Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(05-13-2021, 06:35 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2021, 09:48 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Google them if you want to read them. Almost every single court case filed by Trump falls under my "where's the body" analogy. Judges are saying, if you can't show definitively that you would have won, we are not hearing this case. Every case that was dismissed on standing is an example of this. Trump was bringing the knife and the witnesses to a case with no body. He needed the "Kraken" that Powell was talking about, but it never manifested. As for the other cases, I've already mentioned two: The one with the amicus brief filed by Raffensperger, and the one in AZ, that is being held up by certain election officials with overtures being made by the DOJ. It should be concerning to see officials intervening in these when you have a significant amount of the population that feels disenfranchised.

You want me to search out all these cases in an attempt to find what you are alleging?  No.  

It's like if you told me that Bigfoot exists, and I said, okay, show me BigFoot, and you reply: go out and search the woods, he's out there.  No, I don't think I want to do that. 

Now, when you say, every case that was dismissed for lack of standing is an example of judges saying: you can't show me that you would have won, so I am not hearing the case, that's not what the judge is ruling when he cites "lack of standing."  Lack of standing means you are not the right person to be bringing the suit.  If you witness a person in Walmart slipping on a wet floor, and you file suit, your case would be dismissed for lack of standing because you are not the injured party.  This is a Constitutional requirement and without it, anyone could sue anyone for anything, even if they are not the one who was injured.  

Here is an article you can read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elect...on_v._Kemp

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 86 lawsuits[1] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[2] Among the judges who dismissed the aforementioned lawsuits were judges appointed by Trump himself.[3]

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence.[4] Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[5] and "without merit".[6][7] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[8] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[9] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Here's an example of a ruling- Boland vs Raffensperger.   Here is a key point the judge made in her ruling:  

[font=sans-serif]Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint could be brought under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521, it also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is based on the premise that the election is in doubt because the voter rolls were not properly maintained, and because election officials did not properly verify voter signatures. Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest.[/font]

You can read the entire ruling here:  

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boland_v._Raffensperger

Look at the lawsuits that Powell and Wood filed. They filed thousands of pages of statements, signed affidavits, evidence of the fraud, etc. They were all dismissed without reviewing the evidence. You can't prove the fraud without doing a full audit of the election. There is enough evidence from people involved to have at least issued a stay in order investigate.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/05/13/fann-se...e-ballots/

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ma...it-update/

Trump Won , BY A LOT!!

(05-14-2021, 12:46 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021, 06:35 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You want me to search out all these cases in an attempt to find what you are alleging?  No.  

It's like if you told me that Bigfoot exists, and I said, okay, show me BigFoot, and you reply: go out and search the woods, he's out there.  No, I don't think I want to do that. 

Now, when you say, every case that was dismissed for lack of standing is an example of judges saying: you can't show me that you would have won, so I am not hearing the case, that's not what the judge is ruling when he cites "lack of standing."  Lack of standing means you are not the right person to be bringing the suit.  If you witness a person in Walmart slipping on a wet floor, and you file suit, your case would be dismissed for lack of standing because you are not the injured party.  This is a Constitutional requirement and without it, anyone could sue anyone for anything, even if they are not the one who was injured.  

Here is an article you can read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elect...on_v._Kemp

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 86 lawsuits[1] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[2] Among the judges who dismissed the aforementioned lawsuits were judges appointed by Trump himself.[3]

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence.[4] Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[5] and "without merit".[6][7] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[8] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[9] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Here's an example of a ruling- Boland vs Raffensperger.   Here is a key point the judge made in her ruling:  

[font=sans-serif]Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint could be brought under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521, it also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it is based on the premise that the election is in doubt because the voter rolls were not properly maintained, and because election officials did not properly verify voter signatures. Even if credited, the Complaint’s factual allegations do not plausibly support his claims. The allegations in the Complaint rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts. They cannot, as a matter of law, sustain this contest.[/font]

You can read the entire ruling here:  

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boland_v._Raffensperger

Look at the lawsuits that Powell and Wood filed. They filed thousands of pages of statements, signed affidavits, evidence of the fraud, etc. They were all dismissed without reviewing the evidence. You can't prove the fraud without doing a full audit of the election. There is enough evidence from people involved to have at least issued a stay in order investigate.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

You say they filed thousands of pages of statements, affidavits, etc.  Have you read any of those statements or affidavits?  Or are you just taking their word that those statements and affidavits are somehow compelling, and, can you cite a specific case where a judge refused to look at that so-called evidence?  

