PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mase on December 23, 2020, 05:32:59 PM
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/21/why-i-will-not-accept-joe-biden-as-president/
-
But but but but it's the gentlemenly thing to do!
-
Given this environment, I have no interest in legitimizing the father of a son who Chinese Communist Party members boast about buying. Nor do I have any interest in pretending that the current result is legitimate or honorable. It is simply the final stroke of a four-year establishment-media power grab. It has been perpetrated by people who have broken the law, cheated the country of information, and smeared those of us who believe in America over China, history over revisionism, and the liberal ideal of free expression over cancel culture.
I write this in genuine sorrow, because I think we are headed toward a serious, bitter struggle in America. This extraordinary, coordinated four-year power grab threatens the fabric of our country and the freedom of every American.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/21/why-i-will-not-accept-joe-biden-as-president/
I agree with ever word from Newt.
-
But but but but it's the gentlemenly thing to do!
Drop the soap, bend over to pick it up, and accept it like a gentleman.
-
Newt is spot on. However, we are already in a struggle. I think it will go hot. Maybe that's what he means.
-
#NotYourPresident.
Go for it. They were idiots, but you're spot on. ::)
-
#NotYourPresident.
Go for it. They were idiots, but you're spot on. ::)
Trump won an election in 2016 that the leftist told us was stolen with the help of Russia. They proceeded to spend 4 years, millions of taxpayer dollars, multiple investigations only to uncover zero evidence of election fraud on behalf of President Trump.
Now we have an election that has mathematical impossibilities, thousands of sworn affidavits, forensic examinations, records of dead people voting, records of 100's of people using the same address to vote, records of underage votes, records of non residents voting and ballots with no traceability, but somehow this election was "clean" and the will of the people.
And we should do the gentlemanly thing by allowing our election system to be corrupted?
-
Trump won an election in 2016 that the leftist told us was stolen with the help of Russia. They proceeded to spend 4 years, millions of taxpayer dollars, multiple investigations only to uncover zero evidence of election fraud on behalf of President Trump.
Now we have an election that has mathematical impossibilities, thousands of sworn affidavits, forensic examinations, records of dead people voting, records of 100's of people using the same address to vote, records of underage votes, records of non residents voting and ballots with no traceability, but somehow this election was "clean" and the will of the people.
And we should do the gentlemanly thing by allowing our election system to be corrupted?
There is now way to monitor, control nor verify if Mail in Votes are legitimate or not. The stakes were too great for the Democrats and their foreign masters (China and elsewhere) to not cheat. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that.
-
There is now way to monitor, control nor verify if Mail in Votes are legitimate or not. The stakes were too great for the Democrats and their foreign masters (China and elsewhere) to not cheat. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that.
and there you have the reason why some are in denial.
-
There is now way to monitor, control nor verify if Mail in Votes are legitimate or not. The stakes were too great for the Democrats and their foreign masters (China and elsewhere) to not cheat. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that.
It's not a matter of what I believe or not. It's matter of law and the Constitution. There's no Amendment in the Constitution that says "if one side believes the election was unfair, here is what you do." I can not support an emotional plea to set aside an election just on a belief that it is flawed.
We are not a banana republic, we do not make it up to suit our wants.
-
It's not a matter of what I believe or not. It's matter of law and the Constitution. There's no Amendment in the Constitution that says "if one side believes the election was unfair, here is what you do." I can not support an emotional plea to set aside an election just on a belief that it is flawed.
We are not a banana republic, we do not make it up to suit our wants.
Your leftist agenda is as transparent as michael Obama’s true gender.
-
It's not a matter of what I believe or not. It's matter of law and the Constitution. There's no Amendment in the Constitution that says "if one side believes the election was unfair, here is what you do." I can not support an emotional plea to set aside an election just on a belief that it is flawed.
The cornerstone of our republic is free and fair elections. That process is in serious doubt right now, and threatens our republic. One side could be transparent and be willing to provide proof that there was no fraud, but they refuse. They use legal procedure jujitsu to avoid looking at evidence, they deny subpoenas to allow a forensic investigation, they deny allowing a transparent ballot signature match and shrug their shoulders when shown how dead people voted in their election, or how 100's of people used a vacant lot address to register to vote and cast votes.
We are not a banana republic, we do not make it up to suit our wants.
By ignoring the blatant in your face fraud and refusing to consider the evidence, this election farce will indeed turn us into a banana republic.
As far as "we do not make it up to suit our wants", this is exactly what the left has been doing for the past 4 years.
-
Your leftist agenda is as transparent as michael Obama’s true gender.
I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain it to you.
-
By ignoring the blatant in your face fraud
If it were blatant, it wouldn't be ignorable. Heck, if it were factual, it wouldn't be ignorable.
Do you realize yet that is your core problem - you are unable to present unignorable facts. That isn't because the other side is gaslighting you, it's because you don't have facts.
-
interesting.... in light of the facts to date...
actually "interesting" isn't the only aspect of it
-
If it were blatant, it wouldn't be ignorable. Heck, if it were factual, it wouldn't be ignorable.
