King

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Who? I can't find that anywhere.

This merely reflects your willful incompetence.

IBdaMann wrote:Trump is contesting in his Wisconsin "ultra vires" lawsuit which will ultimately flip Wisconsin for Trump.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...Like 673,000 for Biden and 13 for Trump?

You're in the ballpark. ...one million illegal votes for Biden...Zero illegal votes for Trump ...

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
people were voting illegally, by the hundreds of thousands, for Biden.

Is that something you know?...

tmiddles wrote:So how about just sharing one indictment IBD.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Trump is contesting in his Wisconsin "ultra vires" lawsuit which will ultimately flip Wisconsin for Trump.

This?:

tmiddles wrote:Or is it a different lawsuit?

tmiddles wrote:Wow! I'm so impressed with how honest Republicans turned out to be

tmiddles wrote: You are aware that the only current prosecution for illegal voting is a Trump supporter trying to vote for his dead mother right?

tmiddles wrote:How many of the 1,000,000 do you think they will prove in court? (we will be doing a followup in a few months).

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Or is it a different lawsuit?

Yep.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Wow! I'm so impressed with how honest Republicans turned out to be

...Democrats were so hurried in their desperation that they bungled the execution and left mountains of evidence before thousands of witnesses. ...

tmiddles wrote:More secret info from IBD.

tmiddles wrote: Well 1,000,000 to 0 is quite an honesty ratio.

tmiddles wrote: Care to make a prediction?

IBdaMann wrote:
I created a thread dedicated to the Wisconsin lawsuit...my prediction that Trump will be swearing-in at his reelection inauguration.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Who? I can't find that anywhere.

This merely reflects your willful incompetence.

Sure. So how about just sharing one indictment IBD. You certainly spend a lot of time posting here so you wouldn't be going out of your way.

IBdaMann wrote:Trump is contesting in his Wisconsin "ultra vires" lawsuit which will ultimately flip Wisconsin for Trump.

This?:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/04/trump-appointed-judge-calls-presidents-request-wisconsin-bizarre/3826351001/
"Brian Hagedorn joining the court's liberals to rebuff the president as he seeks to take away Democrat Joe Biden's narrow win of the state.
"The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen," Hagedorn wrote." He was appointed by Republican Governor Scott Walker.

Or is it a different lawsuit?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...Like 673,000 for Biden and 13 for Trump?

You're in the ballpark. ...one million illegal votes for Biden...Zero illegal votes for Trump ...

Wow! I'm so impressed with how honest Republicans turned out to be in your research. How did you come up with your 1 million illegal Biden votes to zero illegal Trump vote numbers?

You are aware that the only current prosecution for illegal voting is a Trump supporter trying to vote for his dead mother right? But they caught him before he was able to do it. So that doesn't directly contradict your 1,000,000 to 0 research.

How many of the 1,000,000 do you think they will prove in court? (we will be doing a followup in a few months).

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
people were voting illegally, by the hundreds of thousands, for Biden.

Is that something you know?...

Seriously ITN you have said hundreds if not thousands of times on this board that ___________ cannot be known. Is this something you "know"?

And TRUMP likely made another $7,000,000 today off of his supporters. Such a lucrative gig denegrating our democracy.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Or is it a different lawsuit?

Yep.

When a blow hard gets tired of repeatedly getting thrown to the mat in a debate a favorite strategy is to dodge competing at all and just not put anything on the table.

More secret info from IBD.

You cannot debate what isn't there. Which is a comfort to someone so often defeated. You're right IBD, I can't prove you wrong when you present no argument.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Wow! I'm so impressed with how honest Republicans turned out to be

...Democrats were so hurried in their desperation that they bungled the execution and left mountains of evidence before thousands of witnesses. ...

Well 1,000,000 to 0 is quite an honesty ratio. You mean direct evidence too right? Not just statements from Trump supporters. We'll do a follow up in a couple months and see how many convictions we have and what the vote total is on those.

Care to make a prediction?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I created a thread dedicated to the Wisconsin lawsuit...my prediction that Trump will be swearing-in at his reelection inauguration.

You mean here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/ultra-vires-latin-for-wisconsin-will-flip-for-trump-d6-e3407.php

And yes we'll follow up on that prediction. How about more? Will any DNC officials go to jail?

duncan61 wrote:
This is fun.Pass the popcorn.You are aware if Tmiddles gets it right then global disaster is true and I will have to monitor my personal carbon footprint.The horror.But what about the children

duncan61 wrote:
This is fun.Pass the popcorn.You are aware if Tmiddles gets it right then global disaster is true and I will have to monitor my personal carbon footprint.The horror.But what about the children

tmiddles wrote:You refuse to set aside your agenda and consider the methods being used.

tmiddles wrote: ITN has said thousands of time that just about everything cannot be known on this board.

tmiddles wrote: Now he knows a great deal about the Nov 3rd election. How?

