LIVE COVERAGE of Rally for President Trump in DC! 01/06/2021

[moonsweeper]

But none of the cases won showed any election fraud. They were all about declared election procedure *before* the election, like the deadline for accepting ballots. Regardless of when that deadline is set to, it doesn't show that any number of votes are fraudulent. For example, Trump for President sued to keep Nevada polls open later than scheduled -- but that doesn't show fraud.

...and 'election procedure' determines the absence or presence of 'fraud.'
Any intentional counting of votes that are "invalid" per the local legislation governing voting is technically 'fraudulent' at it satisfies the 'intent' hurdle.

In Nevada, the polls would normally close at 7PM. But there were delays in opening some polls due to technical issues. Trump for President sued to keep many polling places open an extra hour until 8PM. They won that lawsuit. Here's a news story on that case:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nevada-county-judge-keeps-some-polls-open-later-after-trump-campaign-sues

It sounds like you're implying that the extra votes taken after 7PM invalid and thus fraudulent. But as Trump for President argued, the procedure was already violated because they didn't open on time, so the deadline should have been extended. Like with many legal issues, the law is not perfectly clear here - which is why we have courts.

The legislature voted that the polls close at 7PM, but there needed to be redress for the fact that technical issues delayed the start. In this case, I agree with Trump for President and think extending the hours was justified -- and I don't think it is reasonable to call the post-7PM votes as fraudulent, given that the court found it to be justified.

...and depending on what the law stated, the court is correct.  If the government failed to open at the legal time, then completing the 12 hour cycle as the court ruled may be appropriate and may even be part of the law itself...any court decision saying that one of the candidates on the ballot "lacked standing" to challenge some perceived election irregularity is by definition untrue and an incorrect ruling.  The candidate is obviously directly affected by the situation...but then that's a judge for you. They are 'infallible', just ask Justice Roberts.

However, you did not answer any of my questions...

[Shasarak]

The one I'm most familiar with is the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court. In that case, all three of Trump's appointed Supreme Court justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) voted to deny for lack of standing. Only Alito and Thomas spoke in favor of allowing it to be filed, with no opinion on the merits. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me reasonable that the case really did lack standing. Many lawyers called it essentially a publicity stunt that failed to follow basic legalities of filing.

As far as I know, the Supreme Court is the only place in the US that can legally decide issues between States so therefore Texas must have standing.

[Ratman_tf]

Deepstate/oligarchy acknowledgment of election rigging as a times article


https://t.co/hnbIrLN4ts

"That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."

Hey, widespread, top down election fraud is next to impossible! But a widespread, organized, top down effort to influence the elections happened and they want us to know it, because they think they saved us from Orange Hitler.

[Pat]

No, he was taken around by a collaborator. Who seems to have saved lives, so it's not a clear cut case. But most importantly, Soros was 13 or 14. A child, without full agency. A child can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents and the other adults who helped raise them.

There are tons of reasons to criticize Soros, based on what he came to believe as an adult, and what he's done as an adult. Why not stick to the real ones?

Nonsense. He actively participated in the removal of property from Jewish families... In his own words...

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

In other words, he was taken around by a collaborator. Did your Mom or Dad ever take you to work when you were a young teenager? If they worked for the central bank that inflated the money supply, does that make you complicit in the later crash? Of course not.

You mention later antisemitic acts. Criticize him for those. Or all terrible economic policies.

[jhkim]

In Nevada, the polls would normally close at 7PM. But there were delays in opening some polls due to technical issues. Trump for President sued to keep many polling places open an extra hour until 8PM.

...and depending on what the law stated, the court is correct.  If the government failed to open at the legal time, then completing the 12 hour cycle as the court ruled may be appropriate and may even be part of the law itself...any court decision saying that one of the candidates on the ballot "lacked standing" to challenge some perceived election irregularity is by definition untrue and an incorrect ruling.  The candidate is obviously directly affected by the situation...but then that's a judge for you. They are 'infallible', just ask Justice Roberts.

However, you did not answer any of my questions...

I agree about the Nevada 7PM to 8PM lawsuit, that the court was correct. But I'm not sure what standing you're referring to here. In the case of the Texas AG lawsuit, the suit wasn't brought by one of the candidates in the 2020 election. It was brought directly by the Texas Attorney General, who was not up for re-election that year.

