This is Strange Behaviour

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 93
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen

    Compilation of voter fraud videos


    00:00 Poll supervisor, registered democrat.
     00:48 Same man, outside
    01:00 Boarded up windows in Michigan 1
    01:20 Boarded up windows in Michigan 2
    01:42 Inspector not allowed in Philadelphia
    02:16 Angry poll counter throws out ballot
    02:49 Burning Trump votes
    04:00 Woman finds box with 500 unregistered ballots
    04:48 Poll worker finds manipulated data
    06:27 Dead people vote?
    07:42 Man thrown out of polling location
    08:46 Defying court order to let polling be monitored
    10:49 Vote fraud scheme in Michigan, Detroit
    11:33 Prager U explains Ballot harvesting
    13:06 Steven Bannon on FOX news setting the stage for Joe Biden takeover
    15:26 Joe Biden admits to voter fraud




    15:26  "Joe Biden admits to voter fraud" ?  Does Joe Biden mean  - anti -  voter fraud?  Its hard to tell with Biden he doesn't know his wife from his sister.  I hope his kids know who their real mom is.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,216
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    00:00 Poll supervisor, registered democrat.
     00:48 Same man, outside
    this is just some dude claiming he is supposed to be able to watch. There is no evidence provided that is supposed to be able to, also no evidence provided that they stopped him. It is just a guy ranting at a camera. 

    01:00 Boarded up windows in Michigan 1
    01:20 Boarded up windows in Michigan 2
    random members of the public aren't allowed to watch this. They are handling people's votes. People's votes are secret. You can't just let any idiot film that. 

    01:42 Inspector not allowed in Philadelphia
    they explain in the video that his piece of paper doesn't grant him access to that location. There is no evidence provided that this is untrue. 

    02:16 Angry poll counter throws out ballot
    there is absolutely no context given. there are votes that are invalid. they get thrown out. Why would a video of that happening be evidence of fraud?

    02:49 Burning Trump votes
    so a person burns some pieces of paper and claims they are ballots. You seriously think this is evidence of anything? This is probably just a trump supporter trying to make up phoney evidence of fraud. This video makes no sense. 

    04:00 Woman finds box with 500 unregistered ballots
    a woman claims to have found evidence, but has absolutely no evidence. 

    I'm going to stop now. every single one of these clips is just bullshit or heresay. There isn't a single shred of evidence in here. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Thanks for that. 

    Part 2  Compilation of voter fraud part 2: Aftermath

    00:00 Sidney Powell - Sunday morning
    03:43 "Glitch" gave DEM got 6000 votes meant for GOP
    04:24 Election worker in Michigan lists many "glitches", all favoring DEM
    07:43 From Tucker Carlson 2020-11-10
    11:39 Lou Dobbs & Rudy Giuliani
    15:47 Hillary: "Don't concede no matter what"
    16:36 Red Elephants reads signed affidavits
    19:33 Fulton County, GA, fake closing of tabulation center
    22:21 Sargon: "Why is it always the left?"
    23:18 Crowder & Rudy Giuliani: This was DEM's "fail safe"

    "Note: there will be at least one more video, showing how they did it, which was even caught live on CNN on election night".



  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,216
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    00:00 Sidney Powell - Sunday morning
    this is just talking heads, no evidence here. 

    03:43 "Glitch" gave DEM got 6000 votes meant for GOP
    this one contains some outright lies. There was a human error that was quickly caught and fixed. there was no fraud and no evidence the software caused a problem.

    04:24 Election worker in Michigan lists many "glitches", all favoring DEM
    1 was a human error that was quickly corrected, the poll workers being denied access has had 2 lawsuits already that have been tossed out for lack of evidence, they mention the same lies as the previous one as well. 

    07:43 From Tucker Carlson 2020-11-10
    another talking head discussing what people claim to have seen, but have absolutely no evidence of. do you not understand that people making baseless claims isn't evidence?

    11:39 Lou Dobbs & Rudy Giuliani
    more talking heads with no evidence provided. If this is accurate then the lawsuits wouldn't be getting tossed out of court. 


    Again, these are all people saying they saw something or that they talked to someone who says they saw something without a single piece of actual evidence being provided. Nothing in these clips that I have seen is remotely evidence of fraud. 


