Jump to content

Trump supporters?


Recommended Posts

Man, that car wreck’s horrible. Is there foul play suspected? I know Trump has been going hard at Kemp, and Trump acolytes are talking about armed uprisings and all, but I hope it was just an accident.

 

On the other issue, I just don’t understand how you say “let’s see where this goes” over and over, and when it turns out that it goes nowhere, not only do you not recognize that, you just find something new to “see where it goes.” Testimony from witnesses that are not credible, as determined by judges (from both parties) not determined by me, are not credible evidence. Over 40 lawsuits down and there’s no POSSIBILITY that Trump legitimately lost?

 

Remember that meal of crow related to Sidney Powell’s rantings? She was so credible too....

 

I know it’s disappointing, but it turns out that Trump just plain lost. And for all his “law and order” talk, he’s doing everything possible to deny voters the choice they made. How many legislatures has he begged to disregard the votes of citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We should clarify the whole 40-1 argument just so we're all on the same legal understanding. That number is reflective of several factors. Some cases (I think around 17-20 of them) were "thrown out" because the plaintiff and defendant worked out a compromise beforehand--so the judge "dismissed" those cases in order to bring a ruling/closure to the challenge. (recounts, voter logs, sig checks...etc.)

 

Other challenges were dismissed right away for improper paperwork. Most were cases with local attorneys representing witnesses in various forms and were confused on state/federal electoral challenges. This is to be expected as most elected officials don't even know constitutional law. Most of these witnesses have now come together and are being represented by attorneys for their

And some of these were simply thrown out by judges who didn't see enough evidence in the affidavit. Some may say they were biased based on their political leanings but it really doesn't matter.

 

In the end, POTUS wants these cases to go to the SCOTUS and the only way that happens is by judges dismissing cases. So this is actually a good thing for POTUS and his people. A Justice just mentioned the other day after the Wiscy challenge was thrown out that the 'media/people' that portray the court dismissals as indicative of "lack of evidence/no voter fraud" are wrong as these cases are actually "far from it" and just need to go through lower courts first.

 

Georgia just ordered signature checks on all ballots after that video came out. I have no idea what's going to happen but I'm interested to see this process play out.

 

Visions of three old guys holding up a ballot looking at a hanging chad come to mind.

 

 

 

I had a doctor friend, who went to school in Georgia, who was sent a text/email recently asking him if he would like to vote in the run-off since he voted in the general election. He didn’t vote in Georgia. I had doctor friend in Arizona who was given a sharpie to mark her ballot. Her ballot was thrown out as was a lot of her friends at the same poll.

 

Looks like The Trump Train’s next stop is the Su-Preme Court! Anyone else feel like we are living in the matrix right now?

 

PS the corona virus is real. Wash your hands you filthy animals! :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, that car wreck’s horrible. Is there foul play suspected? I know Trump has been going hard at Kemp, and Trump acolytes are talking about armed uprisings and all, but I hope it was just an accident.

 

On the other issue, I just don’t understand how you say “let’s see where this goes” over and over, and when it turns out that it goes nowhere, not only do you not recognize that, you just find something new to “see where it goes.” Testimony from witnesses that are not credible, as determined by judges (from both parties) not determined by me, are not credible evidence. Over 40 lawsuits down and there’s no POSSIBILITY that Trump legitimately lost?

 

Remember that meal of crow related to Sidney Powell’s rantings? She was so credible too....

 

I know it’s disappointing, but it turns out that Trump just plain lost. And for all his “law and order” talk, he’s doing everything possible to deny voters the choice they made. How many legislatures has he begged to disregard the votes of citizens?

 

All the witnesses (former colonel, MIT Prof, 20 year poll worker, independent data analyst contracted by NSA, life-long democrat poll watcher with picture evidence...etc.) are not credible? I try to stay in the middle on political things but I think we need to hear them out and not just simply denounce them as "not credible." If they're not credible, then I don't know the definition of credible is. And here's the false 40 lawsuit argument again. Have 40 suits been dismissed? Probably. But only 3 were from the POTUS's defense council. Most were dismissed because of time allotments. Numerous were simply dismissed because they needed to go to the circuit courts first. This is the first 'election during a pandemic alleged voter fraud' instance in our history so there's bound to be numerous errors made in paperwork and judicial processes. And I think it's also important to note that a lot of these judges are left-leaning so lets not leave that out.

