US Election 2020 - The Result

Status
Not open for further replies.

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
27,038
obviously, however dems blocked reps to examine the machines.

if you have nothing to hide ........ :D
Are non-election officials like poll watchers/party officials allowed to access this data before machines are audited? Was it the democrats that prevented access to the machines or was it election officials?
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
2,535
it is a GOP committee hearing not a court hearing :X3:. These guys can say and do what they want in these "hearings" without any legal implications (as well as one side bios) but if they do it in an actual court hearing they can perjure themselves, which comes with legal implications (like jail time).
I am reasonably sure that the individuals in question have already signed sworn affadavits and that those also carry the same sort of legal penalties with respect to signing falsehoods. I do not foresee how the substance of their claims or their behaviour would be altered by the setting with respect to whether or not it constitutes evidence.

If he is so adamant about the claim, let him go to court with it and testify in a court with regards to what he said at the GOP discussion. In fact let all of them like Rudi (with all the evidence they have and they are going to go to court about fraud with Biden and the whole shenanigans) but none of them have been able to produce anything of substance that would amount to anything under scrutiny. hence the reason for the "fraud trial and evidence" been displayed on youtube. Hell even the Trump Lawyers have claimed that the court cases they brought up were not about fraud but about the legality of when and where the absentee votes could or could not be counted.
This is such a confused mishmash. And to Dreamking's point, he was saying the evidence should see its day in court and that so far this opportunity has been lacking for various reasons. For you to turn around and say that there is no evidence prior to the point where the evidence should be heard is just premature and so therefore it begins to appear like you are a political partisan rather than an honest broker.

flat earthers also like to show their "undisputed proof" on youtube, could the similarity be that there is no one to argue or question the "evidence" because everyone would show it up to be what it is - rubbish.

Hell I would have loved there to be evidence because I wanted to grab my popcorn and stand back and watch the sh!tshow that is US politics, but typically of Trump and his people, he is all talk and no substance
Yeah, giving sworn testimony in front of a committee hearing before people who actually have the power to make decisions based upon what they hear is the same as some random youtube video by a flat earther. Sure Jan.

Edit: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...hdrawing-certification-presidential-electors/
 

ISP cash cow

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
6,123
Are non-election officials like poll watchers/party officials allowed to access this data before machines are audited? Was it the democrats that prevented access to the machines or was it election officials?
yeah this was also one of the claims about inaccurate machines (or being hacked) but like what was shown in Georgia, the audit (conducted by hand) confirmed that Biden won and that the machines were not hacked. There was a discrepancy of about 1800 votes but not enough to change the tides of anything

Even before the audit was finished Trump was onto his next tirade where he was claiming that the audit should be also about checking each and every signature on the ballot papers.

This is where the Republicans lost me, because they were coming out with different lies and stories every single week about different things.

It was the absentee ballots that were fraud
It was the ballot harvesting,
It was the democrats at the election sites stuffing boxes
It was the machines being hacked
It was the machines that were wrong
It was dead people voting
It was multiple voting..
It was the FBI

It was like WTF, if it was a reasonable fraud case with evidence they would have one line of thinking about where the fraud came from with evidence.
 

The Trutherizer

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
4,279
Indeed. 100%

Also noteworthy quote from Trump, "I will accept the election results... If I win..."

I do not subscribe to the notion that 'Trump says it like it is'; but this quote I think he was being honest.
Also noteworthy.

There were over 30 million mail-in ballots cast in 2016.

Trump didn't have a single issue with it.

Because he won then obviously.

Trump is one of those kiddies who say a game is s**t when he's too unskilled to play it.
 

Mach III

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
3,408
1. Except that nobody can actually live like this. In practice, we are all forced to make guesses based upon assumptions. Better to be self-conscious about them than to act as if one day you could be rid of them.


2. Except that when it comes to politics, disagreements are mostly due to differences in values rather than disputes about what the facts are. Values are necessarily imagined because given a scientific worldview, the objective world is devoid of value. People who think that the facts will settle the conversation are in the wrong conversation.


