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

ohnonotgmail

VinLieger wrote: »

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.

that isn't true. If a case is dismissed with prejudice it means that the court will no longer consider it. That dismissal can be appealed to a higher court and the higher court can order the lower court to reconsider it.

Notmything

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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

All that can happen is the SC could send the appealled case back to the court it was initially heard in.

Problem is there is no evidence (or so it would have to be produced by now), trump's cases are being dismissed without being heard so limited grounds for appeal and his elite team of lawyers are confusing Michigan with Minnesota while being bat**** crazy.

But yeah, all going to plan.

VinLieger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isn't true. If a case is dismissed with prejudice it means that the court will no longer consider it. That dismissal can be appealed to a higher court and the higher court can order the lower court to reconsider it.

Ahh gotcha, but the case itself cant be appealed only the dismissal which then needs to go back to the lower court.

everlast75

DrumSteve wrote: »

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.

Wasn't it a Trump appointed federalist judge that laid the almighty smackdown on Rudy et al in PA?

What planet must you be on to presume that a SCOTUS would make such a wildy inappropriate ruling that would hand Trump the Victory? Scratch that, you'd need *the majority* of the judges to do so.

Utterly, utterly insane

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

No, had my budget for gambling on this from my winnings the last time around. Perfectly happy to let it play out with what I'm holding.
What do you think I'm saying, I don't think it's what you think.
I've never said I believe any of it, I'm just not writing off Trump just yet.
My own personal opinion, it's not the dodgy ballots he's going after, it's a rerun of the Russian collusion just this time it's Jack and Mark in the hot seats.

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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

they are correct. the supreme court adjudicates on facts of law. if there are new facts they send it back to the lower court.

ohnonotgmail

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahh gotcha, but the case itself cant be appealed only the dismissal which then needs to go back to the lower court.

exactimundo

Notmything

everlast75 wrote: »

Wasn't it a Trump appointed federalist judge that laid the almighty smackdown on Rudy et al in PA?

What planet must you be on to presume that a SCOTUS would make such a wildy inappropriate ruling that would hand Trump the Victory? Scratch that, you'd need *the majority* of the judges to do so.

Utterly, utterly insane

Obama appointee but a conservative republican.

robinph

Was driving through an industrial estate this morning and had a double take. Quick reverse to get a picture, didn't drive over any melting former New York mayors.

Smee_Again

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are correct. the supreme court adjudicates on facts of law. if there are new facts they send it back to the lower court.

This is much more succinct than I could have written.

uptherebels

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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

Lad, your 500(was it?)euro is gone.

ohnonotgmail

everlast75 wrote: »

Wasn't it a Trump appointed federalist judge that laid the almighty smackdown on Rudy et al in PA?

What planet must you be on to presume that a SCOTUS would make such a wildy inappropriate ruling that would hand Trump the Victory? Scratch that, you'd need *the majority* of the judges to do so.

Utterly, utterly insane

actually it was an Obama appointed judge but the republican senator for PA recommended that he be nominated.

ohnonotgmail

Smee_Again wrote: »

This is much more succinct than I could have written.

*curtsies*

namloc1980

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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

No doubt you're regretting not cashing out on the Wednesday morning after the election but you need to let it go.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No, had my budget for gambling on this from my winnings the last time around. Perfectly happy to let it play out with what I'm holding.

Well if it's outside your budget, how about another offer? I will donate €500 to charity if Trump gets a second term, and all I ask from you if you're wrong is to upload a video to this thread saying that Biden won fair and square. How does that sound?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've never said I believe any of it, I'm just not writing off Trump just yet.
My own personal opinion, it's not the dodgy ballots he's going after, it's a rerun of the Russian collusion just this time it's Jack and Mark in the hot seats.

Would you like me to quote the dozens of posts from you that shows that this is a lie?

drunkmonkey

namloc1980 wrote: »

No doubt you're regretting not cashing out on the Wednesday morning after the election but you need to let it go.

Yea sure should have taken profit and let the rest ride, how was I to know they'd try and steal the election.

Simple fact is the money is still in play, now writing it off just yet but I'm not going spending the winnings prematurely either.

robinph

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea sure should have taken profit and let the rest ride, how was I to know they'd try and steal the election.

Simple fact is the money is still in play, now writing it off just yet but I'm not going spending the winnings prematurely either.

