"MY beautiful Christians" says Trump.

[Aloha Hoosier]

Is that how the justice system works now? Innocent, guilty and "not exonerated".

Until you read the Mueller report, just STFU about it. I say that seriously. I don't want to converse with the ignorant. Please don't lie again and say you read it. You are too ignorant about it to have read it. I suppose you could be too stupid to understand it, but I really don't think you're quite that stupid.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Because not a single court heard the case. Why do you continually be reminded of this?

It's almost like you're intentionally lying.

You're a serial liar. Most cases were thrown out because there was NO EVIDENCE to support their claims. Lawyers were admonished for it. You're also a moron for believing the voter fraud lie. Trump doesn't even believe it. He hired people to prove it, and they proved there wasn't any.

 

[DANC]

Is that how the justice system works now? Innocent, guilty and "not exonerated".

After 2 1/2 years of a team of 20+ lawyers and millions of dollars in an investigation, and assurances from Schiff that he'd seen the actual evidence, and hearing how an indictment against Trump was a slam dunk, no charges were recommended against Trump, and a report came out that tried to justify tearing the country apart over such flimsy 'evidence'.

Despite all that, some dupes claim there's still some 'there' there. It's a mental condition - they just refuse to believe reality. In their minds, he's guilty because the media told them he was and they're not going to admit they were duped.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Because not a single court heard the case. Why do you continually be reminded of this?

It's almost like you're intentionally lying.

Technically, you’re right in saying there wasn’t a single court case that proved the 2020 election wasn’t stolen.

There were over 60

 

[DANC]

Technically, you’re right in saying there wasn’t a single court case that proved the 2020 election wasn’t stolen.

There were over 60

There's no technicality about it. Courts didn't hear the cases because of 'standing'. If you'd have listened to the debate, you'd have heard Trump say the same thing.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

And the sum total of those convictions as it relates to Trump campaign collusion with Russians is zilch.

I said STFU until you read the report. I'm serious about that. You remain ignorant about the actual findings of the report.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

After 2 1/2 years of a team of 20+ lawyers and millions of dollars in an investigation, and assurances from Schiff that he'd seen the actual evidence, and hearing how an indictment against Trump was a slam dunk, no charges were recommended against Trump, and a report came out that tried to justify tearing the country apart over such flimsy 'evidence'.

Despite all that, some dupes claim there's still some 'there' there. It's a mental condition - they just refuse to believe reality. In their minds, he's guilty because the media told them he was and they're not going to admit they were duped.

You also are ignorant about the report findings. I knew you never read it years ago but being ignorant never stopped you before and won't stop you now. You're a dupe.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

There's no technicality about it. Courts didn't hear the cases because of 'standing'. If you'd have listened to the debate, you'd have heard Trump say the same thing.

LOL! There it is! Trump said it so it MUST be true. You've come to the most illogical conclusion about what Trump says and whether you should believe it. That's very much LOL funny! Thanks!

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

There's no technicality about it. Courts didn't hear the cases because of 'standing'. If you'd have listened to the debate, you'd have heard Trump say the same thing.

His link proves you're wrong, but you won't read it and will continue to repeat your lie.

 

[Ohio Guy]

There's no technicality about it. Courts didn't hear the cases because of 'standing'. If you'd have listened to the debate, you'd have heard Trump say the same thing.

The fact remains. There is no proof of voter fraud or a rigged 2020 election. Just ask Fox News, Mike Lindell, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and even Trump himself.

If there were proof of voter fraud and/or a stolen election, all of those entities and people would have won their court cases.

As mentioned above. Anyone who still thinks the 2020 election was stolen is a moron.

 

[DANC]

The fact remains. There is no proof of voter fraud or a rigged 2020 election. Just ask Fox News, Mike Lindell, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and even Trump himself.

If there were proof of voter fraud and/or a stolen election, all of those entities and people would have won their court cases.

As mentioned above. Anyone who still thinks the 2020 election was stolen is a moron.

Are you mentally deficient? Courts didn't hear the cases. It's impossible to win a case if the courts won't hear it.

 

[outside shooter]

I suspect that decades from now, if I am lucky to be around, one thing I'll look back on and be extremely proud of is that I have never for an instant supported Donald J. Trump.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Are you mentally deficient? Courts didn't hear the cases. It's impossible to win a case if the courts won't hear it.

It’s already been established you don’t read links that prove you’re wrong.

Let’s try this a different way. Why do you think all the organizations/people either lost their cases or settled to pay obscene amounts of money? What do think their cases involved? What couldn’t they prove in order to win the cases brought against them?

