If I were ambitious (and more skilled at the online images editing game) I would replace that man (federal district judge Emmet Sullivan) with Mitch McConnell (just congratulated "one" Joseph Robinette Biden Jr today for becoming the President Elect) or Mike Pence (who already knows.)
I STOLE that from another forum member's recent message. Is that a technical foul? Illegal procedure? A balk?
Whobody knows.
I can supply the appropriate music.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-15-2020).]
Example: - More people voting in a district than there are actual registered voters. - People voting in two states - Dead people voting - Illegals voting (no ID check) - Exploited nursing home residents - Stolen votes (people voting in others names)
These are things that have always been baked in for the Democrats. It is an almost uniquely Democrat-issue 9 times out of 10. We can ask "why" but it has more to do with the mindset of a Democrat (the end justifies the means). All prior presidents have just accepted this and never bothered to fight it. It comes out after the fact, maybe a couple of people get arrested here and there when it's exceptionally egregious, but generally, this persists election after election.
With an election this close, why should we be expected to simply accept this and not fight it?
You say a lot here, but no evidence.
1. Can’t find any links for this. Everything I click on states that this is a false claim, in fact. I’ve clicked over a dozen links at this point. 2. What I learned with this is that, surprisingly, this isn’t illegal federally. It should be! I can’t find any reputable sources on this actually happening, more about how difficult it can be to track. I’ll put this one in the “maybe” category, but certainly not a uniquely Democrat problem, even if it does happen often. 3. Almost every time people think a dead person voted, it turns out it’s just a father/son mixup. Unless you have evidence of this happening on a wide scale, I don’t think this is a real concern. 4. This is true. However, not because of ID laws (those have limited effect). 5. Are you saying they’re stealing votes? What is the claim here? 6. This doesn’t happen.
I’m not saying you’re making **** up, but I just can’t find the evidence for 5/6 of these.
First thing that came up... it's from 2016 because current news on election fraud is being wildly filtered and unreported by nearly all media sites. This was when it was still OK to tell the truth:
Which is hilarious, because all the other news articles... from literally the same news sites, all talk about Trump's "absurd" claims and how wildly inappropriate his claims are, and that this never would happen, blah blah... it's ridiculous. I mean, we literally have the very same news organizations contradicting themselves on the very same locations saying it would never happen, yet they literally have articles on their website that say it did previously. But it was OK when it was a liberal that was claiming it (Jill Stein) and seeking recourse. Open your eyes...
My grandmother was in a nursing home in her last few years because she had dementia. The nursing home workers exploited every mentally incapacitated resident in the home and voted for Obama. My grandmother fled Socialism in Argentina during the Peronista regime, the last thing she would have done is vote for a modern day Democrat. To that point, she couldn't even speak English anymore, and her Spanish was broken and flawed when she could actually carry a coherent thought, let alone sign her name on an absentee ballot.
You guys are not morons... you know EXACTLY that what I'm saying is true. Democrats are impassioned to do the things that they do, and that includes voter fraud because they believe the end justifies the means. You guys pretend it's not happening, but it's obvious you guys know as well as I do that this happens. You're not scoring points on an imaginary game by pretending it doesn't.
In the first link, they talk of an audit. What came of the audit? They also go into detail at how it’s likely all human error, and not fraud. I’m still interested in what they found in the audit, but this is hardly any indication of fraud that could change any election.
The second link doesn’t really talk about it. It’s more about the recounts.
I also now understand your point about taking advantage of nursing homes. I don’t know how you’d prove that, or how widespread it is.
EVERY court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth.
It is up to the defendant to provide the rebuttal in the form of EVIDENCE that the claim(s) are not true.
Ergo, even for the purpose of debate, your question is properly stated.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
Simply restating an unsupported claim does not make it true, nor does such a restatement create a rebuttable presumption of it's truth.
Another tenet of American jurisprudence is that a court of jurisdiction may, upon proper motion by the defendant or sua sponte by the court, DISMISS an unsupported claim.
Did you fail to finish your post or is that your way of acknowledging that I'm correct?
Or, Is it because you fail to understand the requirement to provide evidence of a claim either way?
Claims without evidence are called opinions.
You can have an opinion about a fact but first you have to have a fact.
Leftists have a lot of trouble discerning between opinions and facts, (which are derived from evidence)
You both said that the first claims don’t require proof and are assumed true, and you said claims do require proof. I’m trying to figure out which it is.
