Really...You saw a HEART beating at 6 weeks. You're a liar....not a new revelation btw. You've been a proud liar for years.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has said in a statement, “What is interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically-induced flickering of a portion of the fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops. Thus, ACOG does not use the term ‘heartbeat’ to describe these legislative bans on abortion because it is misleading language, out of step with the anatomical and clinical realities of that stage of pregnancy.”

I do not believe you work in as a medical device service tech (which wouldn't include ANY medical training, now would it) but can't spell or read above a third grade level. It's just not believable....not that it would indicate any medical knowledge if true.

Again, seeing a PULSE is not seeing a heartbeat. If they say they saw a heart at 6 weeks, report them, they're delusional. What they call it has nothing to do with reality....many nurses are anti vaxers Q followers, being in the medical field doesn't make one reasonable, logical, or right. Techs aren't doctors....and doctors fudge the truth to avoid conflict. Press them, they'll admit there's no heart, unless like you they prefer a comfortable lie to the hard truth, and believe it's better to tell a lie than a truth that might hurt your position. Probably shouldn't have admitted you think that.

Here's a citation for you to dismiss as fake news....https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/when-are-heartbeats-audible-during-pregnancy/

Btw, I stand corrected, except for changes in the muscle tissue, the basic heart is apparently formed by week 13, not 20. The muscle tissue matures around week 20. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong, unlike some.

Kind of, but the head of department is morally and ethically obligated to make note of the subordinate who made the actual discovery or breakthrough and usually shares the prize at least if it doesn’t go directly to the discovery maker alone. This is especially true when the head misinterprets and discards the data and denies any discovery was made until the discoverer, on their own, forms a hypothesis, tests it, and repeats it, all without the head of department’s involvement.

In this case, one person made the discovery and the department head dismissed it, then that subordinate on her own continued her investigation and formed her own hypothesis, tested and verified it, and only then her department head became convinced, then took ALL credit for the discovery with no mention of her. That is NOT how scientific teams work.

This wasn’t just her discovery, she figured out what it was too…her hypothesis and her testing, her repeating the discovery, almost certainly her writing it up. If she were a man, she definitely would have gotten credit for both the discovery and the hypothesis, and for confirming her hypothesis. She might not have been given the “prize” individually, but she would have definitely gotten the credit and shared in the accolades. (I think a male in the same position would have shared the prize at a minimum, and had the department head claimed credit as they did here, would have publicly disgraced the department head by proving they not only had nothing to do with the discovery, they had dismissed it when shown and added nothing at all to the hypothesis or testing it, and they would have been drummed out of the scientific community for plagiarism and theft of intellectual property).

When he dismissed her findings completely, he removed himself from the discovery and she became group leader of her own separate project. She deserves both prizes, both monetary awards, a public apology from the man who stole her work without giving her credit, and a serious civil judgement against him for any bonus, advancement, raise, accolades, or paid engagements he received based on his lie that he discovered pulsars. That’s her money that he stole.

“This family”?
This isn’t one case, Bob. It’s department policy and has been for a long time.

Agreed, it SHOULD be a big payday for these families… unfortunately that’s at taxpayer, not the police’s pension fund’s, expense….but so far in the years of this practice if the victims got anything it doesn’t seem to have payed enough to get the local government to stop it, or enough to excuse blatant and rampant abusive harassment of law abiding citizens as standard policy, even a revenue generator.

How much is the daily harassment of your children, wife, co workers, family, friends, and business contacts at their work and in their homes late at night for years by dozens of aggressive armed men trespassing and peeping in windows and threatening arrest and continued harassment if they can’t come inside to “talk” at 3 am, all because they know you….without you ever being convicted of a crime….worth?….guaranteed none of the victims of this policy have been paid that much.

It is nice to know you at least say you don’t support DeSantis style policing…so I guess you don’t support his candidacy?

Also interesting you love to dismiss constant violent civil rights violations like this by just claiming the victims will get a huge settlement and that makes it ok (most don’t, police have immunity from all but the absolute worst illegal violations, they don’t even pay to repair the doors they destroy breaking in homes with no warrant or the pets they kill while trespassing and spying on citizens….not even for the innocent people they murder when breaking into their homes at 3 am, and when they are brought to account, they often fight cases for decades first, forcing the victims to sue them over and over and over and over....expensive lawsuits against city hall that most victims can't afford to start)….but when it’s a public health issue where they’re considering forcing you to not become a biological viral lab, stopping you from mutating new viruses to release in America, suddenly your rights to be dangerously idiotic and anti science are sacrosanct, no amount of money could make up for a little ouchie, fuck those other people you kill and disable.
Anti vaxers should not only be denied insurance, but also be forced to pay for treatment of their victims.

