1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: January 20, 2021, 06:33:15 PM »

Great speech President Biden is giving at the inauguration.

It was pretty much what I expected from him, which I think is a good thing after the shit show politics has been the last 4 years.  I hope there is an uptick to the kindness and decency level of discourse now that he is in charge.  Knowing that Facebook and Twitter are still a thing, I am not sure that will happen, but hey a guy can dream.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: January 20, 2021, 05:42:18 PM »

Implying they haven't been for the past 4 years lol

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 20, 2021, 05:00:31 PM »

/thread

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 20, 2021, 05:00:04 PM »

They finished 9 minutes ahead of schedule. I imagine that's for time for the coup to happen and Trump to be reinstalled?

Elite Strike Force incoming.

They seem to be running a bit late 

Any minute now...

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 20, 2021, 04:54:59 PM »

They finished 9 minutes ahead of schedule. I imagine that's for time for the coup to happen and Trump to be reinstalled?

Elite Strike Force incoming.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: January 20, 2021, 04:45:27 PM »

Here’s how Trump can still win.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 20, 2021, 12:12:00 PM »

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

Now you just need to show how the voter rolls and paper ballots were also defrauded.

Why would the voter rolls and paper ballots need to be defrauded when a vote can be altered after it is cast?

This knowledge gap is why you think your conspiracy is possible.

So in Georgia, they looked at what was written on the paper ballot and compared it to the results given by the voting machines. If the voting machine results agree with paper ballots then either the machines are accurate or the both the paper ballots and machines were defrauded.

The same thing happened in Antrim County and in the two WI counties that were recounted.

It’s a simple yet effective accounting practice.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 07:53:17 PM »

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

Now you just need to show how the voter rolls and paper ballots were also defrauded.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 05:08:36 PM »

Bill Barr reportedly thought the whole election fraud saga was bull shit as well:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/bill-barr-apparently-told-trump-the-stolen-election-lie-was-a-bullsht-theory-that-he-could-not-fing-figure-out/

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 01:29:19 PM »

So you agree he's looking at the evidence? Cool.
Also...logged in with the wrong account, Tom?

It's not Tom, it's probably TotalLackey who couldn't stay awa after rage-quitting.  Anyway, affidavits is the word the judge uses.  It's plural.  Not a single point of evidence, but multiple, so whoever Action 80 is, they are making an incorrect and irrelevant point.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 19, 2021, 12:16:33 AM »

What post?

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

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.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« 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.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 18, 2021, 11:32:26 PM »

Another:

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



Also Trump saying fraud was undetectable.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« 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.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« 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.

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.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 18, 2021, 10:26:17 PM »

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.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« 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.

Irrelevant

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.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 18, 2021, 08:28:02 PM »

Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

Trump claims that there is evidence of voter fraud. We've been discussing such evidence over the last few months. From the videos on what people saw and experienced you guys basically claimed that all of that witness and affidavit testimony was heresy.

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Hey, seems like Dave was exactly right!

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 18, 2021, 05:47:50 PM »

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

Did you read what happened in the court case? Someone claimed that the defendant confessed murder to him. It was a lie, but the court found the defendant guilty anyway, based on a claim of one person.

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

"It was essentially the statement of one person who claimed that John Miller confessed to him," added attorney Tom Gallagher, who represents Miller.

Same thing here:

https://kfor.com/news/man-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-sues-oklahoma/

In 1991, Corey Atchison was convicted of murdering James Warren Lane. Officials say Atchison was convicted on testimony from a single witness, who eventually came forward to say he was coerced by police into testifying against Atchison.

Another one:

https://www.appellate-litigation.org/justice-first/

Robbery conviction vacated where our client had been convicted based on a single eyewitness identification.  Upon a reinvestigation, we discovered documentary evidence indicating that our client had left New York City to go to Connecticut to visit his family on the weekend of the robbery.

And another:

https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2020/04/pro-bono-client-cleared-of-wrongful-conviction-and-released-from-michigan-prison

Jones Day represented George Clark, a man who was released from a Michigan State prison in April 2020, eighteen years after he was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Mr. Clark's 2002 conviction was based on the testimony of a single witness who later recanted and indicated that police detectives had coerced her statement. The Wayne County Prosecutor agreed to vacate Mr. Clark's conviction and sentence and to dismiss all charges against him after an investigation by the Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit uncovered additional evidence of police misconduct.

How did these people get convicted based on the claim of a single witness if such claims are not sufficient or considered to be evidence?

Jury instructions:

http://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/Files/WebPages/Attorney%20Resources/juryinstructions/civiljuryinstructions/generaljury.htm

A witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence, by a showing that he testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness' present testimony in court.  If you believe that any witness has been so impeached, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves.

Again, it's the defense's job to provide all of that when a claim from a witness comes forward. The burden is on the defense here. When a witness gives a statement or makes a claim that is evidence which needs to be disputed. In the above stories someone failed to appropriately dispute the single witness claim, and so the person was convicted by a judge in a court based on that evidence.

I’m asking what you think, no events that happened in a court.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 18, 2021, 03:29:29 PM »

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?