[AATW]

They said that there is substantial evidence of fraud, and agrees with plaintiff, but proceeded to deflect. Said it was not their place to perform certain actions, didn't want to disnfranchize legitimate voters, etc.

Do stop cherry picking. They say there are

troubling and serious allegations of fraud and irregularities asserted by the affiants offered by plaintiffs

Which is true. There are serious allegations which, if true, are troubling. They go on to say that

"Plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations"

Which is also true, they do have affidavits but note the bolded word.
Substantiate means "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of."
Substantial means "of considerable importance, size, or worth."
You are dishonestly mixing up those two words, the second of which appears nowhere in the document you cherry picked from.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf

They did NOT say that there is substantial evidence of fraud.
They said that there are serious allegations of fraud which there are affidavits to back up.
No comment is made about the veracity of those affidavits although other cases which have looked at them have laughed them out of court.

[Roundy]

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331404288149643264?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Well apparently as gullible as Republicans in general seem to be, Newsmax has managed to grab the most gullible among them for their audience; a staggering 99% are living in Trump Fantasyland according to a poll from their organization that he cites in this tweet.

Zombies unite for Trump!

[Lord Dave]

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331404288149643264?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Well apparently as gullible as Republicans in general seem to be, Newsmax has managed to grab the most gullible among them for their audience; a staggering 99% are living in Trump Fantasyland according to a poll from their organization that he cites in this tweet.

Zombies unite for Trump!

That is a pretty small poll for an internet poll.

[J-Man]

Laughable landslide :
BREAKING! Bill Krackomberger, a professional oddsmaker, reports that Las Vegas is not yet paying out on Election 2020 bets because they're predicting Trump is going to be President for four more years. Vegas knows!

https://twitter.com/ScottFishman/status/1331444437688397830?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1331444437688397830%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2020%2F11%2Fnot-making-headlines-las-vegas-oddsmakers-still-not-paying-biden-victory-gamblers-honest-garbage-dump-media%2F

[Tom Bishop]

"Plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations"

Which is also true, they do have affidavits but note the bolded word.
Substantiate means "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of."
Substantial means "of considerable importance, size, or worth."
You are dishonestly mixing up those two words, the second of which appears nowhere in the document you cherry picked from.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf

They did NOT say that there is substantial evidence of fraud.
They said that there are serious allegations of fraud which there are affidavits to back up.
No comment is made about the veracity of those affidavits although other cases which have looked at them have laughed them out of court.

Nope. You have continuously called people dishonest on this forum, when the problem is really with you. You just don't know things, like words and definitions.





So if the "plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations" then they have provided substantial evidence.

[AATW]

You have continuously called people dishonest on this forum

Only when they're being dishonest. You said

A fraud case reached the Mighigan Supreme Court recently. They said that there is substantial evidence of fraud

This is a lie. You know it's a lie because you posted the document it's from. Well, as usual you posted a cherry picked quote from it but, having read it, they did NOT say there is substantial evidence of fraud

Play little semantic games all you like, they court just didn't say that.

[Tom Bishop]

They did say that there is substantial evidence. The court said that they substantiated their claims. You just think that the word substantial is different than substantiated, when they both mean to make solid or believable.

From a law firm's website: https://www.spolinlaw.com/blog/2020/08/24/what-is-the-substantial-evidence-standard/



So it's not different than substantiate.

Another one:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/substantial-evidence/



Same definition.

[AATW]

You just think that the word substantial is different than substantiated

So does the dictionary.

[Lord Dave]

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

[AATW]

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

I can substantiate that.

Also, Trump is continuing to drain the swamp...by pardoning his mates

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55080923

[Rama Set]

Only Tom would take a pronouncement of substantial enough evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing as a giant victory for Trump.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

[stack]

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

Is the net goal post 1/20 to continue to try and de-legitimize the election? AATW has asked several times. No answers. What's the strategy post inauguration?

[Tom Bishop]

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

Is the net goal post 1/20 to continue to try and de-legitimize the election? AATW has asked several times. No answers. What's the strategy post inauguration?

The strategy will be to enjoy the win, since Trump won the 2020 election.

[stack]

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

Is the net goal post 1/20 to continue to try and de-legitimize the election? AATW has asked several times. No answers. What's the strategy post inauguration?

The strategy will be to enjoy the win, since Trump won the 2020 election.

Ok, got it. But let's say in the off-chance, Trump doesn't win. What's the strategy post inauguration?

[Pete Svarrior]

Ok, got it. But let's say in the off-chance, Trump doesn't win. What's the strategy post inauguration?

On the off-chance that he didn't win (even though he did), we will enjoy his win, because he won.

We need to be careful, though - Trump might get tired of winning so much and call it quits.

[AATW]

How about we all agree that Trump won the election but Biden gets to be President on a technicality (like how many people voted for him).
Does that work?

[Pete Svarrior]

I think this could be workable. We just need to turn President into a meaningless, ceremonial position, and appoint Trump as... Prime Minister? Lord Protector? Supreme Leader?

[stack]

I think this could be workable. We just need to turn President into a meaningless, ceremonial position, and appoint Trump as... Prime Minister? Lord Protector? Supreme Leader?

How about just plain old fashioned, King? Regalia to include crown, scepter, the frilly over-the-shoulders pashmina thing. And call it a day?

[Rama Set]

Let’s just make him The Dude and serve everyone screwdrivers.