Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@BestBoy
1) Yes. They want him to go to the supreme court. It's very clearly the intention of the Trump-appointees to get him to the upper levels because the rulings will affect the entire nation. This is how politics works.
2)
2. The cases of ballots under the table were not processed by the ballot inspectors earlier, so whether or not the inspectors were present earlier does not make a difference when these
3. That does not invalidate that they were put through the machines multiple times, which is evident from the video itself. You are objectively and demonstrably wrong, and trying to project that criticism onto me does not make you correct.
3) Also, judges are not the arbiters of truth, and are not always right. Just because one judge ruled this way, especially because said judge's reasoning does not enforce the spirit of the law, nor the understood meaning, as the purpose of having inspectors of both political parties to meaningfully observe the ballots is to serve an equal protection as it is both parties' vested interest to see and account for each vote. Merely having them being in the same room doesn't ensure that the votes are being counted in a fair way. Additionally, considering this is a case alleging local corruption, it is not surprising a judge for Wayne county would rule against them. Additionally, the findings do not mention Melissa in the slightest, and only gives the judge's reasoning, but he is not the authority on if the claims are true. Did you even read what you have just linked?
4)
Additionally, a contingent election is not disenfranchising anyone because it's entirely constitutional and using our elected representatives to weed out any possibly of fraud. You may not be taking the idea of fraud seriously, but if there is fraud, that disenfranchises everyone's votes. See the Supreme Court ruling in United States vs. Throckmorton.
Final statement on this topic, stop pinging Zephyrus to get the conversation shut down. It just makes you look bad and makes it look like you're trying to get the entire argument shut down entirely on the grounds that you disagree with it or that you believe the argument is settled when it very clearly is not, and only goes to weaken your position.
@Kenx
I wouldn't qualify as being informed necessarily, especially because of the bias within the media and the slant they take. Being a misinformed voter does not necessarily mean they are not a low information
@Schlo
Honestly I was in the middle of my reply before I saw him post that and I just kinda thought that one last reply would be good. I will not respond anymore unless he posts something pertaining to it or vague posts about it
1) Yes. They want him to go to the supreme court. It's very clearly the intention of the Trump-appointees to get him to the upper levels because the rulings will affect the entire nation. This is how politics works.
2)
1. The video shows the observers were roped off and unable to fulfill their duties as ballot inspects in a meaningful way.
2. The cases of ballots under the table were not processed by the ballot inspectors earlier, so whether or not the inspectors were present earlier does not make a difference when these
3. That does not invalidate that they were put through the machines multiple times, which is evident from the video itself. You are objectively and demonstrably wrong, and trying to project that criticism onto me does not make you correct.
You don't know what an affidavit is. If she signed it and she was found to be lying in her testimony knowingly, she would go to jail for 10-15 years in federal court.
3) Also, judges are not the arbiters of truth, and are not always right. Just because one judge ruled this way, especially because said judge's reasoning does not enforce the spirit of the law, nor the understood meaning, as the purpose of having inspectors of both political parties to meaningfully observe the ballots is to serve an equal protection as it is both parties' vested interest to see and account for each vote. Merely having them being in the same room doesn't ensure that the votes are being counted in a fair way. Additionally, considering this is a case alleging local corruption, it is not surprising a judge for Wayne county would rule against them. Additionally, the findings do not mention Melissa in the slightest, and only gives the judge's reasoning, but he is not the authority on if the claims are true. Did you even read what you have just linked?
4)
This was not my argument, nor does this even address my argument.
Additionally, a contingent election is not disenfranchising anyone because it's entirely constitutional and using our elected representatives to weed out any possibly of fraud. You may not be taking the idea of fraud seriously, but if there is fraud, that disenfranchises everyone's votes. See the Supreme Court ruling in United States vs. Throckmorton.
It was at this line where it dawned on me that you have no interest in hearing the arguments from the other side. No only are you wrong in that no one is under oath because what is happening is the witnesses in questions are repeating what they have already sworn to within their affidavits, so it is by the transitive property, but the purposes is to show their evidence to state legislatures. This is the issue if you only look at the rulings because you have missed all the statistical evidence presented by not only by expert testimony, such as that the only way Biden could have won in Maricopa County Arizona is if there was 130% Democratic turnout and if the votes were weight so 10 votes for Trump would only be counted as 7 votes for Trump and 3 votes for Biden, as per the Voter Integrity Fund, which has begun to reach out to the FBI. (Plus there's not really Republicans cannibalizing themselves and they're not being widely reported on. Again, I'm starting to suspect you've only got your information from secondary and tertiary sources and haven't watched them yourself.) If you can just brazenly dismiss them as "not worth your time," without even addressing how a single point is wrong, nor being aware that you don't swear testimony for a public hearing like you do in a court room, (which again is irrelevant because they ARE sworn. That's what an affidavit is.) then I may be starting to think this entire argument is not being had in good faith.
A forensic investigation would be able to do several things such as determining if signatures were legitimate, which has not been done in Georgia yet, would be able to determine if there was any tampering on the machines, or if the machines themselves would be suspect. It would also be able to tell if any ballots were mass printed, as the more recent affidavits from the recounts indicates. Again, seems like you really didn't watch the hearings because this is what Col. Phil Waldron said SHOULD be done. A hand recount wouldn't detect theses issues, and it also ignores that during the hand recount, more votes for Trump were found than in any other recount in US history. Where there's smoke, there's fire as they say.
Yes, he was leading in the major city but not in the state, but the spike in votes-the vast majority of which were for Biden to the point of near statistical impossibility-did flip the state. It wasn't about the county turning, but about the state turning as well, which seems to be what happened.
I would agree, but I feel I have a duty to defend my arguments and let the general public know about this information. If you want to resign from the argument, that's fine, but I feel still that there's a discussion to be had and just dismissing the point outright or trying to shut down the conversation is irresponsible and inserts your own biases too much into the point.
Final statement on this topic, stop pinging Zephyrus to get the conversation shut down. It just makes you look bad and makes it look like you're trying to get the entire argument shut down entirely on the grounds that you disagree with it or that you believe the argument is settled when it very clearly is not, and only goes to weaken your position.
@Kenx
I wouldn't qualify as being informed necessarily, especially because of the bias within the media and the slant they take. Being a misinformed voter does not necessarily mean they are not a low information
@Schlo
Honestly I was in the middle of my reply before I saw him post that and I just kinda thought that one last reply would be good. I will not respond anymore unless he posts something pertaining to it or vague posts about it