I also now understand your point about taking advantage of nursing homes. I don’t know how you’d prove that, or how widespread it is.
Depends on the state... most states keep record of who votes... and states like Florida have a paper record of who you actually voted for, though they won't share that information to the public because Constitutionally it's our right to an anonymous vote.
They could tell that all the people in the nursing home had voted, including my grandmother. My grandmother by that point was bed-ridden... could no longer speak English, and even her Spanish was extremely broken to the point that she could only say basic things... when she was coherent, which most times she was not. Half the time she thought I was her son who had just came back from Vietnam, the other time she thought I was someone who was there to steal from her.
The police refused to do anything, and the local FBI had been contacted but refused to do anything either. They basically said there was nothing they could do... in effect, it wasn't worth the hassle to them. All the nursing aides there were Haitian... and Haitians in Florida are very Democrat/leaning... so it goes hand in hand. I think they questioned them, but they all denied it... but a private investigator that someone had hired had proven that they'd all voted (almost 30 people), and the police had that information as well.
Crooked election or not, its what this administration wants to do (and undo) that is the problem now.
Also though, making elections less prone to crooked folks in the future is still a priority. Regardless of those who believe it somehow isnt possible, or didn't happen.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-17-2020).]
You both said that the first claims don’t require proof and are assumed true, and you said claims do require proof. I’m trying to figure out which it is.
I never said that initial claims don't require proof, (evidence).
What I specifically said was: "Every court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth."
Additionally, it isn't an "either / or" proposition with regard to proof / evidence.
Did you somehow wrongly assume that nobody has to provide evidence to support their claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that you can simply make unsupported claims in a court of law such as : "Bob owes me $5,000" without having to provide any proof / evidence of that claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that once Joe provides his proof of his claim in the form of an IOU for $5,000 signed by Bob that then Bob can simply claim "That's not my signature." and then not have to prove his rebuttal claim?
If Bob cannot back up his rebuttal claim with proof then Joe's claim is presumed to be truthful (even if the IOU is actually a fraud with a forged signature).
Whether it's in a court of law or a simple debate, unless you can support your claim(s) with evidence and / or verifiable facts, it's nothing more than a baseless allegation or an opinion.
Perhaps you should spend far less time attempting to find inconsistencies in what I said and far more time trying to understand what I said.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-18-2020).]
I never said that initial claims don't require proof, (evidence).
What I specifically said was: "Every court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth."
Additionally, it isn't an "either / or" proposition with regard to proof / evidence.
Did you somehow wrongly assume that nobody has to provide evidence to support their claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that you can simply make unsupported claims in a court of law such as : "Bob owes me $5,000" without having to provide any proof / evidence of that claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that once Joe provides his proof of his claim in the form of an IOU for $5,000 signed by Bob that then Bob can simply claim "That's not my signature." and then not have to prove his rebuttal claim?
If Bob cannot back up his rebuttal claim with proof then Joe's claim is presumed to be truthful (even if the IOU is actually a fraud with a forged signature).
Whether it's in a court of law or a simple debate, unless you can support your claim(s) with evidence and / or verifiable facts, it's nothing more than a baseless allegation or an opinion.
Perhaps you should spend far less time attempting to find inconsistencies in what I said and far more time trying to understand what I said.
In your examples, one person is providing "proof" (signatures), and the other has to provide "proof" that the signatures aren't real. That's analogous to Todd having first provided links. That didn't happen. Let's go back through history here:
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Democrats have always cheated in elections...
Example: - More people voting in a district than there are actual registered voters. - People voting in two states - Dead people voting - Illegals voting (no ID check) - Exploited nursing home residents - Stolen votes (people voting in others names)
These are things that have always been baked in for the Democrats. It is an almost uniquely Democrat-issue 9 times out of 10. We can ask "why" but it has more to do with the mindset of a Democrat (the end justifies the means). All prior presidents have just accepted this and never bothered to fight it. It comes out after the fact, maybe a couple of people get arrested here and there when it's exceptionally egregious, but generally, this persists election after election.
With an election this close, why should we be expected to simply accept this and not fight it?
quote
Originally posted by RandomTask:
Can you provide the link for a single county in which #1 happened? (Before we address any of your other false claims)
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
I take it that you have proof that his claims are false.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
EVERY court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth.
It is up to the defendant to provide the rebuttal in the form of EVIDENCE that the claim(s) are not true.
