In order to prevail on an injunction you have to prove that the relief you seek can’t await the ordinary process and that you have a significant chance of prevailing at trial. Which one of those two requirements wasn’t met in this case? Originally Posted by 1blackman1Then you should feel confident betting your life on it. Good luck!
Then you should feel confident betting your life on it. Good luck!As I stated in the other thread. You’re damned stupid. Now I know why.
Statistically, Biden had a 1 in a quadrillion chance to win the swing states:
https://api.parler.com/l/rLp8b Originally Posted by bambino
As I stated in the other thread. You’re damned stupid. Now I know why. Originally Posted by 1blackman1https://api.parler.com/l/H29KG
I believe that Friday that answer will be very clear. It’s a simple thing. Just because they are required to respond doesn’t mean anything. All complaints require an answer, even ones that are garbage or that are frivolous. Originally Posted by 1blackman1Well, no one can predict what SCOTUS will do. They are accountable to nobody. If they pass, the fix is in. The case has merit. It’s not frivolous. They can disenfranchise half the electorate. No matter how much of a political hack you are. You have to establish the credibility of our elections. Do they have the balls to take it up? We’ll see.
Bet 100k on it.Did he take you up? I doubt B1 knows what a 100k looks like if you dropped it on his head.
I just want some easy fucking money. I don't need it, though. I have over 100k in cash. I'll easily bet 100k of it though, if you're willing to put down.
Bet you won't. You probably don't even have 100k. I'll bet 100k on it. Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong