Where are the affidavits regarding the GA counting scandal? The ones claiming they were told to leave?

Oh thank you. I was looking myself.

I read that article the day this all cam out. While it does demonstrate it is not as bad as we initially thought I have problems with what was said. It claims that the legal “bins” are not suitcases. That was the terminology utilized at the center not meant to be taken as literal suitcases. As you can see there are actually two angles on the table, one of both sides. The article claimed that they were actually not under the table but “next to it on the floor”. The issue is you can confirm this from the second angle. They are clearly not next to the table. The last thing that is a problem is they claimed the watchers were not sent home however that doesn’t match their independent testimony and there has been no audio proof or counter affidavits I have seen to back up a claim. So I personally rate that article as misleading.

Its a tough situation. Everyone wants it to be black and white but this could have all be avoided if they were allowed to walk around.

The problem is that these cases will be different enough to warrant their own precedent. All they would have to do is demonstrate how the popular vote has not been determined due massive irregularities and this is the purpose of the article 2 remedy in contrast to to simply telling citizens to “kick rocks” like that case was.

Which is what that article should have said but they chose not to. Unfortunately that doesn’t give me much more faith in the validity of that article. At any rate placing them there was a mistake that even if well intended, now opens up arguments from the other side. Very least a bad practice.

Well, that isn’t up to us fortunately. Just have to convince the Supreme Court and a couple of legislatures. No easy task but they will have all the best evidence on the table at that time.

Personally I wouldn’t expect them to find wrongdoing but ultimately a judge or the legislature may disagree. If there is a demonstration of being misled by the government. We got a long drawn out case ahead of us either way.

Nothing has been disproven yet either though. We want this to be figured out now but unfortunately those saying they know one way or the other are at the same level of credibility.

Me too, I will be your neighbor and help you if its on fire.

Just export them to china! Lol

Its just a glitch get over it. Lol

So we are left with, it isn’t proven... but isn’t disproven either... Without legal relief its ones faith against another. If the ramifications are large enough, that is extremely damaging to the country.

Yes but less damaging if these cases are at least adjudicated.

You got it all figured out. Keep fighting that fight comrade.

political civil war at this point. Two universes are colliding.

Im not here for that crap. Not engaging in pointless sophistry.

Sorry had to block that guy.

Some guy was going on about something wouldn’t leave me alone about it. Pay it no mind. Sorry for the distraction.

Just in case someone saw it and wondered what happened.

Great points. I think it is more likely that the fraud was decentralized in nature, which is why it is so hard to pinpoint in a decisive manner. Now to demonstrate each occurrence in a way to show a difference will be made is exponentially harder to do. At the end of the day though, the election system should be without reproach for these very reasons. The reality is there are numerous irregularities that have already come to light. While that may not necessarily mean a centralized malicious effort took place. It doesn’t rule it out yet either. So does “massive voter fraud” need to be demonstrated to overturn an election? IMO no only that there is a reasonable assumption there was enough fraud to change the outcome of the popular vote. At that point the legislature is within their right to default to a contingent election of some kind or to simply withhold their votes until faith is restored by enough of their members. That is where we are at this point.

Well I would point to irregularities that are not normal for starters. Irregularities that cannot be explained.

I am saying that without arguing them in court we don’t know. We have to default to the next best assumption, legislatures will act based on those assumptions and many may choose to not act at all. The reality is we just don’t know. So what is more reasonable? Pick a side or say we don’t know? My reasonable assumption is that we don’t have enough information and there are serious enough irregularities that have not been proven that we must wait for those to be heard before sending an elector. That would be my current stance, and the most reasonable one I can see going forward now without adjudication or a legislative referendum.

Thats not entirely true, at least yet. Many are still pending and the ones that have been dismissed were not all based on merits, rather some other process.

But yes I have been following the cases and watching the hearings.

I doubt any will be verified in court. Why? How many are not plausible enough to cause reasonable doubt the election was flawed? Those cases must be adjudicated or it may cause legislatures to hold off sending electors. Best to wait and see.

I mean maybe, but.... if you are wrong that would mean what exactly? What if there is legitimacy to one or more of the cases? My position is that we don’t have enough information. Yours appears to be that we do have enough information to have faith in the election. I don’t see how at this point but I will listen to what proof you can provide.

