2020 Election Fraud Exposed, Bellwether Counties Won?

Truth7t7

Active member
Bellwether counties have been used as historical indicators for who will win a presidential election, the election fraud seen below.......Indisputable evidence.


bellwether-counties-history-1.jpg
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
LOL @ "indisputable evidence".

If it was either, ******'s lawyers would have brought it to court, and it would have been accepted.

That's why fascist drones spam it in obscure little web discussion forums. Because everyone recognizes it for the dreck it is ;)
 

Thistle

Well-known member
LOL @ "indisputable evidence".

If it was either, ******'s lawyers would have brought it to court, and it would have been accepted.

So you are conceding that Trump won, but had stupid lawyers? If so, our views are much closer than I expected.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
A Trumpanzee failing to recognize that correlation doesn't represent "indisputable evidence".

Who would have thought...
 

Thistle

Well-known member
A Trumpanzee failing to recognize that correlation doesn't represent "indisputable evidence".

Who would have thought...
There is a process for assembling "indisputable evidence." It's called discovery. You file a law suit based on indications like correlation, so if it's dismissed on standing, you never get to discovery. So I really fail to see where your ground for complaint is?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
There is a process for assembling "indisputable evidence." It's called discovery. You file a law suit based on indications like correlation, so if it's dismissed on standing, you never get to discovery. So I really fail to see where your ground for complaint is?
Surely, if you haven't got standing, then you haven't got any evidence either?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
There is a process for assembling "indisputable evidence." It's called discovery.
That's irrelevant to the thread. If you want to go talk about legal processes, go create your own thread. This one is about nonsense begin claimed as indisputable evidence. Nonsense that's so compelling, it never helped ****** convince a court that significant voter fraud impacted the election results.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
That's irrelevant to the thread.
It's completely germane.
If you want to go talk about legal processes, go create your own thread.
You were squawking about the evidence we don't have, based on your complaint regarding evidence we do have. Those two issues are directly related by the process of discovery.
This one is about nonsense begin claimed as indisputable evidence.
Excuse me, but you are raising the bar. There is clear evidence that we need to look deeper so we can get to what is really at issue.
Nonsense that's so compelling, it never helped ****** convince a court that significant voter fraud impacted the election results.
The merits are never considered when you are dismissed on standing.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
What ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? Can you connect those dots? I'd love to see it if you can.
The court is there to make judgement on a case. Evidence allows the court to make that judgement. If there is no standing, there is no case to answer. Any evidence is moot. Shouting into the ether that you have loads of lovely evidence when you have no standing to bring that evidence to court is fairly pointless.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The court is there to make judgement on a case. Evidence allows the court to make that judgement. If there is no standing, there is no case to answer.
Your last two sentences can't both be true. If the court rules there is no standing they never get to the evidence.
Any evidence is moot.
So we agree.
Shouting into the ether that you have loads of lovely evidence when you have no standing to bring that evidence to court is fairly pointless.
That is not what I'm saying. Robert Barns who is one of the top election law attorneys in the United States, says that our courts are notorious in election cases for finding standing when and if they want to. I believe him, that is what he does.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Your last two sentences can't both be true. If the court rules there is no standing they never get to the evidence.

So we agree.

That is not what I'm saying. Robert Barns who is one of the top election law attorneys in the United States, says that our courts are notorious in election cases for finding standing when and if they want to. I believe him, that is what he does.
You either trust your courts or you don't. If your plaintiff has no standing then find one who does. If no-one has standing, there is no case.

It's not as if the GOP hasn't been stuffing conservative judges into courts for the past several years. Personally, I find it astounding that judges are political appointments, but that is your system, so you live with it. Judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans, including soma appointed by Trump, at all levels, including the SC, decided between them that there was no case to answer. Courts make judgements of fact. You don't get fake news from courts. Their findings may be appealed, in which case, the facts change. When the dust settles, all the appeals are exhausted, it doesn't matter what anyone believes, the facts are what the courts say they are.

You lost.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
It's not as if the GOP hasn't been stuffing conservative judges into courts for the past several years. Personally, I find it astounding that judges are political appointments, but that is your system, so you live with it.
Conservatives have hyper-partisanized nearly everything in this country. While it'd be naïve to imagine political considerations never ever played a part in judicial appointments, the fact is that said appointments were never done solely on the basis of a judge's political views. ****** has changed all that.

Yes, he stacked the federal courts with conservatives - and so far it's netted the Republicans very little :) This is because in order to actually be a judge, you have to have a fairly decent track record of legal/political impartiality; you must have demonstrated that you can judge the merits of a case by the law, not by political ideology. The latter always creeps in, but good judges - regardless of whether they're liberal or conservative - actively work to keep it out.

****** appears to have appointed judges who care about their careers, and would thus never side with either the plaintiff or defendant merely because the person votes Republican...

ps. the slew of partisan appointments is sure to have long-lasting effects on American jurisprudence, but it's going to take a decade or so for us to see what they are...
 
Top