 

All in all, I think we all want fair elections. We can agree on that.

 

And I think a great way to reinforce Biden as the next POTUS-to-be is requiring signature checks on these late-counting states. If any sigs do not match voter registration info, toss them. Both Democrat and Republican. Me and my student loans will gladly accept those results.

 

But to be able to build the foundation of an impeachment case against the POTUS with a simple hearsay witness should mean that we give the same respect to these eye witnesses and their alleged evidence who have impeccable authority in their areas of study. You can't have it two ways. I mean, a retired colonel with expertise in cyber security and we're suggesting he's not credible? This doesn't pass the smell test.

 

Everyone should want illegal ballots to be tossed and everyone should wonder why a supposedly secure voting machine that isn't connected to the internet could have a "user-caused glitch" that swung votes one way and then back. How is that possible? Users should have no accidental ability to change votes. And how do you update a voter machine without implanting something into it or connecting online?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you and I, both outside of this process, don't have a basis for declaring one person credible over another. That's why there's a judge who listens to it all and filters it through the law.

 

I encourage you to read the findings of fact and conclusions of law that form the basis for the dismissal of the Nevada lawsuit.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20420211/judge-russell-order-on-trump-elector-lawsuit.pdf

 

Around pages 11-13, the judge explains that while these experts may have credentials, their methodology and conclusions are unreliable because, among other things, their opinions are based on anecdotal evidence that they took no steps to confirm or verify. See paragraphs 61, 63, and 65-66. This is by the admission of the experts themselves, in their depositions. See also, paragraph 109.

 

If you want to know how all of this adds up to no credible evidence, and conclusions that are unreliable as a matter of law, go ahead and read the opinion.

 

Or don't, and sit back and feign ignorance, now that the actual analysis has been provided to a court, and you can read the results if you want to read the

 

#truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you and I, both outside of this process, don't have a basis for declaring one person credible over another. That's why there's a judge who listens to it all and filters it through the law.

 

I encourage you to read the findings of fact and conclusions of law that form the basis for the dismissal of the Nevada lawsuit.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20420211/judge-russell-order-on-trump-elector-lawsuit.pdf

 

Around pages 11-13, the judge explains that while these experts may have credentials, their methodology and conclusions are unreliable because, among other things, their opinions are based on anecdotal evidence that they took no steps to confirm or verify. See paragraphs 61, 63, and 65-66. This is by the admission of the experts themselves, in their depositions. See also, paragraph 109.

 

If you want to know how all of this adds up to no credible evidence, and conclusions that are unreliable as a matter of law, go ahead and read the opinion.

 

Or don't, and sit back and feign ignorance, now that the actual analysis has been provided to a court, and you can read the results if you want to read the

 

#truth.

 

These aren't evidentiary hearings. These are essentially petitions to go ahead into discovery and evidentiary proceedings within the judiciary. This is why the SCOTUS exists and I can see them wanting to explore further, especially in PA, AZ and GA. Not really sure about Nevada. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone should want illegal ballots to be tossed and everyone should wonder why a supposedly secure voting machine that isn't connected to the internet could have a "user-caused glitch" that swung votes one way and then back. How is that possible? Users should have no accidental ability to change votes. And how do you update a voter machine without implanting something into it or connecting online?

 

This is misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) the one instance of this that occurred (in a county that had a nominal amount of votes, no less). The user didn't change votes. Instead, the user didn't update the software used to capture unofficial vote totals and reflect them online. This was caught during the validation process that compares online totals to physical totals and corrected on election night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the witnesses (former colonel, MIT Prof, 20 year poll worker, independent data analyst contracted by NSA, life-long democrat poll watcher with picture evidence...etc.)

