Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Callumity, Nov 13, 2020.
Hmm, too much juice James?
Surely these problems should have been spotted when the new rules were put in place. Before the election.
Well yes exactly, and they are only 'problems' now because Trump lost and the Republican party is trying every trick including this forlorn hope to appease their base, keep in Trumps' good books, and maintain their long-standing minority anti-democratic rule.
Are you even aware of the long running court battles in Georgia over the procurement of Dominion voting machines? Officials allegedly exceeded their authority in buying (& using) machines not compliant with State electoral law or mandated security standards.
But it’s all about Trump?
Well he certainly thinks it is.
Care to enlighten us by providing specific details.
You will no doubt take issue with the source but it is more report than comment. (Not to many ‘baseless’ or ‘frivolous’ etc.)
Funnily enough the guy wailing about threats a few pages above, one Gabriel Sterling, bought the machines through his own company in a fashion worthy of our own government chumocracy. Must have made him a few bucks.
It is worth noting the conflicts arising from separation of powers at State level. The Executive that ran the election, the (Republican controlled) Legislature that contested the machinery and possibly now the result and the Judiciary who can ‘stand up’ while also recognising it will inevitably be above their pay grade.....so their rulings are a bit immaterial once appealed.
The US Constitution gives legislators the deciding vote in conflicts with Executives when the Judges pass the baton to them. The Supreme Court would not disenfranchise millions but it might strike out certain classes of vote as ‘suspect’.
There's nothing wrong with the system - it's used in 28 states. If there was an issue regarding procurement processes in Georgia I'll stick my neck out and say that there's no way whatsoever that the electorate will be effectively disenfranchised as a consequence. It's nothing more than sensationalist nonsense.
Epoch Time is not a reliable media at all. Sure some can find in what they want to ear..
This thread is a bit like watching a certain sport.
And the only thing I expect is a 5 setter on Centre Court. We are well past the first round knockout of some contributors.
But it isn’t all wrong either. Nor does it suppress inconvenient stories like CNN. We have the Project Veritas tapes, remember.
It's anfar right oriented bunch of unreliable news. They even redirect in the article to their own link. So yes maybe sometime they have something right.. What's the point relying on such media? It's like building you home on sand.
No more so than just the leftie media. You need to interpolate to use a word you will recognise.
It s not à question of left or right It s just that one is not crédible. I read média from all sides, but credible ones Not the case of the ones you rely on to build something that match your views.
And naturally you alone decide what is ‘credible’ first. I do it the other way round. I read then decide on what level of credibility to attach. In intelligence analysis the source is only one dimension by which credibility and reliability are judged.
Yep, there has to be "water" or credible evidence to begin with. The burden of proof (the "water") is on the person or group who brings a claim in a dispute. From the articles and news reports I've been reading and listening to over the past couple of weeks (EVERY DARNED DAY ), it appears that in even fulfilling the minimal "burden of production" requirement is not happening in the election disputes cases being filed much less the "burden or persuasion".
I found it particularly interesting and informative to read the last paragraph in this Wikipedia article on Burden of Proof (Law) about the differences in the laws related to burden of proof between English and U.S. Perhaps that difference is related to some of the "disputes" I'm seeing on this thread??
Check out this article.
No, facts, verified information, consensus, as Sandy posted "Burden of proof".
You read you decide, you know it's misinformation but it feeds your belief.
Then you share misinformation bit along with well turned sentences and bits of real knowledge, and position yourself over the crowd.
It's a bit a summary, but basically that's what we can see since weeks.
At a time I went in conversation with flat earthers (including a virtual chat with Mad Mike Hugues) a for sociological purpose.
They may have the same speech and elements of language as yours.. frightening.
I don't say that to judge, you are free to tell what you want.
I admire your consistency, despite all failed premonition, prediction, you goes on slightly adapting your angle to the situation. That's where I think we pass the frontier between "opinion" and "belief".
Wikipedia is horribly blurry on this.
There is NO fundamental difference between our legal systems on the burden of proof although they have diverged on procedures.
Civil law (contracts, damages etc.,) is ‘balance of probabilities ‘ I.e. more likely than not.
Criminal law (assaults, fraud) is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
The confusion arises in ‘electoral fraud’ being pursued by one party against another as a civil action as opposed to a police/FBI investigation and prosecuted as a criminal matter. Plenty of the former and, as yet, none of the latter. It gets further confusing when interested parties bring an action but actually lack any legal standing to do so (locus standi). Those cases quickly get thrown out.