Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

I think both sides cheated on 2020 election

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

01 Jul 2022, 1:15 pm

The High Plains is an interesting place. I wouldn't mind going there. One of the reasons why it's so interesting---is because it's a vast emptiness.



roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,192
Location: Indiana

01 Jul 2022, 1:51 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
QFT wrote:
roronoa79 wrote:
1. Democrats tend to do well in more populous urban precincts; Republicans tend to do well in less populous rural precincts.


Yeah, but we are talking about 95% being for Biden. I don't think there is any area where it is THAT extreme.


When, where did this supposedly happen.

It is my understanding that every last cheat claim has either been fully debunked as false from the start (nearly all), or mitigated by a reasonable explanation (one or two).

(PS - I don't consider it impossible, however, albeit not very likely, for most ballots in a particular box to be one candidates or the other because there are distinct patterns in voting by community, time of day, absentee, etc)

In the link I provided, I was able to find several precincts where one candidate got 95% or more of the vote. Many areas of, for example, DC and NYC were won by Biden by a 90% margin. The reverse is true of any number of rural precincts.


_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
Those with power do what their power permits, and the weak can only acquiesce.
- Thucydides


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

02 Jul 2022, 8:52 am

At this point it doesn't matter who did or didn't cheat, its what people believe that counts and no ones going to a listen to anyone on the opposite side.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 Jul 2022, 2:40 pm

Raptor wrote:
At this point it doesn't matter who did or didn't cheat, its what people believe that counts and no ones going to a listen to anyone on the opposite side.


Wut? :? 8O :lol: :roll:

It most certainly does matter.

60+ court cases thrown out due to lack of evidence that democrats cheated. There's now mountains of evidence that trump and his co-conspirators made massive efforts to try to steal the election after he lost. It most certainly does matter who cheated; it seems you simply don't like that your guy was busted doing it and now prefer to say it doesn't matter. Ridiculous. It matters regardless of who cheated - if the democrats had cheated it would still matter just as much and they should face consequences for it.

People unwilling to listen to facts from all sides and then make logical conclusions about them are completely unreasonable.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,192
Location: Indiana

02 Jul 2022, 5:29 pm

Raptor wrote:
At this point it doesn't matter who did or didn't cheat, its what people believe that counts and no ones going to a listen to anyone on the opposite side.

"Both sides, guys!!1!! !!1!! !"

It very much matters who cheated or didn't cheat. Neither side cheated in the election, though only one side sent an armed mob to keep the results from being finalized. One side is much more worth listening to than the other.


_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
Those with power do what their power permits, and the weak can only acquiesce.
- Thucydides


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

02 Jul 2022, 8:07 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
60+ court cases thrown out due to lack of evidence that democrats cheated.


That's a little misleading when put like that. They were denied an evidentiary hearing - which would have allowed evidence to be presented to a judge and more importantly granted the time and authority required to collect evidence for legal purposes. The judges made no determination on whether the election was fair or not, they simply stopped the process at the first hurdle.

Last I heard, of the 22 cases that were allowed to present evidence - the Republican complainant was successful in 14.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 Jul 2022, 8:14 pm

Mikah wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
60+ court cases thrown out due to lack of evidence that democrats cheated.


That's a little misleading when put like that. They were denied an evidentiary hearing - which would have allowed evidence to be presented to a judge and more importantly granted the time and authority required to collect evidence for legal purposes. The judges made no determination on whether the election was fair or not, they simply stopped the process at the first hurdle.

Last I heard, of the 22 cases that were allowed to present evidence - the Republican complainant was successful in 14.


Cases don't get denied evidentiary hearings if there's a legit case to be heard. They brought nothing to the judges to go on besides parroting trump's allegations of election fraud.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

02 Jul 2022, 8:16 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
Cases don't get denied evidentiary hearings if there's a legit case to be heard. They brought nothing to the judges to go on besides parroting trump's allegations of election fraud.


Then you have more faith in the courts than I do. They have become increasingly politicised on both sides of the Atlantic lately.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,192
Location: Indiana

04 Jul 2022, 3:20 pm

Mikah wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Cases don't get denied evidentiary hearings if there's a legit case to be heard. They brought nothing to the judges to go on besides parroting trump's allegations of election fraud.


Then you have more faith in the courts than I do. They have become increasingly politicised on both sides of the Atlantic lately.

Indeed.

Yet even conservative judges threw out challenges to the election. Even the politicized conservative judges couldn't bring themselves to treat these claims as anything but bulls***.


_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
Those with power do what their power permits, and the weak can only acquiesce.
- Thucydides


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

06 Jul 2022, 5:36 am

Mikah wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
60+ court cases thrown out due to lack of evidence that democrats cheated.


That's a little misleading when put like that. They were denied an evidentiary hearing - which would have allowed evidence to be presented to a judge and more importantly granted the time and authority required to collect evidence for legal purposes. The judges made no determination on whether the election was fair or not, they simply stopped the process at the first hurdle.

Last I heard, of the 22 cases that were allowed to present evidence - the Republican complainant was successful in 14.


You don't get to file a lawsuit and say you'll make all your arguments and present all your evidence later. You have to show that there is some legal basis for your suit the moment you make it. If you don't, you get dismissed as frivolous. There is no right to take up the courts time with bluster. The lawyers who did the filings knew the rules and failed to follow them. Why? Because they had no case, and were filing to make a show so people like you would believe there was more there than there ever was, and to keep the donations rolling in.

