5 ms·

> The judge didn't see it that way: > "This court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens." Th

> The judge didn't see it that way: > "This court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens." That's his opinion and he's entitled to it, but it's not a universal truth that illegal ballots can't be thrown out. Judges have thrown out ballots before. Judges have even thrown out elections even after the candidate is sworn into office. > Perhaps it's merely a partisan tactic. Make no mistake about it, this is a hugely partisan issue. The "Left" is convinced beyond doubt that Trump is trying to overturn the election. The "Right" is convinced beyond doubt that the election was a fraud. When the truth of a subject is determined largely by what party you associate with, it's pretty clear to me that there aren't any objective parties in this discussion. I don't vote (its against my code of ethics; see Voluntaryism) and I don't associate with any party, so I believe I am about as objective as you can reasonably expect to find on this topic. > "mountains of it!" rather than specifics is hand-waving gish-galloping stuff. I'm happy to provide evidence to anything I've claimed. For an executive summary of the evidence available, the Texas lawsuit is a good starting point (first 36 pages). https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... For Michigan specifically this document has an overview of affidavits (from Nov 10): https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/1.-11-10-20-trump-v.-benson-w.d.-mich.-complaint-final.pdf https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/1.-11... Most of the evidence I have heard is from the many hours of testimony I have watched from the state legislature hearings (PA, MI, GA, AZ). Links can be found online.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
>Judges have even thrown out elections even after the candidate is sworn into office. And those judges were probably presented solid evidence that amounted to more than conspiracy and hand waving. So far Trump and co are something like 1 win, 50 losses, from judges all over the country, local, federal, Supreme Court, GOP and Dem appointed, Trump appointed (who incredibly dismissed the Trump nonsense with prejudice, which is quite rare, and signals just how ridiculous the Trump suits are). So don't use a false equivalence. There is none here.
- prucomaclu 6y ago
  > And those judges were probably presented solid evidence that amounted to more than conspiracy and hand waving. The problem is, that many of the judges themselves are guilty of hand-waving away the evidence/affidavits. Take for example the below judgement: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru... Regarding the challenger rights to observation, the judgement says the below: "This requirement was met at all times.(6)" This is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru... I watched the entirety of the Michigan legislature hearing. I heard the affiants speak. Each one provided testimony with a consistent pattern: the Republican poll observers were harassed, kicked out, and not allowed to do their job. This would be in direct violation of state law (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-733 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/...). Nowhere in the judgement does the judge address the affidavits. The footnote for that statement (6) just calls it a "conspiracy theory" without addressing the substance of the affidavits at all. This is generally the case for most of the judgements I have read. Other judgements are denied based on technicalities/standing. Not a single judgement I have read has addressed the actual substance of the affidavits that have been provided.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > Each one provided testimony with a consistent pattern: the Republican poll observers were harassed, kicked out, and not allowed to do their job. And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. The bullshit asymmetry principle means that I don't have the free time to dig into that; and if I did, I would not spend it on you. Again: the election is over and it wasn't close. This "The South will rise again" stuff would be pitiful if it wasn't so nasty.
    - prucomaclu 6y ago
      > And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. If you have just 2 minutes I would kindly request you play below video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atNDO5a0Vy2qFmauQ&ab_channel=NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... Her testimony starts at 1:34:45. If I'm not supposed to take her testimony at "face value", how am I supposed to take it? Am I supposed to: 1) Assume she and the others are lying to get Trump elected? 2) She was on an acid trip and it never happened? 3) Something else? Please - help me understand. I am genuinely interested in why I should dismiss her and not pay her any attention.
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
Spot the sleight of hand. starts with > When literally hundreds of thousands of ballots are being counted without any oversight which is itself BS. and then swaps in: > illegal ballots This conflation is not a good faith argument. > The "Right" is convinced beyond doubt that the election was a fraud. I know this. It's a problem. The prediction "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy." turned out to be very true. It's not deeper than that. > The "Left" is convinced beyond doubt that Trump is trying to overturn the election. Who doesn't? If he isn't trying (badly but nonetheless) to overturn the elections, then what on earth _even are_ these nutty lawsuits? The idea that they exist and are an attempt to change the outcome of the election should not be up for debate. I mean, do you disagree about the existence of them? You think it's an attempt to order from McDonalds maybe? I refer you to this brief response to the "Texas lawsuit": https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 > I'm happy to provide evidence to anything I've claimed. I've seen the quality of such that you provide elsewhere in this thread, I don't see the point in you doing this again. Frankly, you seem to be struggling with basic logic here.
- prucomaclu 6y ago
  > Start by making a specific claim. Specific claim: During the counting at the TCF Center in Michigan, Republican poll watchers were denied their legal right to meaningful observation. This resulted in many hours of counting without oversight, with hundreds of thousands of ballots counted during this time. This was in violation of state law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-733 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/... Evidence: List of affidavits here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru... Witness testimonies during the Michigan legislature hearing: https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/4110372688977369/ https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/4110372688977369... > I refer you to this brief response to the "Texas lawsuit": https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 That link mostly addresses Texas lack of standing to challenge PA's elections, which I am in agreement with - Texas does not have standing here. I would be more interested in a source that addresses the specific claims being made in the Texas lawsuit. I reference the Texas lawsuit only as a useful document, as it has a fairly well summarized list of complaints for each state. > I've seen the quality of such that you provide elsewhere in this thread, I don't see the point in you doing this again. No problem. I am genuinely interested in seeing an honest refutation of the claims being made by these witnesses. The judges haven't provided that. The media most certainly hasn't. From the replies on HN here, only 1 or 2 people have attempted to provide constructive information. The rest, very similar to yours, is primarily ad hominem and casual dismissal. If you do have something productive to add, that would correct my perspective in a constructive way, I am genuinely eager to hear it.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>Judges have even thrown out elections even after the candidate is sworn into office. And those judges were probably presented solid evidence that amounted to more than conspiracy and hand waving. So far Trump and co are something like 1 win, 50 losses, from judges all over the country, local, federal, Supreme Court, GOP and Dem appointed, Trump appointed (who incredibly dismissed the Trump nonsense with prejudice, which is quite rare, and signals just how ridiculous the Trump suits are). So don't use a false equivalence. There is none here.