Ergo, even for the purpose of debate, your question is properly stated.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein held elephant-themed orgies on the far side of the moon!
quote
Originally posted by randye:
Simply restating an unsupported claim does not make it true, nor does such a restatement create a rebuttable presumption of it's truth.
Another tenet of American jurisprudence is that a court of jurisdiction may, upon proper motion by the defendant or sua sponte by the court, DISMISS an unsupported claim.
Where is your EVIDENCE to support your claim?
To paraphrase: 82-T/A [At Work]:Claims(1) with no proof RandomTask:Claims(2) that claims(1) are not true, and asks for proof, with no proof olejoedad: Asks if claims(2) can be proven (let alone that you can't definitively prove a negative unless another positive absolves that negative) randye: Says claims(1) are presumed to be true, and it's up to claims(2) to prove otherwise (false--claims(1) were never supported) Patrick:Claims(3) with no proof randye: Says claims(3) require proof.
I already went through Todd's claims. Some were true, some were not, and some are hairy, but we can give the benefit of the doubt (I don't have any reason to suspect falsehood with regards to the nursing home--sounds terrible). But that doesn't matter. What matters, is you both stated that claims(1) without proof were presumed true, and you said claims(3) required proof. Claims(1) and claims(3) were supported exactly the same (until other threads either support or unsupported those claims). Your statements are inconsistent.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Depends on the state... most states keep record of who votes... and states like Florida have a paper record of who you actually voted for, though they won't share that information to the public because Constitutionally it's our right to an anonymous vote.
They could tell that all the people in the nursing home had voted, including my grandmother. My grandmother by that point was bed-ridden... could no longer speak English, and even her Spanish was extremely broken to the point that she could only say basic things... when she was coherent, which most times she was not. Half the time she thought I was her son who had just came back from Vietnam, the other time she thought I was someone who was there to steal from her.
The police refused to do anything, and the local FBI had been contacted but refused to do anything either. They basically said there was nothing they could do... in effect, it wasn't worth the hassle to them. All the nursing aides there were Haitian... and Haitians in Florida are very Democrat/leaning... so it goes hand in hand. I think they questioned them, but they all denied it... but a private investigator that someone had hired had proven that they'd all voted (almost 30 people), and the police had that information as well.
Yeah, and to be clear, I trust this happened. It sounds like a terrible situation, and I'm sorry your grandmother went through that. Both from a health perspective and the voting thing. My comment is more that I can see how something like that would be hard to back up and prove even after the fact, in the case of trying to find voter fraud in an election.
I already went through Todd's claims. Some were true, some were not, and some are hairy, but we can give the benefit of the doubt (I don't have any reason to suspect falsehood with regards to the nursing home--sounds terrible). But that doesn't matter. What matters, is you both stated that claims(1) without proof were presumed true, and you said claims(3) required proof. Claims(1) and claims(3) were supported exactly the same (until other threads either support or unsupported those claims). Your statements are inconsistent.
What you should be saying is that "you remain unconvinced."
There have been 1000s of pieces of evidence of voter fraud and improper manipulation by Democrat interests, most of which have been corroborated to some degree. Some of it has been misrepresented on both sides, but to suggest that all claims are incorrect is not at all being reasonable. You're totally entitled to your opinion.
I'd point you to the Epoch Times, which has done an excellent job of collecting pretty much everything. The site is right-leaning, and the titles are misleading... for example, today:
"Supreme Court Green-Lights Trump Removal of Illegal Aliens From Census Count"
...but the fact is that the Supreme Court just decided to not hear the case (effectively rendering it null). The article itself states this, and it goes into detail on how the Democrats can still re-file, and likely Biden would simply push an executive order and overturn whatever Trump is about to do anyway.
But I do recommend you spend some time on that site. It may not be to your political leanings, but it'll certainly give you quite a bit more information than you're ever going to get from the main stream media. Even Fox News (since it was handed down to the brothers) has been committed to pushing a narrative that is decidedly NOT pro-Trump.
What matters, is you both stated that claims(1) without proof were presumed true, and you said claims(3) required proof. Claims(1) and claims(3) were supported exactly the same (until other threads either support or unsupported those claims). Your statements are inconsistent.
Don't try and make any sense out of randye's rhetoric. He just talks in circles hoping that no one will notice... or care.
Yeah, and to be clear, I trust this happened. It sounds like a terrible situation, and I'm sorry your grandmother went through that. Both from a health perspective and the voting thing. My comment is more that I can see how something like that would be hard to back up and prove even after the fact, in the case of trying to find voter fraud in an election.
