 
     |
| The first 2020 'official' election prediction thread..... (Page 54/76) |
|
theBDub
|
DEC 16, 11:18 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
First thing that came up... it's from 2016 because current news on election fraud is being wildly filtered and unreported by nearly all media sites. This was when it was still OK to tell the truth:
https://www.detroitnews.com...-precincts/95363314/
https://fr.reuters.com/arti...allots-idUSKBN1422KP
Which is hilarious, because all the other news articles... from literally the same news sites, all talk about Trump's "absurd" claims and how wildly inappropriate his claims are, and that this never would happen, blah blah... it's ridiculous. I mean, we literally have the very same news organizations contradicting themselves on the very same locations saying it would never happen, yet they literally have articles on their website that say it did previously. But it was OK when it was a liberal that was claiming it (Jill Stein) and seeking recourse. Open your eyes...
My grandmother was in a nursing home in her last few years because she had dementia. The nursing home workers exploited every mentally incapacitated resident in the home and voted for Obama. My grandmother fled Socialism in Argentina during the Peronista regime, the last thing she would have done is vote for a modern day Democrat. To that point, she couldn't even speak English anymore, and her Spanish was broken and flawed when she could actually carry a coherent thought, let alone sign her name on an absentee ballot.
You guys are not morons... you know EXACTLY that what I'm saying is true. Democrats are impassioned to do the things that they do, and that includes voter fraud because they believe the end justifies the means. You guys pretend it's not happening, but it's obvious you guys know as well as I do that this happens. You're not scoring points on an imaginary game by pretending it doesn't.
|
|
In the first link, they talk of an audit. What came of the audit? They also go into detail at how it’s likely all human error, and not fraud. I’m still interested in what they found in the audit, but this is hardly any indication of fraud that could change any election.
The second link doesn’t really talk about it. It’s more about the recounts.
I also now understand your point about taking advantage of nursing homes. I don’t know how you’d prove that, or how widespread it is.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
DEC 16, 11:20 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
EVERY court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth.
It is up to the defendant to provide the rebuttal in the form of EVIDENCE that the claim(s) are not true.
Ergo, even for the purpose of debate, your question is properly stated.
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Simply restating an unsupported claim does not make it true, nor does such a restatement create a rebuttable presumption of it's truth.
Another tenet of American jurisprudence is that a court of jurisdiction may, upon proper motion by the defendant or sua sponte by the court, DISMISS an unsupported claim.
Where is your EVIDENCE to support your claim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 17, 12:11 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
|
|
Did you fail to finish your post or is that your way of acknowledging that I'm correct?
Or, Is it because you fail to understand the requirement to provide evidence of a claim either way?
Claims without evidence are called opinions.
You can have an opinion about a fact but first you have to have a fact.
Leftists have a lot of trouble discerning between opinions and facts, (which are derived from evidence)[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-17-2020).]
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
DEC 17, 07:36 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Did you fail to finish your post or is that your way of acknowledging that I'm correct?
Or, Is it because you fail to understand the requirement to provide evidence of a claim either way?
Claims without evidence are called opinions.
You can have an opinion about a fact but first you have to have a fact.
Leftists have a lot of trouble discerning between opinions and facts, (which are derived from evidence)
|
|
You both said that the first claims don’t require proof and are assumed true, and you said claims do require proof. I’m trying to figure out which it is.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
DEC 17, 02:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
I also now understand your point about taking advantage of nursing homes. I don’t know how you’d prove that, or how widespread it is. |
|
Depends on the state... most states keep record of who votes... and states like Florida have a paper record of who you actually voted for, though they won't share that information to the public because Constitutionally it's our right to an anonymous vote.
They could tell that all the people in the nursing home had voted, including my grandmother. My grandmother by that point was bed-ridden... could no longer speak English, and even her Spanish was extremely broken to the point that she could only say basic things... when she was coherent, which most times she was not. Half the time she thought I was her son who had just came back from Vietnam, the other time she thought I was someone who was there to steal from her.
The police refused to do anything, and the local FBI had been contacted but refused to do anything either. They basically said there was nothing they could do... in effect, it wasn't worth the hassle to them. All the nursing aides there were Haitian... and Haitians in Florida are very Democrat/leaning... so it goes hand in hand. I think they questioned them, but they all denied it... but a private investigator that someone had hired had proven that they'd all voted (almost 30 people), and the police had that information as well.
|
|
|
2.5
|
DEC 17, 05:23 PM
|
|
Crooked election or not, its what this administration wants to do (and undo) that is the problem now.
Also though, making elections less prone to crooked folks in the future is still a priority. Regardless of those who believe it somehow isnt possible, or didn't happen.[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-17-2020).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 17, 06:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
You both said that the first claims don’t require proof and are assumed true, and you said claims do require proof. I’m trying to figure out which it is. |
|
I never said that initial claims don't require proof, (evidence).
What I specifically said was: "Every court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth."
Additionally, it isn't an "either / or" proposition with regard to proof / evidence.
Did you somehow wrongly assume that nobody has to provide evidence to support their claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that you can simply make unsupported claims in a court of law such as : "Bob owes me $5,000" without having to provide any proof / evidence of that claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that once Joe provides his proof of his claim in the form of an IOU for $5,000 signed by Bob that then Bob can simply claim "That's not my signature." and then not have to prove his rebuttal claim?
