- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If Biden won 2020 legitimately
Posted on 7/19/26 at 12:43 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/19/26 at 12:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're discussing evidence of potential for fraud. Not evidence of actual fraud.
You stayed up late to post this bullshite.
Let's just keep the current system and hope!
What a fricking idiot.
0
Posted on 7/19/26 at 2:01 am to Smoke Jensen
quote:
SlowFlowPro is leading the pack.
He is far from retarded in pure intellectual sense.
But I would not trust him to make a true statement wrt current political events.
And by 'true' = I mean in the overall intent of the statement - NOT the actual verbiage used.
This is not a courtroom proceeding = he may do quite well in such a restrained environment where the prior defined intent of some verbiage must run the mark precisely.
This is a discussion forum - sort of like you run into a couple of friends discussing how pretty a girl on the other side of the street is. SFP would be totally out of his element in that conversation because every word used would have inherent meaning to the one being spoken to - and any eavesdropper trying to intervene with "what do you mean by ...." would either be totally ignored or have his arse kicked out.
This is a public discussion forum - inhabited by mostly regular people using regular English and established metaphors to relate IDEAS - ideas that may not have been fully vetted - which is mostly the reason for the popularity of the forum. Here we can express our idea and have the basic elements of it evaluated by a like audience.
What we do NOT need is some nerd who jumps in and says "that wording was disallowed in the 2014 settlement of the Jones vs James court case in Raleigh Virginia." < who gives a shite - WE know what WE are talking about.
IF out discussion elevates to some court proceedings then yes - we may hire some wordsmith to work out some foreseeable problems with a JUDGE who wants to stay in line with OTHER COURT CASES.
We just want to know who stole the apples.
This post was edited on 7/19/26 at 2:04 am
Posted on 7/19/26 at 6:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Everything!
What the hell does this have to do with evidence of voter fraud in 2020?
It takes attorneys to bring a case, advise on the best approach to doing so, then to argue it effectively. I should not have to tell you that.
Trump was deprived of the kind of assistance requisite in efficiently bringing the case. He had several large firms lined up and organized to bring the various cases. By mid-November, most/all of the firms he'd secured had been successfully PRESSURED BY THE LEGAL COMMUNITY to cease providing Trump legal assistance.
Specifically that involved his representation in illegal absentee voting in WI (already acknowledged by the SCOW, but declined preelection d/t standing), PA two-tiered absentee ballot handling (already acknowledged as problematic by Alito/SCOTUS), GA multiple issues including ballot handling.
With the sudden turnover and lack of quality representation, Trump's cases were each dismissed on technicalities, without any of the issues actually being considered. (Nearly four years later, the Georgia Supreme Court finally determined that dismissal d/t lack of standing was an error. But by that time, the GA legislature had rewritten laws mooting the crux of the 2020 suit.)
Again, I would think you would be heavily critical of the obscenity of efforts by lawyers to deprive a party of quality representation. Maybe I missed it, were/are you critical of that?
Posted on 7/19/26 at 6:31 am to DeBoar
The number of “votes” Biden received is all the proof you need to confirm a rigged election.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 9:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It takes attorneys to bring a case, advise on the best approach to doing so, then to argue it effectively. I should not have to tell you that. Trump was deprived of the kind of assistance requisite in efficiently bringing the case. He had several large firms lined up and organized to bring the various cases. By mid-November, most/all of the firms he'd secured had been successfully PRESSURED BY THE LEGAL COMMUNITY to cease providing Trump legal assistance. Specifically that involved his representation in illegal absentee voting in WI (already acknowledged by the SCOW, but declined preelection d/t standing), PA two-tiered absentee ballot handling (already acknowledged as problematic by Alito/SCOTUS), GA multiple issues including ballot handling. With the sudden turnover and lack of quality representation, Trump's cases were each dismissed on technicalities, without any of the issues actually being considered. (Nearly four years later, the Georgia Supreme Court finally determined that dismissal d/t lack of standing was an error. But by that time, the GA legislature had rewritten laws mooting the crux of the 2020 suit.) Again, I would think you would be heavily critical of the obscenity of efforts by lawyers to deprive a party of quality representation. Maybe I missed it, were/are you critical of that?
That’s a handsome story, Tigah, but the court record won’t wear it.
Wisconsin considered Trump’s claims and called one meritless; the others failed because he waited until after losing to challenge rules already known before Election Day. Alito merely ordered certain Pennsylvania ballots segregated. He did not declare the election unlawful.
And “my lawyers weren’t good enough” is not evidence the vote was stolen. It’s just a fresh saddle strapped onto the same dead horse.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 9:35 am to ChineseBandit58
You’re asking people to judge the spirit of a claim while excusing its accuracy. That’s backwards. The whole reason words matter is because that’s how ideas are tested. If a claim falls apart the moment someone asks, “What exactly do you mean?” the problem isn’t the question. It’s the claim.
