|
 Kwyjibo
Stranger
Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,273
Loc: California 
Last seen: 7 hours, 56 minutes
|
 Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016  [Re: HamHead]
#27048140 - 11/19/20 10:20 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said:
Has any of that been proven in court yet?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
 
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: Kwyjibo]
#27048141 - 11/19/20 10:21 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It hasn't gone to court yet.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Kwyjibo
Stranger
Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,273
Loc: California
Last seen: 7 hours, 56 minutes
|
|
Then why don't we wait until it has before doing recounts?
|
Psilynut2
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,282
Last seen: 52 minutes, 30 seconds
|
|
Quote:
It hasn't gone to court yet.
Its going to be tried in the court of public make believe . It will probably be a hung jury .
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: Kwyjibo]
#27048178 - 11/19/20 11:03 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think we are, except in states with automatic recounts.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: Psilynut2]
#27048180 - 11/19/20 11:03 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Psilynut2 said:
Quote:
It hasn't gone to court yet.
Its going to be tried in the court of public make believe .
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Kwyjibo
Stranger
Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,273
Loc: California
Last seen: 7 hours, 56 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think we are, except in states with automatic recounts.
So what's the problem then?
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 8 days, 3 hours
|
|
OP you sound mad, bro. Have a Snickers!
The voting "system" is fucked regardless.
--------------------
  
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
Sulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 5 hours, 35 minutes
|
|
Not mad at all. Whats with the late 2000s troll tactics all the time?
Also why is system in quotes? Do you not believe a system for voting exists?
--------------------
   
Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!
Edited by Sulfurshelfsean (11/20/20 03:08 AM)
|
 Enlil 
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
It hasn't gone to court yet.
This isn't strictly true. There have been many cases already brought and lost by the trump campaign. Under the federal rules of civil procedure, they have to bring all claims they have under the same suit if they arise out of the same "transaction or occurrence." In other words, many of these allegations were waived when they brought a suit and didn't include those claims. The lawyers aren't stupid. They know this. If they had the evidence, they would have alleged fraud. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes.
There may be some straggling theories/allegations that can be brought in court, but so far, trumps lawyers haven't been able to maintain any fraud actions whatsoever. Every day that it doesn't happen makes it less likely. By December 1, if they don't file a complaint alleging this shit, they almost certainly have nothing.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
twighead
mͯó
Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 30,442
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 21 hours, 31 minutes
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: HamHead]
#27048588 - 11/20/20 09:08 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said:
Quote:
Psilynut2 said:
Quote:
72,500,000 America's who cast their vote for DJT.
Dems should welcome recounts and audits. If nothing's wrong and Joe won fair and square, they will have every day of four years to celebrate.
I'll still be mad about this conspiracy nutter nonsense 4 years from now . The almost 80 million people who voted for Biden want to see their candidate that crushed this shit have the same transition Trump did . The losers that voted for Trump should be more worried about the next election .
All Americans should be worried about our next election. Had Trump conceded, many of these irregularities and discrepancies would not have been uncovered and further investigated.
Evidence is mounting, rapidly.
Lol is it? Delusional till the end, trumpers are
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: twighead]
#27048613 - 11/20/20 09:27 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The problem that Trump and his lawyers are having is that the rules are different in court than they are in a press conference. There's nothing illegal about lying to the press, but when these lawyers file papers in court, they have to be based on something. The fact that trump's lawyers aren't alleging fraud in court says that they have nothing.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any paper filed with the court be based on a good faith belief that the allegations are true and supported by evidence. It's not a high bar, even. If they can find one person who can testify to something, that's enough to allege it. Still, in case after case, these lawyers are unable to allege fraud or argue in court that fraud happened. That's because there is literally zero evidence. These lawyers know that they can lose their licenses to practice if they present frivolous claims before a tribunal.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Psilynut2
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,282
Last seen: 52 minutes, 30 seconds
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: Enlil]
#27048805 - 11/20/20 11:17 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Who determines a lawyer is acting in bad faith though and how does the procedure of taking their license get put into action ?
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: Psilynut2]
#27048810 - 11/20/20 11:25 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
That depends on several things, but in our example, which is federal court, any allegations that are not in good faith are first challenged by opposing counsel sending a rule 11 "safe harbor" letter demanding that the allegations be withdrawn. If those allegations are not withdrawn within the statutory period of time (21 days in this case), a motion for sanctions can be brought before the court. The court will then decide whether the allegation/filing is in violation.
If the federal court sanctions an attorney for a rule 11 violation, that gets reported to the state bar and is grounds for disciplinary action at the state level.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
yeah
Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 3,729
Last seen: 1 month, 25 days
|
|
Quote:
Sulfurshelfsean said:
This is how stupid the right wing sounds right now...
Where do you get most of your news from?
--------------------
|
christopera
Stranger
Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,455
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: yeah] 2
#27048880 - 11/20/20 12:27 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You don't have to watch the news to see how stupid the right wing, or at least those dying on the cross for Trump's 2020 election, sound when they act like he will still win. Many of the posts on this site alone are good enough.
--------------------
Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result.
A Dorito is pizza, change my mind.
Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things
I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
yeah
Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 3,729
Last seen: 1 month, 25 days
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: christopera] 1
#27049034 - 11/20/20 02:18 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
christopera said:
You don't have to watch the news to see how stupid the right wing, or at least those dying on the cross for Trump's 2020 election, sound when they act like he will still win. Many of the posts on this site alone are good enough.
But the guy I quoted was implying anyone who questions the election as being stupid. That's a lot different than "dying on the cross" for Trump.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: yeah]
#27049039 - 11/20/20 02:22 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
He didn't imply that. He said the right wing sound stupid. It's not about questioning an election. It's about blindly believing every stupid claim made by randos on youtube.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Sulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 4,128
Last seen: 5 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Hilary Should Have Won 2016 [Re: yeah]
#27049047 - 11/20/20 02:33 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
yeah said:
Quote:
christopera said:
You don't have to watch the news to see how stupid the right wing, or at least those dying on the cross for Trump's 2020 election, sound when they act like he will still win. Many of the posts on this site alone are good enough.
But the guy I quoted was implying anyone who questions the election as being stupid. That's a lot different than "dying on the cross" for Trump.
Yeah i never said that...Anyone towing trumps stupid line right now sounds stupid as fuck. It has to be embarrassing. I mostly get my news through the shroomery these days. I follow the links everyone posts to try and get a better understanding of where everyones heads are at. This website is an actually awesome resource to gauge the political discourse in the country.
--------------------
Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!
|
yeah
Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 3,729
Last seen: 1 month, 25 days
|
|
Quote:
Sulfurshelfsean said:
Quote:
yeah said:
Quote:
christopera said:
You don't have to watch the news to see how stupid the right wing, or at least those dying on the cross for Trump's 2020 election, sound when they act like he will still win. Many of the posts on this site alone are good enough.
But the guy I quoted was implying anyone who questions the election as being stupid. That's a lot different than "dying on the cross" for Trump.
Yeah i never said that...Anyone towing trumps stupid line right now sounds stupid as fuck. It has to be embarrassing. I mostly get my news through the shroomery these days. I follow the links everyone posts to try and get a better understanding of where everyones heads are at. This website is an actually awesome resource to gauge the political discourse in the country.
In his first post he said "I have proof that Hilary was the real winner of the 2016 election. This woman voted twice for trump in 2016. Hilary never got a revote or recount"
This is a sarcastic comment.
Do you understand now?
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
KingOftheThing
Autonomous
Phred
wingnutx
daimyo
RandalFlagg
ekomstop