 

There is no way to know if all 'witnesses' are or are not credible. This is what the legal process is for. However, you've made some more mistakes (or misrepresentations) here.

That is not an MIT professor. He was an MIT lecturer that had his guest lecturer contract terminated due, in part, to some liberties he took in laying claim to have "invented email". he also spent the first half of this year seeking support for a Republican senate run and the firing of Anthony Fauci. So, it is not unreasonable to question his motives. In spite of all of this, his background in email technology and bioscience likely makes him surprisingly, the most qualified of all those that have testified or made claims attempting to call into question the fairness of the 2020 presidential election.

The former colonel I'm guessing is a reference to Phil Waldron. I'm not sure why his status as a Colonel is of note because it does not, in and of itself, lend additional weight to his ability to credibly question the fairness of this election. As I've pointed out in this thread previously, he represents himself as a "Cybersecurity Expert" in spite of having no apparent notable background in cybersecurity up to an including his present role as brewery owner. Most recently, he did an inelegant job of backtracking before a Georgia court on claims of votes being shipped in from out of state. While this isolated incident does not, in and of itself, completely discredit the veracity of his claims (and/or 'expert' standing), taken with the complete lack of apparent bonafides in the cybersecurity space, it does speak to a lack of legitimate standing to credibly challenge the fairness of this election.

You've not been too specific about the other two witnesses but I'm happy to give them a look if you care to.

I'm guessing neither of them are Melissa Carone who also represents herself as a cybersecurity expert. Of course, we've since learned that she pled guilty to "computer crimes" a year ago. More notably, she made false claims that of being, herself, 'hacked'. While this, in and of itself, cannot discredit her claims of improprieties in Detroit's handling of the presidential election, it significantly undercuts her credibility. Not to mention, that it appears as if she's falsely claimed to have received an IT/Security degree from the University of Michigan.

Of course, there are hundreds of witnesses/affidavits around this election cycle and, as I noted at the outset, noone on this thread appears to be in any position to say whether they are or are not all credible. However, as a judge in Arizona (appointed by a republican governor) noted, the process around gathering these affidavits raises serious questions. As he noted, these affidavits appear to have received a concerning lack of scrutiny. As far as I've been able to see thuse, the headlining experts/witnesses being brought forward so a notable lack of credibility that would affirm concerns like those of the judge. If you throw up a website asking for evidence of fraud and blindly pass all people submitting to it along to hearings, you're doing it wrong and it's not unreasonable for the layperson to wash their hands of what can reasonably be described as a charade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to be able to build the foundation of an impeachment case against the POTUS with a simple hearsay witness should mean that we give the same respect to these eye witnesses and their alleged evidence who have impeccable authority in their areas of study. You can't have it two ways. I mean, a retired colonel with expertise in cyber security and we're suggesting he's not credible? This doesn't pass the smell test.

 

I've covered Phil Waldron previously.

 

Beyond that, this is a false equivalency. You're referencing one other event in partisan politics as means of justification for questioning another, both of which are very different. I can understand why you would make this comparison as I assume you aggrieved with what transpired in those impeachment proceedings (or against Democrats in general). However, everything about these two events are different. There really is no reasonable way to use one to justify (or refute) the validity of the other.

Perhaps it would be more relevant to compare the impeachments of Pres's Clinton and Trump, though even that is going to likely lead to unfulfilling results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any sigs do not match voter registration info, toss them.

 

You do realize that there is literally no way to do this in Georgia, right? After the initial signature verification procedures in Georgia, ballots are separated from the envelopes that have the voter identification information. So, if we make the assumption (that is as of yet completely unfounded) that there were exceptional irregularities around the signature checks and/or identities of Georgia voters, the only recourse would be to throw out every ballot (which we can safely assume contain a vast majority of legitimate ballots). This is asking for something that has, to my knowledge, never been done in US election history. To overturn one state. That would not change the results of presidential election.

