Will America become socialist now that Biden has basically won?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It didn’t present any evidence. None at all. Zero

You don’t understand what evidence is, unfortunately.

Read:

Evidence:
Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.

Did you see the bit above where it mentioned facts? Three times in fact. So you think that the guy in the hat could present to a court what he suggested could have or might have happened and that would be proof of…what exactly? That fraud actually occurred? It obviously didn’t in Georgia because they checked the results. Meaning…there was no evidence.

Coulda, shoulda, mighta aren’t facts. They might be cause to investigate something. To investivate and find, you know, evidence. Evidence which could then prove something occurred.

So let us know when you have some. Evidence, that is. Otherwise, you’re wasting my time and yours.

Anyway, I think you’re wasting your time in any case. With Powell cut loose I can’t see anybody even continuing to suggest there was a problem with the software. Heaven knows what else they come up with.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Also ponder the fact that Powell has been dumped from the legal team. What she has been proposing was even too risible for Trump to accept.

That would be your interpretation of a fact.

She is now independently working on the Dominion case.

That may mean the cases had potential conflicts, legally speaking. It may mean the Trump team is choosing not to fund that strategy because they are making a focussed decision on where their own legal funds and assets are best used. Powell is fundraising separately, now; and she has her own legal team. It may mean the Trump team did not want the distraction of a high profile issue like massive computer fraud. It may mean she is running decoy to distract the press. It might even mean she has gained evidence of criminality in Georgia, for example, regarding how Dominion was selected there with possible kickbacks to government officials, so Powell going off on her own may make complete sense in short order. It might also mean Powell was a victim of a disinformation campaign and she will take the heat for that separate from the others since that was the contention she originally brought to the table.

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[Poet]

Except, of course, if there’s election fraud.

 

[HarryStotle]

Did you see the bit above where it mentioned facts? Three times in fact. So you think that the guy in the hat could present to a court what he suggested could have or might have happened and that would be proof of…what exactly? That fraud actually occurred? It obviously didn’t in Georgia because they checked the results. Meaning…there was no evidence.

Coulda, shoulda, mighta aren’t facts. They might be cause to investigate something. To investivate and find, you know, evidence. Evidence which could then prove something occurred.

So let us know when you have some. Evidence, that is. Otherwise, you’re wasting my time and yours.

“Coulda, shoulda, mighta aren’t facts.”

No but the predicates upon which the coulda, shouda, mighta are based were statements about facts. You must have missed that in your rush to dismiss with extreme prejudice.

Apparently, you are unclear about what constitutes a statement of fact, so it likely would be waste of time informing you.

Statements of fact are falsifiable. Your preferred strategy seems to be to bypass verifiability altogether and appeal to extreme prejudice.

The “guy in the hat” is a software systems analyst with a Masters degree from Arizona State. That is a statement of fact even if it is found to be false because statements about facts are, in fact, falsifiable based upon objective reality. You could challenge whether it is a true fact or not, but you cannot logically argue that it is not a statement of fact.

There were hundreds of statements of facts in the video. The fact that you cannot bring yourself to recognize any of them at all means any subsequent reasoning will be lost in translation.

No possible way of getting around that, I suppose.

 

[HarryStotle]

We elect folks to get stuff done. So if you want progress stop with the divisiveness and encourage the reasonable minded folks in the middle to work together and get some stuff done.

Pussy hat ‘Not My President’ demonstrations, Mueller Inquiry, Spygate, Impeachment hoax, Kavanaugh rape allegations, continual harassment by the press, riotously peaceful protests with added arson, …



Suddenly America is going to “grow up” now that the perpetrators of the “divisiveness” for four years will assume power?

An apology and regrets for four years of nastiness toward a duly elected president would be a good faith start.

 

[po18guy]

I continue to be amazed that 60% or so of “Catholics” want to oust the president who has done more for the Catholic Church than any president in US history.

I am incredulous that so many look forward to the inauguration of a man declared politically dead in 1988 due to his incessant lying - this on MacNeil-Lehrer.

I am concerned that a would-be president with an apparent cognitive disability is being hailed as a hero. If it worsens, he risks removal under the 25th Amendment. Then, we are out of the frying pan and into the fire.

 

[Freddy]

Apparently, you are unclear about what constitutes a statement of fact, so it likely would be waste of time informing you.

From Chris Christie (and he’s a Trump supporter):

“If you have got the evidence of fraud, present it,” former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie told ABC News in the US.

“Quite frankly, the conduct of the president’s legal team has been a national embarrassment.”

“This is outrageous conduct by any lawyer,” he said. “They allege fraud outside the courtroom but when they go inside the courtroom they don’t plead fraud and they don’t argue fraud.”

'You have an obligation to present the evidence, the evidence has not been presented and you must conclude … that if you’re unwilling to come forward to present the evidence, it must mean the evidence doesn’t exist," he said.

Remember what I said about the sinking ship? One has been thrown overboard and now the rest are starting to make for the lifeboats.

