Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

  1. #21
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 741 Times in 373 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Whether you like the new occupant or not, you have to admit the process appears to be run by someone that knows what they want to do and understands how to get the right people on the bus, or understands the concept of delegation.
    Curiously, I've always liked Joe Biden (and Charlie Rangel). They both can toss some audacious bullshit, smile when they do it, and come across as if they're completely sincere. It's an art form.

    That said, this admin is ridiculous - but I'll let him have his 100 days before I circle back and start really critiquing it. Suffice it to say I think absolutely nothing you would have us "admit" is even close to accurate.
    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    221
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 119 Times in 82 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston Brian View Post
    Your very welcome! I am so glad to make you happy!
    It would be rude of me not to acknowledge your efforts.
    Thanks, we'll have to do this again.

  3. #23
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 277 Times in 184 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Now, young Kazooskins, you once were a practicing software engineer. Use those meticulous smarts to explain:

    - a guy in North Carolina claims his team reviewed every case in which the Trump campaign tried to prove, or even suggest, that vote fraud swamped Trump's landslide election victory in November, 2020. The NC guy says that Trump won 2/3 of the court cases decided "on merit".

    - Neither NC Guy, nor you, nor dneal have shown what NC Guy used to define "merit".

    - Neither you nor dneal nor NC Guy have shown the cases they claim to have reviewed. How do we check NC Guy's work?

    - Neither you nor dneal nor NC Guy have identified the members of the "team" that NC Guy claims to have had investigate all 60 - 100 election cases.

    I have read cases in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada. In every final decision, the judges evaluated evidence that the Trump campaign offered, and every decision found against Trump. I start with what I have read. Which final decisions have you read that support NC Guy?

  4. #24
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 741 Times in 373 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    If you would read something besides the WashPost and NYT you might be better informed. What did a judge decide today in Georgia? Get to googling…
    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

  5. #25
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 277 Times in 184 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Come on dneal. If you read anything honest or if you thought before spilling illogic here, you would make more sense.

    - the NC Guy thinks that all 60 times a judge ruled against Trump for lack of evidence then it is "merely" procedural.

    - what do you make of Georgia? I read it in the Times and the Post. What do you read? You found this NC Guy and his ghostly researchers among far right-wing loonies; I saw the same story from some hopeless Trumpies who got it from Newsmax or "The Beltway Pundit".

  6. #26
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 741 Times in 373 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Dear welch, I'm afraid you're the one with the inability to read anything honest or employ logic.

    What do I see? Skepticism about the election. As I've said many times before, the way to solve that is to examine the evidence and reach a conclusion.

    You on the other hand, refusing to even admit that there is any evidence (no matter how circumstantial); seem to find reiterating "there was no fraud" (with only a review of leftist opinions and their erroneous characterization of rightist opinion) as "logical".

    We're almost 4 months into the Biden presidency. Trump is gone. No evaluation of ballots is going to put him back in office. The illogic is your fixation on an orange New Yorker who tweets mean things instead of ensuring voter confidence (no matter how they vote). I suspect you were on board with Stacy Abrams' claims of the election being stolen from her. I suspect you were on board with Hillary's false narrative of "Russian Collusion".
    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

  7. #27
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 277 Times in 184 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    You have argued yourself into circles, dneal.

    Which court cases did Trump win "on merits"?

    Why is the "Republican" Party now united only on the faith that Trump won the 2020 Election? What does it mean that a judge in Georgia allowed copies of ballots to be given to a group of "Republicans" to recount the votes in Atlanta?

  8. #28
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 741 Times in 373 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

    Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.
    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    813
    Thanked 1,051 Times in 595 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post

    Which court cases did Trump win "on merits"?
    Atlanta?
    I saw a chart somewhere of the cases. They did not add up to anything that mattered for the 2020 result. They were inconsequential, and it is statistically frivolous to separate them out. It's a canard, meant to suggest a validity to Trump's claims that they don't have (overall).

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to TSherbs For This Useful Post:

    welch (May 25th, 2021)

  11. #30
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 277 Times in 184 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

    Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.
    You posted it, dneal. Your post made no sense, as if you had not bothered to consider a claim that had nothing beyond , "Believe me...I havbe researchers who read cases and judged the cases against rukles, but we won't tell anyone what counted as 'on merit' in our judgement, and we won't reveal which cases we put into which boxes".

    No one asked you to plop this here. You might have thought it mattered, but you have never tried to defend it.

  12. #31
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 741 Times in 373 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

    Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.
    You posted it, dneal. Your post made no sense, as if you had not bothered to consider a claim that had nothing beyond , "Believe me...I havbe researchers who read cases and judged the cases against rukles, but we won't tell anyone what counted as 'on merit' in our judgement, and we won't reveal which cases we put into which boxes".

    No one asked you to plop this here. You might have thought it mattered, but you have never tried to defend it.
    This post makes no sense. What in the world are you on about? Where did I post about ‘rukles’? What have I not defended (as if I have some obligation to defend some nonsense you’re inventing…)?

    I now understand why you just posts links. You seem unable to form a rational argument on your own.
    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

  13. #32
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 741 Times in 373 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Rachel Maddow is complaining about election audits. She says they're "Trump people", and that it's illegal for "random 3rd parties" to have access to ballots after an election. All while the graphic reads "Dangerous for Democracy".

    In Arizona, it is the State Senate conducting an audit. Since when is a legislative branch a "random 3rd party"? Rachel doesn't address that.

    But even if it's something like the Sheriff in Wisconsin, or others in Antrim County Michigan, suing for an audit; what difference does it make? Why be so opposed to the public examining the mechanisms behind an election?

    I'm sure some *cough* welch *cough* are so consumed by their TDS that they don't have the rational capacity to consider the question, and Rachel Maddow probably falls in that category; but still, who cares? Why this united front to prevent it?

    The judges that keep approving them, and dismissing Democrat suits seem to think it's ok. We're all about the "courts deciding", right?

    https://www.air.tv/watch?v=JVxOKYuHStaknUA4rJomaQ
    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

  14. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    221
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 119 Times in 82 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    ...get over it.
    If you can "get over" illegal conduct, regardless if it's your side or the other, you have not moral compass adn really should abstain from commenting on issues of law.
    The article is illogical. Yes, it makes foolish Trump True-Believers feel a tiny bit happier, but the article is preposterous. When, for instance, Rudy Giuliani admitted that he had no evidence of fraud, and then his case was dismissed, that was a Trump loss on the contents of the case. That's just one case, although Giuliani made it famous.

    I read though the case a couple months ago, and no one claimed that the Trump campaign had shaken any of the vote counts.
    I'm afraid you have gone off the rails. You couldn't have read the opinion "a couple of months ago" as it was issued the day before your post quoted here. The opinion doesn't include a recipe for cherries jubilee, but then nobody claimed that either. It's enough that the ruling held that the way absentee ballots were used was illegal.
    And apparently law-breaking is something you can either ignore or endorse if done by a Democrat. Please recall your position before you post in the future. You can join Chuck in a search for a moral compass.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to kazoolaw For This Useful Post:

    dneal (May 28th, 2021)

  16. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    813
    Thanked 1,051 Times in 595 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    It's enough that the ruling held that the way absentee ballots were used was illegal.
    No. The ruling was about the decision-making by the AG, not specifically about how the ballots were "used." The judge noted that no one was alleging that ballots were actually inaccurately or fraudulently tallied, nor was the judge ruling on that in any way. Secondly, this case was not filed until January 20, 2021, long after the AG issued the directive (October 6, 2020). The lawsuit is mostly about the two political parties in Michigan and trying to get the Dem AG back in her lane. This is what the states have turned to now: trying to control how many people have easy access to voting in the next election. They will argue "illegal" and "fraud" and "history of corruption" in order to get people to consent to stricter controls on ease of access to votes. And we all know what that is really about (cuz there aint no fraud).

    You can join Chuck in a search for a moral compass.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    Just lend him yours, once you find one too.

  17. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    221
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 119 Times in 82 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    "Used"was a bad word choice made in haste.
    Yes, the decision making by the AG was, say it TS, illegal.
    If "back in her lane" means obey the law we can agree.
    There are many things not alleged in the lawsuit or found in the opinion. We all see that listing what's not there is a a way to avoid conceding what is there: the illegal thumb on the scale.
    TS, you refuse to acknowledge illegal when it's spelled out for you.

