Trump might win in 2024.impartialobserver » 29 Dec 2023, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑ just simple politics. My prediction is that Trump wins.
2+2......impartialobserver » 29 Dec 2023, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑ just simple politics. My prediction is that Trump wins.
impartialobserver » 29 Dec 2023, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑ another example of your lack of intellect. Keep digging.
At least I know what year it is.....impartialobserver » 29 Dec 2023, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑ another example of your lack of intellect. Keep digging.
What's your PHD stand for......Piled, High, and Deep?impartialobserver » 29 Dec 2023, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑ mixing up your threads. So easily confused are you
RebelGator » 29 Dec 2023, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑ What's your PHD stand for......Piled, High, and Deep?
You're the one confused, and when it's pointed out, you double-down with more stupid.
Why don't you just let it go.Monderegal » 29 Dec 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑ Or is it just politics as usual? Everyone knows it's a dirty game.
trump is to blame. the supreme court ruled against him every time yet he continued to yell fraud. the supreme court said that people could vote for him and biden during lock down but he continued to yell about unfair voting practices. he also had ridiculous theories about venesuela. sydney powell also has responsibility.Z09 » 29 Dec 2023, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑ I think there was so fraud going on
Enough to overturn an election?
Don't know..
Politics is ugly
And the country is divided..
And the media is to blame
You're a mop.Z09 » 29 Dec 2023, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑ I think there was so fraud going on
Enough to overturn an election?
Don't know..
Politics is ugly
And the country is divided..
And the media is to blame
Whoa, whoa, whoa - why drag my alma mater into your dispute with him?impartialobserver » 02 Jan 2024, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑ Your stupidity knows no bounds. You must be an alumnus of Crappensberg State.
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!
The SCOTUS never heard a case to rule against, son.jerrab » 04 Jan 2024, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ trump is to blame. the supreme court ruled against him every time
they declined to hear the cases because of lack of merit.Cannonpointer » 04 Jan 2024, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑ The SCOTUS never heard a case to rule against, son.
Learn how the courts wo
Amazing how many "well to do" poll watchers and election workers came forward and made statements under oath about what they thought was fraud.jerrab » 04 Jan 2024, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑ they declined to hear the cases because of lack of merit.
------------------------------------------------------------
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-do ... 44b979bcec
The Supreme Court succinctly rejected an effort from President Donald Trump and his Republican allies Friday to wipe out the 2020 presidential election results in four key states and help keep him in the White House.The decision all but ends Trump’s ineffectual legal push over the past few weeks to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election — one that included allegations of voter fraud in mail-in ballots or tabulating shenanigans in key states that went unproven , and loss after loss in state and federal courts.
GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Jan 2024, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑ Amazing how many "well to do" poll watchers and election workers came forward and made statements under oath about what they thought was fraud.
These are people who unlike you have good reputations that they care about.