|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 tRump - LOSER!!!!Lost popular vote twice Just saying... 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I am sad about the 100,000+ Covid deaths attributed to his incompetence and negligence |
||
|
Not to mention Is that election fraud fraud? |
||
|
Another major defeat By Tom Hals (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania, dealing another significant setback to Trump's bid to overturn the Nov. 3 election. "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so," wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel. "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," wrote Bibas, who was nominated by Trump. "On to SCOTUS!" wrote Jenna Ellis, a Trump campaign attorney, on Twitter after the ruling, referring to a planned appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud." Pennsylvania certified Biden, who won the state by 80,000 votes, as its winner this week. Under Pennsylvania law, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of the state's 20 electoral votes. Trump, a Republican, has refused to concede to his Democratic rival and continues to claim, without evidence, widespread voter fraud. But as his legal challenges to the results fail, Trump said on Thursday he will leave the White House if the Electoral College votes for Biden when it meets on Dec. 14, the closest he has come to conceding the election. On Monday, Trump's administration cleared the way Biden to transition to the White House, giving him access to briefings and funding even as Trump vowed to continue fighting the election results. Biden won the election 306-232 in electoral votes, including Pennsylvania's 20. Even if Trump overturned the outcome in Pennsylvania, he would still need to reverse the result in at least two other states to remain as president. TIME RUNNING OUT While Trump and his supporters continue to wage legal battles, time is running out as states as states have until Dec. 8 to resolve election disputes. Legal experts have said the cases have no chance of success and may be aimed at undermining confidence in the election. Polls have showed a majority of Republicans believe Trump won the election and many believe the election was tainted, despite a lack of evidence. Soon after Friday's ruling, Trump posted a video from Newsmax on Twitter about alleged voter fraud in Nevada. The Trump campaign filed the Pennsylvania case earlier this month, saying that county election officials had treated mail-in ballots inconsistently and asking U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann to halt certification of the results. Some counties had allowed voters to fix minor deficiencies with their ballots, such as a missing "secrecy envelope," while others did not. Brann dismissed the case on Nov. 21, saying the case was based on "strained legal arguments" and "speculative accusations." The Trump campaign said it appealed on the “narrow” question of whether Brann improperly refused to let it amend the lawsuit a second time. The campaign wants to add back allegations it dropped from the case, including a claim that its due process rights were violated. The appeals court said many of the claims by Trump campaign are matters of Pennsylvania law but noted the campaign already lost on those issues in state court. "It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes," said the opinion. "The campaign's claims have no merit." The other judges on the panel, Brooks Smith and Michael Chagares, were nominated by George W. Bush, a Republican. |
||
|
|
||
|
Hahaha The results came in seven days after the recount of nearly 460,000 ballots began, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. It ended with boosting Biden's total by 257 votes, up from 317,270 to 317,527. Trump's final tally was raised by 125 votes for a total of 134,482. |
||
|
So much losing (CNN) — President-elect Joe Biden's lead over President Donald Trump narrowed by 45 votes in Dane County, Wisconsin, as it certified its 2020 presidential general election results following a recount requested by the Trump campaign. Biden won the county by 181,340 votes and is now poised to be certified the winner in the state. Both candidates saw a decrease from their election night vote totals, with Biden losing 91 votes, and Trump losing 46 votes in the recount, the Dane County Board of Canvassers announced Sunday. The drawdowns were mostly due to a lack of signatures on ballots, either from the voter or a witness. On Friday, Biden saw a net gain of 132 votes in the Milwaukee County recount, the only other Wisconsin county which was part of the recount requested by the Trump campaign. The announcements conclude the recount in Wisconsin, and CNN has projected that Biden will win the state, flipping it back to blue after Trump won in 2016. Dane County saw no major issues during the recount, and there are no outstanding issues to address, according to County Clerk Scott McDonell, who is also a member of the Board of Canvassers. While announcing the results, McDonell said it was clear from the recount that there was no voter fraud, and questioned why the campaign only asked for a recount in two of Wisconsin's counties if they believed the issue was widespread in the state. He also tweeted a photo on Sunday of a summary of the recount with the caption "3-0 certification of Dane County recount." The Wisconsin Elections Commission will certify the state's election results on Tuesday. Trump tweeted Saturday afternoon that his campaign plans to challenge the results of the Wisconsin recount in court. |
||
|
