Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not in any way.

You won't find me looking at twitter crazies like that.

Instead it's people claiming that Hugo Chavez rigged a 2020 election.

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You do know I edited that for the giggle, I knew one of you would take the bait. Bravo sir.

what are you claiming to have edited? both posts quoted are exactly as I remember you posting them.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You do know I edited that for the giggle, I knew one of you would take the bait. Bravo sir.

So you're either:

1) Admitting that you follow Twitter crazies

or

2) Are lying in the above

Which one is it?

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead it's people claiming that Hugo Chavez rigged a 2020 election.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/8/3/e-voting-firm-venezuela-turnout-figures-manipulated

this is where Venezuela manipulated votes and the company were the first ones to turn around and call a press conference about it. If it happened in the US id bet they'd do the same. The theory has taken a grain of past truth and really tried to run with it.

Smee_Again

You do know I edited that for the giggle, I knew one of you would take the bait. Bravo sir.

You edited it because you falsely claimed he was an MIT professor.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here's an MIT professor, he doesn't use the world fraud. Reckons 69,000 votes in michigan swung..

https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1326595796947656716?s=20

drunkmonkey

Neither..... anyway..

Sidney said..

In an emailed statement, Ms. Powell said: “I agree with the statement today. I will represent #WeThePeople and seek the Truth. I intend to expose all the fraud and let the chips fall where they may. We will not allow the foundations of this great Republic to be destroyed by abject fraud.”

drunkmonkey

Smee_Again wrote: »

You edited it because you falsely claimed he was an MIT professor.

It was a typo.

robinph

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what are you claiming to have edited? both posts quoted are exactly as I remember you posting them.

Unless edited in the first couple of minutes after initially posting then the posts will be tagged as having been edited on Boards.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It was a typo.

It wasn't a typo. You thought his tweet had some merit because you thought he was someone very high in academia. Why else would you post the tweet of some random guy?

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Neither..... anyway..

Sidney said..

In an emailed statement, Ms. Powell said: “I agree with the statement today. I will represent #WeThePeople and seek the Truth. I intend to expose all the fraud and let the chips fall where they may. We will not allow the foundations of this great Republic to be destroyed by abject fraud.”

She doesnt represent the people. the people are not her client.

Leroy42

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Neither..... anyway..

Sidney said..

In an emailed statement, Ms. Powell said: “I agree with the statement today. I will represent #WeThePeople and seek the Truth. I intend to expose all the fraud and let the chips fall where they may. We will not allow the foundations of this great Republic to be destroyed by abject fraud.”

So are we to believe that the Trump legal team invited a non attached lawyer, working completely separately although only recently included in the team by Trump, to a news conference which Trump billed as a major breakthrough and which the Trump team stated on the day was jus the start of their case.

Had they veted what she was going to say, were they working in tandem or not at all? If she wasn't part of the legal team then she is not covered by privilege and thus can be questioned about anything she did discuss with either Trump or the team.

Why should we we listening to anything any of them have to say? They have been proven to either be lying, or fundamentally wrong so many times at this stage. Do you give everyone you come across the same level of benefit of doubt that yo are giving Trump and his legal team?

Smee_Again

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It was a typo.

What was the typo?

You claimed he was an MIT professor but he is not.

What did you mean to type?

You can't explain away a lie by claiming it was typo when you actually edited it from

Here's an MIT professor

to

Here's the chap who invented email

(And both claims are lies).

robinph

There was one accurate thing they stated in the melting press conference. They closed it out saying that the media would be saying that all they did was lie in the press conference and spout conspiracy theories. They at least predicted that correctly, but when you know you are lying it's not much of a stretch to predict that people will spot the lie and call you out on it.

Having predicted correctly that they would get called liars doesn't mean that they were telling the truth about anything else though.

drunkmonkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

She doesnt represent the people. the people are not her client.

There's 73 million+ people she can claim to represent.

Quin_Dub

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Neither..... anyway..

Sidney said..

In an emailed statement, Ms. Powell said: “I agree with the statement today. I will represent #WeThePeople and seek the Truth. I intend to expose all the fraud and let the chips fall where they may. We will not allow the foundations of this great Republic to be destroyed by abject fraud.”

That's the equivalent of "Yeah, well I didn't want to go to your silly birthday party anyway , I'm having my own Party and it will be way better than your party with way better cake!"

drunkmonkey

Smee_Again wrote: »

What was the typo?

You claimed he was an MIT professor but he is not.

What did you mean to type?

You can't explain away a lie by claiming it was typo when you actually edited it from

I read it wrong and edited it straight away when I realized the mistake. That chap did claim to invent email at one stage, I didn't claim he did, I said he claimed he did. There's a difference.

Quin_Dub

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's 73 million+ people she can claim to represent.

That's not quite how the law works.. But then based on the state of the 35+ law suits they've filed and lost thus far , it's not surprising that she might not know that.

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's 73 million+ people she can claim to represent.

She can claim what she wants. Trump claims he won the election. Neither claim is true.

VinLieger

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's 73 million+ people she can claim to represent.

So she only represents some people much like how trump only represents some citizens

Leroy42

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's 73 million+ people she can claim to represent.

She can claim to represent the entire planet, doesn't make it true.

Has she been given access to the Trump team evidence, has she had conversations with the POTUS? Given that she is clearly not working for him, then anything they discussed is not covered by privilege.

She could be open to some very serious questions

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I read it wrong and edited it straight away when I realized the mistake. That chap did claim to invent email at one stage, I didn't claim he did, I said he claimed he did. There's a difference.

you said

Here's the chap who invented email

so you did claim he invented email.

drunkmonkey

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That's the equivalent of "Yeah, well I didn't want to go to your silly birthday party anyway , I'm having my own Party and it will be way better than your party with way better cake!"

Possibly, or let's say she has something, it's quite possible it's not good for either party. Trump wins but at what cost.

drunkmonkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you said
so you did claim he invented email.

He claimed it.

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He claimed it.

you didn't say he claimed he invented it. you said he invented it. the language you used is very clear and unambiguous.

Smee_Again

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here's the chap who invented email, he doesn't use the world fraud. Reckons 69,000 votes in michigan swung..

https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1326595796947656716?s=20

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I read it wrong and edited it straight away when I realized the mistake. That chap did claim to invent email at one stage, I didn't claim he did, I said he claimed he did. There's a difference.

You said he invented email, it's there in black and white.

You didn't say he claimed to have invented email, you clearly said "Here's the chap who invented email". Why are you lying about it when it's so clear and obvious.

You were probably trawling through twitter looking for someone with decent credentials who could back up your claims and you landed on this guy.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I read it wrong and edited it straight away when I realized the mistake. That chap did claim to invent email at one stage, I didn't claim he did, I said he claimed he did. There's a difference.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Here's the chap who invented email, he doesn't use the world fraud. Reckons 69,000 votes in michigan swung..

https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1326595796947656716?s=20

drunkmonkey

I don't for one second believe or ever thought that guy invented email. You had all lost your minds over my professor typo, I went and changed it to something completely unbelievable. Yet here were are and you think I think he invented email. Fake news hate to break it.

Quin_Dub

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Possibly, or let's say she has something, it's quite possible it's not good for either party. Trump wins but at what cost.

She absolutely categorically doesn't.

If she had something , they wouldn't have kicked her off the team because they have nothing either.

• There is no evidence of widespread fraud
• There is no evidence of a major conspiracy to steal the election
• There is no evidence of a software hack to change votes
• There is not evidence that Trump won the election

If they had evidence , they would have shown it by now , they haven't and they have lost each and every case.

This idea that they are holding evidence back for some later case or for the supreme court is laughable.

Specifically for the Supreme court , they cannot introduce new evidence there , that's not how it works.

Imagine a scenario where you were convicted of a crime - Robbing a bank for example.

You cannot go to the Supreme court and submit a video proving that you were elsewhere at the time of the crime or video proof that someone else did it.

That's not what they do - If you were denied the ability to submit said videos in the lower court because the Judge said they were inadmissible on some technicality , THEN you might be able to go to the Supreme Court and argue that the decision the judge made was wrong based on the law.

If the Supreme Court agreed , you don't get out of jail - You have to go back to the lower court and submit your video and see if that changes the judge/juries mind.

Trump (incorrectly) believing that he can "fail upwards" to the Supreme Court because he thinks he has friends there is consistent with his world-view.

He has "failed up" his entire life.

Necro

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You do know I edited that for the giggle, I knew one of you would take the bait. Bravo sir.

Mod:

Threadbanned

robinph

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't for one second believe or ever thought that guy invented email. You had all lost your minds over my professor typo, I went and changed it to something completely unbelievable. Yet here were are and you think I think he invented email. Fake news hate to break it.

So you made that edit 12 days ago in the hope that it would be brought up now and you could claim to have had some premonition about how the thread would now be going?