 

[Standard Issue]

How do we know he's lying? Maybe because his lies about voter fraud and election have been litigated multiple times. He didn't win a single court case on election fraud. In some cases, his lawyers and favorite partisan TV networks had to either turn state's evidence, apologize or pay out an insane of amounts of money for their lies. At this point anyone who continues to believe the 2020 election was stolen without and verifiable proof just isn't very smart.

If Trump may seem convincing to you, but his lies don't hold up in a court of law.

The short answer is: "Because he's still breathing".

 

[DANC]

It’s already been established you don’t read links that prove you’re wrong.

Let’s try this a different way. Why do you think all the organizations/people either lost their cases or settled to pay obscene amounts of money? What do think their cases involved? What couldn’t they prove in order to win the cases brought against them?

Do you understand the difference between actual court cases about the election and reporting on the election?

Obviously not. Why are you always the slowest one on here to understand anything?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Are you mentally deficient? Courts didn't hear the cases. It's impossible to win a case if the courts won't hear it.

You're mentally deficient or just a liar. I'm thinking liar. This is what happened with all the cases:

Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections

The various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and found they were without merit. Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, stated on February 23: "The president...

campaignlegal.org

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Do you understand the difference between actual court cases about the election and reporting on the election?

Obviously not. Why are you always the slowest one on here to understand anything?

Watching you lie shouldn't be funny, but I find it hilarious! LOL hilarious.

 

[Standard Issue]

You're mentally deficient or just a liar. I'm thinking liar. This is what happened with all the cases:

Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections

The various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and found they were without merit. Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, stated on February 23: "The president...

campaignlegal.org

I don't believe this is necessarily an "either/or" situation.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Do you understand the difference between actual court cases about the election and reporting on the election?

Obviously not. Why are you always the slowest one on here to understand anything?

Wait - are you saying there were no court cases that involved claims of election interference and/or claims that the election was stolen? If you’re not going to at least acknowledge proof presented to you, people aren’t going to take you seriously.

People lost real/actual court cases because they couldn’t prove their claims of voter fraud/stolen election. Your favorite network settled for $787 million dollars because they couldn’t prove the the election was stolen. These are undeniable facts. You countering with “nuh-huh” isn’t cutting it.

I’m not concerned with you trying to insult me in the least bit. I’m concerned that you might have suffered a head injury or otherwise dealing with some sort of brain deficiency. Praying for you Danc.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Wait - are you saying there were no court cases that involved claims of election interference and/or claims that the election was stolen? If you’re not going to at least acknowledge proof presented to you, people aren’t going to take you seriously.

People lost real/actual court cases because they couldn’t prove their claims of voter fraud/stolen election. Your favorite network settled for $787 million dollars because they couldn’t prove the the election was stolen. These are undeniable facts. You countering with “nuh-huh” isn’t cutting it.

I’m not concerned with you trying to insult me in the least bit. I’m concerned that you might have suffered a head injury or otherwise dealing with some sort of brain deficiency. Praying for you Danc.

Who takes him seriously now?

 

[Ohio Guy]

Who takes him seriously now?

Ha...good point.

 

[outside shooter]

Your favorite network settled for $787 million dollars because they couldn’t prove the the election was stolen. These are undeniable facts. You countering with “nuh-huh” isn’t cutting it.

My favorite part of the Fox case was their defense. It was basically (paraphrasing here)

"Sure, the information on our broadcasts relating to this issue was inaccurate, but everyone ought to know that the people in question (Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, et. al) are NOT new reporters. They merely offer political opinion and entertainment, which is distinct from news reporting and separate from our news organization. Thus nobody was deceived by merely listening to opinions that turned out to be unsupported. Much like people are not deceived by sports pundits on other networks picking in advance the wrong team to win a game"

 

[abraxis]

Emphasis on "MY".

You grown men abiding this need to untuck your junk and come back to the fold and start helping Americans instead of hurting them. Shame on you.

"MY beautiful Christians" is just so ****ing weird and perverted...no self respecting man would lap from this dude's little dish he sits out full of trash.

And shame on The Rock, Hulk, Dana White, etc. for being such sycophant sissies. Yeah, big men. Go ahead and jump on the bully train. They need you. All the big bad dudes who love to roll around on the mat together aligning up w Trump so they can make fun of cat ladies, gays, and trans people....this coming from men completely obsessed with their own bodies (greased up sexy bitch style).

