Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
you said "I am saying because she has such a great unblemished integrity".Can you find anything to the contrary. Because I can't.there is very little information about her at all.So that's a no then.
Im not the one who made a generalization about her integrity. you are. You have absolutely no information to back that up, but are now trying to push the responsibility onto me to either proof or disprove your unfounded assumption.
She was prosecutor for over 10 years. but I don't suppose that means anything either,
why would it? having a job says nothing about her personality or trustworthiness.
But you are claiming that you know that she does. That is obviously either a lie, or you showing that you want to believe her for emotional reasons.
i never said that. you did. I said we only know about 2 cases she's worked on in decades. you are the one claiming you know things about her integrity.
I have absolute no reason to believe that this woman in incapable and lacks integrity. Until I find or you provide, evidence to the contrary, then I am not going to jump to unfounded conclusions about her just because she is supporting Trump, like many of you far left tards are doing.
she is making dangerous accusations without any evidence whatsoever to back it up. That does not speak highly as to her integrity. Look at that interview again. she makes insinuations of people doing bad things without ever saying exactly what those bad things are or providing any supporting evidence.
So you can't prove that the Trump team have no evidence. When they have been on national TV telling the whole fkn world that they do.
you've directly identified the problem. Trump is on national TV telling the whole world that there is fraud and that there is evidence. But he can't provide any. Their lawsuits keep getting tossed out for lack of evidence and they can't show any actual evidence that it happened. You look at that and say "well he says he has evidence so it must exist". A logical person would look at that and say "if he has evidence, where is it?". And "if he isn't giving us the evidence, does it really exist?".
I doubt very much that this woman would put her reputation and the reputation of her firm on the line by going into a court house with no evidence after going on TV telling the whole world that she has evidence.
How many times do I have to say this, watch that video again. She didn't say she has evidence. She made insinuations saying that people might have done bad things. She doesn't say what those things were exactly or provide any evidence at all. She is doing the same things lots of republicans are doing, insinuating fraud happened without anything to back it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
you said "I am saying because she has such a great unblemished integrity".Can you find anything to the contrary. Because I can't.
there is very little information about her at all. Therefore you cannot possibly know if she has integrity. But you are claiming that you know that she does. That is obviously either a lie, or you showing that you want to believe her for emotional reasons.
GREAT!!!!! Then let us all see your evidence that they have no evidence although these million dollar lawyers say they have it .
lol, do you even see the contradiction you just said. Trump claims there was fraud. No one has been able to present any evidence that there is. You now want me to provide evidence that the evidence doesn't exist. So even though trump is making the positive claim (ie that there was fraud) it is somehow everyone else's responsibility to disprove his lies and he has no requirement to prove his conspiracy theories. Unless we can prove a negative (ie that something didn't happen), we should just assume that trump's lies are the truth?
it's neat how that works. So I can claim that trump is a pedophile and he would then have to prove that he is not. He would have to provide evidence for every moment of his life to show that he isn't even though I have no evidence that he is? Is that how you think this works?
also, those lawyers don't say they have it. In fact their lawsuits explicitly don't have it. Trump is the one claiming he has it, but for some reason can't show it to anyone....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That may be true, but there is evidence that some fraud occurred that was not widespread, and you are not being shown that.
ok. so there are like a dozen fraudulent votes out of 150 million. That makes absolutely no difference to the electoral outcome. So trying to put laws in that could stop 10's or hundreds of thousands of people from voting legally in order to stop a dozen fraudulent votes is like burning your house down to kill a spider. It is massive overkill.
People should be allowed to look and judge for themselves instead of being lied to.
they should. But most people won't actually look at the evidence. The evidence says that there is no significant issue with fraud in the voting system. there are a handful of cases per year, but it is such a tiny percentage that is has no affect on the election at all. So I would be more than happy for people to look at the facts and make their determination. But people don't do that. They ignore the facts and look at what people like trump tell them and choose to believe that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
lol you really need to vet your sources better. I'm 3 sentences into that and already finding lies.
