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

Smee_Again · 23-11-2020 11:05AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:05AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

At this stage, Powell should be certified...

drunkmonkey · 23-11-2020 11:06AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:09AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:09AM

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.

23-11-2020 11:09AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:09AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:10AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:11AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:11AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:12AM

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.

ohnonotgmail · 23-11-2020 11:14AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:14AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:15AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:15AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:16AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:16AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:16AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:17AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:18AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:18AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:18AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:18AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:20AM

Smee_Again wrote: »

This is much more succinct than I could have written.

*curtsies*

namloc1980 · 23-11-2020 11:20AM

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.

23-11-2020 11:23AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:23AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:28AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:31AM

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 · 23-11-2020 11:31AM

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?

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

Comments