enjoyed the hugo chavez part. i feel like if these people were my lawyers. i'd be going to jail
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Your sense of logic has a lot to do with how you feel. My prediction that the big shoe Trump's team would drop would have to do with the voting software has proven correct. My prediction was not based on how I feel.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
you've use the word predict about 10 times now in the last month. i've noticed and compared to whats happening, i don't think the word means what you think it means.
"I would predict if this emerges for some time a sizable faction of the media will try to call it "unrest" until a sufficient number of them have been directly impacted to the point where they admit it's civil war.
I hope you don't think civil war means handing out muskets on the corner lol. It wouldn't surprise me if the casualties are somewhere between 75K and 200000."
"It's amazing to me how predictable so much of this has been. If there isn't a landslide of epic proportions in two weeks either way, I predict that you will see blood and lots of it. Much more than you can consume on an empty stomach. So cheer up. "
"What's happening right now is what I predicted based on my sense-making apparatus. I hoped to be wrong. You are both consistently surprised by events that reveal the actual state of reality - you make pathetic excuses for your failure, themselves irrational, you dissemble, you obfuscate, you ignore, and you continue to be wrong. Consistently."
"You asked why I feared a civil war, because it seemed so unlikely and crazy to you. Now, you'll shift to "this civil war is Trump's fault" if things continue to develop this way. The reason I have some amount of success predicting what's about to happen is because I don't stick with one echo chamber and I actively seek out reliable sources. Those are sources who are honestly saying what they believe is happening. I take all of that information and develop a probability. The probable coutcome I predicted is proceeding on course, but it can still change.
You and Daft Cunt are fitting the narrative I predicted almsot perfectly:"
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
"say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something."
You left one key quote out - the one related to my comment you responded to. Can you find that one too? I think you think when I say I predict if there's anything it's going to be related to the voting software and then their team comes out and says the linchpin is the voting software, that means I'm predicting they will prove the election was flipped via the voting software. No that kind of faulty thinking rests with you. It just means events are proceeding as I predicted. What's my current estimation that they WILL actually find something that will overturn the results - about 25% - 30% - which by the way is different from how I evaluate the probability of whether their was voting software hacking that made a difference in the election regardless of whether they can prove it or not to a court's satisfaction (have that at about 50%).
Again, sal - Scott Adams. He's a cold motherfucker but that actually helps with evaluating probabilities. I arrived at my predctions independent of him, but started watching him again a few days after the election and wasn't surprised to see him coming up with similar predictions.
There is no proof presented in this press conference and this is the reason why I respect and, at least moreso than most TV achors, trust to a certain degree Tucker Carlson when he weighs in: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
This is for public consumption, NOT a court of law. You got three types of lawyers in the public sector: The schmoozers, where they go golfing with the prosecutors and dine with the judges. These types will often get you a plea bargain BEFORE you even pay them! They dont have to know much about the laws and/or your case even. Then you have the cross the t's and dot the i's types. They are the Bankruptcy, divorce, and real estate type lawyers. Then you have the actual litigation lawyers who have to know every little aspect of the laws inside and out and you have to be able to able to make your arguments. Most of these are usually pretty smart and in high demand to where they get gobbled up by large corporations that can afford to pay them any amount they want. Its rare to find good ones in the criminal case low levels because their is not much money in it, so you end up with the schmoozers'. And most lawyers have a team of legal assistants that do all the leg work for them, all they have to do is put on the show! Giuliani is the showman, the schmoozer. But he's fucking old man. Most people his age are planning on which retirement home they are going into and hoping they dont shit their pants. Powell seems like the book nerd type that knows the laws inside and out but she is not a showman. She sounds nervous as fuck as well, it is a very hard thing to do and not everyone can handle the pressure of millions of people watching you and listening to you.
Giuliani would call his buddies to get you out of jail, Powell would find the very best defense for you. But again, this is for show, for the public, not for a court! They have an army of paralegals to write up motions for days and to research everything.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Needless_Kane (Old Spike)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Check out the CNN "fact check". They claim it was false but then go on to prove it IS TRUE! HAHA. Up is down, left is right, 2+2=5! https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/politics/giuliani-trump-legal-team-press-briefing-fact-check/index.html
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
Oh wow, what a fucking mess.
Here is a fact check that's true. Trump had TWO SCOOPS of ice cream while everyone else felt like they only deserved one!
