A mention of it was made in passing by @JayJay. But the crux of the discussion wasn’t about the recount.
Again, it was mentioned in passing. The discussion was focused on the courts and the legislation. We weren’t discussing anything having to do with the recount itself.
I was pulled into that one by @thinkingman. If you look closely, you will see that I’ve been desperately trying to avoid having any conversation about the recount. There is nothing left to discuss with the recount. We already have reached a general consensus and have had it for a few days.
I could give two ■■■■■ about what YOU are talking about.
Again, I’ll post about what I want to post about and not be lectured about it by you.
2 Likes
Huh!
Why would you pull that out of context? Within context it demonstrates that I’ve been desperately trying to avoid talking about the recount. Out of context it looks like I’m patronizing you. That simply isn’t the case. Why would you do that? 
I went back and cleaned it up. I’m hoping it better describes what I’m hoping to do.
I think a heck of a lot in 2020 after listening to all those state investigations.
Thank goodness we had RNC leaders this time who went in with lawyers every time they heard about suspicious goings on.
Unlike 2020.
Canning Rona McDaniel was a huge plus.
1 Like
Par for the course.
2020 was stolen and 2024 would have been stolen as well, if not for vigilant RNC leaders. 
Chaos and fun are not equivalents.
There are very good reasons for that. Number one is, you have been posting like a Lib. 
That posted clip isn’t about a recount, it’s about not counting ballots that have been invalidated by the letter of the law.
1 Like
I was being sarcastic. 
I’m waiting!
You said you would point out specifics for me. 
I am really curious to see what a LIB posting style looks like.
As I’ve stated on multiple occasions, the court order is specifically for the November 5, 2024, election. You can clearly see that in between the red highlights.
In an earlier ruling, the SC clearly stated that its actions are not meant to set a precedent. So, we will continue to see similar confusion in future elections.
This order stopped the counting of ballots with an invalid date field in response to the counties that were defying the previous SC order, which is mentioned in the order you are quoting. It has everything to do with the recount effort that was under way.
Hilarious. If you don’t like their conversation move on.
1 Like
No I didn’t. In fact I specifically said that I couldn’t articulate it but “I know it when see it.” Like in that post there when you claim I said something that i did not say. Typical Lib tactic.
Make up your mind. Is it about the recount or isn’t it?
The recount is an extension of the November 5th election. The court order was specifically addressing the County Commissioners who were openly defying the earlier SC stay order during the November 5th election recount effort.
Which post are you referring to?
And to your claim about LIB tactics, are you implying that no Conservative would claim someone said something they didn’t, either intentionally or not? Seriously? 
There are ample examples of exactly that within the context of this discussion alone.
Could it be if a conservative is doing that, it might mean that during the heat of the moment they are briefly switching sides?
Cue the laugh emoji. 
What you describe are behavioral traits having nothing to do with one’s politics. 
Huh?
I took this from the Jack Smith thread.
I made the following statement:
In any case, the next time you find an instance where you believe I’m posting like a LIB, please feel free to point it out. We can then discuss it together. 
To which you replied:
Don’t worry … I will.
Here is the link.