The DTP vaccine was discontinued in the US and western nations in the 1990s following thousands of reports of death and brain damage.
this is a lie. DTP vaccines are part of the course of vaccines that are given to children today in the US. The article they link to while making the claim that the DTP vaccine was discontinued describes how they changed "from whole cell to acellular pertussis vaccines".
oh my god, it gets worse. They are using a study which looked at data from the 1980's to draw conclusions about bill gates vaccinating children 40 years later. Mogensen et al 2017, the study they are using as evidence was looking at vaccinations in 1980. But in the previous sentences, they already talked about how the DTP vaccines had changes how they were being made in the 90's, making the comparison incredibly stupid.
seriously man, it took me like 5 minutes to find wild lies and inaccuracies in the 1st paragraph of this website. Please do some critical research before trusting sites.
I am kinda tired of hearing about how vaccine save people because its kinda not true.it is just stated as a fact.
lol the woman who wrote that article puts that she is a P.H.D. Apparently her phd is in business administration. She is just some nut job. She has no medical expertise. Why would I take her seriously?
you are not proving conspiracy theorist wrong by censoring us under the pretext of dangerous.It just proves we are saying something you do not want people to know
no, those conspiracy theories have been disproven. but people don't want to hear it. They prefer the conspiracy. So they continue to spread fake information on the internet. This causes people to doubt vaccines and not take them causing outbreaks of preventable disease that kill people. These conspiracy theories get people killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You don't read very well do you. I simply said that " I have found nothing that discredits this woman's credentials or her integrity".
no. you said "I am saying because she has such a great unblemished integrity". You explicitly said she has "great unblemished integrity". But you have no idea if that is true. You know she worked on 2 cases over a decades long career, and in one of them her actions were sketchy.
You keep telling me that "they have no evidence" but you simply cannot know that,
of course I know that. Everyone knows that. We know that because the dozens of lawsuits have no evidence. And if they had evidence, they would have included it in the lawsuits.
This lawyer says she has evidence. I, at this moment in time have no cause to disbelieve her.
watch that clip again. She doesn't say that. She makes no affirmative claims of fraud of any kind. She does not allege that anyone committed any kind of fraud. She hints that there "might" be something wrong with the software. And that fraud "might" have happened. But she offers no specific cases and provides no evidence. Why would you assume there is fraud when the people alleging it can provide no proof?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
lol there has been literal tons of evidence presented the last two weeks
no, no there has not. There has been some conspiracy theories and hearsay. There has been no actual evidence presented. As highlighted by the tons of lawsuits that trump has had tossed out. At this point, the only lawsuits he has left are for tiny amounts of votes that wouldn't change the outcome.
If they had evidence of "fake votes" that would be included in their lawsuits. But since it isn't, they obviously don't have any evidence. Get over it, trump lost.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
they are acutally counting illegal votes
and yet, no one can find evidence of these "illegal votes". It's funny that all these illegal votes exist, but there is no evidence that they exist. It's almost like you are delusional....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No. I am saying because she has such a great unblemished integrity and that if she believed Trump would lose his law suites she would instruct him on the matter and recuse herself as any self respecting lawyer would do. If she believed she and her client were on a hiding to nothing. FFS read what I write .
what are you even talking about? Lawyers open nuisance lawsuits all the time in the US. It is a normal part of the legal process (unfortunately). Technically, if it can be proven that the lawyers new their case to be false they could be punished. But it almost never happens.
She doesn't come across to me as stupid or grasping for money or work.
all that tells you is 2 cases she worked on in about 40 years. And in one of the 2, she advised someone who was not her client (yet) to recant his confession of a crime he was guilty of. That is how she came to the attention of trump, by trying to get michael flynn out of the criminal problems he was facing after breaking the law, and admitting to breaking the law.
How does reading a bit about those 2 cases convince you she is above reproach?
But even taking her past entirely out of it, what she is doing now is extremely dangerous. She is working to convince people there was voter fraud, while carefully not saying there was voter fraud. Watch that clip again. She doesn't say there was any fraud. She has no specifics of wrong doing by literally anyone. She has no evidence of anything. But she gives people the impression that maybe there was fraud, and people should be fired.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is this fake news ?Donald Trump wins first legal battle in Pennsylvania
are you aware that this lawsuit was before election day and has absolutely nothing to do with fraud? It is a lawsuit about how close poll watchers needed to stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes it was me that pointed that out that fact to you. You ignored my point except to say there are "frivolous lawyers that will do anything to get paid".
yeah, and doing what their client tells them to do is what gets them paid. So if their client says to push frivolous lawsuits, then they push them. And that is exactly what they are doing.