Those are decent points, but have absolutely zero to do with the mass abandoning of their positions. It was 100% due to one of their own being charged after beating nonviolent protesters. They originally admitted exactly that, and now that they aren't being supported in their walkout, they are coming up with excuses that didn't matter to them the day before the officer was charged.

I think they should have to pay for the training and equipment they now refuse to use.

What are you talking about? You think budget cuts caused time off to be cancelled?! It costs double to not rotate in other officers, because you pay those on duty overtime, it doesn't make it cheaper. Budget cuts were not the issue when these cops were doing crowd control, only now that they're suddenly called to account for their own actions. No time off temporarily, because of extreme circumstances, was not an issue until one of their own was charged. It's certainly not abnormal, and absolutely not because of budget cuts, it costs more.

No prosecutions is the norm, if I recall, over 98% of charges levied at protesters have been dismissed nation wide, mostly because police had no evidence to back the charges they brought. You might note, as described in the article, "Mr. Schmidt immediately announced that he would focus on prosecuting cases of violence or vandalism; protesters who simply resisted arrest or refused to disperse after a police order would not necessarily be charged." They are taking a stand against anarchic violent protesters, but not the peaceful protesters with a legitimate gripe about violent, racist, deadly police acting as an anarchist gang that believes rules only apply to you, not them.

There are few prosecutions in large part because police declare riots when all participants are peaceful and not causing damage, and police are almost always the one's giving the orders to remove the people they declared "rioters", and in most cases they have zero evidence to back up their declarations, and are as violent as possible, beating peaceful videographers and reporters who were trapped and could not disperse, then charging them with refusal to disperse and resisting arrest, even violence against police for attacking police batons with their faces.
(Edit: remember the freeway shutdown when they marched on the freeway, and police blocked them from exiting or continuing while a second group of police came from behind, forcing them into a small fenced in area with no exit, then charged them all with refusal to disperse and the few that tried to disperse were charged with attacking police officers who blocked every escape route, violently attacking anyone trying to leave...all on live tv?)
Many peaceful protests became riots only after police moved in to violently disperse protests, fully 1/2 were riots because counter protesters and bad right wing actors like proud and boogaloo boys were planting bombs, shooting crowds, starting fires, driving through crowds, and murdering police in an effort to paint protesters as violent anarchists. That is verified fact directly from the DOJ investigation.

It's not a Portland only thing, police abandoning their communities because, as they indicated to the DA, "“It was like, ‘There’s our team and there’s their team, and you are on their team and you’re not on our team. And we’ve never had a D.A. not be on our team before,’” Police assume they are on a team against citizens, and won't do their jobs if, by doing them wrong with bias and malice, they might be prosecuted. They are used to immunity, and don't know how to do their jobs without it because they are abusers of power.

One day after charges were levied they quit in solidarity with the criminal abusive cop, and came up with fake excuses later.

You seem to have missed "the Justice Department said that the city’s Police Bureau was violating its own use-of-force policies during crowd-control operations, and that supervisors were not properly investigating complaints." part.

Stop projecting. 1/2 truths would be an improvement for any right wing "news" organization.

Let's see...Trump declared the entire media, tv to newspapers and everything in between the enemy of America, now you whine and cry that Trump wasn't treated fairly?! Bwaaaahahahaha! Poor little baby, he can dish it out but boy, can he not take 1/10 of it back!
90% negative isn't spin, Trump and his policies and criminal activities and criminal administration and his platform of white nationalism were 95% negative...the media handed him a 5% positivity boost.

Trump's highest approval rating ever...49% (averaging <41%), Biden's high so far is 63% (averaging >55%) which at the time was double Trump's low 30's thanks to his failed little coup.

What's a negative store? It's spelled story, Bob...not storè. Second graders can spell story, Bob.

Biden hasn't kissed Putin's ring on national tv, or taken his word over our intelligence community, nor has Hunter taken $35 million from China as a "gift" during trade negotiations his daddy then tanked, Biden hasn't supported white supremacists, or cuddled up to dictators while ostracizing our allies, or been dismissively divisive at every single opportunity. He doesn't take 10 hours a day of personal time to watch tv or over 300 days to play golf after promising not to, he doesn't retweet Nazis, he doesn't engage in self enrichment at every turn, he doesn't rage tweet 200+ times a day, he doesn't tell outright lies to the public an average of 20 times a day. There's not 3% of the negativity from Trump coming from Biden, yet right wing media is 100% negative...which you fully support.