From what I have read, those affidavits contained statements like, "the music was too loud" or "I don't think my vote was counted" or "a poll worker told me to not stand so close."   One of them said the person saw a box of ballots opened, and the ballots looked "too clean."  

Again, I need a specific case where a judge refused to look at this so-called evidence.   I have only read a few rulings, but the ones I did read, the judges stated, among many reasons for dismissing the cases, "lack of evidence."  That tells me they did look at that so-called evidence.  

And, as far as Powell and Wood go, they were so wacky and made so many ridiculous statements that Trump fired them.

It is STUNNING the fraud they are uncovering in AZ. It happened In other states as well, but probably much bigger. The evidence, REAL evidence being uncovered in AZ should send chills down ever Americans spine..

This cannot be allowed to stand!! Trump Won, he is the TRUE PRESIDENT, NOT THAT CLOWN BIDEN!!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ma...it-update/

(05-14-2021, 09:34 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]It is STUNNING the fraud they are uncovering in AZ. It happened In other states as well, but probably much bigger. The evidence, REAL evidence being uncovered in AZ should send chills down ever Americans spine..

This cannot be allowed to stand!! Trump Won, he is the TRUE PRESIDENT, NOT THAT CLOWN BIDEN!!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ma...it-update/

A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.  I'll wait to see what this really is.

(05-14-2021, 09:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-14-2021, 09:34 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]It is STUNNING the fraud they are uncovering in AZ. It happened In other states as well, but probably much bigger. The evidence, REAL evidence being uncovered in AZ should send chills down ever Americans spine..

This cannot be allowed to stand!! Trump Won, he is the TRUE PRESIDENT, NOT THAT CLOWN BIDEN!!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ma...it-update/

A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.  I'll wait to see what this really is.

The only lies are coming from DEMOCRATS. They will NOT get away with this..

(05-14-2021, 09:40 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-14-2021, 09:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.  I'll wait to see what this really is.

The only lies are coming from DEMOCRATS. They will NOT get away with this..

TO THE STREETS!

"As the audit has progressed, the Senate’s contractors have become aware of apparent omissions, inconsistencies, and anomalies relating to Maricopa County’s handling, organization, and storage of ballots.  We hope you can assist us in understanding these issues, including specifically the following:

The County has not provided any chain-of-custody documentation for the ballots. Does such documentation exist, and if so, will it be produced?

The bags in which the ballots were stored are not sealed, although the audit team has found at the bottom of many boxes cut seals of the type that would have sealed a ballot bag. Why were these seals placed at the bottom of the boxes?

Batches within a box are frequently separated by only a divider without any indication of the corresponding batch numbers. In some cases, the batch dividers are missing altogether.  This lack of organization has significantly complicated and delayed the audit team’s ballot processing efforts.  What are the County’s procedures for sorting, organizing, and packaging ballot batches?

Most of the ballot boxes were sealed merely with regular tape and not secured by any kind of tamper-evident seal. Is that the County’s customary practice for storing ballots?

The audit team has encountered a significant number of instances in which there is a disparity between the actual number of ballots contained in a batch and the total denoted on the pink report slip accompanying the batch. In most of these instances, the total on the pink report slip is greater than the number of ballots in the batch, although there are a few instances in which the total is lower.  What are the reasons for these discrepancies?

Fann then addressed the issue of deleted data bases:

We have recently discovered that the entire “Database” directory from the D drive of the machine “EMSPrimary” has been deleted. This removes election related details that appear to have been covered by the subpoena.

In addition, the main database for the Election Management System (EMS) Software, “Results Tally and Reporting,” is not located anywhere on the EMSPrimary machine, even though all of the EMS Clients reference that machine as the location of the database. This suggests that the main database for all election related data for the November 2020 General Election has been removed.

Can you please advise as to why these folders were deleted, and whether there are any backups that may contain the deleted folders?"





All good questions... But , hey nothing to see here right?






