08 Dec 20
@techsouth saidYour argument is bogus then. The question isn't "is there evidence of fraud"; there is testimonial evidence of that though some has already been found to be non-credible by judges overseeing the Michigan lawsuits.
You're just rewording things and have found another way to conflate "evidence" and "proof".
My contribution to this thread is limited to a disagreement on whether there is evidence or not. I am not making an argument that the plaintiff is entitled to any presumption.
Edit: Let me ask this... What does the legal term "insufficient evidence" mean? If evidence is always defined by what it can prove, then it seems like this term would be an oxymoron.
The question is "is there evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to change the result of the election." And no evidence has been presented that meets such a standard. So when someone says that, they are accurate.
08 Dec 20
And considering the extraordinary, unprecedented relief Trump is requesting i.e. to be declared the winner in a State where the official certified count has him losing by more than 150,000 votes, surely the evidence presented, even if credible, would fall absurdly short of the required legal standards.
08 Dec 20
@kevcvs57 said"Are you saying that someone claiming electoral fraud ( which they may do for all sorts of motives ) should be accepted as evidence of electoral fraud with or without corroborating evidence?"
Why are you rambling again I explained this quite clearly.
A body with two bullet holes is either evidence of murder or very determined suicide.
Of course it doesn’t say anything about who committed the crime in and of itself. But if a person is found standing over the body holding a gun and if the ballistics of the gun match bullets in the body you might be very suspiciou ...[text shortened]... motives ) should be accepted as evidence of electoral fraud with or without corroborating evidence?
What do you mean "accepted as evidence"? Are you asking whether I think it should be accepted as proof? If that's what you mean, I rest my case.
@techsouth saidA piece of evidence by itself proves nothing. A smoking gun without a body is not evidence for, much less proof of, murder.
Let's stipulate that what you're saying is true. It sounds like you'll have a hard time reconciling your views with that of Democrats that you probably realized.
If physical objects are "evidence" but nothing can be evidence unless it is also proof, then you'll have impossible court cases.
Fingerprints of a suspect in the room that a murder took place. It is "eviden ...[text shortened]... about the 2020 election, everyone will suddenly be able to distinguish "evidence" and "proof" again.
Evidence and proof are not the same. I don't know which Democrats you are referring to who, so you claim, cannot distinguish evidence from proof.
There have been several suits filed alleging election fraud, not one of which has passed even the first hurdle of being heard; all of Trump's legal team's suits have been dismissed as "meritless". Why? because there has been no evidence produced. Trump's team have produced nothing but allegations, and some testimony has been gathered. But that's not evidence. Someone might claim he saw a murder -- there is a smoking gun, but no dead body lands in the morgue. How can this be? Maybe someone did see something that looked like a murder, but it was staged for a film and nobody died, only the 'witness' didn't know that. Similarly, maybe some people monitoring vote counting did see some things which looked to them like irregularities; but that by itself does not establish fraud, much less widespread fraud sufficient to overturn an election now running at about 7 million plus votes for Biden. Whether an apparent irregularity amounts to fraud in a single case is for a court to determine, not a witness. The court expects to see some corroborating evidence, not just someone's so-say. A court first has to have evidence before it can weigh the evidence and determine whether the evidence is conclusive "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the absence of evidence, we don't even get to the point of asking whether the evidence proves anything.
10 Dec 20
@no1marauder saidGeorgia had two recounts, making three counts in all. All three counts confirmed Biden as the winner (in GA). Trump may have given up on other states recounting.
Actually Trump gave up on the idea of recounts a long time ago. His legal pleadings don't ask for recounts, but for courts to declare him the winner of States because the election was tainted by "fraud". One such case got slapped down this morning in Federal Court in Michigan:
"But, to be perfectly clear, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is not supported by any alleg ...[text shortened]... m_campaign=snd&utm_content=wdiv&fbclid=IwAR18TP0ayn246w29N78HiRDtUMiAokZkqj3ckOMgqQYk-R4pFKkoJUSN73E
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55224511
13 Dec 20
@Earl-of-Trumps
Right. You NEVER lie. She has more brains in her ASS than you have in your entire body and don't take that as me saying D64 and I are buddies.
I just recognize REAL intelligence when I see it.
I also recognize your ability in chess but that alone doesn't make you intelligent.
If she played you OTB you would be crushed like a 5 year old.
It's just I recognize real intelligence, even if I also know she is an arrogant bitch.