The next logical questions... Did any place 'intentionally' count any ballots which were invalid per the local election procedures?  Did any place 'intentionally' refuse to follow the properly legislated election procedure during counting?  Has any Dominion contract forced a location to challenge any request made for records that are legally public?

The short answer is - I don't know. There are hundreds of elections laws that differ by state and local jurisdiction, implemented across tens of thousands of polling places by hundreds of thousands of workers. It would not surprise me at all if there were some cases of failing to follow procedure, but I don't know of any specific cases where that was proven to be true.

But this sounds like more misdirection -- like saying that Republicans won the 7PM-to-8PM Nevada lawsuit somehow is evidence that there was widespread fraud in GA, MI, PA, and WI.

If you want to talk about evidence of widespread fraud, then talk about that. Where is the evidence and what are the sources?

[Shasarak]

Where is the evidence and what are the sources?

Yes lets discuss the lack of transparency and continued refusal to allow meaningful auditing of the votes.

On second thoughts you can not discuss it because you lack standing.

[Mistwell]

AOC wasn't just in another building (that was never breached), she claimed she thought pro-Trump attackers were breaking into her office an hour before anyone even breached the Capitol (the other building).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=275&v=prlmJQAf1ns

Edit: Fixed link.

typical click-bait bullshit youtube link.

There is no proof she is "lying" in any of that. First there is an allegation she got the time of day wrong. OK, so? Not a lie, she might just be wrong. But then it turns out what she heard was a captial police office banging on her door. Which...they were doing, well before the capitol was breached. And not just in the capitol, the capitol police were in her building gathering congresspeople there as well, again before the capitol was breached. So...her account there is not a lie at all.

this douchbag click-baiter who is rooking you for that sweet youtube ad dollars is making it seem like AOC could not have heard a police officer bang on her door and think it was rioters banging on her door earlier than the rioters were actually banging on the capitol door - as if she couldn't have mistaken a cop for a rioter banging in her door, or as if she couldn't have feared them breaking into her office building when they had not?

And then he goes on to claim nobody could have possibly thought they would try to break in before they tried to break in? No. Complete bullshit. Just because the capitol police and secret service were ill prepared for what happened does not mean people like AOC were not already fearing it would happen. Us gamers right here on this message board thought it might happen before it did for fuck's sake! Naw, this youtuber is a total lying fucker.

he's a douchebag, and you should not be following that douchebags clickbait videos.

[shuddemell]

If anything, I think Trump winning a majority of his election-process lawsuits is evidence *against* the idea that the courts are all corrupt and under control of the Deep-State liberals, rigged against Trump. And if the courts aren't largely corrupt, then we should believe the results of court cases.

Considering the number of cases NOT decided on the merits, I would suggest this is a premature conclusion... while I might agree with you if that were the only discrepancy, the fact that many of them ignored or never even heard the merits would lead me to hold on such a conclusion that there isn't rampant corruption in our courts. There are many ways to skin a cat, and the final legal determination is only one of them.

I don't think dismissal on technical grounds is evidence either way. Sometimes cases genuinely should be dismissed, I presume. Are there particular dismissals that you think should not have been dismissed, but instead heard out in court?

The one I'm most familiar with is the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court. In that case, all three of Trump's appointed Supreme Court justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) voted to deny for lack of standing. Only Alito and Thomas spoke in favor of allowing it to be filed, with no opinion on the merits. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me reasonable that the case really did lack standing. Many lawyers called it essentially a publicity stunt that failed to follow basic legalities of filing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

https://www.law.com/2020/12/08/no-chance-of-success-lawyers-demolishes-ken-paxtons-latest-election-lawsuit/

No, I agree that some of the dismissals were likely legit, maybe all. Without actually reviewing each case, there's only so much I can infer from them. That's kind of my point, that we don't really know enough to really form a proper overall opinion. However, the other point I am making there is a simple one. If they refuse to hear a case and dismiss it with prejudice, that alone can be a form of corruption. And certainly a whole host of steps during the process can be used and abused for political reasons.

