- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sidney Powell: It's Still Happening!
Posted on 2/25/21 at 11:01 am to moneyg
Posted on 2/25/21 at 11:01 am to moneyg
quote:says the person who has changed his position and is uninformed, now getting informed
I'm starting to think you simply have a reading comprehension issue.
quote:i never said that. i said that the report shows that dominion machines were online and that they were connected to an address in a different country. that is illegal. vote switching is a different story that has been covered in regards to the italians. that's another part of the overall case. the shootout - who knows. probably being covered up but is not something voters can do anything about like area 51 or jfk or whatever. we can and should be able to do something about what has been alleged
That the machines had a physical connection to the internet does not prove that people overseas modified the voting results.
quote:you have to be pretty naive to think those illegal connections were there for beneficial reasons
But the existence of a connection doesn't prove it was used.
quote:i've been saying the same thing all along knucklehead. my story hasn't changed one bit
Finally, this is a specific accusation.
quote:who freaking cares. it's irrelevant. the case has evidence that tells us what we need to know and what we should be worried about - voting irregularities. you're getting all wrapped up in tom clancy crap and then acting like that makes powell untrustworthy, which is stupid as i have pointed out. who knows if she's right or wrong. it doesn't matter. what she tried to present in court is damning and people should go to jail.
I don't believe this accusation was included in the lawsuits.
quote:regarding what?
But, I'm still waiting for your response.
quote:you've been wrong about several things. you'll have to be more specific. holy cow you have turned something simple into freaking differential calculus
If I'm wrong, and you can point to the section, I'll gladly read it and acknowledge it.
quote:what i have said is a matter of fact. i'm sorry your emotions are having a hard time with that.
I'm probably giving you way too much credit in acknowledging that you might be right and that you might have info I haven't seen.
quote:so you're uninformed but you're telling me i'm not being specific when i'm the one who has been linking information itt that you didn't know about. i swear you are as bad as hank and 90proof
It's pretty telling you won't be specific to what you are referring.
quote:false
It does not address or point out specific active connections made to those endpoints during the election
quote:the report was not intended for that. that's a different part of the case and has been covered re the italians. but you knew that didn't you
nor allege that votes were modified.
quote:you are incorrigible. there's healthy skepticism and then there's this game you're playing where you refuse to connect obvious dots. again, the vote changing is a different part of the overall case. the report was not intended to get into that. the report just sets up that it could have happened based on the ILLEGAL connections that were being made during the election. the italian part of the story has been covered on this board for weeks now.
that particular report doesn't say anything about votes being changed
1
Posted on 2/25/21 at 12:51 pm to Coleridge
quote:
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 Campaign tries to repackage these state-law claims as unconstitutional discrimination. Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory.
. . .
Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit.
There's probably more to the judge's statement than I'm willing to take time to read, but on the surface it bears mentioning that elections are a zero-sum game. It's not enough that Powell, et al, show there was fraud, it's also those who certify votes show there wasn't.
If one legal vote is removed from the voter stream, the election becomes diluted.
If one illegal vote is introduced into the voter stream the election becomes corrupted.
The burden of proof is also on the certifiers to verify that every legal vote was fully counted and no illegal votes were counted.
If judges aren't demanding this then they have failed.
Posted on 2/25/21 at 1:37 pm to bfniii
quote:
That the machines had a physical connection to the internet does not prove that people overseas modified the voting results.
i never said that
yes, you did
quote:
I think we know the systems were connected to the internet.
There has been no evidence presented that I'm aware of that shows that specific connections were made to these systems and that data was manipulated.
The former doesn't prove that the latter occurred. You seem to be making a huge leap.
YOU: ABSOLUTELY IT DOES WITHOUT QUESTION.
Posted on 2/25/21 at 1:50 pm to Coleridge
quote:so you're citing one case (a small one at that) that was in a string of cases regarding pa, one of which was ruled in trump's favor.
Third Circuit (Scolding - Judge Bibas, Trump appointee)
did you read this decision? let me offer a few points of interest
"Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory"
says who? that's a subjective and debatable statement
"It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes"
irrelevant. poll watchers are not supposed to be denied access and they were. there is video proof. and the issue isn't discrimination compared to another campaign. the issue is discrimination compared to the law and the vote observation. discrimination as in they weren't allowed to perform their duties because someone didn't want them present. it has nothing to do with the biden campaign
"And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe"
so this judge wants to bounce back and forth between federal election law and state election law. in section I. A. 1, the judge acknowledges that state law requires poll watchers
"Each of these defects is fatal, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not fix them. So the District Court properly denied leave to amend again."
and this is everything you need to know about the election cases in a nutshell. the judge acknowledges the serious problems with the election yet, stops the case because he didn't like the way rudy typed his words.
"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"
IS MORE NEEDED? holy cow. those 2 alone are not good and should be investigated
"The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory"
this is also irrelevant. the judge acknowledges that r's were engaged in multiple cases. all of them together most certainly could have made a difference. that blows the "merit" disqualification right out of the water
"Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented"
IF THEY WERE ILLEGAL, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT COUNT MORON
"disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too"
oh, so let's allow potentially illegal ballots because that might make people feel bad if they knew officials were abusing the votes
"That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised"
the alternative is to allow illegal votes thus enabling the certification of an illegitimate candidate. well that's WAY better
"Plaintiffs must do more than allege conclusions. Rather, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ”"
this is a problem. it is accepted as true that poll watchers were denied access. the plaintiffs asked for relief or an injunction regarding the certification which is completely reasonable. the judge denied the injunction because he didn't want to disenfranchise voters not even factoring into his decision the alternative which we now have. so what are they supposed to do? they told you the facts and the obvious conclusion but you're stopping the case because they can't read minds
"“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”"
what else are they supposed to do? they cited the facts. the conclusion is obvious, someone was intentionally preventing the poll watchers from observing the process of counting the votes. these adjectives are stupid and have nothing to do with how the evidence was presented.
