2020 US General Election

[Niall_Quinn]

Looks like the clowns on the Trump legal team are finally getting their shit together and focusing on what they can prove instead of what they think happened. Numbers are what will prove it, along with legislative authority. Registrations against turnout, comparisons between historically comparable counties and districts, timings and spikes in the count and the balance of votes, illegitimate rulings that countermand the authority of the authorised legislative, etc, etc. These are the avenues to pursue - and the evidence is necessarily overwhelming because you can't pull a steal like that in such short notice without making a mess. Just drop all the crap about Dominion and monitoring and Hugo Chavez, shit that's obviously intended to distract and derail.

[Letters]

Some people object to being informed that cases are being dismissed on procedural grounds. The same people then produce video of that very fact. It's a strange world.

Indeed. We all find it strange how you manage to repeatedly see 5 fingers when only 4 are held up in front of you. You said the evidence wasn’t being heard in court. It is. It just happens to not be very good evidence. Trump has spent weeks saying he won an election he clearly lost. Unfortunately a lot of his followers hang on his every word so they’re believing him.
No wonder then that when they set up hotlines and encourage people to contact them they get “evidence” coming thick and fast. Mainly thick.

Unfortunately your paranoia and belief that “they” are out to get you prevent you from seeing the reality. The USPS thing is a good example.
The four fingers of a perfectly cordial meeting between the “whistle blower” and 2 USPS agents is held up in front of you.
You see the five fingers of agents trying to get him to change his story (they didn’t), of someone alleging fraud (he didn’t), and secretly recording the encounter (he told them he was recording).

Interestingly, when all this is pointed out to you, you just get cross with the person who shows you there’s only 4 fingers and continue to see 5. From previous conversations you are aware of the psychological traps you’re falling into and yet you continue to fall into them.

[Niall_Quinn]

Some people can have it explained to them in detail and yet still accuse others of not being able to see. When the legal explanations are presented they divert with Crayola psychoanalysis and smear, anything but a relevant rebuttal. In some cases they don't even know they are aping Orwell himself as they beg for inconvenient information to be shut down and the trivia to resume for their personal comfort.

[Letters]

QED
You have the four fingers of the USPS episode carefully shown to you over and over, but you ignore that and continue to see five fingers

In other news, another recount finds no evidence of fraud and actually slightly increases Biden’s lead

https://www.tmj4.com/news/election-2...county-recount

[Letters]

These are the avenues to pursue - and the evidence is necessarily overwhelming

Great! Could you provide some?
You said I was “[begging] for inconvenient information to be shut down”
So come on, help us poor low information saps out, here.
Let’s see some of this inconvenient information.
*crickets*

In other news, it was a Trump appointed judge who tossed out his appeal in PN.



Silly old Trump. Appointing biased judges who are biased against him.

[Mac76]

they actually aren't biased against him - you're falling into the Trump camp's propaganda trap by saying that - it's just that they have got to the end of the piece of elastic which pulls them back towards some respect for truth and the rule of law

[Ollie the Optimist]

That's the strategy, isn't it? Give up. Don't look. Don't speak.

Sorry, no can do.

I'm not familiar with the case from which those snippets appear, but based on other cases I have followed it's more than simple to follow along. In the first snippet the attorney makes it clear his case does not allege fraud because all cases in which such allegations have been made have been thrown out on grounds of standing. Basically the court summarily rules the Trump Campaign itself cannot bring such claims because they cannot be an aggrieved party in that particular jurisdiction, the argument being the campaign is not a voter and therefore can not suffer harm due to fraud, whether proven or not. It's a bullshit argument but technically legal. That's why the attorney is specific about the case not being about fraud.

In the second snippet, the judge (who is clearly political), concocts a procedural argument that penalises the plaintiff for practicing due diligence before entering affidavits into evidence. Essentially the argument goes, because you tossed some affidavits on grounds of them being unsound you have therefore cast doubt on those presented as sound, therefore the entire procedure in gathering the affidavits is unsound. A classic procedural dismissal and the law being tortured for political ends.

The net result is the case being dismissed without the evidence being presented, which is the entire point from the court's perspective.

Now if you want to step beyond your TDS and have a discussion, fine. Otherwise follow your own advice and poke your nose out. Or at least bring something that isn't culled straight from the front pages of the fake news media.

isn't every judge political in america given they are all appointed by politicians? just look at the supreme court!

[Niall_Quinn]

isn't every judge political in america given they are all appointed by politicians? just look at the supreme court!

Pretty much, or at least they tend to be under political pressure most of the time.

[Mac76]

Pretty much, or at least they tend to be under political pressure most of the time.

so you admit that when pointing out that the judge is political you're simply stating the obvious, and that it's something that applies to EVERY judge, not just this one

but of course by oringinally saying they were political you were implying this was unusual and was an example of wrongdoing

a typical example of how you warp the facts and then someone calls you out you just deflect and move on to the next conspiracy theory

[Niall_Quinn]

so you admit that when pointing out that the judge is political you're simply stating the obvious, and that it's something that applies to EVERY judge, not just this one

but of course by oringinally saying they were political you were implying this was unusual and was an example of wrongdoing

a typical example of how you warp the facts and then someone calls you out you just deflect and move on to the next conspiracy theory

Check your logic on that one.