Mycolorado said:

Just because someone believes something is evidence doesn't make it evidence. Allegations are not evidence.

---

bodhisatta said:

bodhisatta said:

Am I missing something falcon?
What did you find compelling in those links/articles and why?

---

Falcon could you at least answer my last question if not my last two

---

Enlil said:

psi said:

If good evidence was provided then the lawsuits should have gone somewhere, unless the court system is not functioning as it is supposed to.

---

It doesn't even need to be good or strong evidence.  If there is any evidence to support a claim of election fraud, a court will not dismiss the case.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Mycolorado said:

Just because someone believes something is evidence doesn't make it evidence. Allegations are not evidence.

---

Agreed.

Giuliani, Powell, and others claim to have evidence of fraud.  Do they?  I won't pretend to know.  The establishment media's fooled most of you before; I'd rather wait and see what they've got.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Giuliani, Powell, and others claim to have evidence of fraud.  Do they?  I won't pretend to know.  The establishment media's fooled most of you before; I'd rather wait and see what they've got.

---

You said the same of seagu regarding "evidence" submitted to this forum, and then we found out that you never even bothered to read the touted "evidence".

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Have you bothered to read any of "evidence of fraud" claimed by Giuliani et al? This decision is from last Friday:

Quote:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 20-3371
_______________
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.;
LAWRENCE ROBERTS; DAVID JOHN HENRY,
Appellants

[...]

Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.

The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18. Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.

[...]

Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal.

---

Source: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

bodhisatta said:

bodhisatta said:

Am I missing something falcon?
What did you find compelling in those links/articles and why?

---

Falcon could you at least answer my last question if not my last two

---

I addressed your first question here and your second here (which came before the previous one).

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

feevers said:

It seems you haven’t noticed that my posts were mockingly attempting to dumb things down to the level you’d apparently like to debate on...

---

Oh look!  More insults! 

feevers said:

But yet you spent more time dissecting my post than actually investigating this fraud you seem to be so concerned by, because when accusations go against the trump side your criteria apparently changes.

---

That's probably true, I haven't spend much time investigating this.  I was hoping the people here who had something to say would do a better job.

---

feevers said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

feevers said:

It seems you haven’t noticed that my posts were mockingly attempting to dumb things down to the level you’d apparently like to debate on...

---

Oh look!  More insults! 

feevers said:

But yet you spent more time dissecting my post than actually investigating this fraud you seem to be so concerned by, because when accusations go against the trump side your criteria apparently changes.

---

That's probably true, I haven't spend much time investigating this.  I was hoping the people here who had something to say would do a better job.

---

Just want to clear this up that it wasn't an insult against you, just the tactic you've been using in this thread where you seem to be expecting people to explain why 2+2=4 every time they say that 4+4=8, even though the majority of this stuff has been debunked already in this same sub or with 30 seconds on google. I've yet to see a single acknowledgement by these conspiracy theorists when their claims are disproven, they just double down and reiterate different forms of the same fantasy. Along with the accusations that those of us who want to see actual evidence are against a fair election of course.

Has anyone posted even one shred of evidence that the 2020 results were influenced by fraud? If they have then they should probably forward it to trump's justice department, who has not fount any.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

That's Giuliani's case?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Giuliani, Powell, and others claim to have evidence of fraud.  Do they?  I won't pretend to know.  The establishment media's fooled most of you before; I'd rather wait and see what they've got.

---

You said the same of seagu regarding "evidence" submitted to this forum, and then we found out that you never even bothered to read the touted "evidence".

---

I was hoping to learn something by reading people's back and forth debate.  I specifically said this regarding seagu when I brought up his posts

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

That's Giuliani's case?

---

That's one of them.  Dismissed before any evidentiary hearing because he couldn't allege a claim for relief.  Dismissal upheld on appeal.

---

Enlil said:

There will always be something to argue about.  I remember in 2012, when Phred (RIP) was screaming about how the nation will implode if Obama is re-elected.  The world kept spinning, and we kept arguing. 

We argue in this forum for the same reason that people fuck each other up in a mosh pit.  That's the whole purpose of the place.

---

Enlil said:

There will always be something to argue about.  I remember in 2012, when Phred (RIP) was screaming about how the nation will implode if Obama is re-elected.  The world kept spinning, and we kept arguing. 

We argue in this forum for the same reason that people fuck each other up in a mosh pit.  That's the whole purpose of the place.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I was hoping to learn something by reading people's back and forth debate.

---

So your preferred method of information gathering on the subject is via third party discussion on the shroomery, rather than directly reading the primary material yourself?

---