Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(11-20-2020, 12:43 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 12:30 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Don’t make me come back there!

OK Mom Mod! I'll behave!  

Fixed it for you.

(11-20-2020, 12:37 PM)BushCheney2000 Wrote: [ -> ]I was watching Tucker Carlson last night and he said there's no proof of voter fraud but there is proof of UFOs ?! What's going on around here ?!

People are conflating proof and evidence. Evidence is suggestive and proof is concrete. There's also the idea that the court makes decisions only when something is proven. This just isn't true. Sometimes, the court of law looks at the total body of evidence, which is suggestive, and if all of it points in a direction, they may make a decision without anything concrete. 

I think a good way to explain this is thinking of OJ's glove. You guys remember that? They found a bloody glove at the scene. The glove is evidence. It doesn't prove anything. They asked OJ to try it on, which was a mistake by the prosecutor, because the only thing that it would prove was that the glove would fit OJ's hand. It still wouldn't prove that Simpson killed Nicole. OJ made a spectacle of the process, which left some people believing he didn't try it on properly, and other people believing the glove didn't fit, which ended up being key to the trial. Trump's team has the task of presenting the evidence in such a way that it is consistent and points to massive fraud that changed the outcome of the election, which is a huge burden. 

Currently, there is proof of some fraud, but not enough to suggest the election outcome should be changed. This is not abnormal, but the fraud that has been proven so far is outpacing that of previous elections, which could be used as evidence. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests there was massive voter fraud, at least compared to previous elections, but again, there is no proof. The only thing that comes close to that, if true, are the statistics that are coming out of Wisconsin. There is a claim, that I haven't bothered to verify (so take it for what it is), that every batch of votes that came after they shut down voting in Wisconsin had a fixed ratio. If that's true, that would definitely prove that massive voter fraud happened in Wisconsin at the machine level, which opens up the rest of the elections in the state. There are strange numbers in Michigan, too, but not nearly at the same level. 

Trump's team is making an accusation, and they have plenty of evidence that suggests voter fraud, but, as of yet, have not provided any proof to the public. Powell says she can prove her claims, but hasn't. However, that doesn't mean they haven't provided any evidence. Affidavits are evidence. Statistical anomalies are evidence. Whistleblower testimony is evidence. When a court only has evidence, the burden gets a bit tougher, but not impossible. 

TLDR: I get frustrated when I hear people say they have no evidence. That's false. They have evidence. They haven't proven anything with it, though. Furthermore, they claim they have evidence they don't want to report until they are at the evidentiary stage in trial. That will have to wait until court. I think it's a bad look for their public image, but it could keep the defense on it's toes. It's their prerogative on how they should proceed.

(11-20-2020, 01:25 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 12:37 PM)BushCheney2000 Wrote: [ -> ]I was watching Tucker Carlson last night and he said there's no proof of voter fraud but there is proof of UFOs ?! What's going on around here ?!

People are conflating proof and evidence. Evidence is suggestive and proof is concrete. There's also the idea that the court makes decisions only when something is proven. This just isn't true. Sometimes, the court of law looks at the total body of evidence, which is suggestive, and if all of it points in a direction, they may make a decision without anything concrete. 

I think a good way to explain this is thinking of OJ's glove. You guys remember that? They found a bloody glove at the scene. The glove is evidence. It doesn't prove anything. They asked OJ to try it on, which was a mistake by the prosecutor, because the only thing that it would prove was that the glove would fit OJ's hand. It still wouldn't prove that Simpson killed Nicole. OJ made a spectacle of the process, which left some people believing he didn't try it on properly, and other people believing the glove didn't fit, which ended up being key to the trial. Trump's team has the task of presenting the evidence in such a way that it is consistent and points to massive fraud that changed the outcome of the election, which is a huge burden. 

Currently, there is proof of some fraud, but not enough to suggest the election outcome should be changed. This is not abnormal, but the fraud that has been proven so far is outpacing that of previous elections, which could be used as evidence. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests there was massive voter fraud, at least compared to previous elections, but again, there is no proof. The only thing that comes close to that, if true, are the statistics that are coming out of Wisconsin. There is a claim, that I haven't bothered to verify (so take it for what it is), that every batch of votes that came after they shut down voting in Wisconsin had a fixed ratio. If that's true, that would definitely prove that massive voter fraud happened in Wisconsin at the machine level, which opens up the rest of the elections in the state. There are strange numbers in Michigan, too, but not nearly at the same level. 

Trump's team is making an accusation, and they have plenty of evidence that suggests voter fraud, but, as of yet, have not provided any proof to the public. Powell says she can prove her claims, but hasn't. However, that doesn't mean they haven't provided any evidence. Affidavits are evidence. Statistical anomalies are evidence. Whistleblower testimony is evidence. When a court only has evidence, the burden gets a bit tougher, but not impossible. 