Just in - Always follow the money. Maricopa county's sheriff, Paul Penzone, received 2 million dollars from George Soros in campaign funds and now he is worried about the recklessness of the audit.



https://uncoverdc.com/2021/05/14/windham...-facility/

(05-14-2021, 09:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-14-2021, 09:34 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]It is STUNNING the fraud they are uncovering in AZ. It happened In other states as well, but probably much bigger. The evidence, REAL evidence being uncovered in AZ should send chills down ever Americans spine..

This cannot be allowed to stand!! Trump Won, he is the TRUE PRESIDENT, NOT THAT CLOWN BIDEN!!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ma...it-update/

A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.  I'll wait to see what this really is.

This is the problem with a % of the population who is lost forever.

What will it take for you to believe the evidence? Seriously, what would it take for you to believe the democrats (and RINOs) cheated? (This includes most of the republicans in office in AZ)

I don't think there's anything other than the people involved admitting they did it.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(05-13-2021, 11:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021, 11:00 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, dude, let me see if I can give a better example. In the MI case (this is from memory, so the recollection might not be perfect), Trump has affidavits from people who saw dates being switched, people counting ballots with no signatures, election officials kicking out Republican observers. There was an affidavit talking about a truck that arrived around 3 AM with what appeared to be ballots. An hour and a half later, there is a large ballot dump where 99% of the ballots went to Biden. There is video evidence that shows a truck pull up and people offloading cases of something, which corroborates the story. This is when the voting center was supposedly shut down for the night. All of that is suspect, but it doesn't prove anything. There needs to be hard evidence.

What I have laid out is the preponderance of evidence, and it doesn't matter how much there is, because Trump can't prove there were ballots on that truck. He can't prove those ballots were then scanned and we all for Biden. It only takes one person saying that they had a skeleton staff working through the night, and that it just so happens that all of those ballots were for Biden because more democrats mailed in votes (not to the tune of 99%, but whatever). It only takes one person saying the truck was just offloading printer paper, even though it was being escorted by a person in a Porsche. The election officials only need to say they kicked out unruly participants, or that there was a mix up. Truth be told, all of those things might just be coincidences, but let's be real. There was a LOT of shady stuff going on. That said, the courts can't seriously take a case that has no verifiable hard evidence. We should still be in agreement here. So, it should be obvious to both me and you that the courts did the right thing by dismissing those cases out of the gate. What should also be obvious to me and you is that there was still a lot of shenanigans involved in the most populated districts in the most important swing states, that were controlled by blue officials with no oversight whatsoever.

Now, when shady stuff goes on, pressure should be put on those institutions to verify that it really was just a coincidence, right? Wouldn't you agree? Instead of a spotlight being shined in that direction, there was IMMEDIATE dismissal coming from the MSM. That doesn't set off warning bells in your head? Not even a little bit? Why are journalists not investigating this? I mean, aside from the fact that they don't investigate anything. Ever. What about the institutions designed to investigate this? Barr didn't send out the FBI. He left it up to local agencies. GA is the only state that said they investigated, at least according to Kemp, but we were given no description of what was done or how they did it. Kemp said something to the affect of 'we had our guys go down there to ask around, but they didn't find anything suspicious.' Before you take that and run with it, ask yourself how agencies might be hamstrung in this type of investigation. Can they look at the ballots? Nope. Can they look at the machines? Nope. You need warrants for any of this stuff, and we get back to the original problem: Where's the body? In the few cases where courts have permitted extra digging, the people are being obstructed by the very agencies that should be helping.

I could do the same thing for GA, AZ, MI, WI, and PA. I literally only mentioned a super small fraction of events that took place this election. I listened to HOURS of witness testimony, and looked at many examples of suspect math...even did some myself. The truth is that there just wasn't anything tangible to back it up. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! If you want to continue on that tract, just know you are doing so at the cost of your own integrity. You can say I am compromising mine, but I'm very specific about what I'm claiming. The preponderance of evidence looks extremely suspect, and we, as a people, should be clamoring for investigations, just like we did for Russiagate.

Here's the kicker: Literally every single thing that contributed to this mess, Dems are now trying to federalize. If anything should set off your corruption radar, that should be it, but, like Mikey, you are too enamored by authority to use your actual brain.

