The Post says: give it up Mr. Present for your sake and the nation's

By 'truth' Im guessing you mean the establishment narrative.

 

No, Biden won, period, it is your personal issue that you can't accept it !!!!

 

Sorry dude, but rationalizing your blind devotion to Trump by ranting about what Biden MIGHT do is pathetic.

I have no illusions about what Biden is, and I'm sure he will sign off on far too much spending for my taste. But I doubt he will spend his days ranting against the windmill that is twitter, nor praising foreign dictators while bashing our own intelligence services. And while Trump ties to bring back coal, I would hope that Biden recognizes that the future of the world is in high paying tech jobs.

 

And yet, that isn't what I've asked, was it? I asked what will you do? Will you be consistent? I doubt it, but time will tell. And as your orange man bad fades from the spotlight, will you stand up and criticize what the democratic president does? You seem unwilling to look deeply there, and that begs why such a myopic tact from you? I truly get that you don't understand the world. Just as when ms Clinton and mr Obama were selling their "reset", and milk and honey flowed... you were where again?

 

Not everyone is relentlessly partisan.

 

I still think he is right but I also think he needs to give it up. Society isn't going to give him a second term. That has been obvious for four years.

 

True that! The last time such a show occurred was when the Southern Traitors met to form the Confederacy and spit upon the graves of the founding fathers.

 

How is Biden selling out anyone? No hapenning. If Joe was selling out the Moskainyks I say Good Show and sponsor him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Trump should concede right after Stacy Abrams concedes.

 

You left out the people that believe Bush didn't win against Gore and Trump against Clinton. Why was that? And I believe Southerners were much smarter than you about the Constituion and knew that the SCOTUS cannot overturn a constitutional amendment so there was no wondering.

 

So that must be why the retirement associations in Florida called The Villages have rules that all residents must wear Vencro secured shoes.

The Villages voted something like 67% Trump according to a neighbor of mine who is a SnowBird. He is not a fan of the Trumpocity so there is no reason for him to lie.

 

Until you can establish a different narrative that gains even a modicum of support from the courts, that's all there is.

 

Why should Trump give up? There is no reason to.

 

What do you see as the best-case scenario for Trump?

 

I really do not give a Schiest about your opinion since all you are trying to do is make personal attacks.
But you are wronger than wrong about the SCOTUS not being able to overturn a Constitutional amendment. Get yourself educated and look up the concept of an unconstitutional Constitutional amendment. So never say never and go and learn how to debate properly.

If you looked at the history honestly you would see two crucial things:

1-The Bush Vs Gore ballot diferences were extremely close as compared to the 2020 battleground state and the issues were vastly different.
2- The Gore gophers did not file 55-60 false, unsubstantiated, lie infested, law suits based on MUS.

Go and do your due diligence and educate yourself the next time you have some uncontrollable urge to call someone here wrong.

 

What's at stake is the integrity of our elections. Without that, we have no democracy; but instead a system where our elections are no longer determined by the voters, but by those who count the votes. That's not a democracy, that's a Banana Republic, and that's where we are at today.

 

That's the allegation. So far no court has agreed with you.

 

No court has chosen to take it up, which proves nothing either way, other than the passivity of the courts.

 

You just used your personal opinion to attack Southerners so you have no standing to whine when it is used in kind.

An Amendment duly passed is PART of the Constitution, changes the Constitution and does not require the approval of the SCOTUS or review by the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS is bound to protect the Constitution as the Congress and States write it. There can't be an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment". There have been cases about the proceed for passing a particular Amendment but that is a different issue. But if you have a case where the SCOTUS stuck down a duly passed amendment I'd be happy to look at it.

1- strawman doesn't matter how close was the election and the SCOTUS decision didn't rely on how close, it relied on the Constitution in ruling the FSC had no constitutional authority to change the rules of the election and allow hand recounts the state legislature did not authorize. The same issue in PA with the Secretary of State changing the rules of the election and other states where other unauthorized officials did the same.

2- Gore filed first in the Circuit court and had his arse handed to him in a wringer by Judge Saul. So he went pleading to the FSC to allow him to have selective recounts, he was fighting tooth and nail trying to change the outcome of the election. The number of lawsuits has no bearing, another strawman.

You have yet to show where I need any education in the matter while exposing where you do.

 

Judge Brann: "One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption. Instead, this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations … unsupported by the evidence.”

 

Of course when evidence is not allowed it is easy to say such a thing.

 

Sufficient evidence should have been in the filing. If they didn't have sufficient evidence, they had no reason to expect the case to be taken.

 

Not in a civil case. Only a complaint is filed.

 

Not unless you actually value the country more than a child-like bruised ego.

 

They've attempted to provide "evidence," it's just been complete garbage