The 2020 U.S. Election Irregularities.

17-12-2020 8:45am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.. but Biden is trying to pull a fast one..

There has been evidence presented showing dead people voted.. there was video evidence of people pulling out boxes of dodgy ballots when everyone had left..there was an audit of some voting machines showing discrepancies..and they have been shown to have connected to the internet.. There definitely was an attempt to not let people observe..

Yeah, they didn't manage to get something overwhelming in court because it's happening across 6 states and a lot of it will be difficult to prove..

And it's made much harder when people, instead of going "hang on, something dodgy happened here, we should maybe look into it' are so quick to sneer and disregard all these things because they've been so conditioned to hate trump by the media..

Can you point to which court cases present the above evidence of fraud. Thanks.

17-12-2020 1:55pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you point to which court cases present the above evidence of fraud. Thanks.

Look, you would hardly recognise it anyway.. After stealing the primaries from Bernie they went on to steal the election from trump..

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 1:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Look, you would hardly recognise it anyway.. After stealing the primaries from Bernie they went on to steal the election from trump..

59 court cases and not once did they think to produce evidence of fraud. Apparently it was widespread so it should have been easy. I guess they just forgot.

17-12-2020 2:00pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

59 court cases and not once did they think to produce evidence of fraud. Apparently it was widespread so it should have been easy. I guess they just forgot.

Well..it wasn't a three year investigation..

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 2:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Well..it wasn't a three year investigation..

but they have all this evidence. they said so repeatedly. Why do you think they never introduced it in any of the cases they took?

sydthebeat · 17-12-2020 2:03pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Look, you would hardly recognise it anyway.. After stealing the primaries from Bernie they went on to steal the election from trump..

So the only evidence is..... Hot air??

King Mob · 17-12-2020 2:04pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but they have all this evidence. they said so repeatedly. Why do you think they never introduced it in any of the cases they took?

More importantly, why have we had to ask this question twenty times and why are they ignoring it so religiously?

17-12-2020 2:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well..it wasn't a three year investigation..

Trump had an investigation into election fraud for the last election. It showed no proof of fraud.. Claimed fraud back then too naturally.

enno99 · 17-12-2020 3:29pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

59 court cases and not once did they think to produce evidence of fraud. Apparently it was widespread so it should have been easy. I guess they just forgot.

“The courts haven’t decided the facts. They never looked at the facts… The fraud happened. The election in many ways was stolen and the only way it will be fixed is by in the future reinforcing the laws,”

Rand Paul said.

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 3:40pm

enno99 wrote: »

Rand Paul said.

the courts can only look at the evidence presented to them. None of this "overwhelming evidence" was presented to a court. Why do you think that is?

King Mob · 17-12-2020 4:11pm

enno99 wrote: »

Rand Paul said.

So?
Where the courts presented with the evidence?
If they weren't presented with the evidence, why would they look at it?

Why didn't Trump and co present the evidence.
You keep dodging this question because there's only one answer.
You just aren't honest enough to give it.

Dohnjoe · 17-12-2020 4:23pm

King Mob wrote: »

So?
Where the courts presented with the evidence?
If they weren't presented with the evidence, why would they look at it?

Why didn't Trump and co present the evidence.
You keep dodging this question because there's only one answer.
You just aren't honest enough to give it.

Some are smart enough to constantly evade straightforward questions and reason because they know it exposes their views as bull****.

The dishonesty required for that is something else.

King Mob · 17-12-2020 4:27pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some are smart enough to constantly evade straightforward questions and reason because they know it exposes their views as bull****.

The dishonesty required for that is something else.

I can't think of any other explanation for it other than they know what they're doing.

If they were just stupid and didn't realise that this was a flaw in the argument, they'd just stumble into it.

We don't even get the poor attempts at wit and sarcasm. The question is often just ignored entirely and even cut out of quotes so as not to draw more attention to it.

They know they are avoiding the question and they know why.

It's baffling why someone has to do this to profess a belief.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-12-2020 4:29pm

enno99 wrote: »

Rand Paul said.

What "facts" were presented to the courts that they did not look at?

enno99 · 17-12-2020 6:52pm

https://www.scribd.com/document/488495896/Navarro-Report#from_embed

You could try find out if you are really interested
But alas I feel you will ignore anything put forward

Dohnjoe · 17-12-2020 7:07pm

enno99 wrote: »

https://www.scribd.com/document/488495896/Navarro-Report#from_embed

You could try find out if you are really interested
But alas I feel you will ignore anything put forward

He's a Trump advisor. Yeah, no.

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 8:07pm

enno99 wrote: »

https://www.scribd.com/document/488495896/Navarro-Report#from_embed

You could try find out if you are really interested
But alas I feel you will ignore anything put forward

in what court case was that presented as evidence?

enno99 · 17-12-2020 9:30pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in what court case was that presented as evidence?

