(12-14-2020, 01:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(12-14-2020, 10:31 AM)Minshew Mania Wrote: I can't take you seriously when you say "everyone with half a brain knew this case would be refused on those grounds". It's like you're playing the role of a smart man by using the power of hindsight. Yeah okay dude.

Also you mention "If that was true, it would have been presented in court.  Fifty court cases, no evidence presented. "

This demonstrates your lack of understanding as well. I guess I shouldn't be surprise because you hold opinions that are wildly outside the realms of reality. No evidence has been presented because no court case has been allowed to go to evidentiary hearings. Every judge keeps punting the case, either due to political bias or the judge getting death threats.

The "uprising" would take place with Trump declaring Martial Law and issuing FISA Warrants. His supporters will ensure he's successful by showing enough public support. If not, then they will start dragging politicians out into the streets and well, you can get creative after that. That's what a successful uprising would look like.

1) If you did not know that the Supreme Court would slam the door on that case, then your sources of information are severely lacking.  Almost everyone under the sun knew that was going to happen.  So I'm not playing the role of the "smart man," as you allege.  I only knew what almost everyone else knew.  There was not a snowball's chance in hell that under our Constitution, Texas could tell 4 other states how to run their elections. 

2) Trump's lawyers scream and yell about voter fraud, but when they get to court, what they present is not a case of voter fraud.  Over and over, they have admitted in court that they are not presenting a case of voter fraud.  

https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no...nce-fraud/

3) Judges don't call evidentiary hearings unless you can show that you have some evidence to enter into the record.  Failing that, the judge will not bother to call an evidentiary hearing.  In these cases, judge after judge has excoriated Trump's lawyers for lack of evidence.  There was no evidentiary hearing because there was no evidence presented to the judge to persuade him or her to go forward with the case.  

4) As for your last paragraph, that speaks for itself.

---