Still ; this lawyer comes with a pedigree and some integrity from what I see and read. And I am sure, like those other lawyers. that she would recuse herself should she believe that she and her client was on a hiding to nothing.
what are you basing that on? You are saying that she would torch her relationship to a high profile client because his lawsuits weren't technically accurate? What evidence do you have to back that up?
The only other high profile stuff I can find that she did was convincing michael flynn to withdraw his guilty plea on crimes he was guilty of. That seems to suggest she is willing to help people get away with crimes they are guilty of in order to gain notoriety. I see no reason why someone like that would recuse themselves from a lawsuit they know will fail.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Even if Trump won PA and Wisconsin, he still would not have won sufficient electoral votes for an overall victory, and Biden has sufficient electoral votes for victory without these states.
multiple other states were super close too. Georgia is within 15,000 votes. AZ is like 11,000 votes. So yes, biden won the electoral college by a big margin. But he won several of the critical states by fairly small margins. if 50,000-60,000 votes had gone the other way, Trump would have won. In an election with 150 million votes, winning by 50,000 is a tight race.
You're assuming the polls were an accurate representation. That's not a given.
true, the polls were obviously off. but trump is one of the least popular presidents in modern history. He absolutely botched a massive global crisis right before an election. Beating him should not have been difficult. But the messaging the democrats went with ended in a narrow win for biden and losses for the democrats. That is a win, but it is a win that should scare the hell out of the democrats. If they don't figure out why their message did so badly then they cant fix it. And they are already lining up to blame progressives for their failures so that they can keep pretending like their shitty policies and corruption aren't the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is she one of those "frivolous lawyers" you mentioned or is she competent and capable with any integrity?
she is going to defend her client and push his goals because that is what she is paid to do. And, to an extent, that is what she is supposed to do. Lawyers are supposed to act in the best interests of their client even if their client isn't acting in the best interests of america.
Now, she doesn't actually make any claims that anyone has done anything illegal, or that the software has done anything wrong. She doesn't make any actual claims at all. Just that people used this software and that some guy said the software might be bad, so people should be fired. it is actually a really stupid interview from a legal perspective. But isn't meant to be a legal argument. It is public relations. They want to stir the water enough to make people believe that fraud happened even though they don't have evidence that it actually did. Interviews like that are designed to feed that narrative, even though she presents no evidence that anyone did anything wrong.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Its a little absurd that Trump winning with 306 electoral votes in 2016 was a 'landslide', but Biden with the same number is a 'narrow victory'.
trump didn't win in a landslide. He won by razor thin margins in a couple critical states. Biden basically did the same thing.
Lol, yep Trump narrowly missed holding Biden to a narrow victory within the questionable strictures of the electoral college. (Not narrow at all).
we seem to be discussing different things. If you look solely at the electoral college, then sure biden got a big win. If you look at the actual vote totals in the critical states, they are pretty close. The difference between a "big win" for biden and a "bid win" for trump is like 50,000 votes difference. That is a tight race.
In actuality, 5 million more people voted for Biden
millions more voted for hilary that trump too. That didn't make her president. I agree the system is broken, but that is the system that exists.
Democrats will hold the House, and there's a chance they gain control of the Senate. That's significant.
I agree it is significant, because the Dems massively underperformed. All the polling showed a huge win for the Dems. Trump is a hated man. The republican party is full of useless suckups. And the dems still managed to barely hold onto congress and to fail to take the senate (probably). That is much, much worse than the projections.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah to live in a world where media isn't constantly reminding you of the importance of skin color... to dream a dream.
yeah, things are so much simpler when racism is ever present, but just not talked about. It lets racist people off the hook. I would imagine that would be very attractive to republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
o which law suits alleging voter fraud are being thrown out " for having no evidence"? Where and when?
here is an article discussing 5 cases dropped or thrown out on just friday as well as a legal firm backing out of a case (probably because they know it's bogus)
Here is a link to an article about more of their lawsuits.
And it looks like this very credible woman Lawyer has something different to say.
What about this clip is evidence? It is a woman ranting about software. She provides absolutely no evidence that there was anything wrong with the software or that the software had done anything wrong at all. there is nothing even approaching evidence in this clip.