Okay, help me out here.  You refer to "the MI case."   There were about a dozen Michigan cases.  Can you tell me which one you are referring to?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elect...m_Michigan

About the boxes that you say showed up at 3AM with what appeared to be boxes of ballots: the local news station says it was their truck, and it was photographic equipment.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolog...-debunked/

[font=georgia,]A video shared widely online shows a man closing the back of a white van early Wednesday and wheeling a box into a Detroit ballot-counting location with a red wagon. As he walks away, a woman recording says the box “looks like one of those lockboxes” and implies that he might be illegally bringing ballots inside.[/font]That man was a photographer for WXYZ, Detroit’s ABC affiliate, and the box was the equipment he was transporting into the TCF Center.
[font=Franklin, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=georgia,]A Michigan Department of State spokeswoman confirmed that the video did not depict illegal behavior.[/font][/font]
[font=Franklin, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=georgia,]“WXYZ settled this and confirmed it is their camera person,” the spokeswoman, Tracy Wimmer, wrote in an email. “That video has been completely debunked."[/font][/font]

About the ballot dump with all the ballots going to Biden: 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/verify...cce9f38409

[font=proximanova, sans-serif]There were claims Wednesday morning that about 130,000 votes were added to the tally in Michigan -- and all of them went to Biden.
[/font]
People quickly called foul and pointed to it as evidence confirming their suspicions of illegal ballot dumping.
[font=proximanova, sans-serif]But VERIFY learned that there weren’t 130,000 votes mysteriously given to Joe Biden. The person who made the viral claim later deleted his tweet because it was false.[/font]

So, you have not been able to name a case where a judge "refused to look at the evidence," the so-called "ballot dump" did not happen, and the mysterious boxes that were brought in a van at 3 AM were photographic equipment.  

I hope you stop now, because I am too lazy to want to keep knocking down your specious arguments like this.  Please stop.  

You say I am being dense, but I think you are so locked into this conspiracy theory that you have lost all of your objectivity.  You don't seem to realize, or you don't want to admit, that most of your arguments were debunked long ago.    

Firstly, I want to clarify what I was doing with my post. I was trying to just use some information from memory of some contentious issues as an example of why a court wouldn't hear the case. I was more caught up in arguing my analogy than I was in presenting facts, so to that end, your response is fair criticism. I haven't followed this for months, so a good majority has already leaked out of my brain, and it was lazy of me to throw out those examples. It doesn't matter, though, because none of the cases that were "dismissed" were actually heard. This means you trying to win this debate by "debunking" that info is irrelevant. What you did here was not done at the trials. They weren't heard. It's because the judges were looking for any kind of hard PROOF that Trump would have won if not for a particular fraud. Trump could not present that, so there was no trial in most of these instances.

I will concede that the vote dumps were common, and likely to favor Biden. You have the wrong example of a van pulling up to the center, but it doesn't matter, because you'll just post the explanation from the county which is that it's standard practice to drop off ballots in the middle of the night. I find it odd that votes are held at one location, then after saying the center was shut down for the night, a van drops off tens of thousands of ballots from a different location, and vote totals continue to be updated. Why were we told they were shutting down for the night in 4 states, only to have the vote totals drastically different when they "resume" work the next morning? Wouldn't the totals be the same at 6:30 as they were at 3:30 if those centers shut down? 

Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me, because I am hung up on a completely different set of numbers. Biden underperformed everywhere but a few highly populated districts controlled by democrats. When you look at the abstractions this election, common sense points to fraud. Trump couldn't produce a body... that's on him. I truly blame him for his defeat. HOWEVER, it's should be common sense for the establishment to want to clarify the concerns of the people. This means doing a thorough audit in contested areas. Instead, they are dismissive and obfuscating. 

I don't want to go into it too much, because we are having 2 different arguments at this point. I just want you to acknowledge that there was no EVIDENCE given at the trials where the cases were dismissed or dropped. This is argument one. When you can do that, then we can go back to the original argument, which is whether or not fraud occurred. I can not prove it occurred... I can only show that there is a strong possibility of it. This is where we need to get to then address the "For the People Act," which I believe is the single greatest threat to our Republic.

P.S. Sorry I couldn't get to this sooner. I had a terrible headache when I got back from lunch. Then I kind of forgot about it.