Trump had been telling you since 2016 that they were going to steal the election from him, then he won but they still cheated, then he setup an investigation into how he'd lost but won which found that he'd not been cheated, then he lost and lost in 2020... Yet you've been taken by surprise that they stole the election from him and despite having the option for a payout before the cheating which Trump had been warning about for over 4 years you decided not to take the money?

ElChe32

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea sure should have taken profit and let the rest ride, how was I to know they'd try and steal the election.

Simple fact is the money is still in play, now writing it off just yet but I'm not going spending the winnings prematurely either.

Good lord..

Leroy42

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea sure should have taken profit and let the rest ride, how was I to know they'd try and steal the election.

Simple fact is the money is still in play, now writing it off just yet but I'm not going spending the winnings prematurely either.

How were you to know? Trump had been telling everyone for months?

Don't tell me you didn't listen to him?

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if it's outside your budget, how about another offer? I will donate €500 to charity if Trump gets a second term, and all I ask from you if you're wrong is to upload a video to this thread saying that Biden won fair and square. How does that sound?



Would you like me to quote the dozens of posts from you that shows that this is a lie?

I'm not betting forget about it.

Where have I said I believe Q anon or any of that. Suggesting something does not mean you believe it. It's just putting it out there for discussion.
I mentioned the servers this morning, do you think I believe it or the Kraken story.
I preferred Trump over Hillary and I preferred Trump over Biden and enjoy the show with all it's crazyness that's all.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not betting forget about it.

So why are you denying a charity a 50% chance of winning €500 at no cost to you?

The only reason I can think of is that you don't truly believe it is 50%, do you?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I mentioned the servers this morning, do you think I believe it or the Kraken story.

Yes, because how else do you believe Trump has a 50% chance of winning?

PropJoe10

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea sure should have taken profit and let the rest ride, how was I to know they'd try and steal the election.

Simple fact is the money is still in play, now writing it off just yet but I'm not going spending the winnings prematurely either.

When is Trump going to provide proof that the election was stolen from him?

robinph

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not betting forget about it.

Where have I said I believe Q anon or any of that. Suggesting something does not mean you believe it. It's just putting it out there for discussion.
I mentioned the servers this morning, do you think I believe it or the Kraken story.
I preferred Trump over Hillary and I preferred Trump over Biden and enjoy the show with all it's crazyness that's all.

If you are posting wild theories and don't believe them then say so. It shouldn't take 10 pages of you being told by the rest of us that it's nonsense for you to then switch positions and instead claim that you never said anything about said wild theory you'd been previously pushing as valid.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

So why are you denying a charity a 50% chance of winning €500 at no cost to you?

The only reason I can think of is that you don't truly believe it is 50%, do you?

I've just no interest in any more betting on the outcome. It's nothing to do with my belief Trump can still swing this around.

Might have a few small bets on the gaa finals that's me done for the year.

drunkmonkey

robinph wrote: »

If you are posting wild theories and don't believe them then say so. It shouldn't take 10 pages of you being told by the rest of us that it's nonsense for you to then switch positions and instead claim that you never said anything about said wild theory you'd been previously pushing as valid.

Hold up I didn't say there nonsense either. I want to see all this mud slinging play out.

namloc1980

PropJoe10 wrote: »

When is Trump going to provide proof that the election was stolen from him?

In about 2 weeks with his Healthcare Plan.

Eric Cartman

VinLieger wrote: »

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.

thanks for that. So its just another mad theory about what he's doing so...

Leroy42

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Suggesting something does not mean you believe it. It's just putting it out there for discussion.
I mentioned the servers this morning, do you think I believe it or the Kraken story.
I preferred Trump over Hillary and I preferred Trump over Biden and enjoy the show with all it's crazyness that's all.

You said you were 100% certain Trump would win. Not sort of, not there is a possibility. You are not suggesting anything. You believe that the vote was stolen.

People are merely asking for you to provide the evidence on which your opinion is based.

All of Trumps evidence has been thrown out of court, so you must know something they haven't released yet. What is it?

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've just no interest in any more betting on the outcome. It's nothing to do with my belief Trump can still swing this around.

Might have a few small bets on the gaa finals that's me done for the year.

You're denying a charity a 50% chance of winning €500, at no financial risk of your own, because you say you're done gambling on the election, but still plan on laying several bets within the next five weeks for your own pleasure?

Do you not see how this reflects terribly on you?

VinLieger

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thanks for that. So its just another mad theory about what he's doing so...

Yup people trying to claim hes play 17 dimensional chess or whatever.