Stuff like this is the problem. She offers no evidence of anything at all. She doesn't know if anything went wrong with the software. But fox news lets her spread this bullshit that is based on absolutely nothing as if it was fact.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Wisconsin and Pa went red in 2016, but Biden was able to convert them in 2020. Narrow margins in these states doesn't mean a narrow victory overall.
If those states had gone red, then Trump would have won. Which means the difference between Biden winning and losing was 1% of the vote in 2 states. That is a narrow victory.
If like 10,000 people had voted differently in Wisconsin and something like 35,000 people had voted different in PA, then Trump would have won. a 45,000 vote margin is tight.
Now, if you mentioned Democrats losing House seats...maybe, but then we should consider the Senate too - which isn't decided yet.
the addition of the fact that democrats lost a bunch of house and senate races they were sure they would win is further evidence that this is bad. Susan collins is pretty well hated in her state, but voters still picked her over a democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
FFS!!!!!!!!You say categorically that they have no evidence. when I asked you simply said "none".#18 HistoryBuff
If they did have evidence their lawsuits wouldn't be getting thrown out over having no evidence. It is super straight forward. No evidence = lawsuits getting tossed out.
You haven't explained yet how you know that they have no evidence at all?
because they can't present any. They have had like 20 lawsuits tossed out already for lack of evidence. That doesn't happen if they have evidence.
hell, in some of them they are even saying anything wrong happened. In one lawsuit they are complaining that people were allowed to correct ballots that were filled out incorrectly. but that is 100% legal. but trump is suing them for doing something that is legal. Many of their lawsuits don't even make sense.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
...only narrowly beat a president who is widely hated.This isn't holding up well.
how so? margins in wisconsin and PA are like 1%. That is fairly narrow. Trump is hated by a large chunk of the country. He is incompetent, corrupt and has bungled the biggest crisis america has had in decades. Beating him should have been easy. But it wasn't. It was close. And the demcorats lost a house seats at the same time.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
legal votes, he won
they are counting the legal votes. Biden got millions more of them. And he also got more of them in the critical swing states. That is why trump lost. I know your cult requires you to ignore reality, but this is just sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a problem when you know the system isn't 100 percent foolproof. You are not being told everything.
no system is ever 100% foolproof. No one would claim otherwise. Odds are there were a handful of fraudelent votes cast. maybe even a few dozen in the entire country. But there is no evidence that widespread fraud occurred. there is no evidence that any such cases of fraud could have had any meaningful effect on the election.
If evidence of fraud is found, I would absolutely support investigating it. However, no one has been able to provide that evidence. So claiming that fraud happened when there is no evidence is extremely dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh? So now its a matter of frequency? Are we dismissing the claim that there are no incidents of voter fraud at all?
this is just pathetic. voter fraud is quite rare. there are the odd case here and there where it happens. But in such tiny numbers that it has absolutely no meaningful effect on the election. All your stats proved is that fraud is extremely rare. that 99.999% of votes are totally lawful and that chasing after fraud is silly when it is such a rare thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, it is pure hyperbole to claim the voting system has no flaws. Extreme hyperbole.
well since that is something I have never said, that is an odd remark.
I don't care about your strawman of there being no evidence for the cases being thrown out. There exist cases that are not being thrown out, yet the media claims there is no evidence despite the convictions existing on public record.
which cases? show me the cases where there is fraud. you keep claiming there is all this evidence but the only things i have seen are hearsay and the odd error that was quickly caught and corrected. So far no one has been able to provide a single shred of actual evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
To all who argue there is no evidence of voter fraud [not necessarily just the 2020 election]: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraudThis documents decided court cases, not accusations.
lol 1,298 cases in 20 years. thats what, 65 fraudulent votes per year out of over 100 million. That is an infinitesimally tiny issue.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
trump won
that's funny. Biden got millions more votes and lots more electoral college votes. You must be defining "won" a different way that literally everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's pure political hyperbole to deal in absolutes like ALL or NONE.
and yet lawsuit after lawsuit is getting tossed out for a complete lack of evidence. If there is any actual evidence, no one is bringing it forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Didn't Donald Trump lose money?
short term costs of business. However, he has been caught on multiple occasions using his position to try to personally profit. From using his properties for political functions and over charging his own campaign, to foreign governments and lobby groups buying up large numbers of rooms in his hotels to curry favor, to trying to force government functions (like the g8) to take place at his golf courses, etc.