(05-15-2021, 05:52 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-13-2021, 11:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, help me out here.  You refer to "the MI case."   There were about a dozen Michigan cases.  Can you tell me which one you are referring to?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elect...m_Michigan

About the boxes that you say showed up at 3AM with what appeared to be boxes of ballots: the local news station says it was their truck, and it was photographic equipment.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolog...-debunked/

[font=georgia,]A video shared widely online shows a man closing the back of a white van early Wednesday and wheeling a box into a Detroit ballot-counting location with a red wagon. As he walks away, a woman recording says the box “looks like one of those lockboxes” and implies that he might be illegally bringing ballots inside.[/font]That man was a photographer for WXYZ, Detroit’s ABC affiliate, and the box was the equipment he was transporting into the TCF Center.
[font=Franklin, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=georgia,]A Michigan Department of State spokeswoman confirmed that the video did not depict illegal behavior.[/font][/font]
[font=Franklin, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=georgia,]“WXYZ settled this and confirmed it is their camera person,” the spokeswoman, Tracy Wimmer, wrote in an email. “That video has been completely debunked."[/font][/font]

About the ballot dump with all the ballots going to Biden: 

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/verify...cce9f38409

[font=proximanova, sans-serif]There were claims Wednesday morning that about 130,000 votes were added to the tally in Michigan -- and all of them went to Biden.
[/font]
People quickly called foul and pointed to it as evidence confirming their suspicions of illegal ballot dumping.
[font=proximanova, sans-serif]But VERIFY learned that there weren’t 130,000 votes mysteriously given to Joe Biden. The person who made the viral claim later deleted his tweet because it was false.[/font]

So, you have not been able to name a case where a judge "refused to look at the evidence," the so-called "ballot dump" did not happen, and the mysterious boxes that were brought in a van at 3 AM were photographic equipment.  

I hope you stop now, because I am too lazy to want to keep knocking down your specious arguments like this.  Please stop.  

You say I am being dense, but I think you are so locked into this conspiracy theory that you have lost all of your objectivity.  You don't seem to realize, or you don't want to admit, that most of your arguments were debunked long ago.    

Firstly, I want to clarify what I was doing with my post. I was trying to just use some information from memory of some contentious issues as an example of why a court wouldn't hear the case. I was more caught up in arguing my analogy than I was in presenting facts, so to that end, your response is fair criticism. I haven't followed this for months, so a good majority has already leaked out of my brain, and it was lazy of me to throw out those examples. It doesn't matter, though, because none of the cases that were "dismissed" were actually heard. This means you trying to win this debate by "debunking" that info is irrelevant. What you did here was not done at the trials. They weren't heard. It's because the judges were looking for any kind of hard PROOF that Trump would have won if not for a particular fraud. Trump could not present that, so there was no trial in most of these instances.

I will concede that the vote dumps were common, and likely to favor Biden. You have the wrong example of a van pulling up to the center, but it doesn't matter, because you'll just post the explanation from the county which is that it's standard practice to drop off ballots in the middle of the night. I find it odd that votes are held at one location, then after saying the center was shut down for the night, a van drops off tens of thousands of ballots from a different location, and vote totals continue to be updated. Why were we told they were shutting down for the night in 4 states, only to have the vote totals drastically different when they "resume" work the next morning? Wouldn't the totals be the same at 6:30 as they were at 3:30 if those centers shut down? 

Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me, because I am hung up on a completely different set of numbers. Biden underperformed everywhere but a few highly populated districts controlled by democrats. When you look at the abstractions this election, common sense points to fraud. Trump couldn't produce a body... that's on him. I truly blame him for his defeat. HOWEVER, it's should be common sense for the establishment to want to clarify the concerns of the people. This means doing a thorough audit in contested areas. Instead, they are dismissive and obfuscating. 

I don't want to go into it too much, because we are having 2 different arguments at this point. I just want you to acknowledge that there was no EVIDENCE given at the trials where the cases were dismissed or dropped. This is argument one. When you can do that, then we can go back to the original argument, which is whether or not fraud occurred. I can not prove it occurred... I can only show that there is a strong possibility of it. This is where we need to get to then address the "For the People Act," which I believe is the single greatest threat to our Republic.

P.S. Sorry I couldn't get to this sooner. I had a terrible headache when I got back from lunch. Then I kind of forgot about it.