TLDR: I get frustrated when I hear people say they have no evidence. That's false. They have evidence. They haven't proven anything with it, though. Furthermore, they claim they have evidence they don't want to report until they are at the evidentiary stage in trial. That will have to wait until court. I think it's a bad look for their public image, but it could keep the defense on it's toes. It's their prerogative on how they should proceed.

"but the fraud that has been proven so far is outpacing that of previous elections, which could be used as evidence" - FALSE.  It is similar to previous years... extremely limited.

"Trump's team is making an accusation, and they have plenty of evidence that suggests voter fraud" - FALSE.  You need to differentiate what Trump's lawyers say in press conferences between what they say in court.  They have repeatedly stated in court that they are not suggesting specific voter fraud with their evidence. Courts have thrown out every early attempt where they did suggest it with no proof.

"I get frustrated when I hear people say they have no evidence. That's false. They have evidence." - TRUE.  Bad evidence or irrelevant evidence is still evidence... like your statistical anomalies (that have been easily debunked and explained).  But the burden of PROOF lies on the prosecution.... and they have presented NONE. That is why they are losing every case in court.

What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

You will never see their "proof"... because they have none.  They are 1-31 now in election court cases.  Georgia is certifying today.  Michigan and Pennsylvania on Monday.  Then its over.  Trump's lawyers will hold press conferences and bluster about their proof of fraud, but never present it.  Its all for public image and Trump's ego. They have lost in court over 2 dozen times when they were asked to provide proof.  Their flimsy pieces of evidence were laughed at in court and thrown out.

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

But they have gone to court.  20+ times they've been in court since election day.  They got a single favorable ruling, only that pennsylvania should keep ballots that arrived late physically separate from on time ballots. The rest of the rulings were unfavorable, for lack of proof.

(11-20-2020, 02:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

But they have gone to court.  20+ times they've been in court since election day.  They got a single favorable ruling, only that pennsylvania should keep ballots that arrived late physically separate from on time ballots. The rest of the rulings were unfavorable, for lack of proof.

Not all of those cases were Trumps team though. Rudy talked about that in his press conference yesterday.

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

Let me ask you this. What do you think is most likely to happen?

This is all for show and to try and get every last dollar from Trumps supporters. They’re getting destroyed in court, big law firms are dropping them and the only people left defending Trump are people with nothing left. Rudy? He’s hanging on by a thread. Jenna? She blasted Trump in 2016 and no one cared about her so she flipped the script and is now defending him for the spotlight.

I think Trump is extremely nervous about what’s going to happen to him after Biden gets into office.

(11-20-2020, 02:13 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]But they have gone to court.  20+ times they've been in court since election day.  They got a single favorable ruling, only that pennsylvania should keep ballots that arrived late physically separate from on time ballots. The rest of the rulings were unfavorable, for lack of proof.

Not all of those cases were Trumps team though. Rudy talked about that in his press conference yesterday.

They were ALL coordinated by Trump's campaign team... go look at the filings.  Rudy is a bald-faced (and sweaty) liar.  You think a bunch of private citizens just decided to sue election commissions?  C'mon...

(11-20-2020, 02:15 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

Let me ask you this. What do you think is most likely to happen?

This is all for show and to try and get every last dollar from Trumps supporters. They’re getting destroyed in court, big law firms are dropping them and the only people left defending Trump are people with nothing left. Rudy? He’s hanging on by a thread. Jenna? She blasted Trump in 2016 and no one cared about her so she flipped the script and is now defending him for the spotlight.

I think Trump is extremely nervous about what’s going to happen to him after Biden gets into office.

As are his children.  They all know this is not going to end well for them.  I hear Fiji is a nice place to live...

(11-20-2020, 02:09 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

You will never see their "proof"... because they have none.  They are 1-31 now in election court cases.  Georgia is certifying today.  Michigan and Pennsylvania on Monday.  Then its over.  Trump's lawyers will hold press conferences and bluster about their proof of fraud, but never present it.  Its all for public image and Trump's ego.  They have lost in court over 2 dozen times when they were asked to provide proof.  Their flimsy pieces of evidence were laughed at in court and thrown out.

Yep.

Even Uncle Tucker was frustrated with the lack of proof/evidence

(11-20-2020, 02:15 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

Let me ask you this. What do you think is most likely to happen?

This is all for show and to try and get every last dollar from Trumps supporters. They’re getting destroyed in court, big law firms are dropping them and the only people left defending Trump are people with nothing left. Rudy? He’s hanging on by a thread. Jenna? She blasted Trump in 2016 and no one cared about her so she flipped the script and is now defending him for the spotlight.

