Something you won't find in your mainstream media

[guncrasher]

Two things:

1.  You don't need -- and often don't have -- proof of allegations to go to trial.  A vital part of trials is discovery, where you get data and depositions by court order.  You can't get that beforehand.

2.  A court rejection of a case says nothing about whether the allegations are true or false.  Because there was no discovery.  And no trial.

For your question, I'm not going to spend 100 hours to find every case and dig it out of a court system.  But for ones mentioned in the news, the two most-common reasons seem to be lack of standing and insufficient evidence.

---- Lack of Standing ----

Lack of standing means, even if you have lots of evidence and were wronged, the court says it doesn't have jurisdiction.  Often that is appropriate.  But there can be situations where you did get screwed over, and a circle of courts passes the buck.

Like the automated-help loop:  "Press 1 to get help with your platypus.  Press 2 for help with your phone account."  You press 2.  "Press 1 if you need help with food for your platypus.  Press 2 for other items."  You press 2.  "Press 1 if you need help with toys for your platypus.  Press 2 to go back to the main menu."

---- Insufficient Evidence ----

Here, a judge deems your evidence too weak to start the process of trial, discovery, etc.  This is a way to reduce frivolous law suits.  Often, judges err on the side of allowing suits.  Like the McDonald's hot-coffee case, Lindsay Lohan's case against E*Trade over a talking baby in an ad, and so on.

In the Trump cases, the courts went for a high bar.  OK, but then you can get a Catch 22 situation.  You can't get stronger evidence without discovery.  You can't get discovery without stronger data.

Both lack of standing and insufficient evidence are often noncontroversial.  But they are also tools you can use to stonewall someone.  Things like sloppy paperwork or time limits are much less subject to personal opinion and don't much lead to controversy.

wouldn't part of discovery be the election count  recounts, extra recounts, spot check recounts, ninja turtles recounts. affirmation (forget the right word) by election officials from local precincts to secretary of state or whoever validate elections at state level?

take your pick, you need proof that thousands of people perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands were part of the conspiracy.

it's just that simple. what you call discovery is just an excuse for the lack of proof. you can request all that info or find it on the internet.


semp

[Brooke]

Court trials aren't perfect but they are a far better crucibles of fact than internet forums.

Very true.

All the "suspicious" stats?  Let me simplify that for you.  You wanted your guy to win.  He didn't win, therefore something must be fishy.

No.  There are lots of politicians I vote for who don't win, and I don't see majorly suspicious stuff.  And there are politicians I don't like, where I do see majorly suspicious stuff against them (Gore, Sanders, even Hillary shafted by DNC/Obama, in my opinion).

I'm not obligated to prove the negative case.

Not asking you to.

You're obligated to prove the affirmative case.

Trump folks did need that.

But I don't have any obligation.  I'm chatting on a message board.  It's for people who have fun discussing opinions.

We should assume the negative (there was no large scale systemic vote manipulation), until you have proven the affirmative assertion.

I think that would be bad.  If a country's citizens operated that way, without any skepticism, it would be too easy to corrupt.  There would be no corrective force of opposition to anything.  Because if it weren't yet a conviction, everyone would assume it is fine.  And if it were a conviction, it is already handled.

Also, trials have discovery for a reason.  Because without discovery, you usually don't yet have the strongest data.

Until you've done that, it's all just internet conspiracy retardedness.  Reptilians and Jewish space lasers.  Secret servers in Italy. 

I would say there is a range, not just either totally solid or reptilians.

You don't believe in Reptilians in league with the Trilateral Commission using orbital mind-control lasers to take over the Girl Scouts to make them create a portal to admit the Old Ones from their dark dimension? 

So your telling me

None of those specifics are what I believe.

[CptTrips]

But I don't have any obligation.

Sorry.  When I said "you" I was referring to the collective "you", not Brookes personally.  As in those who wish to claim the evidence is clear that the election was stolen.  But that was too much to type.

Like "You lie with a dog, you get fleas."  Which will prove the anthem for the Republican's experience with the Trump fad.   

[CptTrips]

I think that would be bad.  If a country's citizens operated that way, without any skepticism, it would be too easy to corrupt.  There would be no corrective force of opposition to anything. 

(using the generic "You"...)

You can be skeptical all you want.  I have no problem with skeptical people.  Go examine what ever data and stats you want.   If you have any valid suggestions for improving security in future elections, I open to discuss those as long as the intent isn't obvious voter suppression.

 What I have a problem with is when people claim this election was stolen and Biden is not the duly elected President.  If you make that claim, you better be proving it in a court of law and not just throw that watermelon around on the internet.

You know why I think Trump lost?  It probably wasn't Jewish space lasers or interdimensional reptilian child molesters, or Chinese and Venezuelan hackers.     I found Raffensperger's recent testimony illuminating. 

They did a post mortem and Republican votes cast and saw a large number that had skipped  Presidential section and only voted for their down ballot candidates.  They didn't necessarily vote for Biden, but they weren't giving their vote to that Orange Pig-God Trump.  There were enough Republican voters that he should have won, but he was so vile that many even true blue Republican's couldn't stomach throwing the switch for him.

There was probably a lot of that going on around the country.  At least just enough to send Bone-Spurs Donny packing.  Thank Cod.


 

[Brooke]

wouldn't part of discovery be . . .

Sort of.  But lot of that is the initial evidence you already have, and that stuff is statistical in nature.  Judges don't tend give large weight to arguments based on statistics.  Science very much does.