He is also planning on continuing to cash in on his followers once he is out of office.
Didn't the federal government lose power?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. But trump fought hard to increase his personal power. Firing anyone who dared question him and putting "loyalists" into as many positions as possible so that his orders (even the corrupt and/or illegal ones) would not be questioned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not why people think DC is corrupt. People think DC is corrupt because they tell us there is NO EVIDENCE.
lol imagine that. There is no evidence. "DC" tells you there is no evidence, because there isn't. people scream "NOOOO TRUMP SAYS THERE IS FRAUD SO PEOPLE TELLING ME ABOUT REALITY MUST BE CORRUPT!!!".
You even said it yourself as a true believer of DC authority.
I know there is corruption. I know the DNC and RNC are corrupt as hell. I also know that Biden won the election and right wing loons are happier trying to destroy democracy than accept reality.
You don't trust Biden or Kamala either.
of course not. They are right wing corporatists. I think their brand of ideology is bad for america. But it's alot less damaging that Trump's ideology, which is basically just destroying anything that stand between trump and more money and power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
This kind of thing happens over and over. This kind of thing happens in almost all the third world country's.When will it end.This is more then just everything humans create have a small chance to kill us.No this is mass killing's.
Do you know what that vaccine was for? measles. Before vaccination programs in west africa, measles was causing a mortality rate of 50% of children before the age of 5. Before the vaccine millions died every year of measles. Today it is less than 100,000 per year, mostly people who didn't get vaccinated.
So it is absolutely a tragedy that those 15 children died. But if vaccine programs weren't being done in africa, there would be millions more dead children.
you hear everywhere how dangerous conspiracy theorist are
conspiracy theorists are dangerous. They cause people to do stupid, stupid things and people die as a result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
A lawyer for a claimant (his client) would also have to have evidence that supports his clients claims. There isn't any difference. Stop trying to pretend there is.
of course there is a difference. a prosecutor is trying to successfully prosecute a criminal. Their goal is the offenders conviction. A lawyer's goal is to get paid by their client. Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time. Trump has been doing it for years in his personal businesses.
SO according to you, just like the prosecutor would have to prove his case on behalf of the people, the lawyer in Trumps case would have to do the same. He would have to!
in a court? sure. But in this case the trump's lawyers filed the cases knowing their case was wrong and were going to be tossed out because that is what their client wants.
I think you know that you have dropped a fkn great clanger here and you are trying to make a distinction between the two and their LAWFUL requirements. Those lawyers for Trump would have to go by the same yard stuck as YOU have told us a prosecuting lawyer would when it comes to "evidence".
I think you have misunderstood me. The measure of evidence is the same. The difference is that a prossecutor's goal is to successfully win the case. Trump's lawyers are just doing what their client wants, which is to file as many lawsuits as possible. They know, and trump probably knows, that the cases have no evidence and will be tossed. But I have already explained what the goal for these lawsuits is, and it isn't to win them.
I asked you then what supporting evidence do you think Trumps lawyers have that support these notarized affidavits? You replied "none". Yet you have no evidence that this is true. It is something that you are simply spouting (or wishing).
Look at the outcome of all the lawsuits. In several of them the lawyers have had to admit they had no evidence. Or the thing they were suing for wasn't even true. That is why the case gets tossed out.
Yes you keep saying this but they OBVIOUSLY believe they have. You just can't even accept that they believe this and are just dismissing something that you clearly have no knowledge of. They are going to court with something aren't they!?
what makes you think they believe they have evidence? these are frivolous lawsuits. IE lawsuits filed with the knowledge they will be tossed out. the goal of a frivolous lawsuit is not to win. They know they have no evidence. They know the case will be tossed out. The goal is just to open court cases, but everyone knows they are going to lose.
So if they are not incompetent and if they know they are going to lose; they are defrauding their client aren't they? They are representing him under false pretences. Isn't part of a lawyers oath to do the best for his client?
depends on the specifics of the situation and their morals. Lots of lawyers will tell someone they have a case even when they know they don't in order to get paid. But in this case trump knows these are frivolous lawsuits too. So the lawyers are doing exactly what the client wants.