So much losing The Trump campaign and its Republican allies lost four legal challenges to the election in four states in a little more than an hour on Friday evening as President Trump’s attempts to use the courts to overturn the election results drew ever closer to an end. The first defeat came around 4:30 p.m. when the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed a Republican-led petition to stop certification of the state’s voting results because of what the campaign said were improprieties with how elections officials handled absentee ballots. Minnesota certified its vote results on Nov. 24 and the state’s top court ruled that the effort to derail the process was untimely not only because the petition was filed just hours before certification occurred, but also because the state had set rules for handling absentee ballots more than two months earlier. Then, a little after 5 p.m., the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by Mr. Trump to appeal a loss last month in a lower court which had denied his effort to halt the certification of the vote in Wayne County, home to Detroit, after he questioned the validity of absentee ballots there, too. Michigan certified its statewide results on Nov. 23, which rendered Mr. Trump’s attempt to derail the process moot. Within minutes, a state judge in Nevada dismissed a lawsuit filed in Carson City last month by several Republican presidential elector candidates who claimed there was widespread illegal voting in the state and sought a court order to nullify the victory of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the state and declare Mr. Trump to be the winner. But after considering depositions from several witnesses, Judge James T. Russell rejected these arguments, writing in an order that he found “no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 general election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” Not long after 6 p.m., the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued Republicans their fourth defeat of the evening. In a scathing order, the court dismissed an attempt by a conservative group, the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, to overturn the state’s already certified election results and let Wisconsin’s presidential elections be chosen by the state legislature instead. “Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history,” Judge Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court. “One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes,” Judge Hagedorn added. “Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research.” In another setback, a little after 7 p.m., a judge in Phoenix denied a request by Kelli Ward, the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party, to invalidate the results of that state’s election. Ms. Ward had claimed there was widespread illegal voting in the state. But after a two-day hearing earlier this week Judge Randall H. Warner disagreed, writing in an order, “The court finds no misconduct, no fraud, and no effect on the outcome of the election.” |
||
|
Stolen from Lord Shiva Trumper: Who really won in 2020? God: Biden won in a fair election. Trumper: This goes even higher than I thought. |
||
|
Lord Shiva An avid Trump supporter died and goes to heaven. There he meets God. God: You have tried very hard to live an upright life. I will answer one question, any question. Trump supporter: Who really won the 2020 presidential election? God: Joe Biden in a fair and honest election. Trump supporter: Damnit! This goes higher than I thought. |
||
|
Patz I already stole it and posted it |
||
|
Zorroloco |
||
|
Zorroloco |
||
|
Patz |
||
|
zorroloco It is extremely sad how delusional these people are not only that but they are willing to piss on the constitution that they claim to love, all of our institutions etc. the epic hypocrisy and double standards is insane. |
||
|
more evidence he's a selfish P O S ... By Jason Miciak December 8, 2020 The Secret Service is stocked full of people entirely different than you and me. If you and I heard gunshots and they seemed to be whizzing by or near us, our first (and only) instinct is to bend over and twist narrowly as we dive for anything “big” between us and that guy shooting the gun. That is human instinct drilled into us probably back to the days when our ancestors dove out of the way of lions or cheetahs or whatever the hell hunted them back then. But not the Secret Service. Sure, they enter the academy probably being just like us. But because they’re better than us – or at least we writing this – they learn to overcome that instinct, instead of ducking and twisting with our hands over our head, they do the opposite. We get small, they get “big.” They stand between the shooter and the president trying to get hit if the bullet is going near the president. They stand up straighter, shoulders out, put their arms out to maybe deflect a bullet. They widen their stance to be “bigger” in the groin and chest area. They are attempting to take the bullet meant for the president and have it hit and quite possibly kill them. Why? For the same reason our Marines hit the beaches under gunfire. To protect this nation’s democracy. The man shoved into the presidential limousine is the guy the country voted for. The country needs him more than the agent. It is selfless service and, again, they’re simply better than those of us that doubt we ever could. They had a Christmas party, these Secret Service agents, at the White House. They were going to let their guard down a bit (the president was in the residence, so he was protected.) They were going to celebrate the end of another year, another year in which there was no major incident threatening Trump – the guy (and his family) they swear an oath to protect. You would think that the first person there would be the guy they protect, thanking every single one. But just like the Secret Service is better than we are, we are better than this president, who skipped the whole thing: Two secret service sources told me Trump was MIA at their White House Christmas party on Sunday. A real bummer for the people who risk their lives to protect him. — Tara Palmeri (@tarapalmeri) December 8, 2020 Most would expect the president to elbow bump or shake every hand, tell them how much they’re appreciated, ask about families, ask about plans, move on to the next group. All night. Until every agent has been thanked – that’s what we would do. At a minimum, we’d stand up in front of them and talk about the selflessness of these people and what it means to him. That he appreciates all of them and knows how hard they work, so he’s glad they get to have a night off and to just relax. That he had a few other things to attend to but he definitely wanted to speak to them, thank them very sincerely – and, if the president was “rich,” like this one, maybe a small card saying thank you and a $100 Amazon gift card. Little sh*t like that goes a long long way. It says, “He recognizes it’s hard. He knows that he needs us. Etc. Etc.” Trump skips it. That tells us everything we need to know about the men and women who protect the president and confirms all that we already knew about Trump himself. We are not surprised, just disgusted. It makes us want to go to that party and thank them and maybe hand out … $10 Starbucks cards or something from the citizens of the United States, the people not as good as them. www.politicalflare.com |
||
|
It's over! Again!! Still! The Supreme Court rejected a bid from Texas' attorney general -- supported by President Donald Trump -- to block the ballots of millions of voters in battleground states that went in favor of President-elect Joe Biden. The court's move to dismiss the challenge is the strongest indication yet that Trump has no chance of overturning election results in court that even the justices whom he placed there have no interest in allowing his desperate legal bids to continue. The lawsuit, brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a staunch Trump ally, sought to sue Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin -- which all went for Biden -- and invalidate their election results. And this week, with his options narrowing, Trump, accompanied by the support of several Republican attorneys general and GOP lawmakers, cranked up pressure to have the Supreme Court weigh in. Trump and his legal team -- hamstrung by a series of coronavirus diagnoses among lawyers who had traveled across the country advocating on behalf of Trump's case -- have for weeks pushed increasingly desperate appeals and baseless conspiracy theories about his second term being stolen. |
||
|
Z |
||
|
brigadecommander 11-Dec-20, 16:32 |
Deleted by brigadecommander on 11-Dec-20, 17:01.
|
||
|
There is a sucker born every minute. |
||
|
Don the con |
||
|
Patz They lap it up too... so sad |
||
|
Loser They won’t. |
||
|
More losing A Trump appointee in Milwaukee, Judge Brett H. Ludwig, dismissed a suit contesting the election with a withering rebuke. By Alan Feuer Dec. 12, 2020 A federal judge in Milwaukee on Saturday tossed out President Trump’s latest effort to overturn the election results in Wisconsin, dismissing the case and ruling that it had failed “as a matter of law and fact.” In a strongly worded decision, Judge Brett H. Ludwig, a Trump appointee who took his post only three months ago, shot down one of the president’s last remaining attempts to alter the results of a statewide race. The decision came just one day after the Supreme Court denied an audacious move by the state of Texas to contest the election outcomes in Wisconsin and three other battleground states. Judge Ludwig’s ruling was especially significant because after the Supreme Court’s terse decision Friday night, Mr. Trump complained that courts around the country have thrown out dozens of his lawsuits based on technicalities, and have not given him a chance to fully present his legal arguments. Judge Ludwig, however, held a daylong hearing on Thursday and still found that Mr. Trump’s claims were lacking. He dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Mr. Trump cannot refile it in the same court. “This court has allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case,” Judge Ludwig wrote, “and he has lost on the merits.” The suit in Milwaukee in many ways echoed the petition filed by Texas, which was backed by 17 Republican attorneys general and more than 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives. Unlike other legal challenges by the president, the suit in Milwaukee did not allege that voting fraud took place in Wisconsin. Rather, it accused a group of state and local election officials of violating state law by expanding the manner in which absentee ballots were received and processed this year in an unusual election that took place during a pandemic. Mr. Trump and his Republican supporters have now lost more than 50 legal challenges to the election, many because judges have found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the cases or because their claims were moot after states had certified their vote counts. But breaking with his colleagues on the bench, Judge Ludwig found that Mr. Trump did in fact have standing to contest how Wisconsin officials conducted their election. He also ruled that even though Wisconsin had certified its vote last month, the lawsuit was not moot because the final determination of the presidential race will not take place until Jan. 6, when Congress meets to count votes from the Electoral College. In his ruling, Judge Ludwig wrote that Wisconsin’s election officials had followed state law, which clearly says that the state’s electors should be chosen by a popular vote. Even though they instituted changes like allowing drop boxes for absentee ballots and loosening restrictions for certifying ballots, the moves were not illegal, Judge Ludwig wrote, and officials used acceptable ways to implement the law. Judge Ludwig also noted that the Trump campaign was aware of these changes months before they were put in place and should have sought to challenge them before the election, not after Mr. Trump lost. “This is an extraordinary case,” Judge Ludwig wrote. “A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for re-election has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed election administration issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred.” The ruling concluded: “In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.” |
||
|
ludwig |