I think Trump is extremely nervous about what’s going to happen to him after Biden gets into office.

I have no clue what is going to actually happen. But I also don’t have a problem with letting it happen. If you think this is how it’s going to go down, why do you think so many on your side are grumbling moaning and complaining about it happening? It isn’t about the integrity of elections, or they’d never have backed Gore fighting it in 2000, or went all Russia, Russia Russia after the last election. 

And if it really is just a big money grab for him and they have nothing, seems to me the best thing that could happen would be to let it play out then everyone can see it and then politics could go back to how it was before he showed up.

Did someone say OJ and evidence?  I can help

(11-20-2020, 02:15 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

Let me ask you this. What do you think is most likely to happen?

This is all for show and to try and get every last dollar from Trumps supporters. They’re getting destroyed in court, big law firms are dropping them and the only people left defending Trump are people with nothing left. Rudy? He’s hanging on by a thread. Jenna? She blasted Trump in 2016 and no one cared about her so she flipped the script and is now defending him for the spotlight.

I think Trump is extremely nervous about what’s going to happen to him after Biden gets into office.

You clearly don't know how the "brotherhood" of politics work.

I know this is an ongoing wet dream for you people, so I won't spoil it.

I think China is just waiting to show the world the proof of the money they've given the Biden family so he will get impeached immediately and Kamala becomes President - then China can ramp up their plans for destroying the United States. In the west we have an outlook that lasts maybe 10 years... in Asia? they think in terms of centuries.

(11-20-2020, 03:20 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]I think China is just waiting to show the world the proof of the money they've given the Biden family so he will get impeached immediately and Kamala becomes President - then China can ramp up their plans for destroying the United States. In the west we have an outlook that lasts maybe 10 years... in Asia? they think in terms of centuries.

I think just the opposite. The Chinese can't wait to influence Joe Biden by holding the Hunter payoff over his head.

Harris doesn't have the broad ideological support in her own party that you think she does. It's only her identity they want. The party would tear itself apart if she became president.

(11-20-2020, 02:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:06 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]What lawyer shows everything they’ve got before going to court? Even in criminal cases they don’t pass out information to the general public to let them comb through it looking for details. With the cancel culture, doxxing and out right death threats that’s been going on, they would be out of their freaking minds to release those affidavits before they go to court. That could be putting people in serious jeopardy. And as far as physical proof, why give anyone a chance to get out there and come up with reasonable explanations that would run on 24 hour news cycles before you ever have your day in court?

But they have gone to court.  20+ times they've been in court since election day.  They got a single favorable ruling, only that pennsylvania should keep ballots that arrived late physically separate from on time ballots. The rest of the rulings were unfavorable, for lack of proof.

Yes and no. Rudy and team were not leading those or appearing. They also are at the state level with a lot of liberal judges appointed by Obama. The judges are blatantly ignoring the law and allowing changes that cannot be made.

Those courts really are nothing but bidding time. The issue will be decided by the Supreme Court. If they keep it private, that means they have the classified info.

I suspect Trump has what he needs, but is trying to do it without destroying the country and arresting everyone. If he has to use the EO, I think he will but only as a last resort.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

(11-20-2020, 03:32 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/PAHouseGOP/status/13...02754?s=20

Is this your idea of evidence?  The Trump campaign is intentionally trying to discredit the computer systems without proof.  There is no proof... just accusations.  Accusations a blind man could have seen coming years ago from Trump's telegraphed rhetoric like "the only way I lose is if its rigged".  His claims would be more credible (not much more, mind you) if he wasn't telegraphing his course of action for when he lost.

Wake me up when someone has ANY proof of widespread voter fraud.

(11-20-2020, 03:37 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2020, 02:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]But they have gone to court.  20+ times they've been in court since election day.  They got a single favorable ruling, only that pennsylvania should keep ballots that arrived late physically separate from on time ballots. The rest of the rulings were unfavorable, for lack of proof.

Yes and no. Rudy and team were not leading those or appearing. They also are at the state level with a lot of liberal judges appointed by Obama. The judges are blatantly ignoring the law and allowing changes that cannot be made.

Those courts really are nothing but bidding time. The issue will be decided by the Supreme Court. If they keep it private, that means they have the classified info.

I suspect Trump has what he needs, but is trying to do it without destroying the country and arresting everyone. If he has to use the EO, I think he will but only as a last resort.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Ridiculous and 100% biased assessment.  Over half of the election court cases Trump has lost have had Republican judges, who literally laughed at their claims and threw them out.  It won't get to the Supreme Court... its just a dog-and-pony show to gain public support from right wing nut jobs.

And all Trump is doing is trying to destroy this country and democracy by having his sheep believe what he says without proof. Isn't that the definition of a political sheep? Belief without strong evidence?