A clearer hypothetical example would be this.

You claim vote fraud and have a signed affidavit of a person who witnessed workers carrying in a bunch of fake ballots and running them through the machine.  That still might get rejected as insufficient evidence.  But let's say a judge let's it proceed.

Now you can do discovery. You ask for video of the area inside and out, you ask for video from neighboring businesses, you depose the person who allegedly did it, you might ask for phone records, bank statements, emails, you depose everyone else around who might have seen it, you ask for records from the machine that show what votes came in when, you ask for the actual paper, you get an expert to testify whether or not those ballots are fake (such as never being folded, or wrong paper, or marks printed on a printer instead of being hand marked with a pen), if you find suspicious phone call or e-mail or check, you depose folks associated with that, and so on.

If none of that shows anything, you are probably going to lose.  But if it shows a bunch of stuff, now you have solid evidence.

take your pick, you need proof that thousands of people perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands were part of the conspiracy.

No.  Your claim might be that a bunch of votes at location A are fraudulent.  You need to show compelling enough evidence of that.  Could be you show that one person did pump in a bunch of fake ballots through the machine.  You don't need to show every other aspect involved.

what you call discovery is just an excuse for the lack of proof. you can request all that info or find it on the internet.

No.  There is data you can't get on your own.  Discovery is your ability to get stuff that is otherwise confidential or unavailable without court order.  Depositions, phone records, confidential video, emails, bank statements, the actual paper ballots -- stuff like that.

[Brooke]

Sorry.  When I said "you" I was referring to the collective "you", not Brookes personally.

Ah, yes.  No worries.  I like discussing with you, Cap!

I really like discussing with Semp, too.  He and I are usually on opposite sides of things. 

You and semp are fun to discuss with because you guys can handle it.  You guys don't just get angry and start hurling insults around. 

[Brooke]

What I have a problem with is when people claim this election was stolen and Biden is not the duly elected President.  If you make that claim, you better be proving it in a court of law and not just throw that watermelon around on the internet.

I hear you.

But there are things where folks claimed wrongdoing in advance of court and were right.

COINTELPRO comes to mind as one example.  COINTELPRO operated from 1956 to 1971.  I don't know if the FBI was ever sued directly and lost, but there were court cases starting in maybe the 1980s' where the case was overturned based on the COINTELPRO documents.

That never would have come to light without folks feeling there was improper stuff going on, far before any court case.

[Eagler]

If it weren't for covid the 4am orange tweeter would still be in the white house no doubt about it

Many on both sides did not want that

Timing is everything

Eagler

[guncrasher]

You claim vote fraud and have a signed affidavit of a person who witnessed workers carrying in a bunch of fake ballots and running them through the machine.  That still might get rejected as insufficient evidence.  But let's say a judge let's it proceed.

Now you can do discovery. You ask for video of the area inside and out, you ask for video from neighboring businesses, you depose the person who allegedly did it, you might ask for phone records, bank statements, emails, you depose everyone else around who might have seen it, you ask for records from the machine that show what votes came in when, you ask for the actual paper, you get an expert to testify whether or not those ballots are fake (such as never being folded, or wrong paper, or marks printed on a printer instead of being hand marked with a pen), if you find suspicious phone call or e-mail or check, you depose folks associated with that, and so on.

If none of that shows anything, you are probably going to lose.  But if it shows a bunch of stuff, now you have solid evidence.

No.  Your claim might be that a bunch of votes at location A are fraudulent.  You need to show compelling enough evidence of that.  Could be you show that one person did pump in a bunch of fake ballots through the machine.  You don't need to show every other aspect involved

OK and how do you explain that the count matches the registered voters. the recount and spot check account also matches the registered voters, heck the ninja turtle audit found out biden was shortchanged.

but a pro trump person saw fake ballots that never showed up in audits.

but sure discovery which is used in different instances would have found out what? the italian satellite connection?

semp

[guncrasher]

If it weren't for covid the 4am orange tweeter would still be in the white house no doubt about it

Many on both sides did not want that

Timing is everything

Eagler

the whole world shut down to make him look bad.


semp

[FLS]

Semp can create a straw man for any issue.   

[Arlo]

You and semp are fun to discuss with because you guys can handle it.  You guys don't just get angry and start hurling insults around. 

Just out of curiosity, who would you say fits the description of an angry insult hurler (or even not so angry) on this forum (with any political or perceived bias)?

[RotBaron]

Now we have the identity of Trump's primary speech writer.

Of the 8 things listed off the top of my head you jab at the need to make a list to be concise and not redundant   

Trump OCD is really strong with a few Canadians here, fascinating 🧐

[guncrasher]

Just out of curiosity, who would you say fits the description of an angry insult hurler (or even not so angry) on this forum (with any political or perceived bias)?

didn't know we could throw insults.

brooke you look like zach. but smell worst.



semp

[Busher]

Trump OCD is really strong with a few Canadians here, fascinating 🧐

Not really. As a student of WW2 history, I could never get a clear understanding of how a person like Adolf Hitler was able to command such a following in a relatively advanced and educated nation.
Without drawing any conclusions, it so far seems that the key element to attaining a large following might be to create hatred and suspicion of others; and then to present oneself as the sole solution to rid a nation of these problem people. In Hitler's case.. the Jewish population. In Trump's case.. Journalists, the Jews, the supposed convoys of illegal aliens,  Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton etc.
The parallels are far too interesting to ignore.