Do you realize yet that is your core problem - you are unable to present unignorable facts. That isn't because the other side is gaslighting you, it's because you don't have facts.
I've looked at the evidence so far, and it's overwhelming. However, your side keeps saying "no evidence" to avoid looking at it because they know they cannot make an argument against it. This has been shown several times during legislative hearings.
No explanation of vote dumps, no explanation of dead people voting, no explanation of hundreds of people voting using the same address of vacant lots, no explanation of a video showing poll workers pulling ballots out from under a table and counting them while no witnesses were present, no explanation of the forensic Atrim County report, and no explanation of how thousands of signed and sworn affidavits to election fraud shouldn't be looked into.
Again, Biden may go into the WH with the darkest cloud of any President in history because he refuses any transparency. If he actual thought and believed he won this election he would welcome to prove to the American people just how wrong the other side is. His actions so far tell the story.
-
...your side...
Reminder, I don't have a side in this. My interest is the rule of law, something Trump has failed at more than 50 times because courts don't listen to opinion.
Do you realize that Trump has filed more than 25 times the number of court cases Al Gore filed in Florida?
-
Reminder, I don't have a side in this. My interest is the rule of law, something Trump has failed at more than 50 times because courts don't listen to opinion.
Do you realize that Trump has filed more than 25 times the number of court cases Al Gore filed in Florida?
Courts didn’t listen to any of it so couldn’t possibly know if it was opinion or evidence.
2000 was one county in one state involving hanging chads. This was nationwide involving voting machines with internet connections overseas and millions of mail in ballots including many already proven fraudulent. Completely different scenario.
-
25 times more?
OMG
proof that orange man bad
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Reminder, I don't have a side in this.
Yea, you've played this game one too many times. As I've stated, a conservative has no problem saying he's a conservative. Leftist on the other hand will deflect and try to convince everyone they are "moderate".
My interest is the rule of law,
If that were true you would welcome transparency and would want this heard in a court of law and settled. That's how the rule of law works.
Do you realize that Trump has filed more than 25 times the number of court cases Al Gore filed in Florida?
Do you realize that nowhere are we as citizens limited from seeking legal remedy in the courts?
(As a side note, I will give the perfesser credit for being man enough to admit to his true political leanings and his allegiance to stand by them)
-
I can not support an emotional plea to set aside an election just on a belief that it is flawed.
We are not a banana republic, we do not make it up to suit our wants.
Why do you adamantly choose to ignore all of the evidence (circumstantial as it may be) and claim it doesn't exist? Granted, there is no proof yet, but the proof comes from and after investigating the evidence.
-
Why do you adamantly choose to ignore all of the evidence (circumstantial as it may be) and claim it doesn't exist? Granted, there is no proof yet, but the proof comes from and after investigating the evidence.
It's not circumstantial.
In this event, it need only to meet a preponderance of the evidence in the court. This is why there is an evidentiary phase for a judge to decide to proceed or not.
So far all of the cases have been tossed based upon legal procedure and not on the evidence. The first was when the campaign filed before the election, it was tossed due to no standing. In other words, you haven't been harmed. Then after the election when filed (they had standing) the courts used laches, which means you waited too late to do anything about it. It's a catch-22, or better known as legal jujitsu.
The judges don't want to get to evidentiary stage because the preponderance of the evidence will let the case go forward.
-
It's not circumstantial.
In this event, it need only to meet a preponderance of the evidence in the court. This is why there is an evidentiary phase for a judge to decide to proceed or not.
So far all of the cases have been tossed based upon legal procedure and not on the evidence. The first was when the campaign filed before the election, it was tossed due to no standing. In other words, you haven't been harmed. Then after the election when filed (they had standing) the courts used laches, which means you waited too late to do anything about it. It's a catch-22, or better known as legal jujitsu.
The judges don't want to get to evidentiary stage because the preponderance of the evidence will let the case go forward.
Exactly. The judges don’t want to be blamed for all the rioting that will happen if Biden’s “win” is overturned. Or they are complicit leftists themselves. So they aren’t even looking at the evidence. They know damn well it is irrefutable.
-
Exactly. The judges don’t want to be blamed for all the rioting that will happen if Biden’s “win” is overturned. Or they are complicit leftists themselves. So they aren’t even looking at the evidence. They know damn well it is irrefutable.
Yeah, that's why the courts rejected the suits. But I was asking Bflynn why HE keeps saying there is no evidence and no proof.
-
Exactly. The judges don’t want to be blamed for all the rioting that will happen if Biden’s “win” is overturned. Or they are complicit leftists themselves. So they aren’t even looking at the evidence. They know damn well it is irrefutable.
I see it as the judges are letting their ideology guide their decisions. Let's face it, using legal procedure of throwing a case out due to no standing before the election, then claiming laches after the election is a shitty way to run a court.
If it made it to the evidentiary stage, the judge would look at the evidence while each side argued their case. Because it only needs to meet a preponderance of the evidence and the left knows they have no viable arguments against it, the case proceeds. We've already seen in a few instances before the legislatures when evidence was presented the left couldn't argue against it (at least with anything that made any sense) and that's why the left is so horrified that any of this may actually be heard.