There was never any proof of fraud or negligence on any material matter, or on a scale that could have changed results.

Most of the judges declaring these cases invalid were Republican appointees simply doing their jobs and following their oath of office. I may not always like the directions our judiciary take, but these judges restored my faith that at least most take their duty to our constitution and our laws seriously.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Jul 2022, 6:45 am

Even the Supreme Court, conservative as it is, declined to hear the election-related suits bought by Trump minions, saying they were “frivolous.”



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

06 Jul 2022, 10:02 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
You don't get to file a lawsuit and say you'll make all your arguments and present all your evidence later.


Then maybe they just weren't aware of this policy. Because even for me it is not obvious. If I pick up a book, I first see a title. After that, I open and read the book. They don't put the whole book's content on a title. Same with lawsuit. You first say what it is about, then after that you make a case.

Okay I realize what you are saying is that they have to put both the title AND the contents in one single thing they file. Well, that is not obvious for a lay person. Because it would make a lot of sense if you first tell them what you want to talk about, and then they call the people that are experts in whatever your subject is.

I guess maybe there are some policies that tell you that no that's not how that is, you have to put the whole thing right away. But in this case maybe those people were unaware of those policies.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,829
Location: Stendec

06 Jul 2022, 10:11 am

QFT wrote:
If I pick up a book, I first see a title. After that, I open and read the book. They don't put the whole book's content on a title. Same with lawsuit. You first say what it is about, then after that you make a case.
A legal brief is a document that is submitted to a court by a party to a lawsuit.  In the document, that party lists the reasons why he should prevail over the other party or parties to a lawsuit.  Legal briefs are often submitted together with a motion at the trial court level.

In American courts, the brief typically has the following parts:

• a table of contents

• a table of authorities listing the cases, statutes, and regulations that are cited

• a presentation of the issues under review by the court, usually in only one sentence if possible

• a statement of the case that presents the relevant facts and the previous history of the case in the lower courts

• a summary of the legal standard of review that the appellate court should use in evaluating the decision of the lower court

• a summary of the party's argument

• the full discussion of the legal and/or policy arguments explaining why the party believes it should win the case, which will be the most lengthy portion of the brief.

The brief may also be accompanied by an appendix that includes copies of the lower court opinions and other documents or court opinions cited in the brief.  The particular required format of briefs is a matter of local court procedural rules.

 Link to Source 



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

06 Jul 2022, 10:50 am

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
If I pick up a book, I first see a title. After that, I open and read the book. They don't put the whole book's content on a title. Same with lawsuit. You first say what it is about, then after that you make a case.
A legal brief is a document that is submitted to a court by a party to a lawsuit.  In the document, that party lists the reasons why he should prevail over the other party or parties to a lawsuit.  Legal briefs are often submitted together with a motion at the trial court level.

In American courts, the brief typically has the following parts:

• a table of contents

• a table of authorities listing the cases, statutes, and regulations that are cited

• a presentation of the issues under review by the court, usually in only one sentence if possible

• a statement of the case that presents the relevant facts and the previous history of the case in the lower courts

• a summary of the legal standard of review that the appellate court should use in evaluating the decision of the lower court

• a summary of the party's argument

• the full discussion of the legal and/or policy arguments explaining why the party believes it should win the case, which will be the most lengthy portion of the brief.

The brief may also be accompanied by an appendix that includes copies of the lower court opinions and other documents or court opinions cited in the brief.  The particular required format of briefs is a matter of local court procedural rules.

 Link to Source 


If it is expressly in that format, then I guess they would know it.

But this leads to another question: are you saying Trump supporters left all those other sections blank? I mean its hard to believe. They probably did put at least something?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Jul 2022, 12:00 pm

Trump’s lawyers obviously filed frivolous lawsuits. They probably did the basic format correctly, but provided no evidence.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

06 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm

QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
If I pick up a book, I first see a title. After that, I open and read the book. They don't put the whole book's content on a title. Same with lawsuit. You first say what it is about, then after that you make a case.
A legal brief is a document that is submitted to a court by a party to a lawsuit.  In the document, that party lists the reasons why he should prevail over the other party or parties to a lawsuit.  Legal briefs are often submitted together with a motion at the trial court level.

In American courts, the brief typically has the following parts:

• a table of contents

• a table of authorities listing the cases, statutes, and regulations that are cited

• a presentation of the issues under review by the court, usually in only one sentence if possible

• a statement of the case that presents the relevant facts and the previous history of the case in the lower courts

• a summary of the legal standard of review that the appellate court should use in evaluating the decision of the lower court

• a summary of the party's argument

• the full discussion of the legal and/or policy arguments explaining why the party believes it should win the case, which will be the most lengthy portion of the brief.

The brief may also be accompanied by an appendix that includes copies of the lower court opinions and other documents or court opinions cited in the brief.  The particular required format of briefs is a matter of local court procedural rules.

 Link to Source 


If it is expressly in that format, then I guess they would know it.

But this leads to another question: are you saying Trump supporters left all those other sections blank? I mean its hard to believe. They probably did put at least something?

It was either blank or nonsense. The only reason they filed the frivolous lawsuits was to keep the ruse of the big lie going so they could tell trump supporters they filed lawsuits that they needed to fund raise for.. then they scammed tons of money out of people while they kept the charade up for as long as possible.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.