 

[po18guy]

To whom it may concern: We are/were a nation of laws. Evidence of violation of those laws is presented in court, not on Reddit or Instagram or the cover of People Magazine. It is a former federal prosecutor collecting the evidence which will be presented in court. Apparently, this is not taught in primary or even secondary education these days. Chris Christie should know better.

Progressives are extremely disinterested in vote fraud for some reason - vote fraud which could be used against them. Very strange.

They are also amazingly disinterested in their candidate’s record of well, zero. They look the other way when confronted with Sam Donaldson’s (liberal media type!) exposé on Joe’s lying in 1988.

The sham impeachment having blown up in their faces, they continue to strongly desire the replacement of a sitting president whom they viscerally hate, and as we well know…

…hate is a hell of a drug.

 

[Freddy]

To whom it may concern: We are/were a nation of laws. Evidence of violation of those laws is
presented in court…

You have the tense incorrect. It should be the conditional. As in ‘should be presented in court’. In over thirty cases so far it hasn’t. Or it has been and it’s been rejected

In case I miss it, let me know when it eventually happens. But I’m not holding my breath.

 

[whatistrue]

The truth will out.

Yes, it will. The question is whether DJT and company will actually accept it when it does.

 

[whatistrue]

Evidence of violation of those laws is presented in court ,

Then why has none been presented in court in the at least 34 cases that have been heard and dismissed so far?

Progressives are extremely disinterested in vote fraud for some reason

I can’t speak for progressives because I don’t really fit in that box, but no one has so far indicated that actual vote fraud is not a problem, just that in this case (or these cases) there is no good reason to believe that it happened to any significant degree. There are “odd” situations in every election everywhere, but no one has so far been able to show any reason to believe that there was significant (as in sufficient to change the results at any level) fraud in this election.

a sitting president whom they viscerally hate, and as we well know…

You may believe that, but neither you nor anyone else can know it for anyone who has not specifically stated that it is true for them.

 

[whatistrue]

The dead rising from their graves to cast their vote seems a pretty reasonable cause to investigate.

It was investigated and proven to be false. Except the dead person who voted fro Trump anyway.

Having more votes then voters is another good reason.

It would be if it had actually happened.

Perhaps the suspicious behavior at the polls in keeping observers so far away.

What, they wanted to go into the booth with the voter or something? And were these just self-identified “observers” or actual officially recognized “poll watchers”?

Sworn testimony from poll workers indicating illegal activity.

Sworn to and shown to be false (or sometimes exaggerated by those reporting it to indicate illegal activity when there was none).

 

[vz71]

What, they wanted to go into the booth with the voter or something?

No, the observers were forced out.
They moved everything such that the observers could not actually observe anything.
And I am sure you have seen the videos of the workers covering the doors and windows with paper to prevent being observed.

And were these just self-identified “observers” or actual officially recognized “poll watchers”?

Identified and credentialed.

Sworn to and shown to be false

The testimony has not been proven false.

or sometimes exaggerated by those reporting it

I would not know. I read the report, not the reporters spiel.

it to indicate illegal activity when there was none).

As I said. I read the testimony. Not some report on it.
The illegal activity was readily identifiable.

 

[Dan123]

And I am sure you have seen the videos of the workers covering the doors and windows with paper to prevent being observed.

Prevent being observed by observers or the public?

 

[HarryStotle]

po18guy:

To whom it may concern: We are/were a nation of laws. Evidence of violation of those laws is
presented in court…

You have the tense incorrect. It should be the conditional. As in ‘should be presented in court’. In over thirty cases so far it hasn’t. Or it has been and it’s been rejected

In case I miss it, let me know when it eventually happens. But I’m not holding my breath.

Here are two lawyers discussing the actual merits of the few cases (2 I think) brought by the Trump team and not other parties.

Start at 1:02:38, wherein a number of actual details concerning evidence are spoken about fairly. Unlike your assessment since you cannot get a simple fact like the cases brought by Trump’s legal team.

 

[whatistrue]

No, the observers were forced out.

Looks like you are conflating two different phases. You initially spoke of observers at the polls having to be “so far away”, but what you are writing now seems to be a repetition of the debunked “observers during counting” myth. And it has been debunked regardless of claims to the contrary.

The illegal activity was readily identifiable.

And typically not actually illegal, or was fabricated.

 

[vz71]

Prevent being observed by observers or the public?

Either way is highly suspicious.

 

[vz71]

And typically not actually illegal, or was fabricated

Ok.
Please quote the statement and point out the fabrication.

 

[vz71]

Looks like you are conflating two different phases.

No, I am pointing out two different instances that there is video evidence for.

 

[Dan123]

Either way is highly suspicious.

Is it? Are counting locations normally observable by the public? It seems like that might be a huge privacy concern especially in an age where we all have cameras. What are the rules for photographing at a counting location?

Did anyone from the city/town this happened in provide a reason for the windows being obscured?