"“Upon information and belief” is a lawyerly way of saying that the Campaign does not know that something is a fact but just suspects it or has heard it.“"
what other conclusion are they supposed to draw when election officials are intentionally preventing watchers from observing?!?! this is so stupid. they can't read minds but they can certainly see what's going on with their own eyes. but whatever we do, LET'S CERTAINLY NOT INVESTIGATE. yeah, we'll get an illegitimate administration but, hey, at least voters won't feel disenfranchised right? now i've got a tee time to make
also found this little nugget in there:
"The Campaign has no strong likelihood of success on the merits"
there's that "merit" again. not refuted evidence.
thanks for posting that so i could examine it in detail. yet another exhibit of how absurd these cases were. i am blown away at the hackneyed reasoning of this case. it seems pretty obvious that the judges, regardless of who appointed them, just didn't want these cases in their courts. there is no excuse for the reasoning in this decision.
Posted on 2/25/21 at 1:55 pm to moneyg
quote:no i did not. i was saying that it proves the servers were in a different country, which is a fact and is illegal. the only way to disprove that is if the connections presented in the report were completely fabricated and no one has done that.
yes, you did
i have said all along that the changing of votes is a different part of the case, involving the algorithm, italians, etc. and plenty of evidence has been presented on that part as well in the form of models reproducing the results. that's in addition to the videos showing it happening in real time and the admissions from italy.
you keep trying to conflate the two which is muddying the waters and bogging you down in semantics.
Posted on 2/25/21 at 2:08 pm to bfniii
quote:
no i did not. i was saying that it proves the servers were in a different country, which is a fact and is illegal
I fricking quoted it for you.
Posted on 2/25/21 at 4:11 pm to bfniii
quote:
so you're citing one case (a small one at that) that was in a string of cases regarding pa, one of which was ruled in trump's favor.
It was a Third Circuit ruling on appeal by the campaign (as opposed to the Wood and Powell authored fiascos), Rudy was at the helm in the lower court loss, and the Third Circuit opinion was authored by a Trump appointee.
It couldn't have been more on point, paramount, or have contained more devastating language. It symbolizes the post-election legal efforts.
This post was edited on 2/25/21 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 2/25/21 at 7:07 pm to moneyg
quote:you misunderstood what i was referring to as i explained to you. i don't know how to make it any easier. i explained it in plain english. my story has not changed one bit the whole time and what i have said is factual. you are going off the rails
I fricking quoted it for you
Posted on 2/25/21 at 7:08 pm to Coleridge
quote:it's amazing i went to the trouble to show in detail how the ruling was misguided and then you just throw out this unsubstantiated conclusion. how about you address what i said? want to give that a try champ?
It couldn't have been more on point, paramount, or have contained more devastating language
Posted on 2/25/21 at 7:25 pm to bfniii
quote:
you misunderstood what i was referring to as i explained to you. i don't know how to make it any easier. i explained it in plain english. my story has not changed one bit the whole time and what i have said is factual. you are going off the rails
No. I quoted it. It’s clear.
It was you who had the reading comprehension issue (as I said earlier).
And it’s happened about 20 times in this thread. You are constantly arguing that fraud exists when my statements aren’t about that but rather about Powell’s credibility. You are so emotional that you dont slow down enough to try and understand the point of the person you are arguing with.
Posted on 2/26/21 at 9:54 am to bfniii
quote:
it's amazing i went to the trouble to show in detail how the ruling was misguided and then you just throw out this unsubstantiated conclusion. how about you address what i said? want to give that a try champ?
Do I want to address your contentions as to how the Third Circuit appellate judge appointed by Trump was misguided? No, I think I will let the Court’s conclusions stand seeing as how I’m in concurrence with them.
This post was edited on 2/26/21 at 9:56 am
Posted on 3/4/21 at 12:36 am to bfniii
quote:
how do you know she can't if a judge would finally let a case go to trial? you don't. you're just being stupid like the other morons itt
Is she incapable of posting her case online?
IF you've got it, what the hell are you sitting on it for? Everything is now about the court of public opinion. Either shite or get off the pot. I was all in on her in the beginning. I still hope she's got what she says she does. But if we're going to accept that we're never going to see it because she couldn't get a judge to go to trial? She's lying her arse off.
Posted on 3/4/21 at 1:05 am to moneyg
quote:
how do you explain her pushing an obvious falsehood that servers were seized?
because it is so easy to do, because no matter that nothing ever comes of anything she ever says, and even though everything she ever says is proven false when it gets looked into by anyone of authority who can look into it, these people want to believe her and all the other fraudsters so badly, that they will continue to fall over and over again for all the same old lies, some with new packaging, but the same old stale rotten garbage. It has become impossible for them to see reality anymore. It has infected their brains. It permeates this forum. We live in crazy land. America is fricked. The planet is fricked. Reality no longer matters.
Page 12 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News