3 ms·

That's interesting, thanks for answer. > This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't. Well, I saw

by ttt0 6y ago

That's interesting, thanks for answer. > This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't. Well, I saw with my own eyes that people were banned for posting the information like that, so that's why I believe it. I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea. Looking on the bright side, I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not.

nl 6y ago
> people were banned for posting the information No, him using that as an excuse is the BS. If he could actually prove anything - instead of it just being yet more allegations - would be explosive, and being "banned" (by who exactly) wouldn't matter. > I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea. Of course, there are plenty of closed court methods of doing this. > I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not. Unfortunately this isn't true. It's already 100% clear what is bullshit, but some people keep claiming otherwise, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years at least. Put it like this: is there anything that would convince you that these claims are all BS? I mean - Trump appointed judges keep throwing the claims out of court. - what more do you need?
- ttt0 6y ago
  That's just my opinion, but here is what I think: I already believe that at least 90-95% of those claims are BS, and no one had to convince me to believe anything. However, considering the fact how many people seriously consider Trump to be the next Hitler, there is no doubt in my mind that someone for sure did try to cheat is some way. Another question is whether there was enough of it to change the outcome and to that - I have no idea. The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots. This fact alone makes the election illegitimate, as far as I am considered. Poll observers should be there to ensure that there is no fraud in the first place, and without that it's really hard to figure out what happened. If the poll observers were allowed to do their job, I don't think I could complain about anything. Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits. Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet. But I guess it's possible that it's just propaganda from the Trump side, so I have no idea on this one either. And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ?
  - nl 6y ago
    > The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots. Citation please. The closest that occurred was that when Republicans tried to put more observers in place than was the agreed number (the number has to be equal between Democrat, Republican and Independent observers) they weren't allowed. > Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits. Well he does keep changing who "his team" is. But the all the Guilliani lawsuits have been thrown out, and all the ones he has tweeted about have been. > Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet. Citation needed. The cases I've read (and yes I've checked because of people like who do the fake lazy "oh I don't know but I've heard..") say the evidence doesn't support the claims. Here's a typical judgement against the claims: 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. Note "unsupported by evidence" https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3OX5VUvIdZRPgZ79ZD8ZJXrG9cXyE-N_tYCVf5UYBgb7uce67vwB8mohs https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057... > And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ? No, that appears to be a voter registration record. Is there something on it you think indicates he voted?
    - ttt0 6y ago
      > No, that appears to be a voter registration record. Is there something on it you think indicates he voted? My Ballot Status 10/20/2020 Your ballot was signature verified and counted. I'll try to respond to the rest tomorrow.
      - 6y ago

by ttt0 6y ago

nl 6y ago

> people were banned for posting the information No, him using that as an excuse is the BS. If he could actually prove anything - instead of it just being yet more allegations - would be explosive, and being "banned" (by who exactly) wouldn't matter. > I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea. Of course, there are plenty of closed court methods of doing this. > I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not. Unfortunately this isn't true. It's already 100% clear what is bullshit, but some people keep claiming otherwise, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years at least. Put it like this: is there anything that would convince you that these claims are all BS? I mean - Trump appointed judges keep throwing the claims out of court. - what more do you need?

ttt0 6y ago
That's just my opinion, but here is what I think: I already believe that at least 90-95% of those claims are BS, and no one had to convince me to believe anything. However, considering the fact how many people seriously consider Trump to be the next Hitler, there is no doubt in my mind that someone for sure did try to cheat is some way. Another question is whether there was enough of it to change the outcome and to that - I have no idea. The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots. This fact alone makes the election illegitimate, as far as I am considered. Poll observers should be there to ensure that there is no fraud in the first place, and without that it's really hard to figure out what happened. If the poll observers were allowed to do their job, I don't think I could complain about anything. Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits. Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet. But I guess it's possible that it's just propaganda from the Trump side, so I have no idea on this one either. And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ?
- nl 6y ago
  > The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots. Citation please. The closest that occurred was that when Republicans tried to put more observers in place than was the agreed number (the number has to be equal between Democrat, Republican and Independent observers) they weren't allowed. > Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits. Well he does keep changing who "his team" is. But the all the Guilliani lawsuits have been thrown out, and all the ones he has tweeted about have been. > Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet. Citation needed. The cases I've read (and yes I've checked because of people like who do the fake lazy "oh I don't know but I've heard..") say the evidence doesn't support the claims. Here's a typical judgement against the claims: 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. Note "unsupported by evidence" https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3OX5VUvIdZRPgZ79ZD8ZJXrG9cXyE-N_tYCVf5UYBgb7uce67vwB8mohs https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057... > And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ? No, that appears to be a voter registration record. Is there something on it you think indicates he voted?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > No, that appears to be a voter registration record. Is there something on it you think indicates he voted? My Ballot Status 10/20/2020 Your ballot was signature verified and counted. I'll try to respond to the rest tomorrow.
    - 6y ago