still get the same results.

There are no fraudulent votes, just Trump and his cult trying to steal the election. Even Trump in court says no voter fraud.
If you have a court ruling that says other wise post it.
20201128_153648.jpg
 
lets assume for a second you are right and it was a fraud by the 'democratic machine' - WHY should the courts and republican governors support it and cover it ? quite the opposite would happen .

it makes zero sense i think .
 
When was Trump in court?

I guess you are not aware of how the legal system works so pay attention, when a lawyer represents you in court the way Rudy Giuliani represents Trump in court it is as if Trump was in court. Did you not read any of the court judgments..dullard
 
I guess you are not aware of how the legal system works so pay attention, when a lawyer represents you in court the way Rudy Giuliani represents Trump in court it is as if Trump was in court. Did you not read any of the court judgments..dullard
You do realize most of the cases reported on are not Trump cases, right?
 
I guess you are not aware of how the legal system works so pay attention, when a lawyer represents you in court the way Rudy Giuliani represents Trump in court it is as if Trump was in court. Did you not read any of the court judgments..dullard
We’ve discovered weeks ago that you don’t understand how the system works. Then you promptly change the subject. Maybe you should consult the President Elect who can be reached at the office of the President Elect.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,950
Messages
1,422,849
Members
60,932
Latest member
juliediane
Back
Top