“We just want to know who stole the apples” is fine. Pointing at the nearest orchard and calling it proof, ain’t.
“We just want to know who stole the apples” is fine. Pointing at the nearest orchard and calling it proof, ain’t.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 9:39 am to paulb52
quote:
The number of “votes” Biden received is all the proof you need to confirm a rigged election.
In its purest form…..THIS tells you all you need to know. The numbers just don’t add up for a Biden victory.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 9:48 am to CrystalPreserves
quote:So you either didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it, which par for the course. Trump didn't wait. He depended on legal representation which in turn was undercut and disrupted by external threats.
Wisconsin considered Trump’s claims and called one meritless; the others failed because he waited until after losing to challenge rules already known before Election Day
You don't like to answer questions here, but I will ask one anyway. It's the same question I asked SFP. What is your opinion of the legal community which undertook successfully to deny Trump high-quality legal representation he had lined up?
This post was edited on 7/19/26 at 9:52 am
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:02 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So you either didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it, which par for the course. Trump didn't wait. He depended on legal representation which in turn was undercut and disrupted by external threats. You don't like to answer questions here, but I will ask one anyway. It's the same question I asked SFP. What is your opinion of the legal community which undertook successfully to deny Trump high-quality legal representation he had lined up?
I understood you just fine. You’re arguing that Trump’s cases failed because his legal representation was disrupted.
If attorneys were improperly pressured, that was wrong. But “better lawyers might have presented the case better” is not evidence the underlying claims were true. It is speculation about why the claims failed.
You’re still using a grievance about representation to fill an empty space where proof of a stolen election ought to be.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:05 am to CrystalPreserves
quote:No one is asking you to "judge" a thing. We are asking you to simply STFU and allow an actual investigation to transpire.
You’re asking people to judge the spirit of a claim while excusing its accuracy.
The 2020 election was an "odd" process in many, many ways. The vigorous obstruction of legitimate examination of that process is also odd. Some of us are just interested in what actually happened. Others, like yourself lack intellectual curiosity and are happy to believe what you are told, which is fine.
Just step aside, let the process run its course.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:08 am to CrystalPreserves
quote:The underlying claims were never heard. That is the point. The underlying claims were rock solid. There is no debate about their truth. None.
the underlying claims were true
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:09 am to CrystalPreserves
“external threats” to Trump’s lawyers is yet another vacuous fiction of no merit. You guys keep grasping, no doubt about that
To date, there is still no evidence of impropriety that actually changed results….
To date, there is still no evidence of impropriety that actually changed results….
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The underlying claims were never heard. That is the point. The underlying claims were rock solid. There is no debate about their truth. None.
You’re skipping a step.
“They weren’t heard” doesn’t mean “they were unquestionably true.” Those are two different claims. Conviction isn’t a substitute for evidence bubba.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:18 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Just step aside, let the process run its course.
By all means, investigate.
Just don’t ask me to treat a hunch like a verdict while you’re still looking for the evidence.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Every state in every election could make the claim "we don't like the other states' results"
quote:Oh it’s the claim, because the Constitution does not require voter IDs. Each state has their own standard.
That is not the claim. The claim is that those results were obtained through unconstitutional means. It was a valid and provable concern.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:22 am to Taxing Authority
You really do try hard to make an argument for opposing Trump any chance you can get. You and others were literally crying a few months ago about an election in Kentucky not being fair.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Take it up with the OP.
Interesting. I've been told that has already been determined, and that the answer is "easy."
quote:Ypure all over the place. First you tell me laws have already been changed in light of the results, but, also that no worthy in estigation has ever happened. You feeling Ok?
As for me, the issue is actually investigating, and determining what did, or did not happen, as best we can, at long last.
quote:Of course it is. Who is constantly questioning it on shakeup evidence?
As I have said many many times, the issue is confidence in the process.
quote:If only GA would do something to prevent it! Oh wait….
When you have a process that was as screwed up as 2020 was, and you have a large contingent fighting like banshees to prevent an examination of the facts, it severely undermines confidence going forward. That is dangerous. It should never happen. But that's where we are.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:23 am to VOR
quote:
“external threats” to Trump’s lawyers is yet another vacuous fiction of no merit.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:27 am to NC_Tigah
Your screenshot proves a firm withdrew under pressure. It does not prove threats, legal helplessness, or election fraud.
The facepalm emoji appears to be standing in for the missing steps.
The facepalm emoji appears to be standing in for the missing steps.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 10:28 am to David_DJS
quote:of course we do. And it needs to be fixed. But that should happen at the states level—and it should happen because the potential for fraud. it some silly hysteric claims of fraud in an election that no bearing on the present or future.
I would argue that reasonable people filter the bluster on both sides and see/acknowledge that we really do have fraud-friendly policies and procedures starting with registration and right on through vote counting.
MAGA is one of the most emotional voter bases today. They’re every bit as emotionally driven as democrats.
Page 11 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News