drlarrygino wrote:
You are obviously short sighted to not see all the e******n f***d.
There's __plenty__ of __e******n__ fraud (though maybe "fraud" isn't precisely the right word -- "trickery" is a little more apt), but very little _v**er_ fraud (and "v***r f***d" is mainly what Trump and Republicans have talked about for a long time), and the e******n tricks are not particularly just about _this_ e******n -- they go on in _many_ major e******ns in the U.S. (e.g., the p**********l e******ns) -- and the tricks tend to favor Republicans more often than Democrats.
That is, if you said Republicans are c***ting, you'd be closer to the t***h, than if you said Democrats are c***ting. But of course some c***t on either side -- it's not all just on one side.
Greg Palast (see gregpalast.com or his latest best-selling book) writes all about what goes wrong in major U.S. e******ns. (I'll say a little more about what he does, further down in this post.)
drlarrygino wrote:
Have you even wondered why no one even wants to audit those unsecured D******n machines?
Someone else brought that up elsewhere on OPP. As I said then, they (probably) would have needed to subpoena a machine, a machine expert, the paper trail, and the official who oversaw and oversees the machine and the paper trail and can explain the process (not that I have any formal training -- I'm not a lawyer -- but I know it has to be some legal process like that -- I've had to prove a few things in court, sometimes representing myself, but more often with a relatively high-priced lawyer representing me -- that's how I found out a little about subpoenas, and what's evidence and what isn't. Judges and attorneys assumed I wouldn't know beans about it (since most people don't), so I had to work hard and long to overcome their resistance so that they would even take me seriously -- and then eventually they acknowledged the t***h of what I was saying.)
That (making those kinds of subpoenas) is what I think they should have done, if they had such doubts about the machines. I asked the poster, then, whether they tried that or explained to a judge their intention to do so; but I got no reply. So I think that, as usual, the Trump-supporting argument is insubstantial, and when it comes time to really _test_ it, the Trump-supporters (even his lawyers) just fade away on _that_ argument and move on to the next insubstantial argument.
Also, if the D******n machines do have a paper trail, why wouldn't an audit of that put the matter to rest? Then there might be no need to take that matter to court. A judge might have thought of that, and asked that up front.
I've noticed that a lot of times, judges don't actually hear cases that people want to present to them. Some (probably most) judges have heavy case-loads and will dismiss them as fast as they can, if they can find any reason to do so.
You have said that this matter of an e******n is a very important matter; and you're right about that, of course (though it's mainly an important matter for the states' secretaries of state to work with, not normally as much a matter for courts to work with); but on the other hand, as soon as a judge saw Trump's team coming, he or she could have thought, "Oh, brother, another load from _them_?" They would have heard about the other few dozen cases coming from Trump's lawyers. Such a judge might have suspected (perhaps rightly) that here was another of the many "cases" that would be a waste of time to try to make anything substantial out of it. Of course, the judge (or possibly somebody on the judge's staff) has a duty to do some kind of preliminary look, to see whether it's a case to take or instead a case to dismiss or reject in some way. And the judge (or possibly the staff) has a duty to use some reasonable way to decide which cases to dismiss and which not to dismiss.
But, I've noticed, sometimes judges don't say much about their reasoning processes -- so, _I_ surmise, it's not at all unusual for a case to be dismissed or somehow rejected without much reasoning (if any) offered about it. (Regarding judicial reasoning more generally: One judge even flatly _refused_ to give me a written statement of reasoning. "Your request is denied," she said.)
And that dismissal (or wh**ever the quick rejection is called) with no reasoning offered is just what we saw from the U.S. Supreme Court on one of these Trump e******n cases.
Now why would a U.S. Supreme Court act like that? It's got a heavy Conservative majority, so we would not normally expect it to have any bias _against_ a Republican. And, three of its nine members got there because Trump nominated them! We wouldn't expect them to have any bias against _him_. And yet, the court dismissed or rejected his case and didn't even write much of a reason (if any), nor any dissenting opinion about it! The most plausible reason they would act like that is that they found the case to be something not sensible for them to spend a lot of energy on. That is, either it wasn't a worthy case (e.g., no substantial evidence, or some other critical element was missing from it) or it was in the wrong jurisdiction (maybe belonged in some lower court).
And President Trump's lawyers (even including a billionaire, hired by another billionaire, and having been the mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world -- so, a generally experienced person who ought to be capable in his field) should have figured that out in advance -- unless they really didn't have much of a case anyway and were just throwing any stuff they could dream up against the wall with the hope that some of it would stick, somewhere, sometime, if they just kept repeating things often enough. Meanwhile, the general public, which doesn't know much about how courts and cases and evidence works, just sees the endless repetition of the idea the e******n was s****n, and thinks, "where there's smoke, there's fire". But I can tell you from first-hand experience, that the presence of accusations, however many, does not imply guilt. So, "where there's smoke, there's fire" is essentially not apt. But the Trump team knows that the general public is easy to fool, by endless repetition, bluff, and bluster.
~. ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ . ~. ~ . ~ .
Trump and supporters have spent a lot of time talking about fraud _by_ v**ers, so we had to consider _that_, but they were just wasting our time. For example:
The Texas lieutenant governor didn't have a solid example of fraud by a v**er, so he offered a million dollar reward to anyone who could find one. And someone _did_ find three examples of fraud by v**ers: all three of them were v****g twice for Trump -- which is not entirely surprising, since Trump himself encouraged his followers to v**e twice (to test what happens with mail-in v****g) (but still a serious crime if anybody followed his suggestion). The person who reported the three frauds (_naming_ the individuals who did it, who _were_ being prosecuted for it) (as opposed to the Trump side which can't name anybody who actually commits v***r f***d and can't find anybody to prosecute for it) was the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania.