  18. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    73
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Rep Power
    3

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject! Lets focus this Memorial weekend on the true heroes of our great nation, and not on any politicians who stayed safely at home while the brave men and women put on their uniforms and went to war!

  19. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    813
    Thanked 1,051 Times in 595 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Another review, apparently this one done quite professionally (county and state-coordinated): no fraud in Windham, New Hampshire, despite Trump's wild speculation to the contrary:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewals...h=1fbda2f34690

    The Donald simply greases his prevarications in the language of irresponsible and pernicious speculation.

  20. #38
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 277 Times in 184 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Is there some reason you feel the need to keep bringing this up? The only one arguing here is you.

    Trump's gone. You are exhibiting TDS.
    You posted it, dneal. Your post made no sense, as if you had not bothered to consider a claim that had nothing beyond , "Believe me...I havbe researchers who read cases and judged the cases against rukles, but we won't tell anyone what counted as 'on merit' in our judgement, and we won't reveal which cases we put into which boxes".

    No one asked you to plop this here. You might have thought it mattered, but you have never tried to defend it.
    This post makes no sense. What in the world are you on about? Where did I post about ‘rukles’? What have I not defended (as if I have some obligation to defend some nonsense you’re inventing…)?

    I now understand why you just posts links. You seem unable to form a rational argument on your own.
    Can't think it through, can you?

    Here is the point: you posted a claim that the Trump campaign won 2/3 of the suites trying to overturn the 2020 election when those suites were decided "on the merits. I read suits in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, every one of which was decided on grounds that the Trumpist "Republicans" had no evidence. When dneal posted this, it suggested, at least to anyone who tries to base thinking on evidence, that this article was plain and simple garbage.

    Anyone with, say, a college-level experience looking at research would ask:

    - what rule did the North Carolina researcher use to determine whether a case was decided on merits? Did they have a flakey / silly / unrealistic notion of content? In Nevada, for instance, the judge refused to consider "gobs and gobs" of affidavits unless the makers of the affidavit appeared in court where they could be questioned. The Trump-claimers were afraid to be questioned, so the judge declared that an affidavit is worthless hearsay unless the maker can be cross-examined. That is a method of research. So I asked dneal how the North Carolina research was done. He has never answered.

    - who did the research? dneal gave us an article that claims the researcher used dozens of assistants. Who? What data did they find? What cases did they review? Data, dneal. If you don't have it, just say you have no data and your claim "is no longer operational", to quote Ron Nessen.

    - Ordinarily, researchers present their methods and their data so that anyone else can try to replicate the results. dneal has not given us either research data or research methods. Since dneal seems unable to understand the question, it is a simple question that asks for research data and research methods.

    - dneal, are you still puzzled?

  21. #39
    Senior Member welch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 277 Times in 184 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by welch View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kazoolaw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    ...get over it.
    If you can "get over" illegal conduct, regardless if it's your side or the other, you have not moral compass adn really should abstain from commenting on issues of law.
    The article is illogical. Yes, it makes foolish Trump True-Believers feel a tiny bit happier, but the article is preposterous. When, for instance, Rudy Giuliani admitted that he had no evidence of fraud, and then his case was dismissed, that was a Trump loss on the contents of the case. That's just one case, although Giuliani made it famous.

    I read though the case a couple months ago, and no one claimed that the Trump campaign had shaken any of the vote counts.
    I'm afraid you have gone off the rails. You couldn't have read the opinion "a couple of months ago" as it was issued the day before your post quoted here. The opinion doesn't include a recipe for cherries jubilee, but then nobody claimed that either. It's enough that the ruling held that the way absentee ballots were used was illegal.
    And apparently law-breaking is something you can either ignore or endorse if done by a Democrat. Please recall your position before you post in the future. You can join Chuck in a search for a moral compass.
    Sorry, Kazooskins. You have your calendar all mixed up. Giuliani surrendered to the Pennsylvania judge in January. dneal clutched his straw of a "finding" on February 8. See # 1. I asked the question in March.
    Last edited by welch; June 6th, 2021 at 04:41 PM.

  22. #40
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 741 Times in 373 Posts
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Re: Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

    Fighting is better than idleness
    -Kurdish proverb

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •