Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I don't follow politics all that much unless really big events are happening. I may have some left-over nostalgia from 9/11. I watched a documentary on 9/11 a few days ago and Rudy played a significant role. I think of him in a way that may not lineup to what he currently is, but I have no idea if that's accurate or not.
Come on, man. Rudy has fallen on his face a hundred times in the past 4 years and it hasn't harmed his reputation (among Trump supporters) in the slightest.
Id think most people being actual critical would not believe Rudy given his history especially recently. Because he has not given people reason to believe him. its not just "liberals".
I think if we wanted to be accurate in a geek lawyer way, we might say there is no "credible evidence" or "admissible evidence." It is true that a vague, rambling, sworn declaration based on hearsay that states opinion and supposition rather than fact is "evidence" but it has no value in a court - is not credible and not admissible to prove a claim in a legal proceeding. The affidavits we've seen so far are in this inadmissible category.
Great. So I was wrong, the media has looked at the evidence. It appears they summarily dismissed it. Not my idea of journalism, but not surprising from the media. If the Trump team doesn't use them in a court of law, then these affidavits are meaningless and we are wasting our time discussing them.
Yeah, this dude went off the rails a long time ago and is no better than your average faux-intellectual incel magnet. Who would've thought the DIlbert guy would have a prominent second act - he's like a more useless version of Rudy.Dilbert writer Scott Adams: "Rudy is pushing the slaughtermeter up to 98%. He's making a strong case that the fraud is big enough to change the result and the evidence is clear."
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but many of the so-called "affidavits" cited by Trump and his associates ARE INDEED computerized letters from people on the internet. That's why it's so ridiculous to toss around the word "affidavit" like it carries some kind of legal weight.
This is the type of statement that should be easy to prove or disprove. Seems HIGHLY IMPROBABLE and seems like something that can be quickly disproved.
Yeah. I'm not sure how Rudy topped Four Seasons Landscaping for being a perfect image of the ineptness of their legal challenges, but he did it again.
Why??? Is it the media's job to disprove things. Are they supposed to answer the 100's of claims of voter fraud and disprove them one by one.
Dominion has a business and they are being absolutely trashed by the right. I'd imagine they'd want to clear their name if they want to stay in business?
If the affidavits they are claiming to have are web-submitted, then certainly they have very little validity. I had no idea this was the case.
It doesn't matter. The people that believe these claims wouldn't believe any proof Dominion, or anyone else, could provide.
Has the right actually said anything that is Libel? They have said that the machines could be reprogrammed. Any piece of software can be reprogrammed.
The other day I saw a man on TV who claimed to be the president-elect. I believe his name was Biden, probably related to Hunter somehow. How can he claim to be president-elect if TRUMP is president? WHY WONT SOMEONE INVESTIGATE?
I don't know. I think he's a pretty willing participant. He is the comic relief in this tragedy!
He has until Dec 14th I thought? He's not even trying to win in court. Public opinion is where he's trying to win.He's out of time....
Then throwing in the statement "this is the 1775 of our generation" makes me think they aren't interested in the courts.
You're a smart person. You have to realize by now there's nothing to any of this, right? They are literally just making stuff up, one after another. No precinct in Wisconsin had 300% voter turnout as Rudy claimed today. He knows it didn't happen. No one trucked hundreds of thousands of Biden-only ballots (i.e. no down ballot votes) in garbage bags into Detroit in the middle of the night. He knows it didn't happen.
I'm not sure if that's better or worse than yesterday's argument that the audit processes worked to prevent a miscount, thus proving that the audit processes don't work.
I don't consider myself the jury. I find all of their claims interesting in the scope of their claims. I feel like if someone is making claims THIS BOLD, they shouldn't be laughed off, but should be investigated thoroughly. Why? Because Trump is the president, and that's a respectable office. If his claims turn out to be totally crap, and if it turns out they are literally just making stuff up, that pretty much seals it. But my personal opinion of whether there is anything to this is kind of irrelevant.
Realistically (and I'm using that term loosely), Trump has until December 8th, which is the deadline for states to select their Electors. If any state fails to select their Electors by that date (or if the Governor and the Legislature submit competing groups of Electors), then it would be up to Congress to resolve the dispute.He has until Dec 14th I thought? He's not even trying to win in court. Public opinion is where he's trying to win.He's out of time....
But how long do you let this go on? It can't be indefinite, otherwise we'll never have a legitimate President, it will be contested forever. At some point we no longer have the ability or responsibility to try to litigate every allegation that is created. What / when is that threshold?
Yeah, but it's SIDNEY POWELL. And SIDNEY POWELL wouldn't have put her reputation on the line if the accusations didn't have merit!
Unless Trump makes some insane power grab, when 270 electors vote for Biden, it's over.
They should be laughed off because:
