*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8460 on: January 18, 2021, 08:30:13 PM »
Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.
Positive evidence which kept falling flat in court.

Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.

Here is Senator Paul telling you that the cases were not dismissed on merit:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Quote
Because as I’ve said not all evidence is created equal.
Trump claimed in the Georgia call that 5,000 dead people voted. Obviously that was something he’d seen on some conspiracy site or other. He was calmly told that they’d looked into that and found only 2 instances and...he just repeated the claim.
So yeah, him keep repeating it is “evidence”, I suppose. Doesn’t make it true.
What exactly is your point here?

The complaints and cases weren't comprised of a statement from Trump repeating a sentence over and over. Don't lie.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 08:32:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8461 on: January 18, 2021, 08:38:05 PM »
Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.
Positive evidence which kept falling flat in court.

Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.

Because they were shitty lawsuits.  Multiple judges said that even though the suits lacked standing, laches, etc... that the merits were deeply flawed.  You should have paid more attention.

Quote
Irrelevant

Quote
The complaints and cases weren't comprised of a statement from Trump repeating a sentence over and over. Don't lie.

It's true.  Many other people were conned in to repeating the same lies over and over.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Trump
« Reply #8462 on: January 18, 2021, 08:44:09 PM »
Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.
Incorrect.
Here’s a judge talking about how poor the evidence is.



Some of the claims should be easy to prove.
Dead people voting - should be easy to prove, why wasn’t it?
More votes than people registered - ok, let’s see the data.

Fact is, These things just aren’t true which is why Biden is going to be sworn in on Wednesday.

And my point about Trump’s claim was you keep saying “a claim is evidence”. But any claim should be judged on its merits. Is it corroborated by anyone, is the person making the claim a pathological liar like Trump? Etc.

You keep saying “a claim is evidence”.
So what? What’s your point?



"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Снупс

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • WhisperI'lllistentohearit
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8463 on: January 18, 2021, 08:53:48 PM »
I don't know why everyone's focusing on the legal aspect of this rather than the wild reality that anyone's okay just reading a blog post saying "these people visit pedo rapist island", see that well at least they posted a hyperlink of some sort, and just accept and post it as true without any further looking into. Doesn't matter if it's "not important" (probably shouldn't have brought it up and defended it if that's going to be the Plan B argument), that's absolutely insane.

Unless we're playing the "I'm just posting links, not implying anything" game again.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8464 on: January 18, 2021, 10:10:05 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set
Because they were shitty lawsuits.  Multiple judges said that even though the suits lacked standing, laches, etc... that the merits were deeply flawed.  You should have paid more attention.

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits? Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?


Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.
Incorrect.
Here’s a judge talking about how poor the evidence is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_get06-tgo

Actually that video only says the particular evidence collected from the internet form was insufficient for the judge. It doesn't even give a decision on the case.

Your Maricopa County video is from Nov 21st. Have you been following the fraud cases in Maricopa since then?

They were ordered to permit inspection of election equipment and they refused to follow the subpoena.

Here is an article from Jan 13 -

https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/post/statement-from-senate-president-fann-on-new-subpoenas-issued

"On December 15, 2020, Senate Judiciary Chair Eddie Farnsworth and I issued a subpoena to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, calling for them to produce and permit inspection of election equipment and software used in the most recent general election. Contrary to the County's claims that the Senate was only interested in overturning election results, there were three reasons for issuing the subpoenas. Many voters questioned the accuracy of the extremely close results in the presidential election and we wanted to respond to their concerns by auditing those results and confirming the outcome. Secondly, if the audit of the results demonstrated significant fraud or irregularities, we would forward that information to Congress to take appropriate action regarding recognition of presidential electors. Finally, we wanted to determine if any election laws should be amended to solve any problems we discovered from the audit. After being assured it could be done in a relatively quick manner, we called for them to comply by December 18. The Board refused to comply.

With the swearing-in of the new legislature on January 11, new Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Warren Petersen and I issued subpoenas to Maricopa County leaders on Tuesday, January 12. They were again ordered to comply with our request by 9 a.m. Wednesday. Once again, they did not produce any of the election documents requested. A short time after their refusal this morning, the Superior Court Judge presiding over the case reinforced that the issuing of Senate subpoenas for the purpose of reforming election law is 'a valid legislative purpose'.

It is disheartening that the Board continues to thwart our attempt to gain access to vital information in order to further legally valid legislative purposes, confirming the results of the election and investigating whether we need to modify statutes regarding the voting process. We have attempted to partner with the Board on this issue. Supervisors have consistently rebuffed us, even going so far as to file a court action to quash our subpoenas.

The judge has given the parties one week to arrive at a resolution."