I really don't want to keep going with this, but I will respond to the part in bold.  There was no evidence given at the trials because there was no evidence.  The judges who dismissed the cases stated that there was no evidence.  That should tell you, they asked to see evidence and none was produced, or what so-called evidence was shown was so weak that it couldn't really be called evidence.  It is absolutely not true that the judges refused to look at the evidence.  They did look at the evidence, and they generally said, this is not evidence, case dismissed.   

Again, I don't want to keep going, but I have to close with this: you have failed to produce a single specific case, where what you alleged happened, actually happened.  You state, "It's because the judges were looking for any kind of hard PROOF that Trump would have won if not for a particular fraud."  I have asked you twice for a specific case where that happened, and you have not produced one.

I'm at a loss, man. Can anyone explain this better than me? I don't know how else to say it. When his case was dismissed, it wasn't because there was NO evidence fraud was committed. They know that some fraud happens in every election. Trump just didn't have any certifiable evidence to PROVE that he was the rightful winner. You can't sue to overturn results if you can't prove that someone else orchestrated and succeeded in robbing you of the election. He was NEVER going to win that case. You can find me saying that 3 days after the election. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T EVIDENCE. Why can't you get that through your head? It just wasn't concrete. They had zero shot of winning this in the courts. You are stopping there and saying no crime was committed. It's a [BLEEP] position to take.

There is a preponderance of evidence that suggest something fishy went down. You are talking about my bias, but we can't even get you past legal 101. Once you acknowledge that the court results are trivial to this discussion, then we can look at the preponderance of evidence. But, as long as you want to try to use the courts as proof of your positions (which they aren't and can't be), we can't even have a good-faith discussion about the election.

One other thing... the whole reason I even continue to address this: It is really important our elections are transparent and fair. The whole process has become corrupted by corporate money and establishment practices. Trump lost. Biden sucks. It is what it is. However, moving forward. the "For the People Act" is attempting to federalize the systems that I believe were exploited to oust Trump. Since you don't think that's a possibility AT ALL, it keeps you from acknowledging how bad this bill actually is. It's going to be a disaster for our Republic. Period. I don't care about the past. I care about the future. There are too many people like that are too willing to accept the pretext for these changes.

The judges said no evidence because no one has video evidence showing the fraud in changeable amounts. There is plenty of evidence when all added up to change the election.

It's like saying you have someone dead but since you don't have video of the murder, you have no evidence. They have video of the murder arriving late at night, video of illegal things happening, but since you weren't there you can't prove it. You can also look at it like this, you have 10 people inject something into a person. Combined the 10 things make a poison and kill someone. The judge says you don't have any proof of this large scale conspiracy from all involved.

They know people voted illegally, don't exist, made up ballots filled out only for Biden, vote switching by machine or adjudication, etc. All of that adds up to changing the election. No one full proof because there wasn't 1 crime. It was a lot of little crimes.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

(05-15-2021, 09:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm at a loss, man. Can anyone explain this better than me? I don't know how else to say it. When his case was dismissed, it wasn't because there was NO evidence fraud was committed. They know that some fraud happens in every election. Trump just didn't have any certifiable evidence to PROVE that he was the rightful winner. You can't sue to overturn results if you can't prove that someone else orchestrated and succeeded in robbing you of the election. He was NEVER going to win that case. You can find me saying that 3 days after the election. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T EVIDENCE. Why can't you get that through your head? It just wasn't concrete. They had zero shot of winning this in the courts. You are stopping there and saying no crime was committed. It's a [BLEEP] position to take.

There is a preponderance of evidence that suggest something fishy went down. You are talking about my bias, but we can't even get you past legal 101. Once you acknowledge that the court results are trivial to this discussion, then we can look at the preponderance of evidence. But, as long as you want to try to use the courts as proof of your positions (which they aren't and can't be), we can't even have a good-faith discussion about the election.

I'm giving up.  I have asked you twice for a specific case that fits your legal theory, analogy, whatever you want to call it, and you will not produce one.  There were 86 cases with a variety of allegations, but in every case, the allegations were too vague or speculative to meet the standard of admissible evidence.  That's why the cases were dismissed.  The judges examined the evidence, and found it to be far less than what Trump's lawyers alleged in the media.  

I can see why you want to say the courts are trivial to this discussion.  It's because Trump was 0 for 86 in the courts.  Every single case dismissed.  Mostly because the "evidence" they trumpeted in the media was not actual evidence when it was shown to a judge.  