That would be an example of 'someone voting in anothers name', which I was told doesn't happen.
No biggie, I'm sure it only happened in one nursing home, in one county, and only one State.
So...Probably haven't heard about this from Fox or America one......Russia has been hacking all of our government and large corporation computer systems....Trump remains mum on the whole thing...My question for the good Trump conservatives is...How is this beneficial to YOUR party?
Some are calling this a "Pearl Harbor" style attack.....But I'm sure there must be some good reason for good-guy Putin to do this...Maybe if he can destroy our whole country it will kill the evil "Deep state"......Then you can get an ALL-Trump government (For life!!) with help from Putin......
So...Probably haven't heard about this from Fox or America one......Russia has been hacking all of our government and large corporation computer systems....Trump remains mum on the whole thing...My question for the good Trump conservatives is...How is this beneficial to YOUR party?
Some are calling this a "Pearl Harbor" style attack.....But I'm sure there must be some good reason for good-guy Putin to do this...Maybe if he can destroy our whole country it will kill the evil "Deep state"......Then you can get an ALL-Trump government (For life!!) with help from Putin......
You are making many assumptions that are outright false. Why on earth do you assume an attack on gov and corp computer systems by an outside entity is thought to be beneficial? And why do you think “Trump conservatives” call Putin a “good-guy” ? You really need to focus here. Seriously, you sound like a looney tune of the highest degree. And I have read your posts about your stereo where you come across as a normal rational person. Who is this crazy person posting the TDS bs?
Well....I am surprised you have even HEARD of it since Fox an OAN hasn't even MENTIONED it......And you guys only listen to Russian-certified News outlets like FAUX and OAN. A number of my "Conservative" friends have been telling me how great Russia is, how great a leader Putin is, and how Russia is "The only Christian country in the world"...My Aunt (Retired Air Force) raved about how great Putin was- the only leader in the world BETTER than Trump....She also told me that Obama was a Communist/Foreign-born Muslim who completely wrecked the country.....There was something about the un-employment rate being at 80%......
You don't actually MIND Russia attacking our country, do you?
Just over a year ago, the Lincoln Project was created. One of its co-founders, former Republican Party-affiliated strategist Rick Wilson. He was one of the guests yesterday (December 17) on the 11th Hour. Host Brian Williams addresses him with a question, and Rick Wilson begins his response with a quip that I venture that Pennock's forum member cvxjet would relish. The Trump enthusiasts among us... not so much.
This queues up the YouTube segment at 35 minutes and 35 seconds (35:35) from the beginning of it. The video is nonsense. It's just the audio that's being offered here. https://youtu.be/nbhNTGpqy4o?t=2135
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-18-2020).]
Just over a year ago, the Lincoln Project was created. One of its co-founders, former Republican Party-affiliated strategist Rick Wilson. He was one of the guests yesterday (December 17) on the 11th Hour. Host Brian Williams addresses him with a question, and Rick Wilson begins his response with a quip that I venture that Pennock's forum member cvxjet would relish. The Trump enthusiasts among us... not so much.
This queues up the YouTube segment at 35 minutes and 35 seconds (35:35) from the beginning of it. The video is nonsense. It's just the audio that's being offered here. https://youtu.be/nbhNTGpqy4o?t=2135
Lincoln Project aka The Grifters
Ask them how adding 10 GOP house seats and 2 state legislatures works?
Ask them how adding 10 GOP house seats and 2 state legislatures works?
I'm not sure what to make of that.
Looking down from an altitude of 20,000 feet (figure of speech) at the results of the general elections of November 2020, Republicans did very well all across the nation, from the local and state levels, all the way up to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. With one glaring exception: the Trump-Pence candidacy for President and Vice President.
So in that sense, maybe the Lincoln Project was not all that successful. To tell the truth, I have not delved into the complete Lincoln Project's aims and messaging.
Well....I am surprised you have even HEARD of it since Fox an OAN hasn't even MENTIONED it......And you guys only listen to Russian-certified News outlets like FAUX and OAN. A number of my "Conservative" friends have been telling me how great Russia is, how great a leader Putin is, and how Russia is "The only Christian country in the world"...My Aunt (Retired Air Force) raved about how great Putin was- the only leader in the world BETTER than Trump....She also told me that Obama was a Communist/Foreign-born Muslim who completely wrecked the country.....There was something about the un-employment rate being at 80%......
You don't actually MIND Russia attacking our country, do you?