Conservative intellectuals...lol...you must be so bummed out. All your haughty totty philosophy and, in the end, it comes down to "like to fight guys" w little dicks.

It’s probably a good time for you to take down your holier-than-thou “Hate Has No Home Here”, next to your “Just Be Kind” yard sign.

 

[DANC]

Wait - are you saying there were no court cases that involved claims of election interference and/or claims that the election was stolen? If you’re not going to at least acknowledge proof presented to you, people aren’t going to take you seriously.

People lost real/actual court cases because they couldn’t prove their claims of voter fraud/stolen election. Your favorite network settled for $787 million dollars because they couldn’t prove the the election was stolen. These are undeniable facts. You countering with “nuh-huh” isn’t cutting it.

I’m not concerned with you trying to insult me in the least bit. I’m concerned that you might have suffered a head injury or otherwise dealing with some sort of brain deficiency. Praying for you Danc.

OK, so you don't know the difference between court cases about the election and defamation suits or legal action taken against reporting.

You should have just said so.

 

[Ohio Guy]

OK, so you don't know the difference between court cases about the election and defamation suits or legal action taken against reporting.

You should have just said so.

This isn't the hill you should pick to die on. You've lost this argument a long time ago. To lose a defamation case, you have to be accused of defamation. In order for a charge of defamation to stick you have to have defamed someone. In this case, most if not all the people I mentioned above lost their defamation cases because they were lying about the 2020 election being stolen. So to put a bow on this - and read and reread this carefully so in sinks in - since none of those defendants could provide any proof that the election was fraudulent or stolen they got their asses kicked in court. All of them did. Kind of similar to the way you've gotten your ass kicked up down this forum all day.

If they could prove their baseless claims that the election was stolen, don't you think they would have?

Oh and isn't a defamation suit that's brought to court/before a judge a court case? And who rules on 'legal action against reporting?'

 

[DANC]

This isn't the hill you should pick to die on. You've lost this argument a long time ago. To lose a defamation case, you have to be accused of defamation. In order for a charge of defamation to stick you have to have defamed someone. In this case, most if not all the people I mentioned above lost their defamation cases because they were lying about the 2020 election being stolen. So to put a bow on this - and read and reread this carefully so in sinks in - since none of those defendants could provide any proof that the election was fraudulent or stolen they got their asses kicked in court. All of them did. Kind of similar to the way you've gotten your ass kicked up down this forum all day.

If they could prove their baseless claims that the election was stolen, don't you think they would have?

Oh and isn't a defamation suit that's brought to court/before a judge a court case? And who rules on 'legal action against reporting?'

Sad you conflate a lawsuit against Fox with a lawsuit challenging election results.

But you've proven you're not that bright.

 

[IU_Hickory]

My favorite part of the Fox case was their defense. It was basically (paraphrasing here)

"Sure, the information on our broadcasts relating to this issue was inaccurate, but everyone ought to know that the people in question (Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, et. al) are NOT new reporters. They merely offer political opinion and entertainment, which is distinct from news reporting and separate from our news organization. Thus nobody was deceived by merely listening to opinions that turned out to be unsupported. Much like people are not deceived by sports pundits on other networks picking in advance the wrong team to win a game"

They are seriously comparing knowingly lying vs picking a winner for an upcoming game?

No wonder they lost.

The better comparison would be someone saying "Northern Illinois lost to Notre Dame" after the game was completed knowing full well that NIU had won. It's not opinion when knowingly saying the opposite of what actually happened.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Sad you conflate a lawsuit against Fox with a lawsuit challenging election results.

But you've proven you're not that bright.

Why do you think Fox News was sued? What was it that they were reporting that got them into hot water? Why did they ultimately have to dole out $787 million dollars?

Making baseless claims about a fraudulent election/the election being stolen was why there was a lawsuit against Fox News. If they could prove that the election actually was stolen - something they couldn't do because it obviously wasn't - they would have won their case.

And for what it's worth, I've proven again and again that I'm worlds brighter than you could ever dream to be. But to be fair, that's a pretty low bar. Most people posting here do that daily.

I look forward to your laugh emoji on this post. I've come to accept that is sort of a nervous laugh when you don't know what else to say.

 

[Bowlmania]

Why do you think Fox News was sued? What was it that they were reporting that got them into hot water? Why did they ultimately have to dole out $787 million dollars?

Making baseless claims about a fraudulent election/the election being stolen was why there was a lawsuit against Fox News. If they could prove that the election actually was stolen - something they couldn't do because it obviously wasn't - they would have won their case.