The problem is, there were so many allegations that came from Trump supporters that were debunked, that eventually, any further allegations have no credibility.  Trump supporters are the boy that cried wolf.   Eventually, with so many allegations proven to be wrong, the default has to be, it was a clean and fair election.  Every election official, Democrats and Republicans, every law enforcement organization, every judge who had a case, said there is no evidence of election fraud.   And yet you still want me, and everyone else, to continue to rake through the results.  It's time to get on with our lives.  Biden was elected.  Every public opinion poll said he was going to be elected, and the results came out very close to what the polls had forecast.  

The problem is Trump himself.  He started this election fraud nonsense before people even started voting.  He discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, then Republican legislators forbid the counting of mail in ballots before election day, and then (exactly as I predicted) Trump declared himself the winner before the mail in ballots had been counted.  Then a day later he whined about how he was ahead on election night and about how he then "mysteriously" fell behind as the mail in ballots were counted.  I saw him say that and I was flabbergasted.  Could he really not understand why he fell behind as the mail in ballots were counted?   Why can you not see that Trump is a bald-faced liar who misled his supporters about election fraud?  It is so transparent!  He set the whole thing up!  If you can't see that, you are blind!  It's a mysterious thing, how a guy like him can go on TV and tell obvious lies for 4 straight years, and yet his supporters continue to believe him.

(05-15-2021, 09:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm at a loss, man. Can anyone explain this better than me? I don't know how else to say it. When his case was dismissed, it wasn't because there was NO evidence fraud was committed. They know that some fraud happens in every election. Trump just didn't have any certifiable evidence to PROVE that he was the rightful winner. You can't sue to overturn results if you can't prove that someone else orchestrated and succeeded in robbing you of the election. He was NEVER going to win that case. You can find me saying that 3 days after the election. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T EVIDENCE. Why can't you get that through your head? It just wasn't concrete. They had zero shot of winning this in the courts. You are stopping there and saying no crime was committed. It's a [BLEEP] position to take.

There is a preponderance of evidence that suggest something fishy went down. You are talking about my bias, but we can't even get you past legal 101. Once you acknowledge that the court results are trivial to this discussion, then we can look at the preponderance of evidence. But, as long as you want to try to use the courts as proof of your positions (which they aren't and can't be), we can't even have a good-faith discussion about the election.

Trump team:  “Hey judge we have a lot of circumstantial evidence, hearsay and conjecture that enough fraud occurred to overturn the election.”

Judge:  “Do you have any concrete evidence?”

Trump team:  “No sir that is why we need to investigate.”

Judges:  “Without concrete evidence I can’t let you investigate.”

Trump team:  “But without an investigation we can’t produce concrete evidence.”

Judges:  “No concrete evidence then case dismissed.”


I have no problem with the Readers Digest condensed version above.  My issue was when pressed to investigate the very people accused of the fraud were the ones that did the investigations.  That should never happen, it should never be acceptable regardless of which side you are rooting for.   This would be akin to a detective going to a mob boss and saying “Hey Louie, I heard your cousin Vinnie shot a man last night.”  And Louie replying “Yeah I asked him about that, he said it wasn’t him.”  And the detective saying “OK”.

(05-16-2021, 05:29 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-15-2021, 09:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm at a loss, man. Can anyone explain this better than me? I don't know how else to say it. When his case was dismissed, it wasn't because there was NO evidence fraud was committed. They know that some fraud happens in every election. Trump just didn't have any certifiable evidence to PROVE that he was the rightful winner. You can't sue to overturn results if you can't prove that someone else orchestrated and succeeded in robbing you of the election. He was NEVER going to win that case. You can find me saying that 3 days after the election. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T EVIDENCE. Why can't you get that through your head? It just wasn't concrete. They had zero shot of winning this in the courts. You are stopping there and saying no crime was committed. It's a [BLEEP] position to take.

There is a preponderance of evidence that suggest something fishy went down. You are talking about my bias, but we can't even get you past legal 101. Once you acknowledge that the court results are trivial to this discussion, then we can look at the preponderance of evidence. But, as long as you want to try to use the courts as proof of your positions (which they aren't and can't be), we can't even have a good-faith discussion about the election.