[Pat]

AOC wasn't just in another building (that was never breached), she claimed she thought pro-Trump attackers were breaking into her office an hour before anyone even breached the Capitol (the other building).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=275&v=prlmJQAf1ns

Edit: Fixed link.

typical click-bait bullshit youtube link.

There is no proof she is "lying" in any of that. First there is an allegation she got the time of day wrong. OK, so? Not a lie, she might just be wrong. But then it turns out what she heard was a captial police office banging on her door. Which...they were doing, well before the capitol was breached. And not just in the capitol, the capitol police were in her building gathering congresspeople there as well, again before the capitol was breached. So...her account there is not a lie at all.

this douchbag click-baiter who is rooking you for that sweet youtube ad dollars is making it seem like AOC could not have heard a police officer bang on her door and think it was rioters banging on her door earlier than the rioters were actually banging on the capitol door - as if she couldn't have mistaken a cop for a rioter banging in her door, or as if she couldn't have feared them breaking into her office building when they had not?

And then he goes on to claim nobody could have possibly thought they would try to break in before they tried to break in? No. Complete bullshit. Just because the capitol police and secret service were ill prepared for what happened does not mean people like AOC were not already fearing it would happen. Us gamers right here on this message board thought it might happen before it did for fuck's sake! Naw, this youtuber is a total lying fucker.

he's a douchebag, and you should not be following that douchebags clickbait videos.

When your argument is based on the number of times you can force "douchebag" into a post, you probably don't have a good argument.

She claimed she was in the Capitol building with the protesters, but she wasn't. She was in her office across the street. She gave a specific time when she claimed she started fearing for her life. Except that time was an hour before the protesters passed the police line, and long, long before they even started evacuating people from the Capitol (the building across the street). She said she was evacuated because protesters were in the building. She wasn't. They evacuated her building because of a bomb threat. She claimed she believed that Trump supporters had broken into her office, and she hid because she feared for her life. Yet that was long before anything happened anywhere, she was nowhere near anything that happened, and nobody seriously believed there was any risk to anyone before the protesters entered the Capitol, so she would have had no basis to feel that way without hindsight. She fabricated an emotional story of victimhood and blame, almost a month after the fact, to get attention.

She's well into the liar liar pants on fire category, and this isn't the first time she's been caught fabricating sob stories.

[Shasarak]

She's well into the liar liar pants on fire category, and this isn't the first time she's been caught fabricating sob stories.

Maybe we can check with someone else who was working very close to AOC?

Rep. Nancy Mace @RepNancyMace

Feb 3
.@AOC
made clear she didn't know who was at her door. Breathless attempts by media to fan fictitious news flames are dangerous.

My office is 2 doors down. Insurrectionists never stormed our hallway. Egregious doesn't even begin to cover it. Is there nothing MSM won't politicize?

https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1356677360507052034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1356677360507052034%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lotuseaters.com%2Fthe-podcast-of-the-lotus-eaters-61-04-02-21

[Shasarak]

Watch out!  Changing Narrative:

Wow, Voting Machines Don't Work, Say Democrats

"In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi," the candidate's lawyers said in Monday filings."

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-campaigns-claudia-tenney-0a859d2b16a187f0cbd506e7d912d500

[moonsweeper]

In Nevada, the polls would normally close at 7PM. But there were delays in opening some polls due to technical issues. Trump for President sued to keep many polling places open an extra hour until 8PM.

...and depending on what the law stated, the court is correct.  If the government failed to open at the legal time, then completing the 12 hour cycle as the court ruled may be appropriate and may even be part of the law itself...any court decision saying that one of the candidates on the ballot "lacked standing" to challenge some perceived election irregularity is by definition untrue and an incorrect ruling.  The candidate is obviously directly affected by the situation...but then that's a judge for you. They are 'infallible', just ask Justice Roberts.

However, you did not answer any of my questions...

I agree about the Nevada 7PM to 8PM lawsuit, that the court was correct. But I'm not sure what standing you're referring to here. In the case of the Texas AG lawsuit, the suit wasn't brought by one of the candidates in the 2020 election. It was brought directly by the Texas Attorney General, who was not up for re-election that year.

