Sicilianthing

>>>

He’s just another bamboozled sheeple and you’ll never turn him, he’s useless!

Sicilianthing

>>>

Jackpot there it is !

Sicilianthing

>>>

He’s cooked already so don’t waste time on liabilities like him.

Sicilianthing

>>>

And they’re drugged
Pickled
Addicts in one form or another.
Heathens in disguise.

Mutton Dressed As Lamb

If I were in your friend's shoes, I would have jumped into the shark tank at the San Diego aquarium while menstruating, before setting foot in that meeting

Big Kahuna

Heads proves that you shovel disinformation and tails shows I shovel the truth. Take your pick.

JohnCo

That's just dumb, Sicilianthing. Life isn't just one simple thing. You're not the only person who matters. Carrying guns, and even Carrying guns Plus Free speech, are not the only rights that matter.

A person who both carries a gun and "could care less" is just a person who is both dangerous and careless.

You don't have to care what I write; but anyone who carries a gun should care about a _lot_ more than guns and speech. By carrying a gun and making yourself dangerous, you have forfeited your right to be careless, and have taken on the obligation to be both careful and intelligent.

Big Kahuna

You are both full of bs and unintelligent in your meanderings. Try finding a job as your posts will never garner you any money.

tNotMyPrez Loc: So. CA, USA

Well John, the way they talk, and the way they behave, is certainly indicative that their paltry belief in their "god given rights" overrides any personal responsibility on their part to hold to a standard of morality, honor, integrity, ethics and/or compassion toward fellow humans, our planet and, ultimately, our universe.

JohnCo

There's __plenty__ of __election__ fraud (though maybe "fraud" isn't precisely the right word -- "trickery" is a little more apt), but very little _voter_ fraud (and "voter fraud" is mainly what Trump and Republicans have talked about for a long time), and the election tricks are not particularly just about _this_ election -- they go on in _many_ major elections in the U.S. (e.g., the presidential elections) -- and the tricks tend to favor Republicans more often than Democrats.

That is, if you said Republicans are cheating, you'd be closer to the truth, than if you said Democrats are cheating. But of course some cheat 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. elections. (I'll say a little more about what he does, further down in this post.)



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 truth 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 Dominion 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 election 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 whatever 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 election 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 election was stolen, 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_ voters, 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 voter, so he offered a million dollar reward to anyone who could find one. And someone _did_ find three examples of fraud by voters: all three of them were voting twice for Trump -- which is not entirely surprising, since Trump himself encouraged his followers to vote twice (to test what happens with mail-in voting) (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 voter fraud 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 voter fraud because he (supposedly) is in a stereotyped group of people who claim voter fraud 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.



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 "ballots", 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!



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 ballot counting. I've also seen pictures of them observing ballot 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 pandemic -- and it couldn't be _very_ close anyway because then it might be harassment of ballot 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 elections, and who _do_ file substantial lawsuits about it, and _do_ win some lawsuits about it.

People, such as Trump, who want to challenge an election, 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.



Be my guest, with your doubt. I'm in a rare hour of patience.



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 election 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.

Big Kahuna

Looks like you are trying to follow the lead of the Ovommitcare package. 2000 pages of bs and then Nanny Peeloosli declares, "You have to pass it to read it." It's somewhat like your long post except, "We hate to read it, because it's all gibberish and won't pass the smell test."

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

A couple of points. I think the courts didn't want to touch it due to time restraints. They (Trump's lawyers) were told several times. that things were wrong in the filings. Meaning if you really think you have a case go back rework it and resubmit it . They (the court) didn't want to interfere in the electoral process thinking there is plenty of time after the inauguration if team Trump really thought they had a case . If not they wouldn't refile. A case like this could take weeks to try and would really mess with the inauguration process. Now after Biden has been sworn in the courts are willing to address some of. the complaints. Also we are treading in New waters here. A lot of people are going to have a lot of questions about procedures and related matters. It will take a while to sort out.
The other thing. what you said about repeat it enough and people start thinking it's true goes both ways. The media and the dems are constantly claiming no evidence of fraud.
The head of the Federal Election Commission claimed there was ample evidence of fraud .Not to mention the higher number of mail in votes counted then we're mailed out. as just one example.

Sicilianthing

>>>

Look man !
Some of your points are valid but they won’t help stop or change the ongoing Tsunami of Encroachments by the Usual suspects to erode our rights, pillars and tenets...

These are the Ethos they offend and thereby violate our Social Compact.

I will debate anyone on the merits and WIN !

I am Right !

Sicilianthing

>>>

There it IS.

JohnCo

I may be long-winded but at least I make the effort to make it readable as normal English. You've mixed up so many insults with names that only someone who already agrees with you _and_ knows all your peculiar brand of slang can easily read what you mean.

I didn't say I don't want to protect my family. And I didn't say people _couldn't_ carry guns at all, ever; but I did suggest gun control, and I would also suggest not carrying guns frequently even where they are allowed. Another thing I didn't say is whether I have my own guns, other weapons, or other means of defense or offense. Some people find it smarter not to give away such information.

Meanwhile I have to decide how to protect my family from dolts who carry guns but can't (or don't bother to) think well and are influenced by a spiteful demagogue. At least one of my close relatives is _not_ a Trump supporter; and even Mike Pence's life was threatened by the Trump mob. When will I need to shoot first before one of these foolish and spiteful people with a gun gets close to my family -- that's what I have to think about.