Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

A soccer team should try this some day.

"That 12th man on the pitch is not a part of our team. He's just in the defence".

Look at Tipperary yesterday, flew home a chap from Australia for the second half who was not part of the team until then.

VinLieger

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We the people.

Jebus you've really drunk the kool aid haven't you?

drunkmonkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so if it hasn't been filed how do you know who she is representing?

Because she said it.

Cody montana

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It ain't over. I wouldn't be celebrating just yet if I was a Biden supporter, this is 2020 after all.

Do you think trump can still win?

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Because she said it.

but the only lawyers who file cases on behalf of "the people" are government lawyers. what government department is she working for?

drunkmonkey

Cody montana wrote: »

Do you think trump can still win?

Right now I think anything is possible, as he says himself never bet against him.

Cody montana

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Right now I think anything is possible, as he says himself never bet against him.

Is that a yes or no?

drunkmonkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but the only lawyers who file cases on behalf of "the people" are government lawyers. what government department is she working for?

Just sit back and relax, wait for it to unfold.

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Right now I think anything is possible, as he says himself never bet against him.

in his previous life he could strongarm people and they would do what he wants. that isn't working any more.

drunkmonkey

Cody montana wrote: »

Is that a yes or no?

Was that not obvious

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just sit back and relax, wait for it to unfold.

Oh I'm very relaxed. She is a QAnon nutcase. If there was evidence that could overturn the election then trumps teams would have produced it in court. That they haven't shows that it doesn't exist. there is no 3D chess playing going on. They couldn't even spell Tom Wolfs name properly in an affidavit.

namloc1980

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just sit back and relax, wait for it to unfold.

Absolutely. It's been great entertainment so far, from Trump crying on Twitter to Four Seasons Total Landscaping to Rudy's hair dye melting to Sidney Powell's whacky conspiracy theories. It's been a riot. My favourite part so far is the 34 lost/dismissed court cases. Looking forward to more of that!

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Was that not obvious

Here's a better question to test your delusion. Do you think Trump will win?

Only answer yes or no.

drunkmonkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Oh I'm very relaxed. She is a QAnon nutcase. If there was evidence that could overturn the election then trumps teams would have produced it in court. That they haven't shows that it doesn't exist. there is no 3D chess playing going on. They couldn't even spell Tom Wolfs name properly in an affidavit.

It takes a while to put a credible case together, no harm throwing a few soft balls while they getting things together.
I'm happy to just watch it all play out over the next two months.

Eric Cartman

Theres a suggestion the cases are being intentionally badly argued to get up and argue them in the supreme court where ‘favours will be called in’

Now im not sure how likely/realistic this is , but could trumps end game be to bring a few of these to the supreme court and have them do his bidding ?

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just sit back and relax, wait for it to unfold.

Coming up on 3 weeks post-election.

They have produced no evidence that would cast doubt on the result. Not a shred.

Every claim they have made has either been proven completely false, or been found to have occurred in individual cases, and committed by Republicans.

One recount has confirmed Biden's victory.

Another recount is being delayed by Republicans frustrating the process.

So if you think "winning" is a possibility at this stage, you are aware that the only route now is to cheat. To tamper with the process in such a way that it allows for a wholly undemocratic outcome to occur.

And you are no doubt happy with that, because it's not cheating if the right person wins, right?

But if all of the states were to shut down the appeals processes now, certify their results & ban republicans from filing any lawsuits until the electors were selected and cast their votes, you would cry foul. You'd say it's cheating.

But you'd be perfectly happy for Trump to cheat.

VinLieger

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theres a suggestion the cases are being intentionally badly argued to get up and argue them in the supreme court where ‘favours will be called in’

Now im not sure how likely/realistic this is , but could trumps end game be to bring a few of these to the supreme court and have them do his bidding ?

The problem with that theory is is they have to lose the cases for that to happen, so far the cases are being dismissed with prejudice due to how badly they are constructed and the complete lack of evidence, which basically is the judge telling them to gtfo and never come back.

Dismissed cases cannot be appealed to a higher court.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's a better question to test your delusion. Do you think Trump will win?

Only answer yes or no.

