4 ms·

I was referring to the fact that none of those findings concluded that the outcome of the 2016 election was affected. That is the standard that's being applied

I was referring to the fact that none of those findings concluded that the outcome of the 2016 election was affected. That is the standard that's being applied for 2020 so I was applying the same standard.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The standard for 2020 is whether the alleged fraud actually took place at all. There is no court-worthy evidence that it did. Some would say there is no evidence at all. The standard for 2016 is therefore whether or not Russian interference occured, which two high level US government reports have confirmed took place.
- twitchreplyfor 6y ago
  One need not prove fraud to substantiate the claim that it was stolen. It could have been stolen, for example, if laws were bent or broken to dramatically increase the number of mail-in absentee ballots, while at the same time decreasing the scrutiny given to those ballots as required by law. In fact, this is exactly what was alleged in many court cases. These cases were not allowed to move forward, however, because of procedural issues, not the merits of the case (standing, mootness, and latches).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    People keep saying this. If it's true, where is this evidence? It hasn't been on Fox. It hasn't been on OAN. It hasn't been on Newsmax. What's been presented has been uniformly debunked in ways that I find completely convincing. If this is as big as it's claimed to be, you don't shut up just because a judge says you don't have standing. I haven't found a statistical summary, but I've just surveyed the status of all the cases on several neutral sites (ABA, Ballotpedia and others). I don't see how it is possible to draw any conclusion other than a deeply incompetent legal team with no convincing evidence failed to get a single in-place ruling that supports their wild claims.
    - twitchreplyfor 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... and ctrl+f "standing" = 16 results (6 cases). Bowyer et al. v. Ducey et al. Wood v. Raffensperger et al. Pearson et al. v. Kemp et al. Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n et al. Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. Gohmert et al. v. Pence ctrl+f "laches" Tyler Kistner et al. v. Steve Simon, et al.
- fareesh 6y ago
  I watched some testimonies from folks who were at the counting centers, many were quite convincing. Some Indian American lady named Hima pointed out quite a few attempts to make the process less neutral.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

The standard for 2020 is whether the alleged fraud actually took place at all. There is no court-worthy evidence that it did. Some would say there is no evidence at all. The standard for 2016 is therefore whether or not Russian interference occured, which two high level US government reports have confirmed took place.

twitchreplyfor 6y ago
One need not prove fraud to substantiate the claim that it was stolen. It could have been stolen, for example, if laws were bent or broken to dramatically increase the number of mail-in absentee ballots, while at the same time decreasing the scrutiny given to those ballots as required by law. In fact, this is exactly what was alleged in many court cases. These cases were not allowed to move forward, however, because of procedural issues, not the merits of the case (standing, mootness, and latches).
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  People keep saying this. If it's true, where is this evidence? It hasn't been on Fox. It hasn't been on OAN. It hasn't been on Newsmax. What's been presented has been uniformly debunked in ways that I find completely convincing. If this is as big as it's claimed to be, you don't shut up just because a judge says you don't have standing. I haven't found a statistical summary, but I've just surveyed the status of all the cases on several neutral sites (ABA, Ballotpedia and others). I don't see how it is possible to draw any conclusion other than a deeply incompetent legal team with no convincing evidence failed to get a single in-place ruling that supports their wild claims.
  - twitchreplyfor 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... and ctrl+f "standing" = 16 results (6 cases). Bowyer et al. v. Ducey et al. Wood v. Raffensperger et al. Pearson et al. v. Kemp et al. Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n et al. Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. Gohmert et al. v. Pence ctrl+f "laches" Tyler Kistner et al. v. Steve Simon, et al.
fareesh 6y ago
I watched some testimonies from folks who were at the counting centers, many were quite convincing. Some Indian American lady named Hima pointed out quite a few attempts to make the process less neutral.