Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Show & Tell thread.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/qlxA3EEtS2A/


    Shit... too bad I wasn't running a camera when I watched this, I'd have nuked my entire curmudgeon persona in the first 20 seconds.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Sasquatch View Post
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-e...ntial_election
      and I didn't ask you to parrot back a Wikipedia page that you wouldn't even cite as your source, I asked you to name the 63 lawsuits, who the plaintiffs are, and what they wanted., but clearly that was too much to ask from you.

      So try again
      It has just struck me Din, you don't actually know what a plaintiff is, do you?

      Why would I chase down the lunacy of your assertion that you were never apparently heard, by whoever the plaintiff was. Was it the Trump Campaign, was it release the kraken Powell, was it Giuliani in some but not in others, I couldn't give a fuck. All I know as I have laid out is that each and every single one of them was heard, and dismissed as utter fucking bullshite. All of them, excluding none. Do your own homework for your own failures. I gave you a synopsis that you yourself have only read after I posted it.

      Now you two morons might not know what a show and tell is, but it requires you to turn up with more than a plucky attitude.

      Present the evidence, we are all desperate to hear here what the United States judicial system never heard. The irrepressible truth that your President simply made up a voting fraud on network TV and via his twitter account that never existed. Indeed his team are the only one's who have subdsequently tried to criminally overturn the results of an election, that he lost.

      So, show and tell Din, or shut the fuck up, because it is patently obvious to anyone with an IQ that outstrips a fucking codominant of maple syrup, that you don't have any.

      But I am sure you are about to present it, now your opening lack of argument is over.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Arugula Flatulence View Post
        You're wasting your keystrokes. Homo isn't here to debate, he is here to parrot lamestream establishment talking points and excuses..
        Did I call it or did I call it?

        Homo, had the evidence truly been tested in court, you would be able to get the evidence from the court transcripts. Since the cases were dismissed not for lack of evidence but for a variety of procedural grounds, the evidence itself was never tested in court.

        You would prefer to waste our time demanding we present what your own masters could not bear to have tested. Rather telling that.

        Meanwhile I find myself somewhat disinterested in proving the case to a willfully ignorant and low information bog dweller, though it should be mentioned that a key piece of evidence has been presented, and in this very thread. No, it was never tested in court, but it has been staring you in the face all this time, yet you have refused to so much as give it a passing nod of recognition, much less bring the finest propagandists of Snopes to bear on the matter.

        You are boring me. I doubt I shall bother to read your reply to this post, it's clear you haven't been reading any of ours.

        Comment


          #19
          What part of there was only one case that had any fundament in law in regard to procedural grounds are you have difficulty with?

          You have called on nothing but a legal technicality in one case.

          Just so even you can understand, all legal challenges have to be in by a certain date after the 3rd Nov, your crack team of lawyers representing your side of the isle failed that deadline by 3 days, that's the technicality that you are dismissing 63 court cases on.

          Trumps legal team filed as the "plaintiff" after that time was up, that time-up exists because everything has to be sorted in regard to transition on the 20th Jan. This isn't Florida in 2000 where we are arguing over the punch cards they used, and less than what was it, 400 votes? This is the POTUS trying to overturn the election in states that were only swing states when they turned blue. That's what makes his attempt to strongarm his own governor of that state so politically and legally egregious.

          You find your self disinterested you fucking idiot, because you are beginning to acknowledge that I do what I always do in regard to you. Make a cunt of you. You in fact are just sum cunt or another, to me.

          Now get yer fucking finger out and prove why you have spent the last 4 years barking up the wrong tree.

          Comment


            #20
            Ask me no more, for fear I should reply;
            Others have held their tongues, and so can I,
            Hundreds have died, and told no tale before:
            Ask me no more, for fear I should reply —

            How one was true and one was clean of stain
            And one was braver than the heavens are high,
            And one was fond of me: and all are slain.
            Ask me no more, for fear I should reply.

            Comment


              #21
              From the ABA - Current Litigation
              Current Status or Final Disposition and Summary
              Specifically, 8. Fraud and Vote Dilution
              Relevant to procedural/substantive/lack of evidence court decisions.
              https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...aw/litigation/
              <a href=https://i.imgur.com/qyqyl35.jpg target=_blank>https://i.imgur.com/qyqyl35.jpg</a>

              Comment


                #22
                Oh dear, it seems that CW has been reduced to doing a little of your homework for you Din.

                Comment


                • cw_
                  cw_ commented
                  Editing a comment
                  As always, many user's ability to reason is not up to the social media/rumor mill challenge.

                • Blandscape
                  Blandscape commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Thankfully the procedure of American law in regard to the designation of a new US President, is no longer viable in the rumour mill.

                #23
                They are now as I type, "electronically" recording their votes to impeach the 45th POTUS for the second time. Ironic that they are electronically recording their votes, even as they demand via the Republican caucus that that is what cost them in the GE.

