Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Infidel Dog

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Infidel Dog

  1. This could be fun if it turns out to be true:

    "President Trump has talked in recent days with associates about forming a new political party, according to people familiar with the matter, an effort to exert continued influence after he leaves the White House.

    Mr. Trump discussed the matter with several aides and other people close to him last week, the people said. The president said he would want to call the new party the “Patriot Party,” the people said."


    1. Cannucklehead




      If so he's off to a great start, pardoning the guy who stole money from his supporters.  👏

  2. Yes, the suit alleged that 4 states had unconstitutionally changed their election statutes. Constitutional issues are what the Supreme Court deals with. And your theory is that because the states' allegations dealt specifically with what they saw as a constitutional matter that means they were afraid to mention all the other incidents of outright voter fraud. Explain this one then. This is one of the cases that could not be expedited to be considered before the inauguration but are, as far as I know, still waiting in the Supreme Court's lineup. https://www.supremecourt.gov/
  3. I'd be surprised if the Dominion lawsuit makes it past the discovery phase. I suspect Dominion will withdraw once Lin Wood starts demanding to look through their logs, books and have forensic audits done on their machines. The cases that interest me are the ones still waiting to be seen in the Supreme court. They were filed. They weren't rejected. So what happens to them now? As to this theory no lawyer was willing to go in front of a judge to present allegations of wrong doing, show me how that works. Let's take the most well known one for example. Show me how Texas and the 18 state
  4. I didn't get past your first two paragraphs Brutus. As I've told others of your ilk, if slurs and smears are all you've got, you've got nothing.
  5. Not sure what you're talking about but at least you're admitting now that the cases filed including the few filed by Trump were not judged based on evidence. Good for you. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.
  6. Look here for your answer: The Left FEARS This Video…
  7. That's a fair assessment. I could see somebody making that argument, but this claim 60 or more judges carefully assessed all evidence and found it lacking is nonsense. It never happened. It's a lie from liars for the gullible.
  8. So judges don't have to consider evidence, because they just know? Is that what you're saying? Sounds like it. Because if it is, I just have to scratch my head and wonder, 'Is this guy serious?" The Supreme Court refused to take the case the 18 states asked them to consider on the grounds they didn't believe those states had the standing to present the case. It had nothing to do with evidence. I'm pretty sure you know that so I have to believe you're getting desperate to divert from the fact no court ever considered the evidence.
  9. Feel free to show me a witness being cross examined in any of these 60 court cases you claim all the evidence was considered and prove it. You can't because such a case doesn't exist.
  10. Here's the best meme I've seen in a long while - except it isn't an actual meme. All it is, is just a short clip of the current Joe Biden. If you choose to watch it just remember this is the guy we're supposed to believe beat a record amount of votes for a Presidential candidate by Trump with ballots that arrived between 2 an 5 in the morning after everybody was told the counting was closed. This is the guy who couldn't fill an auditorium during the campaign. Seriously, click the clink then explain Mister Popular to me.
  11. There were cases where it was suggested cases of voting irregularities would be presented if the case was allowed to go forward and the judge thought the odd one of those allegations couldn't be proved if the case went forward but ultimately all cases were denied or dismissed on procedural grounds. No witnesses were ever called forward to produce evidence.
  12. This isn't a court case. There is no burden of proof. Surely you're not asking me to prove a negative. What you're claiming exists, doesn't. Produce your evidence of a case where all the evidence was considered or admit no such case ever happened.
  13. Because they didn't. There was no opportunity to present evidence in anything like an evidentiary hearing. If you're saying there was you're lying or choosing to remain ignorant. The cases were all denied or dismissed primarily on procedural grounds. Filed too early. Filed too late. Lack of standing etc.
  14. Feel free to prove me wrong though. Show me the case where all of this at the link below has been presented and considered: https://hereistheevidence.com/
  15. Attempts at what? Being heard? If so then you're right. All the evidence has yet to be heard by any court. There has never been an evidentiary hearing.
  16. " The litany of election criminality is intricate and involved, and orchestrated by those with the means to do so. The criminality includes forging signatures, ballot-box stuffing, ballot harvesting, paying for voting, offering raffle prizes for voting, voting in place of the deceased, doctoring ballots, voting twice, not delivering opposition ballots, destroying opposition ballots, backdating ballots, re-running ballots through counting machines, restricting access of poll observers, and even assaulting and threatening observers. Also, advising voters at the voting booth, ‘fi
  17. Hard to say. All the hijackers and infiltrators haven't been voted out of it yet.
  18. Then there's this: " President Trump’s White House put together a list of accomplishments to date from the President’s efforts while in office. The list is a mile long. https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/?utm_source=link" If somebody is governing the way you want him to you tend to approve. I get that progressive socialist types find that difficult to comprehend though. They can never experience the phenomena because even if they get what they're told they want they won't like it.
  19. I was just watching that and thinking this is good but how can you share it? It's Alex Jones. The Corporates have convinced their people they're not to listen, watch or acknowledge the existence of Alex Jones. If anybody suggests they do they must be immediately shouted down with digital screams of gay frogs and Sandy Hook. I'm not a follower of AJ but I'm not afraid to listen to what he has to say. When he goes off the rails I either just listen for the entertainment or get bored and click away. For the Jonesophobic though they've been trained to smear and slur down anybody daring t
  20. It's convenient for you to say you're not concerned with that when it becomes inconvenient, but take the politics out and what do you have to discuss? Are you pushing the idea a catastrophe is eminent as a result of fossil fuels and you have "The Science" that shows that beyond debate. Because if you are you just got political. You're with the types demanding a political solution. If you are taking the more reasonable position that evidence how much warming there is from anthropocentric causes and how much added warmth is produces requires further study before we pretend we know the
  • Create New...