Why would they refuse to follow orders if the election was legitimate?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 10:21:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #8465 on: January 18, 2021, 10:20:03 PM »
Actually that video only says the particular evidence collected from the internet form was insufficient for the judge.
Right. So you agree the judges have considered the evidence and found it to be wanting.
Because of course it is.
You lie to tens of millions of people about an election being stolen, make public appeals for evidence and, statistically, of course a lot of crazy people are going to come forward.
And that's why 60 court cases were lost, the Supreme Court just laughed (remember when you said that it was good that Trump kept losing because it cleared the path to the SCOTUS? How did that go?) and Biden is getting inaugurated on Wednesday
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8466 on: January 18, 2021, 10:23:46 PM »
We had this discussion already. The Supreme Court didn't dismiss it on merit either. It was dismissed on standing.

Rand Paul said that the cases weren't dismissed on merit and that the courts tried to stay out of it. Who are you to contradict him?

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."


*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8467 on: January 18, 2021, 10:26:17 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set
Because they were shitty lawsuits.  Multiple judges said that even though the suits lacked standing, laches, etc... that the merits were deeply flawed.  You should have paid more attention.

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits? Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?

I never brought up the Senator. I brought up judges who said evidence presented in lawsuits was meritless and the droves of legal experts who pointed out basic flaws in filings that can only be attributed to incompetence. Care to comment on what I actually said?

Edit: Rand Paul doesn’t even hold a law degree. Who is he to judge the educated opinions of lawyers? Lol.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 10:28:49 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8468 on: January 18, 2021, 10:37:15 PM »
No, you keep referring to yourself again as your source. Paul is a U.S. Senator and is considered a political expert. You have no experts, only your own internet opinion.

Tennessee lawmakers:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-tennessee-state-lawmakers-urge-senators-reps-to-object-to-electoral-votes_3639825.html

"But, according to the Tennessee lawmakers, “Very few of these irregularities have been investigated in a professional manner by anyone in law enforcement or in a position to do anything about it. In fact, most of these jurisdictions, save Arizona, are blocking transparency efforts at every turn.”

They also faulted the U.S. judiciary system for not taking up lawsuits and typically refusing to hear the cases based on procedural errors—rather than merit."

Former WH Deputy Press Secretary:

https://money.yahoo.com/maxine-waters-slams-trump-security-130000896.html

"Fraud claims were the centerpiece of 60 lawsuits that have been denied in court. Gidley retorted those court defeats, saying “the cases were lost not on merit but lost to judicial technicalities.”"


So again, you are claiming that we should listen to the internet persona Rama Set over a number of political experts, lawmakers, people in the political process in the know.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 10:52:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8469 on: January 18, 2021, 10:52:52 PM »
No, you keep referring to yourself again as your source. Paul is a U.S. Senator and is considered a political expert. You have no experts, only your own internet opinion.

So he isn’t a legal expert. That’s what I said. You keep saying things that you think rebut me, but actually agree with me. I don’t have only my internet opinion. If you aren’t aware of the large segment of the world that has analyzed Trump’s claims and found them to be wanting, then you are deeper in to your echo chamber than I imagined.

Quote
Tennessee lawmakers:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-tennessee-state-lawmakers-urge-senators-reps-to-object-to-electoral-votes_3639825.html

"But, according to the Tennessee lawmakers, “Very few of these irregularities have been investigated in a professional manner by anyone in law enforcement or in a position to do anything about it. In fact, most of these jurisdictions, save Arizona, ate blocking transparency efforts at every turn.”

They also faulted the U.S. judiciary system for not taking up lawsuits and typically refusing to hear the cases based on procedural errors—rather than merit."

Former WH Deputy Press Secretary:

https://money.yahoo.com/maxine-waters-slams-trump-security-130000896.html

"Fraud claims were the centerpiece of 60 lawsuits that have been denied in court. Gidley retorted those court defeats, saying “the cases were lost not on merit but lost to judicial technicalities.”"


So again, you are claiming that we should listen to the internet persona Rama Set over a number of political experts, lawmakers, people in the political process in the know.

Im not sure why you think being a state legislator automatically makes you a legal expert. There isn’t an educational barrier to entry for legislator. I will keep listening to lawyers, judges decisions and reading court transcripts over WH press secretaries and GOP legislators, thanks.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 10:55:18 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8470 on: January 18, 2021, 11:00:06 PM »
We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Your proof is your own personal assertion, which is all you continue to provide. A garbage assertion without the strength of evidence to back it up.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 11:03:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8471 on: January 18, 2021, 11:02:23 PM »
We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Claims are evidence.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8472 on: January 18, 2021, 11:04:57 PM »
We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Claims are evidence.