I don’t need to do that to have my position though, however, you have to show evidence to support your claim that all cases are without merit. I am simply stating we don’t know enough information and its not reasonable to say either option. Any state with these problems should wait to send electors until they have had deliberation about it.

Great points, I wouldn’t call for overruling the will of the people, only that in light of everything, that will is not clear enough and the election was close enough to warrant caution moving forward. There is no harm in being pragmatic about it. The other thing, a decentralized system doesn’t need to have much if any coordination at all. It doesn’t need a mastermind. Book recommendation if you have time to help outline this concept is “the starfish and the spider”. Thanks!

Exactly, no one that is being reasonable is making an argument to overrule the will of the people. Those cases will go no where.

Right? But hopefully it doesn’t come to that. There is plenty of time and there mechanics still at play to alleviate that burden. Looking at Dec 9th and January 3rd for key dates.

@Recalibar The longer it takes the worse the consequences. The problem is the two sides are doubling down with money they don’t have.

I wanted the partisan court system to be balanced out which has been accomplished. Unfortunately I know of no way to “unpartisan” the courts so that was the next best thing.

I disagree, I think you may be misunderstanding how a decentralized system works. Planning and coordination is not a requirement in a decentralized system. While that may take place, it is not the way you would expect to see it looking from centralized point of view, which is certainly easier to prosecute because everyone understands it without explanation. You will find these things equivalent to AI code, or the way the Apache society functioned for example.

Im not placing that burden on you. I am saying we don’t know enough information. You said show me proof and I said that makes no sense but you are free to support your claim that we know enough to make that call. I am not arguing the point opposite yours where I hold an equal burden of proof.

Yes there is, your point being?

Why is that obvious? Why is this relevant?

I disagree that is the neutral stance. Can you support that claim that it is normal there is not fraud in an election?

Right my point is when this is being dragged out an not heard in a court. It’s reasonable to say we don’t know until it is heard. The history of voter fraud not being enough to overturn elections in the past holds some merit, however, that would assume there are comparable elections. No election has taken place during COVID style restrictions and implications. That leaves the door open for all possibilities.

I don’t think those elections are comparable. Why do you say that?

That will be in about 4 years probably lol 😝

Can you clarify that? What is my claim that I have not supported precisely? I am not making the claim that this election has massive voter fraud. Why do you say that? Why are those elections comparable in light of the covid restrictions and ramifications?

Why are those elections comparable to this one in light of COVID? Not being allowed to be within 6 feet, sometimes roped off across the room. Limited numbers of watchers. I think this election warrants a special case and extra prudence.

Also feel free to reread my previous questions. I would be happy to hear your answer.

Nope never said that. Please review what I said please.

Right your point being?

Im absolutely not trolling. I will read the rest of this later.

I don’t understand your question. Can you rephrase that?

Ok. I don’t know how else to help. I said they elections of the past are not comparable because Covid restrictions and ramifications. It should be looked into and they should be compared prior to appealing to the historical integrity of elections. I don’t see how they are the same cases, the closest one I could see is the Bush election. There are significant differences in how that election was ran. Poll watcher limitations, yes some mail in voting, and margins for example are not the same.

Personally based on my understanding of decentralized systems and based on what we know I think it is equally intellectually dishonest at this point to hold either view. Now there are some key dates coming up that will allow us to lean one way or the other but I find the conjecture on the left just as appealing and that from the right. I disagree that we can know the likelihood of something or even if that likelihood holds any weight in determining an election. What we do know is very little. There is not much to compare to due the extenuating circumstances of this year. The reality is that there are reasonable arguments on both sides so currently withholding votes in those states is the most reasonable and prudent solution until those are resolved, if they ever are.

I just gave you 3. Margins were different, covid limited numbers of observers and the method, and caused mail in voting to increase.

That they are difference between in the elections yes. Not that they are evidence supporting my claim. 🙂

Basically do claim that the 2000 election is comparable enough the 2020 election to rule off of precedent alone despite these things? I think we must exercise prudence and caution giving the benefit of both sides to compare claims.

I disagree, but if we want to move on you will need answer that question. I am open to hearing your evidence.

You are welcome to answer the question at any time. We can establish who has what burden but I am interested in the truth either way.

Maybe its just alphabetical lol

Which is we don’t know.