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Also, look at their "sources". Its from the fucking companies website! Imagine if I got charge with robbing a bank and my lawyer sayd I didnt do it because I wrote on my facebook page that I didnt rob a bank, does anyone think that would fly? This fucking world is fucked!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
They have some major accusations that require some major evidence, they need to examine the machines, problem is this: My very good legal attorney once told me that in court you never ask a qeustion you dont know the answer to, if they do demand the machine, examine it and find no evidence then it will backfire big time on them. Even if the machine were "fixed" before they got them, it still wont look good. How the fuck do you prove this?
I understand that they wouldnt want to show their hand if they do have evidence but time is running out and the public is demanding evidence.
I really dont like the fact that our voting machines are from a private company that is shrouded in secrecy. If anything, at least Trump is showing the gapping holes in our voting process!
Tim Pools sidekick on his show had a good suggestion, use block chains to keep track of the voting machines. That way you can see what is going on in the coding.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman (Old Spike)
I think pen and paper, in person with a proof of citizenship and photo ID is sufficient.
Maybe look at having federal agents at the polling areas to deter tampering or shady behaviour. They don't touch the votes or have unsupervised access to them They just stop shit like intimidation and other behaviour B.S. from going down.
As well as they in turn don't allow any packages come in our out, If somebody forgot something or ran out of something that they need brought in Like mysterious camera equipment WTF. Then thats too bad. Nothing comes or goes until certification. They also do not allow anyone unsupervised access to the votes either.
So they can't be alone with them, and they also don't allow anyone else to be alone with them until they are loaded into the trucks and sent to where they are stored after election.
Alternatively, if you want to keep things at the state level and closer to the people, than I would say have the county Sherriff's office oversee the process.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Pantysoaker (Long Spike)
burden of proff is on the states, Rudy just has to raise doubt to get the Supreme Court involved
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Im not so sure about that. I believe this would fall under civil procedures, wherein the plantiff, the one making the accusations, has the burden of proof. But the SCOTUS is completely different in that it does not operate like a trail court, they hear the arguments from both sides, then they determine what the Constitution says and how it is interpreted, factor in precedent, and decide the case. They act like an appeals court where they decide what the law is, not what the facts of the case are, that is for a jury to decide, unless you ask for a bench trial where the judge decides the facts. If the states fail to certify, and not enough electoral votes go to either candidate then the SCOTUS tells the Senate to decide. They might take on a case that involves equal opportunity to all voters, which is what is being argued, from Bush v Gore, all voters have to be given the same opportunity to make their vote as everyone else in the state, there are allegations that Republican voters were not given the opportunity to correct their votes while Democrats were. That is pretty huge and could lead to hundreds of thousands of votes being tossed. Then the SCOTUS gets involved.
Now state courts are a different animal, Rudy DOES have the burden of proof and DOES have to show evidence, problem is it is a civil case, not criminal, different rules and procedures, the Plantiff, Rudy, has to file discovery motions to ask for evidence he needs and the other party HAS to follow them as court orders. Problem is there is no time for that, that stuff takes months to years. I think they are just thorwing everything they got and see what sticks, but also it is good public showing as it does get the allegations out there.
Comments
(Long Spike)
enjoyed the hugo chavez part. i feel like if these people were my lawyers. i'd be going to jail
(Old Spike)
Your sense of logic has a lot to do with how you feel. My prediction that the big shoe Trump's team would drop would have to do with the voting software has proven correct. My prediction was not based on how I feel.
(Long Spike)
you've use the word predict about 10 times now in the last month. i've noticed and compared to whats happening, i don't think the word means what you think it means.
"I would predict if this emerges for some time a sizable faction of the media will try to call it "unrest" until a sufficient number of them have been directly impacted to the point where they admit it's civil war.
I hope you don't think civil war means handing out muskets on the corner lol. It wouldn't surprise me if the casualties are somewhere between 75K and 200000."
"It's amazing to me how predictable so much of this has been. If there isn't a landslide of epic proportions in two weeks either way, I predict that you will see blood and lots of it. Much more than you can consume on an empty stomach. So cheer up. "
"What's happening right now is what I predicted based on my sense-making apparatus. I hoped to be wrong. You are both consistently surprised by events that reveal the actual state of reality - you make pathetic excuses for your failure, themselves irrational, you dissemble, you obfuscate, you ignore, and you continue to be wrong. Consistently."
"You asked why I feared a civil war, because it seemed so unlikely and crazy to you. Now, you'll shift to "this civil war is Trump's fault" if things continue to develop this way. The reason I have some amount of success predicting what's about to happen is because I don't stick with one echo chamber and I actively seek out reliable sources. Those are sources who are honestly saying what they believe is happening. I take all of that information and develop a probability. The probable coutcome I predicted is proceeding on course, but it can still change.
