- 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 11:11 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:11 am to Taxing Authority
quote:You seem to be conflating "standing" with "probable cause."
The preliminary hearing is the hearing when probable cause doesn’t exist.
This post was edited on 7/19/26 at 11:11 am
2
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are correct. It's more about why 81 million people would vote for an eggplant.
This is not a chicken/egg scenario
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:15 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
f the child had made dozens of false claims before… it would certainly factor in.
But you just implied we can’t prove a negative which was the point of your child molester comparison.
That’s quite the paradox you’ve built for yourself.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Probable cause probably is not the right term since theta legal standard. But what ever term you like, many of the cases lacked (and still do) any credible evidence. Courts can (and should) reject cases that have zero chance of succeeding.
You seem to be conflating "standing" with "probable cause."
As for “standing” in many cases thst was true. Plaintiffs need to show harm. Courts are not investigative bodies. You come to court with evidence—not accusations.
This post was edited on 7/19/26 at 11:18 am
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:17 am to Robin Masters
quote:Only if you believe all accusations are equal.
But you just implied we can’t prove a negative which was the point of your child molester comparison.
Do you bellevue E.Jean Caroll and Christine Balzy Ford? I don’t.
You’re aiming for what Rush used to say democrats fell back on: “It’s not the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge”
This post was edited on 7/19/26 at 11:19 am
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:20 am to NC_Tigah
Looks like Taxing Authority took a double dose of his douchebag prescription today.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:23 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Every case I've noted was rejected on "standing." In Georgia the erroneous "lack of standing" rejection was finally overturned.
As for “standing” in many cases thst was true
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:23 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Only if you believe all accusations are equal.
If you believe all there is are accusations you are just trolling.
quote:
Do you bellevue E.Jean Caroll and Christine Balzy Ford? I don’t.
Were these criminal trials?
quote:
You’re aiming for what Rush used to say democrats fell back on: “It’s not the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge”
No just calling you out on your double standards. Rush would be calling you out on your bullshite too.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:28 am to Taxing Authority
quote:The two tiered PA process, illegal WI absentee recruiting, illegal GA ballot handling are evidence.
It’s not the evidence
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:29 am to jammajin
quote:
Looks like Taxing Authority took a double dose of his douchebag prescription today.
He takes it everyday.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 11:34 am to DeBoar
I’ll never forget this quote. “That man, Donald Trump, will not be re-elected. No matter what.” Nancy Pelosi. What did she know?
Posted on 7/19/26 at 12:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
No. In WI, the case was reviewed in Spring 2020, facts were acknowledged by SCOW at that point. WI blue counties were warned to cease and desist absentee drives, and other activities which did not abide WI law. But the SCOW held off on further action, as the election had not taken place, and the GOP could not demonstrate harm. In GA the law regarding ballot handling was clear. Rasmussen did not follow it. In PA, Alito formally cited major constitutional issues in the PA absentee process, just weeks before the 2020 election. None of those facts were in dispute. None were ever allowed to be heard after the election.
You’re still skipping the same step. A court recognizing a legal question is not a court establishing the factual allegation behind it.
Procedure is not proof. Allegation isn’t evidence. Confidence isn’t a substitute for either.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 12:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It does indeed. Why were they pressured? What was the nature of the pressure? What was the result? Most of us know the answers to those queries. Apparently you don't. The internet is not hard though. You can find various things out for yourself without having to rely on others to spoon feed you. For example, if you have a question about it, then do a web search regarding what "intense pressure from the American Bar Association, legal advocacy groups, and major corporate clients cutting ties with capitulating firms" actually means in terms of the affected firms.
I know firms were pressured. That was never the disputed point.
You claimed external threats deprived Trump of quality representation and caused rock-solid cases to die unheard. A Google search showing criticism, client pressure, and one firm withdrawing does not prove that entire chain.
You brought the claim, Tigah. Telling everyone else to finish building it is not evidence. It’s subcontracting.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 12:52 pm to CrystalPreserves
quote:In this case it was. Hence the admonition.