                I want to see the mechanics of the copper wiring that takes that voice as heard on the floor to the Speakers chair and ultimately to the gavel.

                Fake Votes.

                Comment


                  #24
                  I am saying quiet categorically that no Republican has voted not to impeach President WhatsHisName. Every single one of them has voted to bring him to congressional justice. Even that Jim Jordan paedophile fellow has voted to indict. I know it's true, because there was a rally in my living room with all of my family members in attendance, and we all multilaterally decided that because we say that is what is happening, that is what is happening.

                  The whole representation of Republicans have electronically voted to impeach the President. It is not a debate, it's a fact.

                  Comment


                    #25
                    And so democracy is overwhelmed with the hypocrisy of yet another vote that proclaims from the highest of roof tropes, that a piece of human filth, is indeed what it says on the fucking tin.

                    Watching American Politics is like watching The Raft of the Medusa sail elegantly into a safe harbour, as the survivors gnaw on the bones of reality.

                    Comment


                      #26

                      Comment


                        #27
                        And some days are better than other days that prove a point.

                        Comment


                          #28
                          Homo isn't here to debate, he is here to parrot lamestream establishment talking points and excuses..
                          Oh that is blatantly obvious. He/she/it asked all of these questions, and yet when I point the bitchtits to the answer and let him/her/it use his/her/it's own sources to go into detail on who is suing and what do they want in each case, bitchtits defaults back to some diatribe just to avoid answering his own questions by giving even the most rudimentary look at the said cases. He's crying about semantics like what's a plantiff and then scream the infamous "I don't care" line.

                          Almost like he/she/it doesn't want the answers, but just wants to do exactly what you just said.

                          Remember, hthe meme is that Trump sued 63 times and lost, not that there were 63 cases challing the validity of some aspects of the election.

                          Like this one for instance:


                          Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2020AP001930-OA (Wis. S. Ct.)

                          Complaint Filed: November 24, 2020
                          State: Wisconsin
                          Current Status or Final Disposition: Petition for Original Action Denied (December 4, 2020)
                          Summary: Petitioners, the Wisconsin Voters Alliance and several individual electors, filed an emergency petition for original action in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin against respondents, the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its individual members. The petition claimed that state and local election officials in cities that had received funds from Facebook CEO Zuckerberg’s Center for Technology and Civic Life organization, had used these funds “to illegally circumvent Wisconsin absentee voting laws,” primarily the law providing for an exception to the state’s photo identification requirement. As such, the petitioners sought to declare the election results in Wisconsin null. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied the petition for leave to commence an original action in a 4-3 vote, concluding that there were issues of material fact that rendered the case inappropriate for the court to exercise its original jurisdiction. In a concurring opinion, Justice Hagedorn stated that the “petition falls far short of the kind of compelling evidence and legal support we would undoubtedly need to countenance the court-ordered disenfranchisement of every Wisconsin voter.”
                          Where's Trump on this?

                          or how about this one:
                          Texas v. Pennsylvania, No. 220155 (S. Ct.)
                          (fraud and vote dilution)


                          Complaint Filed: December 7, 2020

                          State: Texas

                          Current Status or Final Disposition: Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint Denied (December 11, 2020)

                          Summary: Plaintiff, the state of Texas, moved for leave to file a bill of complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over their allegedly improper administration of the 2020 presidential election. The plaintiff alleged that non-legislative actors had amended state election laws; that voters in Democratic strongholds in the defendant states had received more favorable treatment; and that there were voting irregularities as a result of a lack of proper ballot-integrity protections. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the Court wrote.
                          Is shitscrape going to come back and tell me the fucking state of Texas and Donald Trump are one in the same?

                          He/she/it can go back and say "n..noooo! dats nawt dah pawt of dah seeeeexxxfree cawses", but then again, he/she/it won't even cite the 63 cases in question, so what is shitscrape trying to hide?

                          Comment


                            #29
                            Jesus, it is like debating a transtextual parody of FoxMulder, but much less entertaining.

                            Say what you mean laddie without fucking it up before you get to the end of your own point. I am still waiting on the evidence you claim you have as to why the American election was fraudulent.

                            Well?

                            Say something pertinent to your own claims.

                            Comment


                              #30
                              Originally posted by Blandscape View Post
                              Jesus, it is like debating a transtextual parody of FoxMulder, but much less entertaining.

                              Say what you mean laddie without fucking it up before you get to the end of your own point. I am still waiting on the evidence you claim you have as to why the American election was fraudulent.

                              Well?

                              Say something pertinent to your own claims.
                              when I point the bitchtits to the answer and let him/her/it use his/her/it's own sources to go into detail on who is suing and what do they want in each case

                              You're avoiding the answer.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X