Into the Night wrote:
The supreme court is REQUIRED to take up this case.

gfm7175 wrote:They MUST hear this case

GasGuzzler wrote:If there was ever a case for the SCOTUS, this election fraud is it. If they refuse it they SHOULD ALL BE IMPEACHED.

IBdaMann wrote:They are required to hear ...If they fail to hear a case within their jurisdiction then they are derelict in their duties. Performing their duties is not optional and they can be impeached for such dereliction, every single one of them.

Into the Night wrote:
...and it's going to the supreme court. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

IBdaMann wrote:
You didn't list the complete reason the relief was denied.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You didn't list the complete reason the relief was denied.

That is the complete order posted by the Supreme Court. Are you aware of additional material?

IBdaMann wrote:
...The Court actively considered the case ...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
...The Court actively considered the case ...

You made all of that up.

The only information made available by SCOTUS was the order I linked to.

IBdaMann wrote:
The information I provided is reality. .

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The information I provided is reality. .

where did you get it?

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
This is fun.Pass the popcorn.You are aware if Tmiddles gets it right then global disaster is true and I will have to monitor my personal carbon footprint.The horror.But what about the children

This is something that's being pursued, small nuclear reactors. I've read where about 50% of fossil fuels are used for generating heat in industrial settings. With nuclear waste, they're actually reprocessing spent fuel rods so they can get more energy from them while reducing waste.
If something like this is viable and electric car batteries can be 100% recycled like lead batteries are, things might get interesting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/

tmiddles wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
This is fun.Pass the popcorn.You are aware if Tmiddles gets it right then global disaster is true and I will have to monitor my personal carbon footprint.The horror.But what about the children

Means and Ends

Try to consider how a human being can sanely determine anything.

tmiddles wrote:
Is it possible to figure anything at all out?

tmiddles wrote:
You refuse to set aside your agenda and consider the methods being used.

tmiddles wrote:
Try it. You don't have too much invested in the Trump issues so look at that.

tmiddles wrote:
ITN has said thousands of time that just about everything cannot be known on this board. Now he knows a great deal about the Nov 3rd election.

tmiddles wrote:
How?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The supreme court is REQUIRED to take up this case.

gfm7175 wrote:They MUST hear this case

GasGuzzler wrote:If there was ever a case for the SCOTUS, this election fraud is it. If they refuse it they SHOULD ALL BE IMPEACHED.

IBdaMann wrote:They are required to hear ...If they fail to hear a case within their jurisdiction then they are derelict in their duties. Performing their duties is not optional and they can be impeached for such dereliction, every single one of them.

Into the Night wrote:
...and it's going to the supreme court. RQAA.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

I expected a bit more of a reaction from you guys. Did OANN not cover this? Are you all for impeaching the lot of them? Because this denial was without dissent.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You didn't list the complete reason the relief was denied.

That is the complete order posted by the Supreme Court. Are you aware of additional material?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You didn't list the complete reason the relief was denied.

That is the complete order posted by the Supreme Court. Are you aware of additional material?

Yes. The Court actively considered the case and rejected it, which is not the same as refusing to consider the case. The Court found the claims meritless, that the petitioner lacked standing, that claims were filed too late and that it had to be dismissed pursuant to statute and the doctrine of laches. There's more but suffice to say that you are simply in error when you imply that SCOTUS chooses what workloads come across their desks and that they choose whether to consider a case that the Constitution specifies falls within their purview to apply law.

Have you figured out what distinct concepts you are conflating?

... and yes, anyone can choose to be derelict in his duties.


.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
...The Court actively considered the case ...

You made all of that up.

The only information made available by SCOTUS was the order I linked to.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You didn't list the complete reason the relief was denied.

That is the complete order posted by the Supreme Court. Are you aware of additional material?

The court docket, which you are ignoring.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You didn't list the complete reason the relief was denied.

That is the complete order posted by the Supreme Court. Are you aware of additional material?

The court docket, which you are ignoring.

Found it:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html
Well it's # No. 20A98
And we have:
Dec 03 2020 Application (20A98) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Alito.
Dec 08 2020 Application (20A98) denied by the Court.

Sure looks like it was an application and the application was denied.

gfm7175 wrote:
Injunctive relief was denied... not the case itself.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Injunctive relief was denied... not the case itself.

So you expect the case to have further developments? (don't hold your breath)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html