It is only the simplest explanation if you ignore the giant pile of evidence that massive fraud took place. There is a word for people who intentionally ignore things.

I think that strange character got lost on his way to democrat underground and landed here.   Certainly not his/her attachment to the 2A.

If only there was really a Santa... and he could deliver ('Cause fucking Bill Barr ain't doing shit)...

Personally, I think Trump is a total buffoon.  That said, courts to NOT PROVE anything. . . 

Beyond that, much of what I was following was who had the authority to change policy or procedure.  It's about principle and people "allegedly" implementing change improperly.  This isn't an R vs D thing.  This is protection of elections, our rights to vote, and principle of upholding the meaning of voting as a critical aspect of our freedoms as Americans.  If you can't see that, you're just blind.

I can see that but is it constitutional?  Not sure tbh, I wanted the courts to decide that.

It is only the simplest explanation if you ignore the giant pile of evidence that massive fraud took place. There is a word for people who intentionally ignore things.

With all the fakenews, misinformation and biased info out there, its hard to tell the real truth.  People can make up anything for any belief.  The courts provide an excellent venue to figure out the truth and I will rely on them.  They should be un-biased and central position. Evidence is vetted and confirmed.  People are forced to speak under oath and can't use the freedom of speech to make up stories.   Both sides make arguments.  And a decision is made, which can be appealed etc.  Its one of the best current ways to get down to the real facts. 

Of course people NEVER lie under oath. . . 

Court have never convicted an innocent person, nor acquitted a guilty one.  Courts, particularly with jury trials are made up of PEOPLE.  That is a very naive way of determining truth. . . everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter.  However, to discount anything that isn't "proven in court" as didn't happen is fairy tale level naive.  If I had $100 for everyone who was that naive. ..

With all the fakenews, misinformation and biased info out there, its hard to tell the real truth.  People can make up anything for any belief.  The courts provide an excellent venue to figure out the truth and I will rely on them.  They should be un-biased and central position. Evidence is vetted and confirmed.  People are forced to speak under oath and can't use the freedom of speech to make up stories.   Both sides make arguments.  And a decision is made, which can be appealed etc.  Its one of the best current ways to get down to the real facts.

In this case the courts are refusing to even review the evidence. Your gaslighting campaign is backfiring though, so please continue to argue.

In this case the courts are refusing to even review the evidence. Your gaslighting campaign is backfiring though, so please continue to argue.

Not trying to gaslight.  But if the courts don't want to take the case it probably means the evidence is not sufficient or creditable or the argument is flawed.  The evidence and case is presented to the court before they decide to take it or not.

You sure didnt make any friends here on 2a.

Not trying to gaslight.  But if the courts don't want to take the case it probably means the evidence is not sufficient or creditable or the argument is flawed.  The evidence and case is presented to the court before they decide to take it or not.

not gaslighting?
then why have you posted these same statements multiple times a day since the election
we get what you believe are your truths, repeating them over and over will not make them our truths...

Not trying to gaslight.  But if the courts don't want to take the case it probably means the evidence is not sufficient or creditable or the argument is flawed.  The evidence and case is presented to the court before they decide to take it or not.

That is not correct. They did not reject the case on evidence, but on standing. It is a sneaky judicial trick to avoid responsibility and has been used several times in 2020 election cases so that they never have to review the evidence.

not gaslighting?
then why have you posted these same statements multiple times a day since the election
we get what you believe are your truths, repeating them over and over will not make them our truths...

I'm surprised he isn't using the term "New World Order"

That is not correct. They did not reject the case on evidence, but on standing. It is a sneaky judicial trick to avoid responsibility and has been used several times in 2020 election cases so that they never have to review the evidence.

Yup.  Decision based on procedure =/= no evidence.  He's jumping to conclusions without taking the time to read about the facts. . . not surprising. 

Yup.  Decision based on procedure =/= no evidence.  He's jumping to conclusions without taking the time to read about the facts. . . not surprising.

That's just this one supreme court case.  That I know of. I just cant imagine, that if the evidence was solid and sound they couldn't get the procedure correct and bring it up to the supreme court.

That is not correct. They did not reject the case on evidence, but on standing. It is a sneaky judicial trick to avoid responsibility and has been used several times in 2020 election cases so that they never have to review the evidence.

this has been explained to him multiple times, he will never understand that evidence was never presented nor considered in any of these cases thus far
you need sentience for that...

You sure didnt make any friends here on 2a.

Hope I do make some friends here.  People can have different political viewpoints and still be friends.  Family works the same way. 

Hope I do make some friends here.  People can have different political viewpoints and still be friends.  Family works the same way.

that's not how family works...

this has been explained to him multiple times, he will never understand that evidence was never presented nor considered in any of these cases thus far
you need sentience for that...

The supreme court was briefed on the evidence.  But ruled on procedure.  Other cases depending on which case had evidence presented. 

that's not how family works...

My family and I have different political views...we still get along.

not gaslighting?
then why have you posted these same statements multiple times a day since the election
we get what you believe are your truths, repeating them over and over will not make them our truths...

You all repeat the same or similar accusations of mass fraud etc.  I just happen to do the opposite in this case.  Doesn't mean I am the only one considered in the "wrong".  I am trying to inject other opinions and facts into the conversation.