Time magazine covers?! You want to compare them!?! Ok, do you mean the fake time covers Trump had made up and framed in his office to trick rubes into thinking he's an important businessman? Yes, those are fake news....from fake Trump.

@bobknight33 you ignorant slut.

Dismissed only because Trump pardoned him.
"But the judge said the pardon was valid, and that even if Bannon did not formally admit guilt "the issuance of a pardon may carry an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.""

To be clear, taking the pardon is admitting guilt. He argued to be dismissed as a defendant because he had been granted and accepted the pardon. The judge agreed, the last hour pardon was valid, and is therefore a valid and legal admission by Bannon that he's guilty, and case dismissed....for him, the other three crooks don't have a get out of jail free card from Trump, so we still get to hear how his charity theft ring operated.

And another loss for Bobby. Even your big wins are actually huge losses.

5/25/2021

Federal Judge Dismisses Steve Bannon’s Indictment.

Bogus Charges on Bannon Dropped… ‘We Build The Wall’ Case Falls Apart…

Bwaaahahaha. Too late. He might have been dismissed had it been brought up before deliberation started, but not now, it's over. Chauvin is convicted. You don't get a mistrial after a verdict, and a mistrial isn't exoneration, he would be tried again, with more witnesses and evidence. Even your video only claims it might help an appeal, not a mistrial. That cracker jack box law license isn't working, Bobby.

Chauvin's attorney is barely more competent than Giuliani. He put experts on the stand that hadn't examined the facts or evidence but came to conclusions anyway. His gawdawful defense is a MUCH better case for an appeal than a jurist that once wore a t shirt.

He may have a point that it's not proper to mislead on a questionnaire (although you support it, remember. Lying under oath is the smart thing to do if it helps your cause, according to you when Trump lied under oath in his depositions), but attending one MLK March doesn't disqualify a person from being a jurist, just like having a nice interaction with police or a decent estimation of them doesn't.

Edit: sounds like the jury question was had they participated in a blm protest, the rally he was filmed at was an MLK get out the vote rally Floyd's family happened to speak at, so he didn't lie.

It's a nothing burger brought up too late. He will appeal, and will bring this up, but it is far from meeting the standards to grant a new trial at this point. Even if he gets an appeal on other grounds, the evidence is overwhelming, he will simply be convicted again, possibly of harsher charges.

If he's not for some unfathomable reason, he will wish he was, because he will have a target on him and those with him for life. Prison is the safest place for him, and the only chance of safety his family has.

Sorry Charlie.

Edit: Funny how you are on the side of the murdering white cop and not the black murder victim here....and you still claim you aren't racist....but when a cop hurts a white woman or a violent white power MAGA moron you can suddenly see they're going too far.

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

Try reading your own posts.
What is wrong with you ?
Hate is just pouring out of you uncontrollably....consistently...hatred and....nope, no information, just hatred, insults, and whining....complaints about movies, weather, comments, complaints equating both of our last two presidents as if their foibles are equally destructive, complaints about immigration not in your country, complaints about who's to blame for the state of our border, infantile one sided attacks about speaking abilities, stupid accusations of dementia, and constant whining that someone didn't agree with your spiteful post. All your complaints come directly from the Trumptard playbook. It's possible you aren't team Trump, but you are on their side of the stadium wearing a red jersey and hat, and shouting their jeers and chants as you deny it. I went back and looked at your few posts, it's not a fluke. You are consistently dismissive and insulting off the bat and never add to conversations, you just bitch about others.
Indeed, only 3 are directed at someone besides me. Only one had any actual attempt at offering any information, most are just dismissive insults and/or complaints.

I offered plenty of information and verifiable fact from multiple sources, you did not.

I hate hypocritical liars and those who cheer them on and spread their lies or support them by consistently attacking their opponents while ignoring exponentially worse examples of the same behaviors from them, so yep, you might see some hatred. I hate those who conflate and equate totally inept evil narcissistic self dealing criminal leaders with imperfect but thoughtful and caring life long civil servants. I also dislike people who's best arguments are at place on the second grade playground, useless hate filled insults and complaints but bereft of fact, reason, and information. Where does your irrational hatred come from?

Have a great year, we'll try this again next year, but not before. Once a year is enough.