A court recognizing a legal question is not a court establishing the factual allegation behind it.
The same is true of PA.
The WI law re: absentee voting was crystal clear, as was the Dem breach of it. Those facts were not even in question.
In March 2020, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell publicly advised voters to claim "indefinitely confined" status because of the pandemic. Milwaukee's clerk issued similar guidance. This wasn't a secret. It was public advice from elected Democratic clerks, and it drew an immediate legal challenge.
On March 31, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found CV19 did not meet criteria for "indefinitely confined," and it barred McDonell from giving that advice. Nonetheless, the "indefinitely confined" numbers continued to climb, and the counties continued to accept them, unquestioned. In the end, more than 300K voters in those two counties voted absentee in 2020.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 1:15 pm to CrystalPreserves
quote:Care to guess how I know you did not perform that Google search?
A Google search showing criticism, client pressure, and one firm withdrawing
Again, why were they pressured? What was the nature and purpose of the pressure? What was the result? The internet is not hard, but you do actually have to use it.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 1:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In this case it was. Hence the admonition. The same is true of PA. The WI law re: absentee voting was crystal clear, as was the Dem breach of it. Those facts were not even in question. In March 2020, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell publicly advised voters to claim "indefinitely confined" status because of the pandemic. Milwaukee's clerk issued similar guidance. This wasn't a secret. It was public advice from elected Democratic clerks, and it drew an immediate legal challenge. On March 31, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found CV19 did not meet criteria for "indefinitely confined," and it barred McDonell from giving that advice. Nonetheless, the "indefinitely confined" numbers continued to climb, and the counties continued to accept them, unquestioned. In the end, more than 300K voters in those two counties voted absentee in 2020.
Bubba.. You’re still skipping the same step.
A clerk giving bad legal advice is not the same thing as proving unlawful ballots were cast, much less that enough were cast to change the outcome.
You’ve established a dispute over procedure. You’re still asserting the conclusion without establishing the bridge.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 1:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Care to guess how I know you did not perform that Google search? Again, why were they pressured? What was the nature and purpose of the pressure? What was the result? The internet is not hard, but you do actually have to use it.
I found pressure. I did not find proof of threats, legal deprivation, causation, or “rock-solid” cases.
You’re sending people to Google because your conclusion isn’t contained in the evidence you’ve posted. The man making the claim still carries the bucket baw. With a post count as high as yours a person would think that you understood the rules of burden of proof by now bubba.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 1:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Have you missed the last 6 years of people denying the legitimacy?
This is the most effective campaign tactic they have - nothing else they have is worth a bucket of warm snake shite.
They NEED someone to point out the OBVIOUS irregularities in the 2020 election often so they can get some relief from their abysmal - or non-existent program and barf inducing candidates.
The 2020 election was a crooked as a dog's hind leg - and they are hanging on to the failure of election officials to adequately guard the security of their positions - some actually either 'looking the other way' or actively 'helping out' their favored candidates.
Nobody can say the election was without faults - it was obviously a bucket of bullshite in its execution - but yet the critical districts demand that SOMEONE ELSE PROVE THE ELECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED HAD THEY DONE THEIR JOBS CORRECTLY.
The most convoluted logic path ever defended by anyone with actual intelligence that has not been purchased.
Nobody would buy a link of sausage from a store like that - "SURE - dead people are piling up at our door but nobody who works for us claims to know
anything about it - and all of the law enforcement officials either works for the store or are profiting from the funeral business.
And it is just a LOCAL matter, state and federal officers are not permitted to look behind the window to see just how the sausage is being made. Anyone not liking the outcome is welcome to go to some other store for their sausage.
Sorry - better luck next time.
Oh - and please don't watch while we clean up any 'potential' evidence of our malfeasance - just go away.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 1:39 pm to DeBoar
DeBoar(derline braindead)
Posted on 7/19/26 at 1:41 pm to DeBoar
1, They want us to believe 81 million votes for a guy that sequestered in his basement.
2. They pretend not to know ….
Page 13 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News