And for what it's worth, I've proven again and again that I'm worlds brighter than you could ever dream to be. But to be fair, that's a pretty low bar. Most people posting here do that daily.

I look forward to your laugh emoji on this post. I've come to accept that is sort of a nervous laugh when you don't know what else to say.

Some of the cases were tossed for lack of standing. danc, in typical bad-faith posting form, dishonestly suggests that they all were.

The article below summarizes the dozens of loser cases filed by Trump's legal team after he lost the election. The comments of the two judges I've cited below stand out:

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann, a lifelong Republican and former chair of the Bradford County (PA) Republican Committee: "This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee: "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

Trump is going to pull this same shit again. He's going to lose at the polls on November 5, stomp his feet, cry "Fraud!" and file a blizzard of legal actions. I just hope our system and institutions hold.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Some of the cases were tossed for lack of standing. danc, in typical bad-faith posting form, dishonestly suggests that they all were.

The article below summarizes the dozens of loser cases filed by Trump's legal team after he lost the election. The comments of the two judges I've cited below stand out:

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann, a lifelong Republican and former chair of the Bradford County (PA) Republican Committee: "This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee: "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

Trump is going to pull this same shit again. He's going to lose at the polls on November 5, stomp his feet, cry "Fraud!" and file a blizzard of legal actions. I just hope our system and institutions hold.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

DANC is a serial liar. He follows the lead of his favorite politician.

 

[Bowlmania]

DANC is a serial liar. He follows the lead of his favorite politician.

Yes, which is why I've stopped responding to him. Complete waste of time.

I spend very little time here anymore. There are some good posters including you and Ohio, but many/most are attention seekers, trolls, angry old men, hyperpartisan hacks, badly misinformed and/or really effing stupid. Just not worth my time.

I'm enjoying IU football. This could (operative word "could") be a special season. You should hop on the bandwagon.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yes, which is why I've stopped responding to him. Complete waste of time.

I spend very little time here anymore. There are some good posters including you and Ohio, but many/most are attention seekers, trolls, angry old men, hyperpartisan hacks, badly misinformed and/or really effing stupid. Just not worth my time.

I'm enjoying IU football. This could (operative word "could") be a special season. You should hop on the bandwagon.

What do you mean? I’m a IU sports fan. I’ve never been off the bandwagon.

 

[DANC]

Why do you think Fox News was sued? What was it that they were reporting that got them into hot water? Why did they ultimately have to dole out $787 million dollars?

Making baseless claims about a fraudulent election/the election being stolen was why there was a lawsuit against Fox News. If they could prove that the election actually was stolen - something they couldn't do because it obviously wasn't - they would have won their case.

And for what it's worth, I've proven again and again that I'm worlds brighter than you could ever dream to be. But to be fair, that's a pretty low bar. Most people posting here do that daily.

I look forward to your laugh emoji on this post. I've come to accept that is sort of a nervous laugh when you don't know what else to say.

You are hopeless. I've tried to show you the difference and you're just unteachable. Rave on.

 

[sobester]

I don’t deny Kenrucky is shitty, but it does have a great governor.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear signs executive order banning conversion therapy

The scientifically discredited treatment, which aims to change an LGBTQ person's sexual orientation or gender identity, is now banned for minors in 24 states.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Ohio Guy]

You are hopeless. I've tried to show you the difference and you're just unteachable. Rave on.

lol - you’re ignoring a keep point to all this and I’m not the only one to point out that you’re wrong. You can’t just ignore facts if you’re going to have big boy conversations.

You’re wrong. And probably a little slow.

 

[DANC]

lol - you’re ignoring a keep point to all this and I’m not the only one to point out that you’re wrong. You can’t just ignore facts if you’re going to have big boy conversations.

You’re wrong. And probably a little slow.

All I see is a Kamala-like word salad.

 

[UncleMark]

Making baseless claims about a fraudulent election/the election being stolen was why there was a lawsuit against Fox News. If they could prove that the election actually was stolen - something they couldn't do because it obviously wasn't - they would have won their case.

Actually, the case was not about the "stolen" election, it was about claims that Dominion voting machines were used to cheat, with Dominion's involvement.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Actually, the case was not about the "stolen" election, it was about claims that Dominion voting machines were used to cheat, with Dominion's involvement.

For the purpose of replying to him, that's sort of splitting hairs. If everyone who lost or settled those court cases could prove that Dominion voting machines were used to cheat, or ultimately to steal the election, they wouldn't have lost or settled their court cases.