I'm giving up.  I have asked you twice for a specific case that fits your legal theory, analogy, whatever you want to call it, and you will not produce one.  There were 86 cases with a variety of allegations, but in every case, the allegations were too vague or speculative to meet the standard of admissible evidence.  That's why the cases were dismissed.  The judges examined the evidence, and found it to be far less than what Trump's lawyers alleged in the media.  

I can see why you want to say the courts are trivial to this discussion.  It's because Trump was 0 for 86 in the courts.  Every single case dismissed.  Mostly because the "evidence" they trumpeted in the media was not actual evidence when it was shown to a judge.  

The problem is, there were so many allegations that came from Trump supporters that were debunked, that eventually, any further allegations have no credibility.  Trump supporters are the boy that cried wolf.   Eventually, with so many allegations proven to be wrong, the default has to be, it was a clean and fair election.  Every election official, Democrats and Republicans, every law enforcement organization, every judge who had a case, said there is no evidence of election fraud.   And yet you still want me, and everyone else, to continue to rake through the results.  It's time to get on with our lives.  Biden was elected.  Every public opinion poll said he was going to be elected, and the results came out very close to what the polls had forecast.  

The problem is Trump himself.  He started this election fraud nonsense before people even started voting.  He discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, then Republican legislators forbid the counting of mail in ballots before election day, and then (exactly as I predicted) Trump declared himself the winner before the mail in ballots had been counted.  Then a day later he whined about how he was ahead on election night and about how he then "mysteriously" fell behind as the mail in ballots were counted.  I saw him say that and I was flabbergasted.  Could he really not understand why he fell behind as the mail in ballots were counted?   Why can you not see that Trump is a bald-faced liar who misled his supporters about election fraud?  It is so transparent!  He set the whole thing up!  If you can't see that, you are blind!  It's a mysterious thing, how a guy like him can go on TV and tell obvious lies for 4 straight years, and yet his supporters continue to believe him.

To your bolded point, you didn't "predict" anything. This was the exact talking point that was plastered all over leftist news, social media, and late night TV. I was expecting a late run by Biden, also. I thought Trump was going to lose. Pretty sure you can find me posting on this board that I thought he would lose this election. I was ready to concede this race the morning after until I started looking at the numbers. 

To my bolded point, did you watch any of these cases? I watched 3 of them. Most of them lasted 30 minutes or less. Trump was unable to show that he would have won the election if not for the fraud that occurred. His team was attempting to use a preponderance of evidence to speculate the outcome of the election. That is not the same as NO evidence. What don't you get about that? Do you have any idea what standing means? The judges didn't review the evidence, because Trump couldn't FIRST show he would have won the election without fraud. Judges are not going to speculate on what might have happened, so they dismissed the cases. 

Again, we are having 2 different arguments at this point. Argument number 1 is whether the courts dismissing these cases on standing are proof that widespread fraud didn't occur. That's just not the case, and it's annoying that you keep wanting to try to bring it into the debate like it's sacrosanct. It's not, and I've shown why it's not. If you want to say that Trump didn't have proof that he would have won without fraud, I agree with you. HOWEVER, you can not use a single court ruling to say definitively that fraud did not occur.  There's no reason you shouldn't be able to understand the distinction I am making here. It's basic logic.

Just for confirmation, I was talking with a very reputable lawyer this morning. He said I am slightly off on my definition of standing, but that it's a really nebulous concept, so even some lawyers have difficulty with it. I have the gist correct, though. Trump couldn't show how he would have won this election if not for fraud, so courts weren't going to hear the case. ADDITIONALLY, there is a precedent where courts don't like to get involved in political matters without some kind of institutional support. AND, finally, there is a question as to whether it's the politician or the citizens that were harmed by the contested laws. This would explain why private citizens have had more success in the courts than Trump. Regardless, he said my assertion that a case dismissed on standing is not PROOF that there was no fraud. One can't logically use the courts as defense of their position because they didn't hear the case.

For the record, the guy thinks Trump legal team was pathetic (as do I), and he doesn't think there was widespread fraud. I realize this could appear like an appeal to authority logical fallacy, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy in the argument about the courts.

So we finally have some voter fraud???

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...-name.html

Before I click on that link, let me guess: Some small group of Republicans voted for Trump illegally?

---

Nailed it.