I'm not saying this to convince you to think differently, just to underscore the considerable unlikelihood of this actually happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a doctor friend, who went to school in Georgia, who was sent a text/email recently asking him if he would like to vote in the run-off since he voted in the general election. He didn’t vote in Georgia. I had doctor friend in Arizona who was given a sharpie to mark her ballot. Her ballot was thrown out as was a lot of her friends at the same poll.

 

"Sharpie-gate" has already been debunked. The use of Sharpies will not cause ballots to be rejected. Not saying your friends ballot wasn't rejected, just that it wasn't rejected due to Sharpies.

 

And, every election for the past, like, 20 years has had incidents of people being contacted to vote in states where they are not registered. This is why all states have systems for validating that individuals are eligible to vote in their states. Systems that are undergoing unprecedented scrutiny in this election cycle. So far, none of them have been found to have failed to an extent that would alter the results of the presidential election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this concerted effort by Trump et al to change the results of this election, and it has been a pretty widespread and determined effort.

 

Imagine, if you will, if they would have put this same concerted effort into developing and enforcing an effective program against Covid from day one.

 

How many lives would have been saved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. Most days I wish we had multiple political parties.

 

The people don't even know what values and ideals to support.

 

Trump:

Pro-LGBTQ

Pro Small Business

Anti Big Pharma

Anti 2nd amendment(he tote party lines)

Pro Black communities

 

Biden:

Big Oil - Wife's family should appreciate this even though they're all republicans

Anti Black Crime Bill -

Big Pharma

China / International business

Overtly racist - "Jungle speak" "poor kids...white kids" .. Don't get me started on Kamala Harris record in CA locking up black people for BS weed charges and voting against mandatory body cams on police officers.

 

Pretty good science fair project we have going in our political system.

 

Lets flip flop candidates ideals and paint them red and blue and these f*cking idiots will vote for anything with their color on it.

 

Trump tried to accomplish what he set out for and shifted on a few issues. Biden/Harris have made a career out of flip flopping to get elected. You can point out corruption in any administration, so if that's all you have to nail Trump I have absolutely nothing for you.

Edited by JTennant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this concerted effort by Trump et al to change the results of this election, and it has been a pretty widespread and determined effort.

 

Imagine, if you will, if they would have put this same concerted effort into developing and enforcing an effective program against Covid from day one.

 

How many lives would have been saved?

 

A virus with a 40% asymptomatic infection rate? Contain that? It's not ebola or herpes we're trying to contain..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas files suit directly to SCOTUS last night challenging election laws/procedure in MI, Wi, GA, and PA. In nutshell the amended election laws are unconstitutional by both existing laws in the states and a federal/constitutional election laws under Article II. Who enacts laws? The judiciary? The executive? Or the legislature? Civics 101.

 

Don't even have to prove fraud if the election process was tainted as unconstitutional...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas files suit directly to SCOTUS last night challenging election laws/procedure in MI, Wi, GA, and PA. In nutshell the amended election laws are unconstitutional by both existing laws in the states and a federal/constitutional election laws under Article II. Who enacts laws? The judiciary? The executive? Or the legislature? Civics 101.

 

Don't even have to prove fraud if the election process was tainted as unconstitutional...

 

Will likely get tossed by standing. Suit wasnt even filed or joined by the solicitor General of Texas, who has the authority to file such suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making a pretty good argument for everyone to wear a mask.

 

 

What does that have to do with your original statement? You have a logical fallacy because I am not blaming Trump for the lack of containment AND that I am opposed to a mask in public.

 

 

 

You're brainwashed.

Edited by JTennant
and*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas files suit directly to SCOTUS last night challenging election laws/procedure in MI, Wi, GA, and PA. In nutshell the amended election laws are unconstitutional by both existing laws in the states and a federal/constitutional election laws under Article II. Who enacts laws? The judiciary? The executive? Or the legislature? Civics 101.

 

Don't even have to prove fraud if the election process was tainted as unconstitutional...

 

What???? It's going to the SCOTUS? I do not believe you. Soulpatch said it won't go to the SCOTUS so it must be fake news! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online


×
×
  • Create New...