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2021/01/19/shameka-oneils-hang-up/

From the linked article:

Later in the day, O’Neil joined Kaelin’s virtual courtroom again to ask the judge for clarification about the contempt order.

“Mark my words: If you take adverse action against me, you better be sure about it, because you made some mistakes here today,” O’Neil told Kaelin. “I will attempt to hold you civilly or however responsible that I can, and that’s my word.”

“As for that fine — straight cash homie, bottomline don’t disrespect me and try to humiliate me in front of my client and other professionals then think I’m going to sit there and take it whether you got on a robe or not I’m a person just like her I’m not her child nor do I work for her get respect and I give respect. Period.”

Before becoming a defense lawyer, it appears that O’Neil was a prosecutor in Jefferson County, Kentucky, where she encountered problems as well.

Take, for instance, Jefferson County prosecutor Shameka O’Neil, who last year resigned after falsely assuring a judge that no recording of a 911 call existed to be turned over to defense counsel in a stolen property case. She had spoken personally to the Louisville Metro police, she told the court, to confirm the lack of a recording. The problem being that, in fact, she had not spoken to the police, and there was a 911 call. Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Barry Willett dismissed the case, citing O’Neil’s “outrageous conduct.”

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Hrmph, looks like your bullshit has run the gamut of newtboy's patience as well. Can't say i blame him. What blinders?


Is this the section you're referring to ?


"Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all"


"crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors"
"crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors"
"crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors"

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Did you read that and did your eyes go fuzzy and then your brain said "THE LEFT DID IT"???


"The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election ... w/no result"
"The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election ... w/no result"
"The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election ... w/no result"

Did you read that, hit yourself in the face with a rolling pin, and then see "THEY ONLY WANT TO STOP TRUMP"???


HOLD ON, newt, gotta speak thenidiot language. I'll translate.


No collusion! No collusion! Hoax, the fake news media. Hillary! Hoax! Lock her up! Beautiful delicious wall. No collusion! Unfair!

------


Seriously though, newt I think you're missing something. You missed what he said here. Bob said that voters determined the election.

point of clarification

"lack of standing, meaning the campaign failed to show that it had suffered an 'injury in fact'"

Or in these circumstances, if there WERE a handful of people lets say 100, lets say they legit found 100 votes that were 100% fraudulent. In a space where they lost the vote by 20,000, 100 votes would not have caused injury or would not have changed anything.

Still if you look at even the numbers that they are claiming are frauds
(see below)
-----------------------
-----------------------
Here’s the breakdown of the ones they could verify and have been provided to the public.

42,000 people voted more than once
1,500 dead voters cast ballots
19,000 non-Nevada residents voted (number doesn’t include students and military)
8,000 people voted using non-existent addresses
15,000 votes were cast from commercial addresses or vacant houses
4,000 ineligible foreign nationals voted


that brings you to 89,500 votes

STILL you'd have to chop that 42,000 in half, because 1 of their votes would still count, so 89-21= 68,500 that they are even CLAIMING are fraudulent

Here's the problem
https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2020-us-presidential-election-results-live-map/

even if u shift the 68,500 away - you can't assume that all of those votes that they're claiming are fraudulent are FOR biden - it's likely a mixed bag. HENCE the no injury-in-fact.


------------

But that's also assuming that the evidence they present is actually substantial and holds up to scrutiny

"[The judge] summarily dismissed its claims of voter fraud and request for an overturn of election results in a ruling on Friday, writing that the campaign’s evidence provided “little to no value” based on questionable or “unsound” methodology, adding that the evidence failed to show any “credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.”





-
If the evidence is so compelling, why can't i find it anywhere? "washed away?" Can't be that washed away, there's a court transcript that's easily readable. There's bits and pieces published on news sites, but the judges in 50 different states in the USA (many appointed by trump) and the supreme court too for that matter, didnt find anything presented to be compelling.



--------
SIDE NOTE
Did u watch Lombardi's ghost or whatever speaking at the super bowl? What do you think he meant by "...the courage and teamwork to triumph" The phrase jumped out at me, because it's not very encouraging. I mean I personally find it encouraging. But i guess a lot of people don't find talk like that encouraging, it's just a weird quote that doesnt make sense. It's like how do you get to the word "triumph" with the word "courage" --- that's just not very encouraging,,,some might say. It's like, what does he even do all day, TALK to the players to get them to do things? everyone knows that's not possible. Not encouraging. pffffft sorry i can't keep it up, yeah he incited the riot through encouragement.