prucomaclu 6y ago
> And those judges were probably presented solid evidence that amounted to more than conspiracy and hand waving. The problem is, that many of the judges themselves are guilty of hand-waving away the evidence/affidavits. Take for example the below judgement: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru... Regarding the challenger rights to observation, the judgement says the below: "This requirement was met at all times.(6)" This is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru... I watched the entirety of the Michigan legislature hearing. I heard the affiants speak. Each one provided testimony with a consistent pattern: the Republican poll observers were harassed, kicked out, and not allowed to do their job. This would be in direct violation of state law (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-733 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/...). Nowhere in the judgement does the judge address the affidavits. The footnote for that statement (6) just calls it a "conspiracy theory" without addressing the substance of the affidavits at all. This is generally the case for most of the judgements I have read. Other judgements are denied based on technicalities/standing. Not a single judgement I have read has addressed the actual substance of the affidavits that have been provided.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > Each one provided testimony with a consistent pattern: the Republican poll observers were harassed, kicked out, and not allowed to do their job. And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. The bullshit asymmetry principle means that I don't have the free time to dig into that; and if I did, I would not spend it on you. Again: the election is over and it wasn't close. This "The South will rise again" stuff would be pitiful if it wasn't so nasty.
  - prucomaclu 6y ago
    > And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. If you have just 2 minutes I would kindly request you play below video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atNDO5a0Vy2qFmauQ&ab_channel=NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... Her testimony starts at 1:34:45. If I'm not supposed to take her testimony at "face value", how am I supposed to take it? Am I supposed to: 1) Assume she and the others are lying to get Trump elected? 2) She was on an acid trip and it never happened? 3) Something else? Please - help me understand. I am genuinely interested in why I should dismiss her and not pay her any attention.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

Spot the sleight of hand. starts with > When literally hundreds of thousands of ballots are being counted without any oversight which is itself BS. and then swaps in: > illegal ballots This conflation is not a good faith argument. > The "Right" is convinced beyond doubt that the election was a fraud. I know this. It's a problem. The prediction "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy." turned out to be very true. It's not deeper than that. > The "Left" is convinced beyond doubt that Trump is trying to overturn the election. Who doesn't? If he isn't trying (badly but nonetheless) to overturn the elections, then what on earth _even are_ these nutty lawsuits? The idea that they exist and are an attempt to change the outcome of the election should not be up for debate. I mean, do you disagree about the existence of them? You think it's an attempt to order from McDonalds maybe? I refer you to this brief response to the "Texas lawsuit": https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 > I'm happy to provide evidence to anything I've claimed. I've seen the quality of such that you provide elsewhere in this thread, I don't see the point in you doing this again. Frankly, you seem to be struggling with basic logic here.

prucomaclu 6y ago
> Start by making a specific claim. Specific claim: During the counting at the TCF Center in Michigan, Republican poll watchers were denied their legal right to meaningful observation. This resulted in many hours of counting without oversight, with hundreds of thousands of ballots counted during this time. This was in violation of state law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-733 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/... Evidence: List of affidavits here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru... Witness testimonies during the Michigan legislature hearing: https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/4110372688977369/ https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/4110372688977369... > I refer you to this brief response to the "Texas lawsuit": https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608 That link mostly addresses Texas lack of standing to challenge PA's elections, which I am in agreement with - Texas does not have standing here. I would be more interested in a source that addresses the specific claims being made in the Texas lawsuit. I reference the Texas lawsuit only as a useful document, as it has a fairly well summarized list of complaints for each state. > I've seen the quality of such that you provide elsewhere in this thread, I don't see the point in you doing this again. No problem. I am genuinely interested in seeing an honest refutation of the claims being made by these witnesses. The judges haven't provided that. The media most certainly hasn't. From the replies on HN here, only 1 or 2 people have attempted to provide constructive information. The rest, very similar to yours, is primarily ad hominem and casual dismissal. If you do have something productive to add, that would correct my perspective in a constructive way, I am genuinely eager to hear it.