No. You didn't read what I wrote. The supporting evidence for THE AFFIDAFIT is the signed notary . I gave you an example and one that is acceptable in a court of law here in the UK.
the affidavit is just a notarized document of what a person claims. and if that witness testimony supports other evidence, then it is useful. On it's own, it is just hearsay. You can sign an affidavit saying you saw me murder someone. If there is no evidence a murder took place, then your affidavit means absolutely nothing.
Created:
This isn't an "MIT" analysis. It is a republican hack running for senate (who did go to MIT years ago). I only found other right wing sources discussing this particular conspiracy theory, but even some of them said it was wrong. There was this video a right wing source linked to apparently disproving this guys conspiracy theory.
here is another conspiracy theory he was also tweeting about that is disproven. The guys is just pushing conspiracy theories without evidence. He is a political hack spreading lies the same as all the other ones on the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
what is the point of this topic? any medicine ever invented by humans can have negative side effects. That certainly includes vaccines. But they save millions upon millions of lives while harming a very few. Pointing out some of the few cases of people harmed by vaccines in no way invalidates the necessity of vaccines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can't put this all on Trump.
I didn't. but it's one thing to think your government is corrupt, it is totally different to think your government is illegitimate because the election was stolen. lots of people didn't trust the government, but at least they knew they were rightfully elected. But trump and the republicans are shitting on what little legitimacy the government has left for petty personal reasons.
Biden isn't a unifier of anything and it doesn't matter anyway when Kamala takes over in a year or 2.
literally no one could unify america because trump's cultists don't want anyone to. They want to follow their dear leader and anyone who disagrees is a communist or a traitor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Apparently, the authorities in D.C. act as a shitty con man because D.C. lost the confidence of the public.
i don't really know what you are referring to.
Everyone knows some fraud happened. Even if you have a personal opinion that it isn't significant.
so everyone "knows" something happened even though there is no evidence it happened. And lots of investigation has been done and no one can find any supporting evidence it happened. In this scenario, the people in that "everyone" category are either delusional, wildly misinformed or stupid.
It doesn't take much at all to topple the cardhouse of the public trust D.C. has destroyed by playing power games.
true, and trump's conspiracy theories are doing lots more damage. Even though they are all lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
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.
no. I said a prosecutor. A prosecutor's goal is the conviction of someone they believe is guilty. therefore successfully completing their case is the goal. Lawyers in general, their goal is to get paid. And trump's lawyers get paid whether the lawsuit gets tossed or not. They know the lawsuits are bogus, they don't care.
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.
and since no one appears to have any actual evidence of fraud, starting 20 lawsuits without evidence is a pretty shitty thing to do.
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?
incompetence suggests they are losing because they lack skill. they aren't incompetent. They know they are going to lose. They started all of this knowing they were going to lose. Their goal is to get paid millions of dollars, which they are succeeding at. Trump knew they were going to get tossed out too. but i have already explained why the outcome was never in question and why trump is doing it anyway.
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.
an affidavit does serve as supporting evidence. But without physical evidence, they are basically worthless. They are just hearsay. If you swear you saw me commit a crime, but there is no evidence a crime was committed, then your affidavit means nothing.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
court orders are winning for trump
trump has already lost the election. His lawsuits are getting tossed out left and right. What does "court orders are winning" even mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's significant enough to undermine trust in authority. That's a dire consequence to democracy no matter whatever corrupt party politician's balls you choose to lick.
no, a conman telling people there is fraud is enough to undermine trust in authority. the truth is that no one has found any evidence such fraud exists, including trump's commission he set up to find it.
The "my guy won, therefore no fraud" only works if you live in a vacuum.
literally no one is saying that. They are saying, "there is no evidence of fraud, therefore no fraud". as opposed to republicans saying "my guy didn't win, so there must be fraud even though we have no evidence of it".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You should make sure voting is secure and also make it is as easy as possible to vote.You can't have both things. If you make it easy as possible to vote, you also make it easy as possible for foreigners and fraudsters to vote as well.
that makes no sense. If you make ID's easy for people to legally get. require IDs to vote. and make voting easy to do (like by giving people the day off, having lots of polling sites, etc) then you can absolutely have secure elections where it is easy to vote.