Anecdotal evidence that you project onto anyone who supports Trump. Please stop. It’s not a good look for you.
Looking down from an altitude of 20,000 feet (figure of speech) at the results of the general elections of November 2020, Republicans did very well all across the nation, from the local and state levels, all the way up to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. With one glaring exception: the Trump-Pence candidacy for President and Vice President.
So in that sense, maybe the Lincoln Project was not all that successful. To tell the truth, I have not delved into the complete Lincoln Project's aims and messaging.
Yes, the GOP takes all those house seats and state seats and somehow, magically, Pee Pads and Knee Pads —> Odds of Biden winning all four contested states ‘less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power’. 🤔 Kind of makes you wonder how that happened.
What matters, is you both stated that claims(1) without proof were presumed true.....
I didn't say that.
Once again you are so concerned with searching for any imagined inconsistancy that you are failing to even attempt to understand.
It doesn't help you that you also insist on continuing to misquote me.
I don't know if you are doing that out of obstinacy or ignorance.
ONE MORE TIME, what I said was:
"Every court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth.".
THEN I even tried to help you comprehend by explaining it to you with very simple examples in the most basic way possible:
"Did you somehow wrongly assume that nobody has to provide evidence to support their claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that you can simply make unsupported claims in a court of law such as : "Bob owes me $5,000" without having to provide any proof / evidence of that claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that once Joe provides his proof of his claim in the form of an IOU for $5,000 signed by Bob that then Bob can simply claim "That's not my signature." and then not have to prove his rebuttal claim?"
It's now obvious that you either cannot, or will not, make a serious attempt to understand a very simple concept but instead you want to endlessly argue.
You'll have to do that by yourself now.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-19-2020).]
Originally posted by Hudini: Yes, the GOP takes all those house seats and state seats and somehow, magically, Pee Pads and Knee Pads —> Odds of Biden winning all four contested states ‘less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power’. 🤔 Kind of makes you wonder how that happened.
Who are the statistical "experts" that came up with that "one in a quadrillion to the fourth power"..? And where have they documented their methodology?
I haven't searched, but I cannot help but think that there are likely some letters on this topic that have been published in the latest editions of some of the journals that are taken seriously by professional statisticians.
I think that there were many legitimate ballots that were voted straight Republican or "much" Republican, but with Biden-Harris or some other "not Trump-Pence" selection for President and Vice President.
As I said, I am not fully versed in the Lincoln Project, but I think that voting as I just described would not be an unexpected outcome of the impact of Lincoln Project messaging--whatever their complete aims or agenda.
I am only aware of some of the Lincoln Project persuasion-type ads that ran on MSNBC. They were 1000 percent anti-Trump. I'm not sure whether they explicitly endorsed the Biden-Harris candidacy. Or how they were intended to factor into the elections at all the other levels and offices.
Although now that I have jogged my memory, I think I remember Lincoln Project ads that were against Senator Lindsey Graham because of Graham's aligning himself with President Trump in so many ways. I guess there were other ads of that kind, but that's the only one that I seem to be able to conjure (vaguely) from my memory.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-19-2020).]
So...Probably haven't heard about this from Fox or America one......Russia has been hacking all of our government and large corporation computer systems....Trump remains mum on the whole thing...My question for the good Trump conservatives is...How is this beneficial to YOUR party?
Some are calling this a "Pearl Harbor" style attack.....But I'm sure there must be some good reason for good-guy Putin to do this...Maybe if he can destroy our whole country it will kill the evil "Deep state"......Then you can get an ALL-Trump government (For life!!) with help from Putin......
No other nation interferes in our elections more than Israel, jewish mega-donors and Israeli dual citizens. https://www.timesofisrael.c...eli-espionage-in-us/ And government sources say Israel has the most aggressive espionage campaign against the USA and it's citizens. Nobody ever dares mention it because MSNBC, CNN and FOX have been order not to tell their slaves congregation about it.
Trump wasn't bad, I mean for a Democrat, that is. Better than most of the DC Republicans and 95% of DC Democrats.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-19-2020).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What you should be saying is that "you remain unconvinced."
That’s fair. I remain unconvinced. I see it as two hills: one has to show that there is fairly consistent and widespread voter fraud in recent elections, and the second has to predominantly tie it to Democrats. I think the second would be harder.
At the end of the day, I do not believe at all that voter fraud caused Biden to win. If that were the case, Trump wouldn’t have had such a hard time in the courts.
