Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
those of you who say >

those of you who say

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

those of you who say

Old 12-09-2020, 10:07 AM
  #21  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,697
Default

can we see more video of ballots being pulled from hidden suitcases ? I mean if that is normal, then there should be examples everywhere right ?

c'mon .... NOBODY thinks that's normal
Ranger77 is offline  
Old 12-09-2020, 10:57 AM
  #22  
Typical Buck
 
hubby11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Clifton, VA
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by Ranger77 View Post
Trump very likely WILL lose but remember what Joe said

“We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

Joe didn't lie

Hillary didn't either - she was expecting Biden to lose

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,”

can we see more video of ballots being pulled from hidden suitcases ? I mean if that is normal, then there should be examples everywhere right ?

c'mon .... NOBODY thinks that's normal
Thankfully we are back to the issue of fraud, or rather the absence thereof.

1. Any simple reading of the Clinton quote in full context makes it clear she was not talking about never conceding, only not conceding on election day, so that ALL votes could be tabulated. No, she was not expecting Biden to lose. And she was right in stating that the election would drag out.

2. That smoking gun video has been debunked. It was edited by the "news" and simply is not showing any nefarious actions. Think about it, why be so obvious when you are on tape? Importantly, it was included in one of the Georgia lawsuits (the "Kraken" suit by Sidney Powell) and rejected.

Yet another PA case was rejected by the Supreme Court yesterday (Tuesday). Why is every obvious case of fraud failing in court?

Last edited by hubby11; 12-09-2020 at 12:09 PM. Reason: clarity, spelling
hubby11 is offline  
Old 12-09-2020, 12:48 PM
  #23  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,861
Default

Originally Posted by hubby11 View Post
Thankfully we are back to the issue of fraud, or rather the absence thereof.

1. Any simple reading of the Clinton quote in full context makes it clear she was not talking about never conceding, only not conceding on election day, so that ALL votes could be tabulated. No, she was not expecting Biden to lose. And she was right in stating that the election would drag out.
. You still believing in this hag?

2. That smoking gun video has been debunked. It was edited by the "news" and simply is not showing any nefarious actions. Think about it, why be so obvious when you are on tape? Importantly, it was included in one of the Georgia lawsuits (the "Kraken" suit by Sidney Powell) and rejected.
false, it wasn't debunked m. The news actually confirmed what we all saw. The election officials told everyone they were shutting down for the night and to go home. Once everyone left, the election official takes two phone calls. Then the election official and others pull suitcases from under the table and begin to count without the required observers. What's also very interesting to note, the officials are now claiming no one was told to leave. The problem with that claim is they have him on tape. We also have the local news tweet after being told by said official what was going on. So why are they lying? If you were going to commit fraud, would you do it during the night without anyone there after making up an excuse to get rid of people or during the day? We also don't have any official swearing under oath to their statements. Kind of like the Obama administration officials during the Russian gate investigation. They told the American people one thing but in front of Congress, they admitted they had zero evidence of ANY Russian collision.
Yet another PA case was rejected by the Supreme Court yesterday (Tuesday). Why is every obvious case of fraud failing in court?
false. The case wasn't rejected by the Supreme Court. The injunctive relief was denied. The actual case is still alive. You need to get better sources. After all these years of being lied to, you would think you would be sick of it. I guess not.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 12-09-2020, 02:35 PM
  #24  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 2,823
Default

how many is a quadrillion?
https://www.rt.com/usa/509108-biden-...texas-lawsuit/
RR
Ridge Runner is offline  
Old 12-09-2020, 04:20 PM
  #25  
Typical Buck
 
hubby11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Clifton, VA
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
. You still believing in this hag?
It's not a question of belief. It's simply listening to the full interview. I am no fan of Clinton but It seemed pretty clear to me she was talking about election day, not for all time. But you want to believe she was saying never ever, ever, ever, ever concede the election, fine.

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
false, it wasn't debunked m. The news actually confirmed what we all saw. The election officials told everyone they were shutting down for the night and to go home. Once everyone left, the election official takes two phone calls. Then the election official and others pull suitcases from under the table and begin to count without the required observers. What's also very interesting to note, the officials are now claiming no one was told to leave. The problem with that claim is they have him on tape. We also have the local news tweet after being told by said official what was going on. So why are they lying? If you were going to commit fraud, would you do it during the night without anyone there after making up an excuse to get rid of people or during the day? We also don't have any official swearing under oath to their statements. Kind of like the Obama administration officials during the Russian gate investigation. They told the American people one thing but in front of Congress, they admitted they had zero evidence of ANY Russian collision.
A video so crystal clear would carry weight in court. Your source is simply biased. Prove it in court. As I noted, it's failed in court already.