A signed sworn affidavit is evidence, and those people have sworn under penalty of perjury. They have also agreed to appear in court, if necessary to testify under oath and to be cross examined. The analytical studies of the vote dumps is also very strong evidence, again, the left cannot explain nor dispute. The voter rolls of the dead votes, multiple votes from the same address, out of state votes, etc is also very strong evidence the left cannot dispute.
-
How many of these court cases have had evidence presented and any of the people with sworn affidavits put under oath to testify?
-
How many of these court cases have had evidence presented and any of the people with sworn affidavits put under oath to testify?
Zilch...............
-
Zilch...............
Yep, kind of the point
-
Yep, kind of the point
The left has introduced lawfare into our judicial system, and they are quite adapt at using it. The standing/laches catch 22 is an excellent example.
On a related note, notice how over the last 4 years we have had a barrage of judges putting injunctions against the President on everything he wanted to implement? Remember how these same judges declared that executive orders by previous presidents could not be undone by a sitting president?
Anyone want to place bets that if His Fraudulancy assumes the WH how fast that gets turned around?
-
Another consideration:
If we apply the same standards to Biden that were applied to Trump in the previous 4 years, on January 20th after 12 noon the congress will have to draft articles of impeachment. Let that sink in.
Also, multiple Special Prosecutors will have to be appointed as well.
-
Yeah, that's why the courts rejected the suits. But I was asking Bflynn why HE keeps saying there is no evidence and no proof.
I know.
-
I see it as the judges are letting their ideology guide their decisions.
Except the 4 chickens on the SC.
-
Except the 4 chickens on the SC.
There's more going on there than we know.
And it really reeks.
-
Why do you adamantly choose to ignore all of the evidence (circumstantial as it may be) and claim it doesn't exist? Granted, there is no proof yet, but the proof comes from and after investigating the evidence.
I don’t choose to ignore anything. I just judge it not to be evidence.
Someone stating that they saw something happen is testimony. Without corroboration, it can’t be called evidence. After all, multiple women stated Trump raped them...that was equally not evidence. In a legal sense, they are accusations and carry little weight.
They are not proof.
The courts looked at many, many cases which were based on accusations. In a court of law, an accusation is what gets you into court, but you need facts and evidence once you get there. Republicans have an abundance of the former and an embarrassing dearth of the later.
So, once again, show the proof. I would prefer Trump as president, but I can see no path for courts to grant that preference.
Other that the emotional attachment to being convinced that fraud must have happened, what is difficult to understand?
-
How many of these court cases have had evidence presented and any of the people with sworn affidavits put under oath to testify?
Actually, quite a few early on. The cases were then dismissed for a lack of evidence. Trump got his day, but could not prove his assertions.
Yes, later cases were dismissed on procedural issues. I suspect it was to not waste the court’s time when a brief review once again showed a lack of proof. After the first 20 or so it’s possible to see the pattern and to cut it short.
-
I don’t choose to ignore anything. I just judge it not to be evidence.
You are not a judge.
Someone stating that they saw something happen is testimony. Without corroboration, it can’t be called evidence.
Wrong. A sworn affidavit is admissible as evidence in a case, and the individual can be called into court to testify and be cross examined. The affidavit and the testimony only needs to meet a preponderance of the evidence for a judge to decide on it's merits.
After all, multiple women stated Trump raped them...that was equally not evidence. In a legal sense, they are accusations and carry little weight.
Because those "statements" were not signed under penalty of perjury, and those women never acted as a sworn witness in a courtroom where they could have been held accountable.
They are not proof.
You seriously do not understand what can constitute evidence.
The courts looked at many, many cases which were based on accusations. In a court of law, an accusation is what gets you into court, but you need facts and evidence once you get there. Republicans have an abundance of the former and an embarrassing dearth of the later.
So which case has made it in front of a judge to the evidentiary phase?
So, once again, show the proof.
So, once again, get a judge to put aside his ideology and allow a case to make it to an evidentiary hearing, instead of playing legal procedure catch 22 games.
I would prefer Trump as president, but I can see no path for courts to grant that preference.
::)
Other that the emotional attachment to being convinced that fraud must have happened, what is difficult to understand?
The evidence is out there, and is enormous. The left knows this, and they are as nervous as a whore in church that none of this ever gets to be heard because of what could happen. People's lives are being threatened, their livelihoods being threatened, some are having to move and seek protection.
Once again, the left is sure fighting hard and dirty for this to be such a "clean election as they claim.
Where is the Biden camp? Why does he not want to show the American people that this election is what he claims it to be? Wouldn't it be "gentlemanly" and presidential to allow everything to be looked at so he can take office knowing, and the American people knowing that it was fair and our constitution still stands?
Biden's actions along with the left are what's creating chaos in this election, not the other way around. The right wants transparency and a day in court to be heard, and the left wants everyone silenced and "just move along".