It's far easier to have your vote ballot harvested than to show up in person at a voting booth with an ID.
true, because trying to actually vote in america (depending on where you are) can be extremely difficult. People have to go to work and can't stand in a line for 3 hours in order to vote. So make it easy enough to vote yourself, then things like ballot harvesting are not needed.
You need a balance, not a tunnel-visioned principle to one side or the other.
no one has ever suggested that we don't need balance. No one has ever suggested that we should not check who is voting.
There are consequences for making voting as easy as possible. Dire consequences as it turns out.
like what? there is no evidence that voter fraud on any kind of significant scale has happened despite trump trying hard to find it. So what are these dire consequences?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
wrong, they have made tons of progress
what progress is that? having over a dozen cases tossed out of court? the election is over. trump's lawsuits have no legal basis and are getting tossed out. and even if they succeeded, they still wouldn't actually change the outcome of the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you sacrifice "ease of voting." You can't go around thinking you MUST make voting as easy as possible and also want a secure election.
you aren't making sense. Of course you can. You should make sure voting is secure and also make it is as easy as possible to vote. But there hasn't been any evidence presented that elections aren't secure. Trump formed a commission to try to prove that there is widespread fraud and accidentally proved there isn;t.
You need a balance. Making voting as easy as possible has consequences.
yeah, like having a larger portion of the electorate actual give their vote. something the republicans are desperate to prevent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As long as everyone has easy access to obtaining their IDs and easy access to voting, I have no issue with themIncluding foreigners and fraudsters?
you will notice I specified easy access to their their IDs. IE, it is easy to get your own ID. That does not include it being easy for people to get IDs that are not theirs.
Ease of voting usually means unregulated voting.
no, you can put in checks and balances to prevent fraudulent voting. That is why there is no evidence that there has been significant amount of fraudulent voting. Trump started a commission to look into fraud from 2016. they found absolutely nothing. The idea that we need tighter laws to prevent fraud is a bad joke because there isn't much (if any) fraud to prevent. The only thing lose laws accomplish to suppress voter turnout. Which is exactly what they are designed to do.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
tons of evidence, trumops legal team is good
lol, they've had like 20 cases thrown out of court for lack of evidence. That is the exact opposite of "tons of evidence". Every judge that has seen their cases has said they have no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So you have no proof and yes you think Barr is abusing his power, all pure opinion.
this is just sad. if you aren't going to bother reading what I write, I'm not going to respond to you. I explicitly said "This one isn't so much abuse of power as it is him showing he just a political hatchet man" and you reply with "yes you think Barr is abusing his power".
you either are:
1) incapable of understanding basic English
2) intentionally ignoring what I say in order to misrepresent my argument
3) an idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
As long as you also do things to make it easy for everyone to vote, then I have no issue with voter ID laws. We could do things like making IDs free. Making election day a national holiday so everyone has the ability to vote. etc.
As long as everyone has easy access to obtaining their IDs and easy access to voting, I have no issue with them. However, the people who push for these voter ID laws don't actually want that. They push for them knowing who it will keep from voting, that is why they are doing it. It is an attempt at voter suppression.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
theres tons of cases
tons of cases where someone claims they saw something, but has absolutely zero evidence to back it up? sure. But that isn't evidence. that is hearsay. I've seen several people post their "evidence" on here, and so far nothing i've seen is actual evidence. That is why trump has had 10 (maybe more by this point) lawsuits tossed out of court. Because his lawsuit makes a baseless claim without evidence and a judge tosses it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So you, in your mind, consider this an abuse of power?
you really suck at reading comprehension. here is my exact quote "This one isn't so much abuse of power as it is him showing he just a political hatchet man there to make the justice department serve trump's personal whims. "
You read those words and then asked this question "So you, in your mind, consider this an abuse of power?"
So are you just not reading what I write?
You also make the claim no such fraud exists. Please let us all know your source that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that no voter fraud exists.
The election system is designed to prevent fraud. The default assumption is that the many, many safeguards in place work. If someone believes they don't then they need to provide evidence of that. So far, literally no one has provided any actual evidence of fraud. Just lots of hearsay and conspiracy theory. When someone comes up with real evidence of fraud, fine. I will fully support investigating it. But no one has done that. There is no evidence fraud occurred. So repeating over and over that it did, without any evidence, is extremely dangerous and damaging.
Created: