AllowMeToExplain 11 points ago +11 / -0

Side question: what is this dude talking about with IPs run by the DoD? I am aware of the transfer at the end of Trump’s term, but I couldn’t find anything in the thread to enlighten me as to what he’s talking about.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m sorry that you asked a question and didn’t like the answer. Explaining how the legal system operates is not “flatulations” and dooming even if it goes completely over your head or hurts your fragile feelers. Frankly at this point, if you have any belief that any court in this country is going to do something about election fraud, I question whether you have been paying attention at all…fraud suits are batting .000 right now. It certainly isn’t dooming to read the damn court order and point out what I did. You obviously didn’t. Or for inexplicable reasons you discard substance and choose to subscribe to platitudes and hopium. And choosing symbolism over substance is precisely cope, rainbows, and unicorns.

No court is going to mess with this. Hobbs will be subject to a recall election long before any appeals are heard and resolved. That is the only way to undo this. Write it down and call me a doomer. And when that happens, you can come back here and I’ll gladly and smugly tell you I told you so.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

More cope, rainbows, and unicorns from you. Facts apparently don’t matter. Just personalities and how much money they put into something. Never mind that everything I said is correct. You attempt to rebut my observation with frivolous and weightless personality/money arguments. And “secret information” not filed in any court case…that’s a first one for me. Never had an adult go full make believe mode on me before.

AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +4 / -1

The Q movement includes anons and not just Q. And God only knows how many anons there are. This group is maligned because people don’t understand that it is basically a laboratory experiment in research and seeking truth. When you start publicly testing hypotheses, you get to see some real far out shit. You also get to be lumped in with Ron Watkins. Smearing Trump with some of the “not ready for prime time” hypotheses is big time low hanging fruit for the media.

In short, WE are the reason he doesn’t want to be associated with it. WE are far too unpredictable in what we might say or do. And we will never be afforded enough air time to defend what we say or do to the rest of the outsiders. Finally, the big one: WE will never get credit for all the stuff we’ve been right all along about.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

You chose not to listen to anything I said.

The AZ court system is not the last redress available, and elctions in AZ at the governor's level have been challenged and overturned in the past. The path is difficult but not unassailable or impossible.

I never commented on what the last redress available is. I never said they’ve not overturned an election before

The reason 100000 sigs are in question is becuase they have already been vetted and found wanting.

Not true. Anything she posted was from 2020. Take that to the bank. That was all from a hearing in the legislature about 2020. Only the cucked county has possession of the 2022 sigs and they will not turn them over. Nobody but the county has seen these since the election.

If you think Lake and Lindell are spreading falsehood by emphasizing the importance of this ruling paticualrly where signature verification is involved, I challenge you here and now to say so bluntly.

If you didn’t have the reading comprehension of a goldfish, you’d see where I pointed out that they don’t just get to jump in and do this. The AZ Supreme Court order remanded it back to the district court to either find another reason to kick this case besides laches (of which there are many specious grounds) or to hear the case about the signatures. Who do you believe on this - the AZ Supreme Court who wrote and signed the order? Or Mike Lindell and Kari Lake? You think a district court judge who booted it the first time and invented his own evidentiary standard for the rest of the case and imposed an absent from the statute mens rea for their actions is going to be like “oh gee, guess I should get on with the signatures…” instead of booting it??

Since they are the one's who have invested the millions in prosecuting this case and they contiue to be hopeful about the ultimate outcome, I choose to believe that they have more insight than either of us, and have sound reason to believe as they do. They have visibility to information that neither you nor I have, and I choose to share their optimism rather than your doom.

Like on election night when Kari Lake wasn’t worried and she had the votes? And how she wasn’t worried in the 400 days afterwards that they counted Hobbs into victory? When hasn’t she been optimistic? When has Lindell not been optimistic? And what has Lindell won besides being a staunch supporter?

List of major hurdles:

  1. not getting kicked again for failing to state a claim on other specious grounds
  2. election contest rules do not provide for examining ballot envelopes - the judge cannot simply decide it does; that would immediately get thrown out on appeal.
  3. without envelopes there can be no “conclusive and mathematically sound” basis to call the outcome into question, as required by the AZ Supreme Court’s order. It is pure speculation.
  4. reviewing the actual signatures would take substantially more time than permitted in an election contest

You can completely ignore everything I said and I don’t care. If you want to live in magic world of cope, rainbows and unicorns, have at it; I hear there is a pot of gold if you can get to the end of the rainbow. However, I choose to live in reality. If you want to have a real debate about what I said, calling me a doomer and saying that you believe Lake and Lindell over me is about the most lacking in substance “debate” I have had on this board. Neither of those 2 have addressed what I have said, and I stand by it.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

The problem is that the election contest statute provides for inspection of ballots. It says nothing about signatures. I don’t remember if it was in this specific case or in Hamadeh’s case, but the judge wouldn’t allow a look at ballot envelopes because the envelope is not a ballot and the ballot was what was in the statute.

The AZ legislature did not ever contemplate this level of egregious bullshit happening in elections. Otherwise they would have revised the contest statute to make it actually possible to successfully challenge an election. As it sits now, the process for contesting rigged elections is itself rigged.

I do not know how they are going to actually look at and compare the signatures. One has to remember that the elections contest statute is a special proceeding. It is not like other civil causes of action. It is far more limited in scope, and accelerated in time. There is little to no discovery, no depositions of witnesses, and generally rigged in favor of the election board.

Obviously this is highly problematic. These cases are radioactive for the judiciary. They don’t want them on the docket. You’re not going to find a judge who is going to defy a statute in this circumstance only to inevitably get reversed by a higher court. That’s sticking your neck out for no gain.

From the understanding that this is on an accelerated timeline as a contest, how much time would it take to do this analysis? Didn’t Dr. Shiva’s signature protocol still take a few months? I don’t see the judge allowing 30-60 days or more to accomplish this. I’d also bet that Marc Elias files for an injunction in federal court for “disenfranchising” people. Given how this case has played out so far, it wouldn’t surprise me that the petition for injunctive relief lands with the same cucked judge that sanctioned Lake for her pre-election case.

Again, I don’t want to doom. But reality is reality. This is what we are up against. I’ve yet to find a way for this to occur.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Over 30 years no testing? I can’t imagine they make it the same way as 30 years ago either…that is rather problematic to say the least.

I got dinged with a tetanus shot when i was 10 and I was bit by a big ass dog. Not sure why they did that. I stepped on a rusty nail at work a few years back and the ER doc declined to get me a shot…which was the sole purpose i went there. And I am glad because I definitely woulda regretted it.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Quite true. But why did they let him basically end the COVID bs? Without Florida and Texas standing up, we’d still be neck deep in it. Makes no sense. Any ideas what I must be missing on that?

AllowMeToExplain 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’m not trying to doom, but we should all temper expectations on what happens next. What is incorrectly being reported is that Lake will get to argue the signature verification issue. But that is skipping over what would have to happen in the meantime to get her there.

If you read the order of the AZ SC, they remand it back to the trial court saying this:

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding to the trial court to determine whether the claim that Maricopa County failed to comply with A.R.S. § 16-550(A) fails to state a claim pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for reasons other than laches, or, whether Petitioner can prove her claim as alleged pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-672 and establish that “votes [were] affected ‘in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the election’” based on a “competent mathematical basis to conclude that the outcome would plausibly have been different, not simply an untethered assertion of uncertainty.” (Opinion ¶ 11.) “

So for those wondering what the italics portion means, the trial court has a chance to find another way to dismiss this without hearing it. There are a number of specious grounds the judge could boot it.

I’ll revisit the statutes on this issue after I get some rest. But I have a suspicion that this will boil down to the witnesses. What do the whistleblowers say and what does the county say. And that is easy for a judge to simply write that he thought the county was more credible. That cannot be appealed.

AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +4 / -0

0% chance a non southwest pilot captain'd this flight. Less than 0% chance actually. The only pilots that would be commuting would have to be southwest pilots. They don't have interline agreements with other airlines. That is fiction as fiction gets. Plus the pilot union would go apeshit over that.

AllowMeToExplain 12 points ago +12 / -0

I would prefer a bill that abolishes the fed and makes congress mint currency.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +3 / -2

No. He is making it easier for them to do it. By passing this bill and having Pedo Peter veto it, one might get the idea that CBDC is ok…after all, the ban failed, right?

AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Trump Organization was who paid. I don’t know what kind of psyop is going on here, but nothing makes sense. We don’t yet have an indictment so that leaves us with rumors, leaks, and innuendo. And absolutely nothing that has been put out about the DA’s theory of the case makes sense.

Calling this a “legal expense” is not inaccurate. Settlement funds are in fact legal expenses. So how they could claim that calling it “legal expense” on the form was fraudulent misrepresentation is a real head scratcher. NY law does have a statute on falsifying business records. But NY campaign finance law does not apply to national office. So exactly what NY law requires this to be classified as an in kind campaign contribution is beyond me. I don’t think that law exists.

Manhattan DA is a state prosecutor. At best, this is a federal campaign finance law violation. Ole Alvin cannot charge anyone with violations of federal law. That is for the SDNY US Attorney’s office.

So basically wtf is going on? I know we live in clown world, but the way that the raid on mar a lago made them look retarded, there is 0% chance even a cucked soros DA would bring a non sensical case like this. Even a kindergartner would scratch their heads.

AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’ve commented ad nauseam on this Brunson case. It’s bad on so many levels. I am happy to explain if you want, or you can read my post history. This case wasn’t your particular question.

Congress can make its own rules. SCOTUS cannot interfere in 99.999999% of congressional rule disputes. If Congress tries to pass enhanced eligibility requirements beyond the constitution, for example, scotus can take that case. But most other disputes related to how that body conducts business are off limits as separation of powers. Similarly, Congress can’t tell SCOTUS who can practice law in federal courts - that is SCOTUS’ domain how to run their branch.

The fact that either legislative body did not abide by their own rules is not usually a basis to have the courts weigh in. In some circumstances, yes, but that typically involves a third party with some interest that brings the suit.

So while I love the treehouse and Sundance, there was no legal basis for them to “need” an “emergency” on this front. There was a political basis. But not legal. They could simply ignore their rule and move on to what they did. Except they’d have to explain why they did that to their constituents. It would have probably gone poorly.

How come nobody is asking all the dillholes who had pledged to vote against the problem state electors but then changed their minds after Jan 6 why 2 hours of guided tours somehow changed the fact that there was fraud in those states elections? Even if it was muh inciting erections, how does that alter the fraud element such that it is overlooked? That is what all those fools need to be ambushed with on camera.

AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

In theory, yes. NY makes extradition request to WI gov, Trump gets arrested and extradited from his campaign event there. However, they’d have to get past secret service. No idea if they’d prevent that sorta bs from happening.

AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

The danger could be that Florida’s electoral votes are gone because they might vote for the VP and not Trump as well. It is a gamble you don’t take in rigged election times. In essence, you can be from the same state if you don’t care about losing electoral votes for at least one of you. I can’t think of a single state that has so few electoral votes that its a gamble worth taking.

AllowMeToExplain 9 points ago +10 / -1

Trump has not “fled” from justice. He moved States. So this clause of the Constitution is not applicable. DeSantis could decline to extradite in this situation.

DeSantis cannot constitutionally be on the same ticket as Trump. POTUS and VP cannot be residents of the same state.

AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sounds like shilling to me. Even if true, why the hell would they pick now of all times? Trump’s lawyers could play all sorts of games that would push any trial way after next year’s election. I know they are morons, but are they so dumb as to think that having a hoax charge like “felony falsification of business records” is going to be a big help to them in the election? At least if it was a muh Russia collusion case you’d still get the die hards backing you up. This would have to leave everyone scratching their heads.

AllowMeToExplain 8 points ago +8 / -0

You know, it is possible that he could be shit for brains while also intentionally sabotaging. You can’t possibly tell me that you have watched the numerous publicly available historical clips of this guy and failed to notice that even in 1977 he was still retarded can you? This guy was the dumbest member of the senate we’ve ever had from 1972 until 2008 when he became the dumbest Vice President we have ever had. He’s a walking billboard advertising how retarded he is. Sometimes with words, other times with actions. How he has been taken seriously for over 50 years in politics is beyond a mystery.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +2 / -1

This is precisely the kind of communist shit that they have always wanted. While there is merit to the idea that executives shouldn’t get tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations they ran into the toilet, there isn’t exactly an abundance of people who have the necessary skill set and abilities to run an entity that has trillions in assets.

If you wanted to purposefully tank the banking system, you’d want a law like this. That way, nobody remotely competent is interested in assuming the liability for running a large bank. Would rather go work in a different business and make the same money without the bullshit. When the fed itself is the primary reason for causing a leverage issue in the banks, why would you put your own ass and future on the line to be accountable for what you cannot control - fed monetary policy.

AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +2 / -1

I’m not going to dispute the points you made, they are pretty much valid. But I will point out that you are making an assumption that the failure of this bank = wipe out of every dime over the FDIC limit. This isn’t the case.

This is a failure on paper. Much like the “liquidity crisis” in the 08 financial meltdown. Though it differs in that government didn’t come in and force them to write down performing assets on their books like they did for no reason other than to create the problem in 2008.

People with FDIC coverage will get their money. Unless someone ran off with all of their deposits, they should still have them. Fractional reserve banking means that they have liabilities exceeding their assets. Failing means their liabilities grossly exceed their permitted leverage. But even if over leveraged, what they got is still worth something.

This is no different than a large corporate bankruptcy. Ya, some people might get a haircut. But overall, most will make it out with something substantial if not entirely whole.

Frankly, the excuses proffered in MSM about how their bonds were killed by Fed rate hikes smells iffy. Like iffy as in probably not why. But if this is true (it is theoretically possible) what better way to shed that liability than going into receivership?

I bet Warren Buffet lets FDIC part these guys out and he comes in to pick up the best pieces. Would be par for the course. I don’t think Warren has made a deal on its merits for 30+ years. Always crony capitalism. Same way he got the railroads and Wells Fargo. Not because he’s smart. Because he is on their team.

view more: Next ›