Well...
First of all, if you read carefully you will note that I was specifically talking about the candidate's standing.  Evidently I wasn't referencing that particular lawsuit from Texas.  Weak attempt at a straw-man...made even more amateurish when you try and conflate the Texas AG and the term candidate, since it was the state of Texas which brought the lawsuit and not their AG as an individual...notice in your link how it says 'Texas vs Pennsylvania' and not 'Ken Paxton vs Pennsylvania'

The next logical questions... Did any place 'intentionally' count any ballots which were invalid per the local election procedures?  Did any place 'intentionally' refuse to follow the properly legislated election procedure during counting?  Has any Dominion contract forced a location to challenge any request made for records that are legally public?

The short answer is - I don't know. There are hundreds of elections laws that differ by state and local jurisdiction, implemented across tens of thousands of polling places by hundreds of thousands of workers. It would not surprise me at all if there were some cases of failing to follow procedure, but I don't know of any specific cases where that was proven to be true.

But this sounds like more misdirection -- like saying that Republicans won the 7PM-to-8PM Nevada lawsuit somehow is evidence that there was widespread fraud in GA, MI, PA, and WI.

If you want to talk about evidence of widespread fraud, then talk about that. Where is the evidence and what are the sources?

Did anyplace that has a 'legal requirement to allow observation during vote tabulating' suspend their counting and tell said legal observers that the count would begin again at a specific time...then start the tabulating earlier than stated without informing said observers? 

I don't remember...maybe I should Google it or something...

[SHARK]

Greetings!

The Fox News channel has canceled the "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program from the business news department, despite the "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program having strong ratings and viewership. Lou Dobbs is well-known for being a supporter of President Donald Trump and President Trump's policies.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[shuddemell]

No, he was taken around by a collaborator. Who seems to have saved lives, so it's not a clear cut case. But most importantly, Soros was 13 or 14. A child, without full agency. A child can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents and the other adults who helped raise them.

There are tons of reasons to criticize Soros, based on what he came to believe as an adult, and what he's done as an adult. Why not stick to the real ones?

Nonsense. He actively participated in the removal of property from Jewish families... In his own words...

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

In other words, he was taken around by a collaborator. Did your Mom or Dad ever take you to work when you were a young teenager? If they worked for the central bank that inflated the money supply, does that make you complicit in the later crash? Of course not.

You mention later antisemitic acts. Criticize him for those. Or all terrible economic policies.

That's a wonderful false equivalence you've created there. Note it says PARTICIPATED in the removal of property, not that he was involuntarily drug around to watch the removal. You are implying his role was completely passive, but that is not what I took from his own statements on the issue. He never states he was afraid or coerced, only that he had no qualms about doing it. Also my intention was not to provide a detailed list of Soros crimes or misdeeds. That was only to provide context for my statement, not to get your permission to criticize his actions.

[Pat]

No, he was taken around by a collaborator. Who seems to have saved lives, so it's not a clear cut case. But most importantly, Soros was 13 or 14. A child, without full agency. A child can't be held responsible for the actions of their parents and the other adults who helped raise them.

There are tons of reasons to criticize Soros, based on what he came to believe as an adult, and what he's done as an adult. Why not stick to the real ones?

Nonsense. He actively participated in the removal of property from Jewish families... In his own words...

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

In other words, he was taken around by a collaborator. Did your Mom or Dad ever take you to work when you were a young teenager? If they worked for the central bank that inflated the money supply, does that make you complicit in the later crash? Of course not.

You mention later antisemitic acts. Criticize him for those. Or all terrible economic policies.

That's a wonderful false equivalence you've created there. Note it says PARTICIPATED in the removal of property, not that he was involuntarily drug around to watch the removal. You are implying his role was completely passive, but that is not what I took from his own statements on the issue. He never states he was afraid or coerced, only that he had no qualms about doing it. Also my intention was not to provide a detailed list of Soros crimes or misdeeds. That was only to provide context for my statement, not to get your permission to criticize his actions.

It's a true equivalence. Take your kid to work day usually involves some level of participation. But if you think it's real or significant participation, then you're either delusional, or you're the one creating the false equivalence.

I'm going with #2.

Criticize him for the reams of real shit he's done. Don't pretend he's the Red Skull.