So the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania stepped up (online) to claim his reward. But the lieutenant governor of Texas didn't pay up (at the time I was reading about it, which was a few weeks ago), offering as his excuse that the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania couldn't have found v***r f***d because he (supposedly) is in a stereotyped group of people who claim v***r f***d doesn't exist. In other words, it was a really lame excuse, if it were any excuse at all, put forward by the lieutenant governor of Texas.
drlarrygino wrote:
Have you wondered why 6 states stopped the v****g procedure at the same time? Have you wondered why so many people signed sworn affidavits as to the fraud they saw?
What I wonder is what happened next with that? Did one of Trump's lawyers present the affidavits to a judge? If so, then what did the judge say about that? Which judge was it (and what's the name of the case)? If the case was rejected, then why was it rejected? That's what I'd like to know. But I think I can guess. I think what happened was that the contents of the affidavits themselves didn't amount to anything prosecutable. For example, if I swear that I saw "somebody" dump some paper that I think were "b****ts", but I didn't gather any evidence from the scene, and can't name anybody who did the dumping, then my affidavit about it wouldn't be worth anything. I could spend weeks writing hundreds of such affidavits, and how would I ever be held accountable for just making up stuff in them -- they don't have anything in them that can be factually checked anyway!
drlarrygino wrote:
Have you wondered why the "demonrats" shut out republicans from observing the b****t counting?
One of the things I wonder is why people who purport to argue can't say "democrats" or "Biden" or "Obama" but instead have to use code words such as "demonrats" -- is it because they don't have enough substance so they have to insert filler words -- little slurs -- as clues about what our conclusions should be? To help their arguments along?
I've seen _claims_ that republicans were shut out from observing b****t counting. I've also seen pictures of them observing b****t counting. In one picture I happened to see, there was a taped line on the floor indicating how close they were allowed to be -- presumably not very close during a p******c -- and it couldn't be _very_ close anyway because then it might be harassment of b****t counters. Not being Santa Claus, I couldn't be everywhere to check up on who was actually naughty or nice about it. I refer anybody to Greg Palast (gregpalast.com or his books) because he and the people who work with him are experts who _can_ get to the bottom of many claims about wrongdoing in e******ns, and who _do_ file substantial lawsuits about it, and _do_ win some lawsuits about it.
People, such as Trump, who want to challenge an e******n, need people such as Greg Palast to work on it. That's how to treat a matter seriously.
Of course, if Trump doesn't really have anything substantial, then even experts like Greg Palast and his team wouldn't be able to help. If Trump doesn't really have anything substantial, then he'd probably be better off hiring some lawyers who are willing to take on an insubstantial case and pretend it's substantial.
drlarrygino wrote:
I doubt that you have much insight as to figure any of this out.
Be my guest, with your doubt. I'm in a rare hour of patience.
drlarrygino wrote:
You are blinded to the t***h and it is insane on my part to have much honest discourse with you. As you know, no judge has even listened to the evidence. The FBI and CIA have sold out to the demorat party and won't even investigate all the fraud. Think about it. The FBI will send 15 agents to Bubba Wallace's house to look at a f**e garage noose about a f**e r****t story but won't send any agents to look at any D******n machines which have been known to switch v**es in even C*******t countries. I'll keep it short. You are indeed short sighted and apparently love all the corrupt shenanigans that the demorat party has been pulling on the American people. Just look at this second impeachment fiasco that the demorats themselves are much more gjilty of pulling than Trump ever will be. Slo Joe Bribem (yes he is guilty of bribery and is proud of it), Ovommit (yes, he is so corrupt it makes me want to puke), and Hitlery (yes Hillary rotten Clinton the vile lady who who illegally wiped 30,000 subpoened emails from her illegal server wants to bash Christians, destroy our 2nd Amendment rights, and punish those who won't support her marxist views). Your demorat party is so corrupt and vile but yet you want to support this group of treasonous and anti-American thugs who have murdered over 60 million infants and want to murder even more. JohnCo, your moral values are c*********d.
You are blinded to the t***h and it is insane on ... (
show quote)
For the record, I did read through all the way to the end of this post by you.
You write, "As you know, no judge has even listened to the evidence." What I think I know is that almost all Trump's cases about the e******n were dismissed or rejected early in the judicial process. On the internet, probably mostly on OPP, I encountered at least a couple of examples of "evidence" that Trump supporters were putting forth. Maybe those are indicative of what Trump's lawyers were putting forth to the courts. One example was a two-hour video by the My Pillow executive. I listened to parts of it, meticulously writing a detailed response about it. Another example started out saying something like "a number of respected PhD statisticians have said ..." and then gave ridiculous numbers that I, who have studied a little statistics, noticed didn't make any sense. (And since the "number of respected PhD statisticians" are all unnamed, it's unlikely we'll find out what their reasoning is -- or maybe the "number" of them is: zero. Zero's a number -- a highly respected one since a long time ago.) As usual (or maybe always), when I go to the trouble to debunk something (which takes some time and effort), I get no reply about it. Some Republicans and Trump supporters tend to be quick to drop one thing and switch to another each time they encounter a substantial argument. There's no way I'm going to keep up with every silly thing people are going to make up -- it takes more than three times as long to debunk a thing as it does to make it up. And _so_:
I'm guessing that the judges encountered similar "evidence" (not good evidence), or even that lawyers for Trump stopped saying their spiels as soon as they got to the place where they or their client(s) could be held accountable in some way, for what they said in court.
Well, maybe that's enough for one post. I tried to reply to most of the more substantial parts of what you wrote.