US

[Apachebulldog]

Fake news msm has infected your brains

Now take Bills vaccine or you won’t get any ice cream

A massive orange f*ckwit has convinced you that news is fake. 1. Massive. Orange. F*ckwit.

How gullible are you? I've got some magic beans to sell if you're interested.

Racist

4 beans. $1000 each.

Mate you are overcharging i get my Kopi Luwak much cheaper US $1300 per kilogram.

[Apachebulldog]

And it keeps on giving now supposedly faulty computer voting machines.

America might have a new president maybe in 2022 the way this is progressing,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeEW1oeLaVE

[bulldogproud]

And it keeps on giving now supposedly faulty computer voting machines.

America might have a new president maybe in 2022 the way this is progressing,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeEW1oeLaVE

This has been totally debunked by the Department of Homeland Security, who have declared this the most secure election in US history with absolutely no evidence of any widespread fraud or problems with machines. This has also been backed up by independent international observers.

Interesting that the 'so-called witnesses' for Team Trump have started recanting on their stories and admitting to having been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their part in the Trump scam.

Also interestingly, the legal team who Trump had appointed to carry out the Pennsylvania lawsuit have pulled out, not wanting to be part of the sham anymore.

Sadly, 130 Secret Service agents who guard Donald Trump and the White House have had to quarantine themselves after having either tested positive to Covid or been a close contact. A number of Trump's other key staff have also tested positively over the past few days as Covid spreads rampantly through the White House.... all a result of Trump not giving any concern for anyone other than himself.

[stan]

Who pays for the lawyers for a legal challenge?

Does Don need to fund them himself or does the government pay?

[Magellan]

Who pays for the lawyers for a legal challenge?

Does Don need to fund them himself or does the government pay?

Neither, as far as I understand things - the Republican Party pays, since they're the ones who are challenging the votes. They've already been rattling the tins.

[Armchair expert]

Mexico will pay

[Apachebulldog]

China will pay

[bulldogproud]

Who pays for the lawyers for a legal challenge?

Does Don need to fund them himself or does the government pay?

Neither, as far as I understand things - the Republican Party pays, since they're the ones who are challenging the votes. They've already been rattling the tins.

Donald could make quite a bit of money out of his campaign to raise funds for the challenges. The Republican Party are liable for the costs of the challenges but he has set up an appeal where, unless the donation is at least $8 000, it goes to Donald personally and he can decide what to use the money for, even just allowing it to go to his personal wealth and not the Republican Party. If each of the 72 million people who voted for him were to chip in $20 on average, Donald could pocket close to $1.5 billion personally. I think I can now see why he is challenging

[Q.]

Who pays for the lawyers for a legal challenge?

Does Don need to fund them himself or does the government pay?

Neither, as far as I understand things - the Republican Party pays, since they're the ones who are challenging the votes. They've already been rattling the tins.

Donald could make quite a bit of money out of his campaign to raise funds for the challenges. The Republican Party are liable for the costs of the challenges but he has set up an appeal where, unless the donation is at least $8 000, it goes to Donald personally and he can decide what to use the money for, even just allowing it to go to his personal wealth and not the Republican Party. If each of the 72 million people who voted for him were to chip in $20 on average, Donald could pocket close to $1.5 billion personally. I think I can now see why he is challenging

A grifter to the very end.

[bulldogproud]

Who pays for the lawyers for a legal challenge?

Does Don need to fund them himself or does the government pay?

Neither, as far as I understand things - the Republican Party pays, since they're the ones who are challenging the votes. They've already been rattling the tins.

Donald could make quite a bit of money out of his campaign to raise funds for the challenges. The Republican Party are liable for the costs of the challenges but he has set up an appeal where, unless the donation is at least $8 000, it goes to Donald personally and he can decide what to use the money for, even just allowing it to go to his personal wealth and not the Republican Party. If each of the 72 million people who voted for him were to chip in $20 on average, Donald could pocket close to $1.5 billion personally. I think I can now see why he is challenging

A grifter to the very end.

This is consistent with how he made his wealth. His businesses were very unsuccessful, resulting in him not having to pay tax. His wealth has been accumulated through his ability to make 'shady' deals on the side.

[Apachebulldog]

And it keeps giving this is an old story in The Texan re ballot harvesting.

Apparently this character Dallas Jones has now been arrested if all these stories are true ?????

https://thetexan.news/biden-campaign-op ... lot-fraud/

Been reading more about these Dominion voting machines which were used in about 28 states more evidence will be coming out soon if true ??????

It keeps giving and giving and giving

[bulldogproud]

And it keeps giving this is an old story in The Texan re ballot harvesting.

Apparently this character Dallas Jones has now been arrested if all these stories are true ?????

https://thetexan.news/biden-campaign-op ... lot-fraud/

Been reading more about these Dominion voting machines which were used in about 28 states more evidence will be coming out soon if true ??????