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Again, these are all people saying they saw something or that they talked to someone who says they saw something without a single piece of actual evidence being provided. Nothing in these clips that I have seen is remotely evidence of fraud. 

    I am really finding all of these - what appear to be - baseless allegations of election fraud quite interesting. 

    Why is it do you think , that  these people think this is somehow credible evidence when you say its not?

    Why is it that you have managed in just  matter of minutes and with just a simple sweep of the hand have been able  to debunk and dismiss these allegation as false yet somehow these people can take their false allegations all the way to a supreme court? 

    What would you call credible evidence of election fraud worthy of  close inspection in the supreme court?

    Would you consider a sworn affidavit under oath  carrying a sentence of up to 5- 15 years imprisonment(?) credible evidence ?

    Do you happen to work for a law firm?  





  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,850
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Stephen
    Because people are rarely thinking about logic and reasoning whenever there hyped up in their delusions or dogma. Pretty simple that.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Which on of those above questions are you actually answering?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,327
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Stephen

    Trust Authority.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Greyparrot
    As an outsider looking in, the way I see it is that Trump has performed some miracles over the last 4 years.  But has a long way to go before he beats Joes' raising of  the dead and getting them into the city polling stations.   All very biblical sounding I know, but it has happened before you know.

    " and the graves were opened; and many bodies were raised;   and thousands  coming out of their graves  they went into the city to cast their vote".  Matthew 27:52-54 NKJV
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,216
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    Why is it do you think , that  these people think this is somehow credible evidence when you say its not?
    Because they want to believe it is true. They are emotionally invested in thinking trump won. So when they see, for example, a video of a guy burning a stack of paper and he says they are trump votes, even though there's no evidence they actually are, they just choose to believe it. 

    Why is it that you have managed in just  matter of minutes and with just a simple sweep of the hand have been able  to debunk and dismiss these allegation as false yet somehow these people can take their false allegations all the way to a supreme court? 
    because I actually went through them looking critically for evidence to actually back up their claims. and when the claims had some sort of concrete information (hard numbers or some sort of proof) I went and double checked the story in other sources. And in each case there was a simple, straight forward explanation that had nothing to do with fraud.

    What would you call credible evidence of election fraud worthy of  close inspection in the supreme court?
    Anything that has actual tangible evidence is worth investigating. If there are numbers that don't add up, ballots that "disappeared" or "appeared" in a manner that is unusual etc. It is worth investigating. But so far, no one has been able to provide any actual evidence that any of that happened. It is all hearsay (people claiming they saw something without any actual proof), conspiracy theory, or the odd case of human error which was quickly caught and corrected. 

    Would you consider a sworn affidavit under oath  carrying a sentence of up to 5- 15 years imprisonment(?) credible evidence ?
    on it's own? absolutely not. That is hearsay. If it is supporting other physical evidence, then it could be included as evidence as well. 

    Do you happen to work for a law firm? 
    no. 


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @HistoryBuff

    Would you consider a sworn affidavit under oath  carrying a sentence of up to 5- 15 years imprisonment(?) credible evidence ?
    on it's own? absolutely not. That is hearsay. If it is supporting other physical evidence, then it could be included as evidence as well. 

    It makes one wonder why then do  any court even bother to entertain a sworn under oath affidavits,  without other"physical" evidence, doesn't   it?  

     How does that work then as say in the case of an eye witness?   Eye witness gives an account in a sworn affidavit under oath and then enters the witness box under oath and the Judge say tell us what you seen and produce  the proof that you actaully seen what it is you are saying you seen?  Is that what you are trying to tell me?


  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,216
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    It makes one wonder why then do  any court even bother to entertain a sworn under oath affidavits,  without other"physical" evidence, doesn't   it?  
    they hear the case. See there is no evidence. then toss it out. as they have multiple times with trump's lawsuits. 

    How does that work then as say in the case of an eye witness?   Eye witness gives an account in a sworn affidavit under other and then enters the witness box under oath and the Judge say tell us what you seen and produce  the proof that you actaully seen what it is you are saying you seen. 
    witnesses are important in cases. But if you have no other evidence to support the case, it is going to be tossed out. 

    But it is also important to note the distinction. If someone says "i saw that man shoot and kill the victim", they 100% confirm they saw the commission of a crime. If someone says "i saw a box of 500 votes", that isn't a crime. it isn't even necessarily suspicious. Most of the clips I have seen are people saying they saw things they considered suspicious. they didn't actually see a crime committed. Which makes these "witnesses" even less important, especially without any physical evidence to back up their claim. 


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @HistoryBuff
    But it is also important to note the distinction. If someone says "i saw that man shoot and kill the victim", they 100% confirm they saw the commission of a crime.
     They could be lying. 


    If someone says "i saw a box of 500 votes", that isn't a crime.

     I agree. But what if they say under oath ¬` I seen a box 500 votes destroyed, ' that is another matter isn't it. 

    What kind of supporting evidence would you accept in that circumstance considering the law accepts affidavits as a statements of fact (UK)






  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,216
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    But it is also important to note the distinction. If someone says "i saw that man shoot and kill the victim", they 100% confirm they saw the commission of a crime.
     They could be lying. 
    absolutely. And that is why no prosecutor would ever go to trial on a witness' statement alone. If they didn't have physical evidence, they would get thrown out. My point was that in that example, the witness is confirming they witnessed a crime. They could be lying, but their testimony is that they witnessed a crime. Most of the "witnesses" of fraud aren't actually saying they saw a crime. They are saying they saw something they didn't understand or they thought was suspicious. Which makes them significantly less valuable as a "witness". 

    I agree. But what if they say under oath ¬` I seen a box 500 votes destroyed, ' that is another matter isn't it. 
    It could be. It would depend on context. But it is impossible to destroy a box of 500 votes without there being some record of it. So if they say they saw that and there are votes missing, then absolutely that would be valuable. If they say they saw that and there are no votes missing, then they aren't very useful are they. 

    Also, no one i've seen is saying that. They say they saw poll workers doing things they considered suspicious or that they didn't understand. but since every step of counting votes is meticulously tracked, when these people are being questioned by a judge for these lawsuits, their story pretty quickly breaks down to nothing. then the lawsuit gets tossed.

    What kind of supporting evidence would you accept in that circumstance?
    actual votes being missing. The counting process is meticulously tracked. You can't make votes just disappear. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,170
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Stephen
    And what about Trump's hair.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @zedvictor4

    And what about Trump's hair.

    It too is a miracle , Vic. 


    But as I mentioned above, as an outsider looking in, the way I see it is that Trump has performed some miracles over the last 4 years.  But has a long way to go before he beats Joes' raising of  the dead and getting them into the city polling stations.   All very biblical sounding I know, but it has happened before you know.

    " and the graves were opened; and many bodies were raised;   and thousands  coming out of their graves  they went into the city to cast their vote".  Matthew 27:52-54 NKJV

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @HistoryBuff
    But it is also important to note the distinction. If someone says "i saw that man shoot and kill the victim", they 100% confirm they saw the commission of a crime.
     They could be lying. 
    absolutely. And that is why no prosecutor would ever go to trial on a witness' statement alone.

    Well it appears that Trumps lawyers are going to the high court, so what supporting evidence do you think they have?




    I agree. But what if they say under oath ¬` I seen a box 500 votes destroyed, ' that is another matter isn't it. 
    It could be. It would depend on context. But it is impossible to destroy a box of 500 votes without there being some record of it.


     Well we have recently celebrated Guy Fawkes nigh here UK. . And I got rid of reams of paper work collected over the years.  Now I cannot prove that I had them in the first place.







  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,216
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    Well it appears that Trumps lawyers are going to the high court, so what supporting evidence do you think they have?
    None. that is why they have had case after case tossed out. 

    It could be. It would depend on context. But it is impossible to destroy a box of 500 votes without there being some record of it.
     Well we have recently celebrated Guy Fawkes nigh here UK. . And I got rid of reams of paper work collected over the years.  Now I cannot prove that I had them in the first place.
    ok, but those were not votes. That was paper you personally owned, not a government process that is closely documented. votes don't just disappear. If they did, there would be a record of it. So no one ever just destroys a bunch of ballots without having a legal reason to do so. Because if the did, they would be caught. 

    But has a long way to go before he beats Joes' raising of  the dead and getting them into the city polling stations.   All very biblical sounding I know, but it has happened before you know.
    there's been no solid evidence that happened. I've seen some cases where trump's team said a dead person voted and the person was proven to be very much alive.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Well it appears that Trumps lawyers are going to the high court, so what supporting evidence do you think they have?
    None. that is why they have had case after case tossed out. 