If Bob cannot back up his rebuttal claim with proof then Joe's claim is presumed to be truthful (even if the IOU is actually a fraud with a forged signature).
Whether it's in a court of law or a simple debate, unless you can support your claim(s) with evidence and / or verifiable facts, it's nothing more than a baseless allegation or an opinion.
Perhaps you should spend far less time attempting to find inconsistencies in what I said and far more time trying to understand what I said.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-18-2020).]
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
DEC 18, 10:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
DEC 18, 03:55 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
I never said that initial claims don't require proof, (evidence).
What I specifically said was: "Every court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth."
Additionally, it isn't an "either / or" proposition with regard to proof / evidence.
Did you somehow wrongly assume that nobody has to provide evidence to support their claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that you can simply make unsupported claims in a court of law such as : "Bob owes me $5,000" without having to provide any proof / evidence of that claim?
Do you somehow wrongly believe that once Joe provides his proof of his claim in the form of an IOU for $5,000 signed by Bob that then Bob can simply claim "That's not my signature." and then not have to prove his rebuttal claim?
If Bob cannot back up his rebuttal claim with proof then Joe's claim is presumed to be truthful (even if the IOU is actually a fraud with a forged signature).
Whether it's in a court of law or a simple debate, unless you can support your claim(s) with evidence and / or verifiable facts, it's nothing more than a baseless allegation or an opinion.
Perhaps you should spend far less time attempting to find inconsistencies in what I said and far more time trying to understand what I said.
|
|
In your examples, one person is providing "proof" (signatures), and the other has to provide "proof" that the signatures aren't real. That's analogous to Todd having first provided links. That didn't happen. Let's go back through history here:
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Democrats have always cheated in elections...
Example:
- More people voting in a district than there are actual registered voters.
- People voting in two states
- Dead people voting
- Illegals voting (no ID check)
- Exploited nursing home residents
- Stolen votes (people voting in others names)
These are things that have always been baked in for the Democrats. It is an almost uniquely Democrat-issue 9 times out of 10. We can ask "why" but it has more to do with the mindset of a Democrat (the end justifies the means). All prior presidents have just accepted this and never bothered to fight it. It comes out after the fact, maybe a couple of people get arrested here and there when it's exceptionally egregious, but generally, this persists election after election.
With an election this close, why should we be expected to simply accept this and not fight it? |
|
| quote | Originally posted by RandomTask:
Can you provide the link for a single county in which #1 happened? (Before we address any of your other false claims) |
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
I take it that you have proof that his claims are false. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
EVERY court in the United States holds to the same concept of jurisprudence in all civil suits, that the claims of the plaintiff carry a rebuttable presumption of truth.
It is up to the defendant to provide the rebuttal in the form of EVIDENCE that the claim(s) are not true.
Ergo, even for the purpose of debate, your question is properly stated.
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein held elephant-themed orgies on the far side of the moon! |
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Simply restating an unsupported claim does not make it true, nor does such a restatement create a rebuttable presumption of it's truth.
Another tenet of American jurisprudence is that a court of jurisdiction may, upon proper motion by the defendant or sua sponte by the court, DISMISS an unsupported claim.
Where is your EVIDENCE to support your claim?
|
|
To paraphrase:
82-T/A [At Work]: Claims(1) with no proof
RandomTask: Claims(2) that claims(1) are not true, and asks for proof, with no proof
olejoedad: Asks if claims(2) can be proven (let alone that you can't definitively prove a negative unless another positive absolves that negative)
randye: Says claims(1) are presumed to be true, and it's up to claims(2) to prove otherwise (false--claims(1) were never supported)
Patrick: Claims(3) with no proof
randye: Says claims(3) require proof.
I already went through Todd's claims. Some were true, some were not, and some are hairy, but we can give the benefit of the doubt (I don't have any reason to suspect falsehood with regards to the nursing home--sounds terrible). But that doesn't matter. What matters, is you both stated that claims(1) without proof were presumed true, and you said claims(3) required proof. Claims(1) and claims(3) were supported exactly the same (until other threads either support or unsupported those claims). Your statements are inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
DEC 18, 03:58 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Depends on the state... most states keep record of who votes... and states like Florida have a paper record of who you actually voted for, though they won't share that information to the public because Constitutionally it's our right to an anonymous vote.
They could tell that all the people in the nursing home had voted, including my grandmother. My grandmother by that point was bed-ridden... could no longer speak English, and even her Spanish was extremely broken to the point that she could only say basic things... when she was coherent, which most times she was not. Half the time she thought I was her son who had just came back from Vietnam, the other time she thought I was someone who was there to steal from her.
The police refused to do anything, and the local FBI had been contacted but refused to do anything either. They basically said there was nothing they could do... in effect, it wasn't worth the hassle to them. All the nursing aides there were Haitian... and Haitians in Florida are very Democrat/leaning... so it goes hand in hand. I think they questioned them, but they all denied it... but a private investigator that someone had hired had proven that they'd all voted (almost 30 people), and the police had that information as well.
|
|
Yeah, and to be clear, I trust this happened. It sounds like a terrible situation, and I'm sorry your grandmother went through that. Both from a health perspective and the voting thing. My comment is more that I can see how something like that would be hard to back up and prove even after the fact, in the case of trying to find voter fraud in an election.
|
|
|
|