It keeps giving and giving and giving

Nice try, Apache, but it was found that there was no vote harvesting:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/05/ ... -petition/

Additionally, cybersecurity experts have proven there was no problem with the Dominion voting machines.

Cheers

[Gozu]

If each of the 72 million people who voted for him were to chip in $20 on average, Donald could pocket close to $1.5 billion personally. I think I can now see why he is challenging

I read a newspaper article posted on another forum about a week and a half ago in which someone who is supposedly a close friend of Trump's said that he's actually glad he lost because he used to really struggle making the big decisions you need to make as president and that he's in a lot of debt due to his election campaign and all this 'disputing the election' thing is really about him gaining money from his supporters to help pay off his debts.

I've got no idea if it's true or not but like you implied Trump has always been as cunning as a shit house rat so wouldn't surprise me and also I would be willing to bet he probably never thought he would beat Hillary Clinton initially anyway otherwise he never would run in the first place.

[Armchair expert]

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... e947b31671

Sleepy Joe will 100% start a war with Iran

[Armchair expert]

Excellent work by the most peaceful US president ever

Trump getting more troops off foreign soil



Warmonger sleepy joe will no doubt send more and more

[DOC]

How can he when Trump will still be president?

[woodublieve12]

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/donald-trump-planned-nuclear-strike-after-losing-election-to-joe-biden/news-story/96e1fc2d2068c248f67759e947b31671

Sleepy Joe will 100% start a war with Iran

well Trump just starts wars on home soil...

[Magellan]

How can he when Trump will still be president?

Excellent point.

[Armchair expert]

How can he when Trump will still be president?

Excellent point.

Trump playing the smart game

Will come back in 2024 after 4 years of hell and win in a landslide

[Magellan]

Trump's Pennsylvania legal challenge falls short.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules Trump campaign observers had no right to stand within a specific distance during Philadelphia ballot processing

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/17/poli ... index.html

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 5-2 that a Trump campaign ballot processing observer in Philadelphia had no right to stand any particular distance away from election workers, and it's up to counties to decide where poll watchers can stand.

It's a significant loss for President Donald Trump's campaign at a moment in which the legal strategy to block President-elect Joe Biden's win and undermine the election results is crumbling and entering its final throes.

The state high court's ruling overturns an earlier decision that the Trump campaign had called a major win, even while it affected no actual votes in Pennsylvania. But that small win has propelled the Trump campaign in recent days to argue that vote counts across the state have been unfair and prompted them to push suspicions of fraud.

The campaign's latest loss in court comes amid a break in a hearing where Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is arguing to a federal judge there could have been widespread fraud in absentee voting in the Keystone State.

That hearing, with arguments that began this afternoon in Williamsport, is on a break because an audio phone line that allowed public access to the hearing went down.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court spelled out how the Trump campaign's observer, Jeremy Mercer, was able to do everything he was allowed under the law when he was observing the absentee ballot processing in Philadelphia. This factual record undercuts core claims the Trump campaign is still trying to make in court.

Mercer had complained he couldn't see signature declarations or other markings on envelopes, but the court said he would have only needed that information if his "primary motivation" was to challenge individual ballots -- which he, as an observer, was not allowed to do under the state law.
"Specifically, Attorney Mercer witnessed Board employees inspecting the back of ballot envelopes containing the voter's declaration, before sending them on for processing; witnessed ballots being removed from their secrecy envelopes, and naked ballots which had been delivered to the Board without a secrecy envelope being segregated from ballots which arrived within such envelopes; saw that the ballot processing methods utilized by the Board were not destroying the ballot envelopes containing the voter's declaration; and perceived that the ballot secrecy envelopes were being preserved during their processing," the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote in its opinion.

"As found by the trial court, Attorney Mercer was able to appropriately observe that the Board's employees were performing their duties under the Election Code."

All seven justices disagreed with the Trump campaign's suspicions of fraud and legal arguments aiming throw out potentially thousands of votes after the fact.

The chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Republican Thomas Saylor, wrote that the Trump campaign's apparent aim to throw out votes would be disenfranchisement.

Saylor wrote in his dissent that he "fail[ed] to see that there is a real issue here."

He pointed out that issues over how an election is administered could largely be addressed by courts before the election, and even by trial courts early during ballot counting -- not well after, as the Trump campaign has tried to do.

"There have been, and will always be, some localized irregularities," Saylor wrote of elections. "This is why courts are open throughout the election cycle, as here, to remedy these just as quickly as possible. It is also one of the reasons why we have a Commonwealth Court, with expertise in election matters, and organized to act expeditiously via single-judge consideration. ... Short of demonstrated fraud, the notion that presumptively valid ballots cast by the Pennsylvania electorate would be disregarded based on isolated procedural irregularities that have been redressed -- thus disenfranchising potentially thousands of voters -- is misguided."

Saylor and another justice, Sallie Updike Mundy, split with the rest of the court because they believed the case was now moot since ballot processing in Philadelphia is nearly complete, according to Saylor's dissent.