Yep. A rando on the internet said that he thinks he knows something about the cases being dismissed on merit. So do the cited senator, WH official, and Tenessee lawmakers say they know about the cases, who tell us that the cases were not dismissed on merit. This internet rando thinks that his claim provides better evidence then their claims.  ::)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 11:14:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2658
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8473 on: January 18, 2021, 11:27:03 PM »
We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Your proof is your own personal assertion, which is all you continue to provide. A garbage assertion without the strength of evidence to back it up.

Here's one more than zero:

Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB Document 202 Filed 11/21/20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR
PRESIDENT, INC., et al.,
 Plaintiffs,
 v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al.,
 Defendants.
 No. 4:20-CV-02078
 (Judge Brann)

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.
"

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8474 on: January 18, 2021, 11:32:26 PM »
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 11:34:02 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8475 on: January 18, 2021, 11:35:13 PM »
We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Your proof is your own personal assertion, which is all you continue to provide. A garbage assertion without the strength of evidence to back it up.

Here's one more than zero:

Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB Document 202 Filed 11/21/20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR
PRESIDENT, INC., et al.,
 Plaintiffs,
 v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al.,
 Defendants.
 No. 4:20-CV-02078
 (Judge Brann)

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.
"

Nice going. Too bad that wasn't even a voter fraud case. The argument you prove against the fraud is that the cases were dismissed. What you provided wasn't about voter fraud:

https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2020/11/excerpts-from-federal-judges-decision-to-dismiss-lawsuit-2/

Quote
The following are excerpts from U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann’s dismissal of the lawsuit pursued by Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and others. Brann dismissed the lawsuit, which alleged irregularities in how mail-in ballots could be “cured” or altered by voters to comply with state law violated the Fourteenth Amendment, about a week ago.

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated.

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

So it wasn't about directly the election fraud claims, only about the legal process of curing a ballot. The statement also says that the legal argument is without merit, not evidence.

Further down in that article it says that it was dismissed because they lacked standing:

Quote
Plaintiffs lack standing to raise either of their claims. “Article III of the United States Constitution limits the power of the federal judiciary to ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.'” To satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement, a plaintiff must establish that they have standing. Standing is a “threshold” issue. It is an “irreducible constitutional minimum,” without which a federal court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the merits of an action. Consequently, federal courts are obligated to raise the issue of standing sua sponte.

...

Trump Campaign maintains that it has competitive standing. Both theories are unavailing. Assuming, as this Court must, that Plaintiffs state a valid equal-protection claim, the Court finds that Individual Plaintiffs have adequately established an injury-in-fact. However, they fail to establish that it was Defendants who caused these injuries and that their purported injury of vote-denial is adequately redressed by invalidating the votes of others. The Trump Campaign’s theory also fails because neither competitive nor associational standing applies, and it does not assert another cognizable theory of standing.



The standing inquiry as to the Trump Campaign is particularly nebulous because neither in the FAC nor in its briefing does the Trump Campaign clearly assert what its alleged injury is.


Another:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Order.pdf



Also Trump saying fraud was undetectable.

This one also wasn't a voter fraud case. It concerns something else about the state's violation of election procedure.

You still have not provided anything to be able to support your argument against fraud because cases were dismissed.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2021, 12:04:38 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8476 on: January 18, 2021, 11:56:34 PM »
You said:

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Which has now been done.  Thanks for playing.

I noticed you deleted your comment, by the way.  Not surprised since you are dishonestly trying to build an unassailable position. Pretty pathetic.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9310
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8477 on: January 19, 2021, 12:01:04 AM »
What post? You guys are supposed to be arguing against fraud because the cases were dismissed.

You present some cases about election procedure, not about the direct fraud claims. Looks like you have come up with a lack of evidence to support your statements and can't use that line anymore.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2658
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8478 on: January 19, 2021, 12:08:28 AM »
What post? You guys are supposed to be arguing against fraud because the cases were dismissed.

You present some cases about election procedure, not about the direct fraud claims. Looks like you have come up with a lack of evidence to support your statements and can't use that line anymore.

Here's another one more than zero:

"The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes.

In a 40-page order from the Nevada Supreme Court late Tuesday, the justices “affirmed” the decision from Russell and said the court would take no action. The court found the Trump campaign failed to identify “any unsupported factual findings” in Russell’s decision, with the state’s high court concluding it had also “identified none.”

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the order read. “We are not convinced they have done so.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/09/nevada-supreme-court-trump-election-results/

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #8479 on: January 19, 2021, 12:16:33 AM »
What post?

Your post.  The one I quoted above. That you deleted.

Quote
You're supposed to be arguing against fraud because the cases were dismissed.

You present some cases about election procedure, not about the direct fraud claims. Looks like you have come up with a lack of evidence to support your statements and can't use that line anymore.

No, I have argued against every shitty lawsuit Trump and his surrogates and allies have filed. Stop making up what you think I am doing.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.