This one is for you

Libs are still complaining about Trump when they should be concerned about the current disaster in the White House.

No. We voted for that guy in the white house. And the only disaster is Sen. Manchin. Someone needs to primary his ass.

Difference: You had lunatic conspiracy theories about Russia. We have mountains of evidence of electoral irregularities.

no, you don't. You literally have nothing. Trump's lawyers showed up in court, they were asked where was the evidence, and they said "we have none."

According to an internal Trump campaign memo, they knew the "voter fraud" allegations were false.

Oh, well, leftists have been constantly lying about what Trump said for 6 years now, but I'll believe you this time.

You can read about it right here on Forbes, a conservative media outlet: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/09/21/trump-campaign-knew-dominion-fraud-claims-were-false-memo-reportedly-shows-but-giuliani-still-pushed-them/?sh=300630e6364a

But please, tell me all about why I should ignore the vote chart which shows Trump winning in a smooth curve until there is a sudden, near-vertical jump for Biden. Tell me why I should ignore that of 18 bellwether counties which reliably vote for the winner, 17 voted Trump. Tell me why I should ignore Republican poll-watchers deliberately being excluded.

F--k you and your lies.

Because those counties are mostly semi-rural and blue-collar- and declining in population and age.

they are literally being left behind in the changing demographics of America. The left leaning, left of center, and outright left that would move those counties back and forth moved to the big cities.

All that's left are the angry old boomers.

But the great majority of them voted Obama in 2008 and 2012. I’m sorry you’re too stupid to understand what bellwether means.

No. I understand what it means.

But because something has "always been" that way, doesn't mean that it will "always be" that way.

Things change.

That you're not able to accept them is a you problem.

"Things change," yes. But long-standing patterns rarely do a sudden, 180 degree turn like that. And if they do, it's a sign that something weird is going on, like, for instance, election fraud.

Forbes? Conservative? See...that right there shows you either lie or don't know what you are talking about.

Here's the PDF of the actual memo from the actual Trump campaign.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-campaign-memo/f7b2de7129fe91b2/full.pdf

That's it. Read it.

Facts. Not your feelings.

All you have to do is read. It's up to you. I mean, I am real sure that you won't. You won't go read what the memo contains.

Because it runs counter to what you want to be true.

Facts. Not your feelings.

Forbes is NOT a Conservative...he is a Republican. The two are NOT synonymous.

Here's a copy of the memo itself. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-campaign-memo/f7b2de7129fe91b2/full.pdf

No spin. No lies. The memo itself.

None of that addresses what I have been saying.
Forbes is NOT a CONSERVATIVE...he is a Republican. The two are NOT synonymous.

What, "conservative" like the pederasts of the Lincoln Project are "conservative"?

And all the others knew about it, and didn't care, because in their principles, Orange Man Bad is more important than kiddie-diddler bad.

They are all exactly as guilty.

Because the courts are infallible? Because the court is never wrong?

Have you ever tried this fascinating thing called thinking for yourself instead of just deferring to authority?

No, actually they didn't lose lawsuits. Almost all of them were dismissed on procedural grounds. That is, the courts refused to examine the evidence. This is significantly different.

Yes, actually they did. They were dismissed because they had "no legal standing."

Which is a very specific legal phrase.

It means they have no evidence.

Google it.

The "procedural grounds" were that they didn't have any evidence.

That’s not what standing means, you moron.

Oh,yeah? Tell me, o scholar, what does it mean?

And you had better be able to cite sources in your definition.

No, he's not. You can sue anyone over anything.

But you have to show evidence you were "harmed" by the event/actions/etc.

So, you can sue the vandal over the vandalism. When you get in front of the judge,you have to show HOW you were harmed. YOu gotta show the evidence.

If you don't have any evidence, you have no legal standing.

And you lose.

It means that the judge says you are not the relevant party who should be bringing this suit. It is frequently abused by cowardly judges to avoid dealing with suits they don't want to deal with. As for sources, just go watch Viva and Barnes. They talk about it all the time.

Geez, you're pathetic.

Cite your sources, bruh. Do a google search for No Legal Standing, do some reading. And then link off to that legal argument that clearly shows that you're correct.

Cool, when are you cutting me a check? Since you clearly consider yourself my boss.

They were wrong 62 times?

Where's that Kracken of Evidence we were promised?

The Arizona Audit is done. Where's that report? Why did the courts have to force the Arizona Senate to release the report if there's so much evidence? Seems like they would have jumped in front of a camera, waving it around if they had anything.

Again, the only people I see bringing up Trump here on imgflip are idiots like you, Stan, damagedgood, and the the clown who goes by TrumpHatesAmerica,TrumpLostFAirAndSquare and the other 5 accounts he has, O_Walker, and the rest.

Come back after another 38 months.

Then we’ll have had about the same amount of time to ‘get over it’.