3. That entails an abandonment of all principles if taken seriously.


4. So then why are you even in this thread?
1. Really? I don't think that it is so difficult... We can make better decisions from cleaner data. I don't think guessing is a good idea... It's too much uncertainty. If the guess is wrong, then the ground you're standing on can shake...
Like. Also, life is really crazy/interesting/indescribable/so many dimensions to it... so many perspectives... to believe it is a particular thing takes away from it. Like for me to blow my mind into a trillion pieces, I think... "we're spinning and rotating around a giant burning fireball which we've named 'the sun' " Calling the Sun the Sun seems so infantile... Where the F do stars come from!? Why can't we see blackholes with our eyes... Like this universe is majestic; but focusing on little details like, "You're Right, I'm Wrong..." Just seems sad...
What comes first? Reality or the thoughts and beliefs about reality? To me, I think reality comes first... If there was no reality, then there is no 'space' or place for thoughts, beliefs etc...

2. What would you describe a value being? It seems to me like charged emotional energy; and is that worth holding on to? Does it bring peace, happiness, joy, clarity etc? Does it improve society?

3. Or the observance of principles in it's totality.. Principle = Principium (Latin for Source). It's logical... I don't think abandonment of logic, but abandonment of particular beliefs, yes. It works for me to not believe in anything. If someone shows me evidence, I try to understand and learn and evolve... Like, I read a scientific article on sugar and it's effects on the human body; and I stopped using sugar immediately.. It makes zero sense for me to consume sugar. So I won't...

4. Because I like some of the information on here. I think people are mostly expressing themselves genuinely on here. Don't find that on other forums.. Also quite a few verification tests already done on information being shared. Saves me a bit of time... And if I'm using the efforts of information and investigative information on here, then surely I should give something back? I am maybe a little addicted to problem solving... I don't know:ROFL::ROFL::X3: I also like reading... I don't know... I read a lot! Why so many personal questions? Lol...
 
Last edited:

ISP cash cow

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
6,123
I am reasonably sure that the individuals in question have already signed sworn affadavits and that those also carry the same sort of legal penalties with respect to signing falsehoods. I do not foresee how the substance of their claims or their behaviour would be altered by the setting with respect to whether or not it constitutes evidence.
you would be wrong Jan, It would only be implication within the committee, that is fear of losing ones job with the GOP, but since they are all wanting the same thing.

Your sworn affidavits are not legally binding unless provided to a court. Your affidavit is a sworn oath that you say something is true, if it is questioned outside of a legal court and found to be incorrect, the guy can say oops I made a mistake, I could not remember correctly. It would be frowned upon but not legally implicative, however now take that statement and put it into a court of law and if found fraudulent you are now guilty of purgery

Which makes one wonder why the GOP has not presented all these sworn affidavits to the court yet. The court can see all of this "evidence" being presented on youtube but until someone comes to them they cannot do anything about it.

As Journey would say "Don't stop believing"
 

DreamKing

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
11,395
Are non-election officials like poll watchers/party officials allowed to access this data before machines are audited? Was it the democrats that prevented access to the machines or was it election officials?
ummm ... no.

may be watch this.


why poll watchers are so important?
 

ISP cash cow

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
6,123
This is such a confused mishmash. And to Dreamking's point, he was saying the evidence should see its day in court and that so far this opportunity has been lacking for various reasons. For you to turn around and say that there is no evidence prior to the point where the evidence should be heard is just premature and so therefore it begins to appear like you are a political partisan rather than an honest broker.
So Trump has had 40 cases (besides the current ones still ongoing) in front of the courts and you are questioning "that the evidence should see its day in court" :unsure:. He lost 39 out of 40 cases. he had 40 opportunities to show the evidence that the "committee" has brought forward" or the "sworn affidavits" to be submitted into evidence. What did the Trump lawyers do?

They themselves have claimed that these cases are not about fraud.

 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
10,259
Which part of what I said about you is gaslighting hogwash, exactly?

Who was repeating hoaxes that came from social media about the Proud Boys regarding them coming out of the Nazi closet? Whose wet dream did this fantasy satisfy?
I have been warning about the rise of right wing terrorism since 2015 and low and behold over the years since, right wing terrorism has been shown to be the most significant threat of violence in the USA. As confirmed by the FBI and DHS.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
2,535
you would be wrong Jan, It would only be implication within the committee, that is fear of losing ones job with the GOP, but since they are all wanting the same thing.
That would be the committee advising the legislative body as a whole regarding whether or not they should invoke their legal prerogative of voiding the election results, correct?

Your sworn affidavits are not legally binding unless provided to a court. Your affidavit is a sworn oath that you say something is true, if it is questioned outside of a legal court and found to be incorrect, the guy can say oops I made a mistake, I could not remember correctly. It would be frowned upon but not legally implicative, however now take that statement and put it into a court of law and if found fraudulent you are now guilty of purgery
No, that's not how it works. If you perjure yourself in an affadavit, you are criminally liable irrespective of whether or not it was submitted to a court.

For example:

The Criminal Procedure Act 56 of 1955 and South African common law criminalise perjury, which can be defined as making a false statement under oath or a false affirmation in the course of a judicial proceeding.

You can bet that it works the same way in the US. Especially since lying under oath to congress is also a crime and a congressional committee is not a court.

Which makes one wonder why the GOP has not presented all these sworn affidavits to the court yet. The court can see all of this "evidence" being presented on youtube but until someone comes to them they cannot do anything about it.

As Journey would say "Don't stop believing"
You are ignorant as to how the law works.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
2,535
I have been warning about the rise of right wing terrorism since 2015 and low and behold over the years since, right wing terrorism has been shown to be the most significant threat of violence in the USA. As confirmed by the FBI and DHS.
More significant than BLM and antifa, sure Jan. :ROFL:

But great attempt at deflection nonetheless. I am sure you will now follow up about how the supposedly one instance where your ideological bent didn't foul up the interpretation of the facts saves you from all the other instances when it did, given that you want your concerns taken seriously with respect to one Donald J Trump, Nazi-in-waiting to alt-righters everywhere.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
10,259
More significant than BLM and antifa, sure Jan. :ROFL:

But great attempt at deflection nonetheless.
8chan is calling to give you next weeks talking points. Better hurry up now.

What's on the menu for next week? The electors were paid off by Biden and the CIA?

Fidel Castro and the CIA made the paper that the ballots were printed on and magically dissolved if Trump was picked?
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
2,535
8chan is calling to give you next weeks talking points. Better hurry up now.

What's on the menu for next week? The electors were paid off by Biden and the CIA?

Fidel Castro and the CIA made the paper that the ballots were printed on and magically dissolved if Trump was picked?
Notice the edit. But don't let that stop you from deflecting instead of owning your schit. :) :popcorn:
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
2,535
So Trump has had 40 cases (besides the current ones still ongoing) in front of the courts and you are questioning "that the evidence should see its day in court" :unsure:. He lost 39 out of 40 cases. he had 40 opportunities to show the evidence that the "committee" has brought forward" or the "sworn affidavits" to be submitted into evidence. What did the Trump lawyers do?

They themselves have claimed that these cases are not about fraud.

Again, lumping a whole bunch of different things together as one thing. I'm not going to take the time to unentangle that superficial mess. :sleep:
 

The Trutherizer

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
4,279
More significant than BLM and antifa, sure Jan. :ROFL:

But great attempt at deflection nonetheless. I am sure you will now follow up about how the supposedly one instance where your ideological bent didn't foul up the interpretation of the facts saves you from all the other instances when it did, given that you want your concerns taken seriously with respect to one Donald J Trump, Nazi-in-waiting to alt-righters everywhere.
It's not deflection. It's trying to steer the conversation back as far as I can see.
You're the one who hopes reality was different, exactly because your worry about BLM and Antifa seems to override every other consideration.
The rest of us just want reality to mean something.

Trump lost. Biden won. End of story.

People in the centre don't want fascism or Antifa (the substantial factions in it which appear, by many accounts, to be extremist and criminal at least) to succeed.
IMHO BLM is not a threat, apart from instances where Antifa derailed the protests to pursue their own fringe ambitions.

Two wrongs do not make a right.
The extreme Right will see the world sent to hell in a hand basket exactly as quickly as the extreme left.

Extreme Fascist vs extreme Anti-Fascist? I say to hell with the lot of them. The rest of us want to get on with life.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
42,461
Things people say - hearsay.

Things people provide proof of - evidence.


So far all we have, and all YouTube has, is hearsay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top