Couldn't call it either way, 50/50 at this stage. I'm 100% sure Biden has not won, the fact your posing the question tells me you have doubts yourself and know Biden hasn't officially won.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Couldn't call it either way, 50/50 at this stage. I'm 100% sure Biden has not won, the fact your posing the question tells me you have doubts yourself and know Biden hasn't officially won.

Eh no, I have no doubt that Biden has won.

And I know you don't actually think this because you are going to ignore my next question.

Charity bet?

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theres a suggestion the cases are being intentionally badly argued to get up and argue them in the supreme court where ‘favours will be called in’

Now im not sure how likely/realistic this is , but could trumps end game be to bring a few of these to the supreme court and have them do his bidding ?

And that suggestion completely ignores how the courts system works, the Supreme Court is an appeals court so in general new evidence can't be introduced.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Georgia has been certified, Pennsylvania is due to be certified today.

At this stage, Powell should be certified...

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh no, I have no doubt that Biden has won.

And I know you don't actually think this because you are going to ignore my next question.

Charity bet?

Don't need a charity bet, my money is tied up in Georgia and Penselvania that Biden hasn't won clearly.

ElChe32

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't need a charity bet, my money is tied up in Georgia and Penselvania that Biden hasn't won clearly.

"Tied up" you mean it's lost. Give your head a wobble man, it's over.

drunkmonkey

Smee_Again wrote: »

And that suggestion completely ignores how the courts system works, the Supreme Court is an appeals court so in general new evidence can't be introduced.

Are you sure new evidence can't be introduced in a case, I'm not sure your correct on that.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't need a charity bet, my money is tied up in Georgia and Penselvania that Biden hasn't won clearly.

You don't need a charity bet? That's the wording of gambling addict.

Even though you say it's 50/50, I'll be nice and lay you 10/1 odds? I'll donate €200 if Trump stays president and you donate €20.

How does that sound? Why would you turn down the 50% chance of a charity getting €200 if you truly believe what you are saying?

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theres a suggestion the cases are being intentionally badly argued to get up and argue them in the supreme court where ‘favours will be called in’

Now im not sure how likely/realistic this is , but could trumps end game be to bring a few of these to the supreme court and have them do his bidding ?

extremely unrealistic. there is no 3d chess played here. Take for instance the case in PA that was dismissed with prejudice. If they lose their appeal (and they will) they can apply for cert to the supreme court. If they win in the Supreme Court it is not really a win. A win in the SC would simply send the case back to the lower court that already dismissed it with prejudice. Perhaps they could then file an amended affidavit with all this evidence they claim they have. But if they have all this evidence why not file it in the lower court in the first place?

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It takes a while to put a credible case together, no harm throwing a few soft balls while they getting things together.
I'm happy to just watch it all play out over the next two months.

softballs? they have embarrassed themselves, Rudy in particular.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't need a charity bet, my money is tied up in Georgia and Penselvania that Biden hasn't won clearly.

You mean Georgia that has been counted twice and declared for Biden both times?

I'd say you're that guy who keeps watching when his team is 5-0 down in the 90th minute, believing that your bet on a no-score draw will still come through somehow.

Leroy42

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Couldn't call it either way, 50/50 at this stage. I'm 100% sure Biden has not won, the fact your posing the question tells me you have doubts yourself and know Biden hasn't officially won.

100%! OK, based on what?

To be 100% you must already know the outcome, and thus how it will come about. Some vague cases that haven't even been filed yet can't be it. 'Never bet against Trump' is, to put it mildly, stupid. He has a string of bankruptcies, he is on his third marriage, he has lost countless cases, and now lost an election.

50/50 seems really odd. The votes are already counted and Biden has been declared the winner.So clearly the advantage is with Biden. So 50/50 is nonsense.

That doesn't mean Trump can't overturn it, but it is looking increasingly unlikely (actually it never looked likely, but it is increasingly unlikely he will be able to come up with anything).

DrumSteve

tbh I don't really think they are lobbing softballs while waiting for the big fish to come in.

The reason they are trying so many of these cases is to try find a sympathetic judge who will believe their lies/half truths.