- 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: Sidney Powell VINDICATED on all accounts by the Texas Court of Appeals
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:40 am to Paddyshack
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:40 am to Paddyshack
quote:
I told you that your idiotic example of “our team” doing ISNT lawfare.
You did so by changing the definition to exclude election-related suits. Hence why it was added to the long lists of definitions of the term.
quote:
Challenging an election with innumerable issues is not weaponizing the legal system. And by the way, the legal system wouldn’t even allow him to do it. No standing for 95% of his lawsuits.
Because they were illegitimate suits with no evidence. That's why he lost.
To bring this post back to OP
quote:
Powell made her admission in a filing in Dominion’s $1.3 billion lawsuit against her for defamation. Powell and her lawyers acknowledge regarding the allegedly defamatory statements regarding Dominion Voting Systems, “no reasonable person would conclude that [her] statements were truly statements of fact.” In other words, she does not consider those who believe her voter fraud claims “reasonable.”
The filing says that the claims Powell made in interviews on Fox News and Fox Business, and in a press conference at the Republican National Committee are not statements of fact. In particular, her claims “that she had evidence that the election result was the ‘greatest crime of the century if not the life of the world,’” or that Democrats “developed a computer system to alter votes electronically” would not be accepted by a “reasonable person” as “statements of fact.”
All bullshite. Yet the suits were filed to weaponize the system and attack the political out-group.
quote:
I’m just glad you’re finally making headway in figuring out what lawfare is and that it actually exists.
With you changing the definition again, it's actually much more complicated...especially when you try to rope in the DEMs and pretend only their acts in this arena are lawfare.
1
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Coordinated abuse of the legal system for political gain.
Trying to leave you alone in your quest for TD immortality wrt "post count = 438821"but I have to ask.
How does one register a heart-felt opinion that an election was fraudulent??
- public protests get turned into "insurrections" and participants jailed.
- using the "legal system" is proclaimed as just more 'lawfare'.
SO = is it possible to actually legally suggest that some election may have had problems?? - especially when the MEDIA has an abject favorite in the outcome and will PUBLICLY and CONSTANTLY parade ONE side of the political argument against the OTHER side.
Just how does one attempt to correct an honestly held opinion that an election was deliberately 'rigged'??
I note that Democrats never face any backlash over THEIR proclamations of 'stolen elections' in the past - reference HRC in particular.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because they were illegitimate suits with no evidence. That's why he lost.
Illigetimate suits with no evidence?
So you agree the 2020 election was the most safe and secure election in history?
How could we know there was no evidence exactly when the cases weren’t heard ?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:43 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
D: “You have to be a damn fool, and abjectly stupid not to see what happened here.” The opinion added.
Holy shite! They put that in the opinion?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:49 am to Paddyshack
quote:
How could we know there was no evidence exactly when the cases weren’t heard
This is the question that hovers over ALL these 'no evidence' election denier deniers.
They demand "evidence" - but throw out any attempt to produce evidence as "no standing"
they are dancing on the head of pin with their double talk.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:51 am to GumboPot
quote:
She's still FoS
About what?
The "Kraken"
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:52 am to Paddyshack
quote:
Illigetimate suits with no evidence?
Yes
quote:
So you agree the 2020 election was the most safe and secure election in history?
I never said that.
quote:
How could we know there was no evidence exactly when the cases weren’t heard ?
They never released the evidence. Nothing requires this evidence to be released in a court case, and it's been 4 years and literally nothing has been released.
Oh, and Powell admitting they had no evidence and her claims were made up doesn't help.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:53 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
How does one register a heart-felt opinion that an election was fraudulent?
you can give your opinion wherever and however you want. What we're discussing is evidence. Facts, not opinions.
quote:
Just how does one attempt to correct an honestly held opinion that an election was deliberately 'rigged'??
Find evidence and start relying on facts over opinions/feelings.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:53 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
They demand "evidence" - but throw out any attempt to produce evidence as "no standing"
Why do you think evidence can only be released in a court case?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you think evidence can only be released in a court case?
That is my question to YOU!!!
YOU and others scream = NO EVIDENCE!!
People show up with ALLEGATIONs of manipulated ballot handling processes.