As long as you acknowledge the validity of the contrary at this point I have no quarrel with what you said there! Well said. Ultimately whatever happens must be within the constitutional mechanisms of resolving these grievances I will support whoever comes out on top within that. Otherwise you are right, all hell will break loose.

Currently that is the most reasonable stance. Past elections have different circumstances and with the passage of time they become more finalized. In a few weeks I will have moved my position. I think its not the right time to assert either way today.

I didn’t present that dichotomy sorry.

No I didn’t

Please let me know where you are getting that from if you don’t agree. I happy to clarify anything else for you as well. After that I am interested in your answer to my previous standing question.

No, the election must be constitutional is my only stance.

There are plenty of suits still pending that have constitutional ramifications and need to be adjudicated before I see that. The three pending from the Trump campaign are some examples. If they are not, my original point remains, the most reasonable option for a legislature to wait and see. If that leads to a contingent election, the results of that will also acceptable as it is within the constitution.

I swear I got that October 19. We all got sick after traveling from Japan. Who knows.

Can you send me the cases that the Trump campaign has filed and have subsequestly failed on merits please?

I disagree about the contengent election. To count it out now would mean you have information I have not seen yet. Those suits may not directly lead to a contengent election but they could reasonably lead to one if there is no ajudication in the near future on these claims and the legislatures choose to withold electors. I still maintain the most prudent stance is that either option is equally possible at the moment. I am happy to hear your evendence though and if you decide to answer my previously standing question. Thanks for your time!

I find that very likely.

I have never taken that position, I already clarified that now twice. You are welcome to point out what is causing you to think that. Otherwise it is clear we are at an intellectual impasse, aside from me setting next to you and explaining in real time I don’t think you and I personally are going to get anywhere else with this discussion. Thanks for your time and effort’s hopefully everyone else will benefit as much as I have from reading through our communication. 🙂

Echo chambers are just as dangerous for those outside of them as they are for those trapped inside.

No. Just that echo chambers are bad.

Its a general statement. Echo chambers are bad for everyone.

What about Iran would you like me to weigh in on?

Its more possible than not

This is what I am talking about, sorry I can’t help you out anymore. Cheers.

Maybe, I guess my argument is we are already at a stage of economic war. We have already had military engagements with them. How far will that go? Your guess is as good as mine.

Sorry you are mistaken and I don’t know why you say these things despite my trying very hard to understand. I wish you would do the same perhaps you are. I am just not seeing or understanding why you attribute these things to coming out of my mouth.

You do not owe me any evidence for anything. I was just not sure why you are saying these things and what they are based on.

To which you said “You assume there is a burden to prove the election non fraudulent.” and “I said no I didn’t why do you say that?” and here we are. So what do you want to do now? I don’t need evidence from you unless you want to show me something else. You have no more of a burden than the contrary point that it was a fraudulent election . My point in the middle is that we don’t know currently enough to make that call either way.

I agree with that.

I will defer to my previous attempts to move on from the conversation.

I appreciate your pragmatic summary. Thank you.

I am not here to change anyones mind but my own. The only burden I feel is that of finding the truth. Everything else is a bonus. 🙂

I am very happy with everything that transpired and confident in the things I have said. Thank you for the shoutout!

And for anyone that wants to take up the metaphysical arguments about “the burden of proof” perhaps we can take that to another discord someday. I understand there are legal applications. We get stuck on these concepts and I fear that sometimes it precludes the truth. Cheers for today. https://core.ac.uk/display/157674835

Communist. 😝

Didn’t he say something like “go support your local business” right after shutting them down? I thought that was a weird move.

That was honestly the most unexpected and brilliant move I have seen so far in this litigation war.. absolutely no time for anyone to react but on time for a potential ruling that satisfies safe harbor arguments.

https://tenor.com/view/omw-on-my-way-headingout-gif-6229326

Because of the next vice president... yes.

No those cases do not have standing if they are constitutional differences. Only because there was unfair perceieved treatment within the constitution will any case have enough standing.

Historically there wasn't even a popular vote in most states.

Sure but that would not help defende against the remedy of sending it back to the legislatures

As a Trump voter and constitution supporter (not a trump “supporter”) yes I will.

Outright trump supporters wont. But you understand the difference.

I thought it was a giant squid?

Now where will I and others like me stand when the nation is cut in half between crazy trumpers and crazy commies? Thats a more interesting question I hope not to have to answer.