Same old line.

Don't need a judge to tell me what my nose looks like. Do you

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 9:36pm

enno99 wrote: »

Same old line.

Don't need a judge to tell me what my nose looks like. Do you

No but independent verification of evidence is necessary, would you not agree? anybody can make spurious allegations of fraud but until they have decided on in a court of law they remain just that, spurious allegations. It seems you are happy to accept these allegations without any verification.

though reading further it seems the report is based on evidence submitted in the 50+ court cases taken by Trump et al. Evidence that failed to convince a single judge.

Evidence used to conduct this assessment includes more than 50 lawsuits and judicial rulings, thousands of affidavits and declarations,
testimony in a variety of state venues, published analyses by think tanks and legal centers, videos and photos, public comments, and extensive press coverage

enno99 · 17-12-2020 9:40pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No but independent verification of evidence is necessary, would you not agree? anybody can make spurious allegations of fraud but until they have decided on in a court of law they remain just that, spurious allegations. It seems you are happy to accept these allegations without any verification.

though reading further it seems the report is based on evidence submitted in the 50+ court cases taken by Trump et al. Evidence that failed to convince a single judge.

Judicial rulings on process. Not evidence

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 9:42pm

enno99 wrote: »

Judicial rulings on process. Not evidence

you dont really understand what judges do, do you?

enno99 · 17-12-2020 9:49pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No but independent verification of evidence is necessary, would you not agree? anybody can make spurious allegations of fraud but until they have decided on in a court of law they remain just that, spurious allegations. It seems you are happy to accept these allegations without any verification.

though reading further it seems the report is based on evidence submitted in the 50+ court cases taken by Trump et al. Evidence that failed to convince a single judge.

Why don't Bidens team want it over with.

Why fight it in court.

if its just spurious claims a judge will rule in their favour

hold a big media event and try to unite everyone. Thats what an honest winner would do

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 9:52pm

enno99 wrote: »

Why don't Bidens team want it over with.

Why fight it in court.

if its just spurious claims a judge will rule in their favour

hold a big media event and try to unite everyone. Thats what an honest winner would do

multiple judge already have ruled in their favour. 50+ at this stage.

enno99 · 17-12-2020 9:58pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you dont really understand what judges do, do you?

Yea they decide if you have standing before the case progresses.
If they rule you don't have. case over

Sidney Powell is on the docket of SCOTUS i believe

after such a ruling

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 10:00pm

enno99 wrote: »

Yea they decide if you have standing before the case progresses.
If they rule you don't have. case over

Sidney Powell is on the docket of SCOTUS i believe

after such a ruling

that was one case. there are dozens of others that did make it to court and failed.

17-12-2020 10:02pm

enno99 wrote: »

Yea they decide if you have standing before the case progresses.
If they rule you don't have. case over

Sidney Powell is on the docket of SCOTUS i believe

after such a ruling

The Trump team even distanced themselves from her... On top of that, the GOP won't be making any Supreme Court nominations for at least 4 years since they won't hold the presidency..

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-12-2020 10:15pm

enno99 wrote: »

Why don't Bidens team want it over with.

Why fight it in court.

if its just spurious claims a judge will rule in their favour

hold a big media event and try to unite everyone. Thats what an honest winner would do

It's so spurious the judges don't even want to waste their time! These include judges that Trump himself appointed.

Do you think they should hold a show trial just to shut trump up? What happens when the verdict goes against him?

enno99 · 17-12-2020 10:27pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that was one case. there are dozens of others that did make it to court and failed.

And what were the rulings in these dozens.

Texas was another.

ohnonotgmail · 17-12-2020 10:32pm

enno99 wrote: »

And what were the rulings in these dozens.

Texas was another.

trump failed. every time. In fact Rudy Guiliani (who is trumps lawyer in case you didnt know) explicitly stated in court that Trump was not claiming there was election fraud. Why would he do that? Could it be because the claims of fraud are bull****? You can see all of them here though I doubt you will look at them https://www.democracydocket.com/case_type/post-election/

enno99 · 17-12-2020 11:07pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

trump failed. every time. In fact Rudy Guiliani (who is trumps lawyer in case you didnt know) explicitly stated in court that Trump was not claiming there was election fraud. Why would he do that? Could it be because the claims of fraud are bull****? You can see all of them here though I doubt you will look at them https://www.democracydocket.com/case_type/post-election/

In a particular case he said that not all of them

Looked at a couple

Court don't have jurisdiction
Motion to dismiss granted to defence after argument
Voluntary dismissal by plaintiff.

The 2020 U.S. Election Irregularities.

Comments