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
false. The case wasn't rejected by the Supreme Court. The injunctive relief was denied. The actual case is still alive. You need to get better sources. After all these years of being lied to, you would think you would be sick of it. I guess not.
"TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied"

Rejected, denied, choose your own wording. My source is the court's order. Kelly's attempt to reverse PA's certification of Bidenís victory failed. Kelly and the other Republican plaintiffs wanted the state court to either throw out the 2.5 million mail-in ballots submitted or to wipe out the election results and direct the stateís legislature to pick PA's presidential electors. PA's supreme court already ruled the case was filed way too late since it was challenging a law (Act 77) that was enacted a year ago. So yes, I will go with the Supreme Court rejecting the request to intervene and the state case is dead.

No matter how you slice it, the courts have rejected all attempts at claiming fraud.
hubby11 is offline  
Old 12-09-2020, 04:53 PM
  #26  
Nontypical Buck
 
sconnyhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wherever liberalism must be eradicated.
Posts: 2,731
Default

I have to wonder. How a person who is down by millions of ballots. At Midnight. Suddenly wins in a few (select) places, by thousands of votes. After counting was suspended, in those places.

I also have to wonder how a man. Who is a KNOWN racist, won. Remember that YOU AINT BLACK, if you don't know if you're gonna vote for me or that other guy.
How a man, who openly says he's gonna raise our taxes, won.
How a man who openly said he'd "follow the science". And shut us down, and FORCE us to wear masks, if he won.
How a many who Forced another country to shut down an investigation into his son, by withholding money, won.

What drew people to him.

A man who wasn't able to draw 300 people to a DRIVE THROUGH rally.

Literally the LEAST popular candidate in the HISTORY of American Presidential politics.

A man who confuses his wife and his sister.
Who can't remember who his own grandkids are.
Who can't string together 2 complete sentences.
Who can't recall how he fell and hurt his ankle the DAY AFTER it happened.
sconnyhunter is offline  
Old 12-09-2020, 05:26 PM
  #27  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 2,823
Default

Originally Posted by hubby11 View Post
It's not a question of belief. It's simply listening to the full interview. I am no fan of Clinton but It seemed pretty clear to me she was talking about election day, not for all time. But you want to believe she was saying never ever, ever, ever, ever concede the election, fine.



A video so crystal clear would carry weight in court. Your source is simply biased. Prove it in court. As I noted, it's failed in court already.



"TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied"

Rejected, denied, choose your own wording. My source is the court's order. Kelly's attempt to reverse PA's certification of Bidenís victory failed. Kelly and the other Republican plaintiffs wanted the state court to either throw out the 2.5 million mail-in ballots submitted or to wipe out the election results and direct the stateís legislature to pick PA's presidential electors. PA's supreme court already ruled the case was filed way too late since it was challenging a law (Act 77) that was enacted a year ago. So yes, I will go with the Supreme Court rejecting the request to intervene and the state case is dead.

No matter how you slice it, the courts have rejected all attempts at claiming fraud.
the pa case was shut down because after the scouts decided to hear the Texas case, that suit only included pa, Texas case includes several others, now has 19 states and the trump team as plaintiffs. it was not rejected!
RR
Ridge Runner is offline  
Old 12-09-2020, 05:57 PM
  #28  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,861
Default

Originally Posted by hubby11 View Post
It's not a question of belief. It's simply listening to the full interview. I am no fan of Clinton but It seemed pretty clear to me she was talking about election day, not for all time. But you want to believe she was saying never ever, ever, ever, ever concede the election, fine.
let me repeat, you're still listening to that hag?


A video so crystal clear would carry weight in court. Your source is simply biased. Prove it in court. As I noted, it's failed in court already.
what did I say about the courts? You seem to not understand. This is a legislature issue to take up. The one big difference where the court can interfere is what Texas and now 18 other states have filed in the Supreme Court. Their case is strictly a Constitutional issue.

Now as for my source being biased. What part of my statement is wrong? You can't point to a single item I listed as being false. It's you who are accepting an explanation from those who have something to lose. I'm pretty sure the LOEs who post on this forum can confirm the majority of those who broke the law, don't easily come right out and say "ah shucks, you caught me". What I do know is there are no friends among thieves. Let's see what happens when they are all questioned under oath. Do you think they all will say the same story specially if one person is offered "king for a day"? In other words, speak freely and what you say we won't use against you unless you lie. Maybe they there isn't anything there. Are you right now going to tell me you're 100% confident their actions are on the up and up?

"TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied"

Rejected, denied, choose your own wording. My source is the court's order. Kelly's attempt to reverse PA's certification of Bidenís victory failed. Kelly and the other Republican plaintiffs wanted the state court to either throw out the 2.5 million mail-in ballots submitted or to wipe out the election results and direct the stateís legislature to pick PA's presidential electors. PA's supreme court already ruled the case was filed way too late since it was challenging a law (Act 77) that was enacted a year ago. So yes, I will go with the Supreme Court rejecting the request to intervene and the state case is dead.

No matter how you slice it, the courts have rejected all attempts at claiming fraud.
Thank you for proving my point. Do you know what words mean? I'm thinking you don't.
Adjunctive Relief:
Attachment or affixing to another. Something attached as a dependent or auxiliary part. Under the CIVIL LAW system which prevails in much of Europe and Latin America, adjunction is the permanent union of a thing belonging to one person to something that belongs to someone else.

They unattached the request to have the state certification blocked from the original filing. The case is still alive and actually part of the now bigger case from Texas. There is still plenty of time left for the court to move forward and decertify the electors thus putting it on to the state legislators or the House of Representatives should the state legislators fail to act and neither have 270 electors.

Let's talk about the "way to late" BS. You can't file a case until someone is harmed. It's called standing. I'm not a lawyer but some here are and could chime in. There isn't standing until after the election because no one was harmed. So filing a case within weeks afterwards, isn't too late. What you saw was hacked Democrat judges looking the other way.

It's still an up hill battle but the Texas case is very much real as shown by 18 other states signing on because both their citizens and the states themselves have been harmed due to rouge state courts and secretaries of state. It may not happen but right now it's looking really good they will hear the case. And remember, the remedy the courts can hand down for not following the Constitution,

Is to follow the Constitution. There ruling simply involves decertifying the current electors and telling the Legislators to appoint the electors. That doesn't prevent them from reappointing the same Democrats. The important part is the Constitution is followed. We all as Americans should appreciate that.

Last edited by Fieldmouse; 12-09-2020 at 06:10 PM.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 05:15 AM
  #29  
Typical Buck
 
hubby11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Clifton, VA
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post


Thank you for proving my point. Do you know what words mean? I'm thinking you don't.
Adjunctive Relief:
Attachment or affixing to another. Something attached as a dependent or auxiliary part. Under the CIVIL LAW system which prevails in much of Europe and Latin America, adjunction is the permanent union of a thing belonging to one person to something that belongs to someone else.

They unattached the request to have the state certification blocked from the original filing. The case is still alive and actually part of the now bigger case from Texas. There is still plenty of time left for the court to move forward and decertify the electors thus putting it on to the state legislators or the House of Representatives should the state legislators fail to act and neither have 270 electors.

Let's talk about the "way to late" BS. You can't file a case until someone is harmed. It's called standing. I'm not a lawyer but some here are and could chime in. There isn't standing until after the election because no one was harmed. So filing a case within weeks afterwards, isn't too late. What you saw was hacked Democrat judges looking the other way.

It's still an up hill battle but the Texas case is very much real as shown by 18 other states signing on because both their citizens and the states themselves have been harmed due to rouge state courts and secretaries of state. It may not happen but right now it's looking really good they will hear the case. And remember, the remedy the courts can hand down for not following the Constitution,

Is to follow the Constitution. There ruling simply involves decertifying the current electors and telling the Legislators to appoint the electors. That doesn't prevent them from reappointing the same Democrats. The important part is the Constitution is followed. We all as Americans should appreciate that.
I am going to leave the Clinton and court versus legislation stuff alone. We've already gone round and round with those.

On your last points. Did you by chance mean injunctive relief rather than adjunctive relief? They mean different things. Injunctive relief is requesting the court to stop someone from doing something or to act in a certain way. It is usually a last ditch effort request to the court; you have to show that if they don't do what you want, you will be harmed right away. The relevant example is requesting the court to order PA to not certify the election or invalidate certain ballots. That was the main thing asked by the Kelly lawsuit that was denied by the SC.

Regarding standing. Without going into a whole discussion, no, you don't have to prove actual harm, meaning you do not have to wait for a year-old law to actually hurt you before claiming it is unconstitutional or otherwise wrong. Potential harm is fine. The PA Supreme Court stated that the plaintiffs should have filed the complaint some time ago, at least during the primary elections.

Finally, regarding the Texas lawsuit against the battlefield states, I am not going to go into the long list of reasons I think it will fail, no matter how many other states join in. I'll just say the chances are slim for a lot of reasons, standing and that stupid quadrillion argument first coming to mind. We will see.
hubby11 is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 08:10 PM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,697
Default

so

Biden was less popular than Hillary, and won fewer counties than Hillary or Obama did .... and those counties, many have lose residents over the last 4 years as exodus from big cities continues ........ and magically, Biden STILL gets 8 million more votes than Hillary did ?

can anyone explain that ?
Ranger77 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.