And too, as I’ve stated since the election, ardent Trump supporters are going to fly everybody the finger and not follow medical guidelines, (several here have stated so) particularly with masks, so no president is going to have quick success with this…
I travel and live between three states for my offices , two Ruby red, one blue, and mask wearing definitely breaks along political lines. Far far less participation the more red you get.
I know I walk around deep blue Boston with no mask on and when I get a stare I start laughing so hard lol and call the man a wuss lol
Some Americans have become morally bankrupt.
Georgia Election Data Shows 17,650 Votes Switched From Trump to Biden: Data Scientists
Georgia election data indicates 17,650 votes were switched from President Donald Trump to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, data scientists testified on Wednesday during a state Senate hearing.
A team led by Lynda McLaughlin, along with data scientists Justin Mealey and Dave Lobue, presented the results before the Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections.
The left and people like monte claim Trump is morally bankrupt and then choses to ignore the fraud just as long as Trump is history. That is beyond morally bankrupt!
The fake ballots in Georgia missing the bar code, votes for Biden:
The governor of Michigan decided to erase the voting machines in Mich so they couldn’t be examined as the voter logs did not match the machines.
That is morally bankrupt.
3 Likes
Just FYI, the lines are the mask mandate effective dates.
The fucking virtue signaling is annoying as hell. It’s amazing they don’t realize the masks are ineffective.
1 Like
It’s all about control, communist need to control
2 Likes
Can you explain to me the purpose of the money and effort spent by the Trump administration to encourage Americans to wear them then. You know that trump said wearing your mask is patriotic…
The moron doesn’t read either, he just wants to remind everybody here that sheep’s exist. Never mind having cognitive abilities to look at the data objectively, they just bend over for some more dab nab and jab!
As if having substance was such a thing? 
1 Like
1 Like
I’m reading through the cases filed over the last few days and when it comes to many I’m seeing where “laches” comes into play – when cases regarding elections are filed and/or presented in court, it’s extremely important to present to the court one’s argument prior to procedural steps have began, and even before a single vote is cast. Laches is a a greek word only really used in court – basically it’s defined by a delayed claim that is subsequently unreasonable (due to the delay and time filed that subsequently causes a biased consequence if ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor).
For example, Trump and Pence’s case filed in Michigan (the last one that was asked to be ruled upon, which happens to be around the same time many of them were filed) just wasn’t strong AND was an obvious a last long shot attempt that was presented way too late. Just 4 years early, Trump won the state with the same voting procedural (3 minor aspects of how applications are processed) used to win the state. Even though the argument was directly focused on 2 counties, I believe, 11 other counties had the same process in place since 2010 approx. So, it’s reasonable to discern it very well could have been an issue presented much, much earlier if it was known to exist. The only way it was identified was AFTER the act–so to preserve the sanctity of all legal votes, and the plaintiff aware of the state’s count, it is a doubly weak complaint, hence no ruling.
"Laches is
founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant, and not those
who sleep on their rights to the detriment of the opposing party."
"Extreme diligence and promptness are required in
election-related matters, particularly where actionable
election practices are discovered prior to the election.
Therefore, laches is available in election challenges.
In fact, in election contests, a court especially
considers the application of laches. Such doctrine is
applied because the efficient use of public resources
demands that a court not allow persons to gamble on the
outcome of an election contest and then challenge it
when dissatisfied with the results, especially when the
same challenge could have been made before the public is
put through the time and expense of the entire election
process. Thus if a party seeking extraordinary relief
in an election-related matter fails to exercise the
requisite diligence, laches will bar the action."
So many nuances in government and legal rulings. Casting a vote is an act as sacred, almost to going to church, or worship, perhaps. It’s something that we know makes a difference but we all must participate for it to work (ie, face masking).
Judges, even though one may lean right and the other left, are hopefully in their position for a good reason and know when and when not to rule on a matter. Many judges, I know, passed over the cases. So it’s a shame for Trump’s campaign he couldn’t get a ruling, but would rulings in his favor even cause a difference in most of the cases ? (If true tangle evidence was presented, of course, from what is being stated by plaintiff, the request can’t be honored because election is over and counted, certified, etc.) Would a ruling uphold the law and not defy past rulings on elections (which law is based on) and would plaintiff be in court if votes were in the favor of his campaign?
Still reading the cases, so I’ll chime in somewhere if I feel I can add some thought.
1 Like