People show up with ABSOLUTE notations of election procedures being UNLAWFULLY changed to favor one side of the political spectrum.
People show up with PROBABILITY analyses that show over 99% indication that something was amiss somewhere.
People show up at the Congress to register their PROTEST over their firmly held belief that the election was 'not accurate' and get thrown in jai.
HOW - in YOUR world - does one LEGITIMATELY object to the results of any election.
Do 'citizens' have to PROVE beyond SHADOW OF DOUBT that an election was not properly secured/administered before they can get the attention of those who are responsible for making that 'declaration'??
We have seen in the cases against Trump this past year that just about ANY " 'opinion that there MAY have been 'something wrong here' " can make it to trial and actually WIN in that 'court' with NO pushback from the 'media' or YOU, for that matter.
ALL I have asked from YOU is that you define what constituted EVIDENCE that would be sufficient to have a COURT take up the case.
/\ now inherent in that situation is the factor that the 'election supervisors themselves are part of the rigging' /\ <= I thought this was a given in all prior discussions, but I can not think of any other reason why you have not responded to the topic.
Again - define "evidence" that honest people are capable of accumulating the would be sufficient to DEMAND that an official 'investigation' of the allegation to be conducted.
And use the election of 2020 as the typical case for the explanation, since that is the only one that seems to upset the 'status quo' dem/media types.
tia.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:14 am to ChineseBandit58
Don’t worry, SFP thinks all of the election lawsuits filed by Trump were illegitimate, but all lawsuits filed against Trump were based on rock solid evidence.
And his best example of “our team” conducting lawfare is Trump challenging an election with all of the problems you just laid out.
And his best example of “our team” conducting lawfare is Trump challenging an election with all of the problems you just laid out.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:41 am to Paddyshack
quote:
Don’t worry, SFP thinks
His take on lawfare is nonsensical.
This is a particularly bad shell game attempt, though. Lawfare is using unlimited state assets against a citizen, where the process becomes the punishment. Any "wins" in court are just a cherry on the sundae; the sundae is what matters.
As a citizen I can certainly file frivolous lawsuits against, say, an election official, but if the state is providing their defense that's not lawfare. That's me, with limited resources, abusing the legal system but I'm putting my limited resources against the unlimited resources of the state or federal government. It might be frivolous bullshite but it's not using the power of the state to punish an individual.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So you're limiting lawfare to federal-criminal proceedings? That's your definition?
Lawfare is political and a real thing, done by Dems. Repubs, and Independents, that's only part of the topic.
Notice you did not address the questions, so I'll try again. .
Were any of these "Kraken" lawsuits headed by a federal, state, or local government employee? Or headed up an appointee of a federal, state, or local governmental employee?
Was the DOD or DOJ involved in any way with the cases against Trump?
Was the DOD or DOJ involved in any way with the cases FOR Trump?
Lawfare is one thing with the backing of private citizens, it's a whole other topic when we talk about the weaponization of the Federal, State, and/orLocal Governments.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:you posted a gloat thread on this board immediately after merchans kangaroo court convicted Trump. You are the liar
while you cheered every effort
Why lie?
Not having an emotional meltdown and maintaining a rational analytical state is not "cheering".
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
OK - I get it
You devote all your intellectual prowess to deflection from any attempt to get you to explain your position.
got it
you may now toy with others - I am done with you.
In my mind - you are now on record as declaring that
"the 2020 election was the most secure and free from fraud than any election in history.
It SHALL NOT be questioned!!!."
So - join the sisters of "the View" in your intellectual dishonesty and/or cowardice.
You devote all your intellectual prowess to deflection from any attempt to get you to explain your position.
got it
you may now toy with others - I am done with you.
In my mind - you are now on record as declaring that
"the 2020 election was the most secure and free from fraud than any election in history.
It SHALL NOT be questioned!!!."
So - join the sisters of "the View" in your intellectual dishonesty and/or cowardice.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:45 am to Speckhunter2012
quote:
When the radical Leftists and or Deep State put the bullseye on someone, they will financially ruin them and or find some BS trumped up process crime to charge someone with.
And then beg for full pardons across the board because they are worried similar may happen to them over these next 4 years
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News