Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would certainly never accuse a Democrat of knowing what the word "evidence" means. They are still crowing about their failed Russiagate conspiracy theory. They still think that constantly bringing up something that has been thoroughly investigated and debunked is perfectly acceptable. But when the opposition dares even mention their belief that the election was stolen based on things that actually did happen, everything changes. Suddenly, it's wrong to investigate. Suddenly the word "evidence" get's completely redefined. -- a claim that the Democrats refuse to investigate -- then suddenly the definition of "evidence" gets completely rewritten.
The current standard held by the Democrats and the Left for "evidence" is that something must be proven to be true beyond all doubt -- probably in a court of law. This is in no way similar to the actual definition of the word.
It never ceases to amaze me how the Left refuses to abide by the rules they create for others. Examples could fill thousands of pages.
Hmmm, I have seen people in this very forum wanting people to prove there wasn't fraud beyond any doubt. Never mind the burden of proof is on the accuser.
There has been evidence attached as part of the initial complaints filed by lawyers. Y'all act like the judges never saw anything ever. Look at an actual complaint and subsequent ruling to see what has been transpiring. Look as the judge references specific pieces of evidence and why it is faulty.
There was "evidence" presented - conjectures, poorly conducted statistics exercises (Russell Ramsland says hi), affidavits that weren't anywhere near as damning as they were said to be, wild arguments to try and prove standing (Oh Texas, you have no standing to tell other states how to run elections, esp. when you were guilty of it yourself), laches (gee PA Republicans, why did you wait over a year and 2 elections to suddenly decide Act 77, which you voted for, was dreadful?) press conferences disguised as hearings, and more.
For fraud, you have to provide a higher standard of proof that it transpired. What they presented was pitiful.
Hmmm, I have seen people in this very forum wanting people to prove there wasn't fraud beyond any doubt. Never mind the burden of proof is on the accuser.
There has been evidence attached as part of the initial complaints filed by lawyers. Y'all act like the judges never saw anything ever. Look at an actual complaint and subsequent ruling to see what has been transpiring. Look as the judge references specific pieces of evidence and why it is faulty.
There was "evidence" presented - conjectures, poorly conducted statistics exercises (Russell Ramsland says hi), affidavits that weren't anywhere near as damning as they were said to be, wild arguments to try and prove standing (Oh Texas, you have no standing to tell other states how to run elections, esp. when you were guilty of it yourself), press conferences disguised as hearings, and more.
For fraud, you have to provide a higher standard of proof that it transpired. What they presented was pitiful.
Hmmm, I have seen people in this very forum wanting people to prove there wasn't fraud beyond any doubt. Never mind the burden of proof is on the accuser.
There has been evidence attached as part of the initial complaints filed by lawyers. Y'all act like the judges never saw anything ever. Look at an actual complaint and subsequent ruling to see what has been transpiring. Look as the judge references specific pieces of evidence and why it is faulty.
There was "evidence" presented - conjectures, poorly conducted statistics exercises (Russell Ramsland says hi), affidavits that weren't anywhere near as damning as they were said to be, wild arguments to try and prove standing (Oh Texas, you have no standing to tell other states how to run elections, esp. when you were guilty of it yourself), laches (gee PA Republicans, why did you wait over a year and 2 elections to suddenly decide Act 77, which you voted for, was dreadful?) press conferences disguised as hearings, and more.
For fraud, you have to provide a higher standard of proof that it transpired. What they presented was pitiful.
Every court case was dismissed on procedural grounds or "lack of standing." None were dismissed after reviewing the facts and evidence being presented.
The GOP sued prior to the election in PA. The judge said they'd probably win, but that they couldn't rule on a case until after something had happened first. After the election, they brought back the lawsuit, and it was promptly dismissed by another court because the election had already happened and that judge felt like they could no longer rule on it.
Those are the kinds of games that are being played.
I honestly have no idea whether shady happenings with the vote itself would be enough to have a different outcome. I do know that it's long since proven that the Democrats cheated their way to victory in 1960 and they completely got away with it. I seriously doubt that Biden wins if the news media, big tech and everything else had just treated both sides equally. And I do think that the integrity of our election system is in serious danger. Can anyone trust the election results anymore?
“In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi,” Mr. Elias said in a Monday court filing reported by Breitbart news.
The government of the United States always had a weird affection for lecturing Central and Eastern countries of the EU about democracy and the transparency of elections.
Now it's time for us, Central European countries, to lecture the US about election transparency. Here in the EU, absentee voting is only allowed when a citizen resides abroad and register in advance to vote. Your 2020 election resembles something out of a third-world country. Mail-in voting for a country of 350 million people... seriously?
The government of the United States always had a weird affection for lecturing Central and Eastern countries of the EU about democracy and the transparency of elections.
Now it's time for us, Central European countries, to lecture the US about election transparency. Here in the EU, absentee voting is only allowed when a citizen resides abroad and register in advance to vote. Your 2020 election resembles something out of a third-world country. Mail-in voting for a country of 350 million people... seriously?
Quite an admission here. Why do you think they are coming out with this now?
If it was in the bag that Biden was to be president.. no way..., why did they throw out the poll workers? They are trying to get their story changed to make it look like no fraud votes happened. It did.
Every court case was dismissed on procedural grounds or "lack of standing." None were dismissed after reviewing the facts and evidence being presented.
The GOP sued prior to the election in PA. The judge said they'd probably win, but that they couldn't rule on a case until after something had happened first. After the election, they brought back the lawsuit, and it was promptly dismissed by another court because the election had already happened and that judge felt like they could no longer rule on it.
Those are the kinds of games that are being played.
I honestly have no idea whether shady happenings with the vote itself would be enough to have a different outcome. I do know that it's long since proven that the Democrats cheated their way to victory in 1960 and they completely got away with it. I seriously doubt that Biden wins if the news media, big tech and everything else had just treated both sides equally. And I do think that the integrity of our election system is in serious danger. Can anyone trust the election results anymore?
What is the name of the case you say they did prior to the election? I want to read the documents.
As one example, did you see this lawsuit?
Quote:
A Nevada judge has agreed to let the Trump campaign present its evidence that fraud and illegalities plagued the state’s election, enough to reverse Joe Biden's win and set an example for other state challenges.
“Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election,” Russell wrote in the order. “Reasonable doubt is one based on reason, not mere possibility.”
Quote:
The judge also wrote that he found many of the depositions and expert witnesses provided by the Trump campaign questionable, referring to several of the exhibits presented to the court as “unsound” or based on questionable methodology.
Do the Trump lawyers and lawyers for other interested parties hold any blame for this situation? I mean, surely they understand things like standing, laches, etc. Burden of proof. Well, Rudy didn't seem to understand scrutiny and opacity when he appeared in court, but hey, general point still stands.
Shouldn't they have crafted better lawsuits? Why did they keep specifying they weren't arguing fraud? Why didn't they properly present the mounds of evidence they kept saying they had?
What is the name of the case you say they did prior to the election? I want to read the documents.
If you're interested in looking at things you haven't seen and reading things you haven't read, that speaks well of you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
because it is too easy. Trump never told the truth. Ever. He gaslight the US for four years