    But you have said above: 
     "no prosecutor would ever go to trial on a witness' statement alone".  So are you then suggesting that Lawyers for Trump  are stupid and incompetent by  going to court  without supporting evidence to back up the affidavits  knowing that their  claims will be "tossed out"? Although you say no lawyer would do this.   


    But has a long way to go before he beats Joes' raising of  the dead and getting them into the city polling stations.   All very biblical sounding I know, but it has happened before you know.
    there's been no solid evidence that happened. I've seen some cases where trump's team said a dead person voted and the person was proven to be very much alive.

     Yes I seen that  one myself.  But I can't remember if he was a republican or a democrat. I suppose it makes no difference does it.

  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway

    One of his lawyers was sentenced to federal prison a couple of years ago, Michael Cohen.

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Conway
    Which means what?
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,216
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Stephen
    But you have said above: 
     "no prosecutor would ever go to trial on a witness' statement alone".  So are you then suggesting that Lawyers for Trump  are stupid and incompetent by  going to court  without supporting evidence to back up the affidavits  knowing that their  claims will be "tossed out"? Although you say no lawyer would do this.   
    no, you misunderstood what I said. I said no prosecutor would go through with a case without evidence. Trump's lawyers are not prosecutors. They know their cases will get thrown out. Trump is still going to pay for them for filing the frivolous lawsuits though.

    But has a long way to go before he beats Joes' raising of  the dead and getting them into the city polling stations.   All very biblical sounding I know, but it has happened before you know.
    there's been no solid evidence that happened. I've seen some cases where trump's team said a dead person voted and the person was proven to be very much alive.

     Yes I seen that  one myself.  But I can't remember if he was a republican or a democrat. I suppose it makes no difference does it.
    no, it doesn't really matter who they voted for. Trump wants people to believe that there was fraud and will lie and make stuff up in order to convince people of that. The lawsuits are great examples of that. He knows they will get thrown out. There is literally no other way they could go because trump has no evidence. But the fact that he has launched dozens of lawsuits sounds impressive to his followers since they don't know that virtually none of them had any chance of success. so people will think that since there were dozens of lawsuits, there must be fraud.

    And having dozens of lawsuits thrown out of court will doubtless be used as evidence that the justice system is corrupt because it just keeps ruling against trump. When the reality is that it has to keep ruling against him because the large majority of his suits have no legal basis. 

    This entire thing is just a show for his followers. The election is over, nothing trump is doing has any chance of changing that. 
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @Stephen
    Donald Trump values loyalty over integrity. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,617
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    But you have said above: 
     "no prosecutor would ever go to trial on a witness' statement alone".  So are you then suggesting that Lawyers for Trump  are stupid and incompetent by  going to court  without supporting evidence to back up the affidavits  knowing that their  claims will be "tossed out"? Although you say no lawyer would do this.   
    no, you misunderstood what I said. I said no prosecutor would go through with a case without evidence. Trump's lawyers are not prosecutors.

    I know. But any lawyer,  going by your own yard stick then ,   wouldn't take a case to court UNLESS  there was supporting evidence for a claim, you say.  And at the moment we are only talking civil law aren't we?  It is all to establish IF there was fraud, If  fraud is established then it will become  criminal and the fraudsters will have to be caught.

    Are Trumps lawyers claiming fraud? YES.   Do they have any evidence ?  YOU say NO because affidavits on their own don't mean diddly-squat.   So I am asking you are these million dollar lawyers so  incompetent to go to  court without supporting evidence that back up the witness affidavits  even if these affidavits are notarised in the full knowledge that they are going to lose and won't get past the first fence? 
     

    An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath or penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity  ie conformity to facts; accuracy.

    Affidavit evidence
    (1) Evidence must be given by affidavit instead of or in addition to a witness statement if this is required by the court, a provision contained in any other rule, a practice direction or any other enactment.

    It appears that, in the UK at least,  an affidavit is acceptable as evidence on its own with a notarised witness statement . ie I swear I seen this affidavit written and signed by Joe Biden on 14/11/2020


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,327
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Conway
    Donald Trump values loyalty over integrity. 

    Lol, you wouldn't even know the dude's name if he was loyal.