You and Daft Cunt are fitting the narrative I predicted almsot perfectly:"
(Old Spike)
"say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something."
You left one key quote out - the one related to my comment you responded to. Can you find that one too? I think you think when I say I predict if there's anything it's going to be related to the voting software and then their team comes out and says the linchpin is the voting software, that means I'm predicting they will prove the election was flipped via the voting software. No that kind of faulty thinking rests with you. It just means events are proceeding as I predicted. What's my current estimation that they WILL actually find something that will overturn the results - about 25% - 30% - which by the way is different from how I evaluate the probability of whether their was voting software hacking that made a difference in the election regardless of whether they can prove it or not to a court's satisfaction (have that at about 50%).
Again, sal - Scott Adams. He's a cold motherfucker but that actually helps with evaluating probabilities. I arrived at my predctions independent of him, but started watching him again a few days after the election and wasn't surprised to see him coming up with similar predictions.
There is no proof presented in this press conference and this is the reason why I respect and, at least moreso than most TV achors, trust to a certain degree Tucker Carlson when he weighs in: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud
(sounds retarded)
This is for public consumption, NOT a court of law. You got three types of lawyers in the public sector: The schmoozers, where they go golfing with the prosecutors and dine with the judges. These types will often get you a plea bargain BEFORE you even pay them! They dont have to know much about the laws and/or your case even. Then you have the cross the t's and dot the i's types. They are the Bankruptcy, divorce, and real estate type lawyers. Then you have the actual litigation lawyers who have to know every little aspect of the laws inside and out and you have to be able to able to make your arguments. Most of these are usually pretty smart and in high demand to where they get gobbled up by large corporations that can afford to pay them any amount they want. Its rare to find good ones in the criminal case low levels because their is not much money in it, so you end up with the schmoozers'. And most lawyers have a team of legal assistants that do all the leg work for them, all they have to do is put on the show! Giuliani is the showman, the schmoozer. But he's fucking old man. Most people his age are planning on which retirement home they are going into and hoping they dont shit their pants. Powell seems like the book nerd type that knows the laws inside and out but she is not a showman. She sounds nervous as fuck as well, it is a very hard thing to do and not everyone can handle the pressure of millions of people watching you and listening to you.
Giuliani would call his buddies to get you out of jail, Powell would find the very best defense for you. But again, this is for show, for the public, not for a court! They have an army of paralegals to write up motions for days and to research everything.
(Old Spike)
(sounds retarded)
Check out the CNN "fact check". They claim it was false but then go on to prove it IS TRUE! HAHA. Up is down, left is right, 2+2=5! https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/politics/giuliani-trump-legal-team-press-briefing-fact-check/index.html
(Old Spike)
Oh wow, what a fucking mess.
Here is a fact check that's true. Trump had TWO SCOOPS of ice cream while everyone else felt like they only deserved one!
(sounds retarded)
Also, look at their "sources". Its from the fucking companies website! Imagine if I got charge with robbing a bank and my lawyer sayd I didnt do it because I wrote on my facebook page that I didnt rob a bank, does anyone think that would fly? This fucking world is fucked!
(sounds retarded)
They have some major accusations that require some major evidence, they need to examine the machines, problem is this: My very good legal attorney once told me that in court you never ask a qeustion you dont know the answer to, if they do demand the machine, examine it and find no evidence then it will backfire big time on them. Even if the machine were "fixed" before they got them, it still wont look good. How the fuck do you prove this?
I understand that they wouldnt want to show their hand if they do have evidence but time is running out and the public is demanding evidence.
I really dont like the fact that our voting machines are from a private company that is shrouded in secrecy. If anything, at least Trump is showing the gapping holes in our voting process!
Tim Pools sidekick on his show had a good suggestion, use block chains to keep track of the voting machines. That way you can see what is going on in the coding.
(Old Spike)
I think pen and paper, in person with a proof of citizenship and photo ID is sufficient.
Maybe look at having federal agents at the polling areas to deter tampering or shady behaviour. They don't touch the votes or have unsupervised access to them They just stop shit like intimidation and other behaviour B.S. from going down.
As well as they in turn don't allow any packages come in our out, If somebody forgot something or ran out of something that they need brought in Like mysterious camera equipment WTF. Then thats too bad. Nothing comes or goes until certification. They also do not allow anyone unsupervised access to the votes either.
So they can't be alone with them, and they also don't allow anyone else to be alone with them until they are loaded into the trucks and sent to where they are stored after election.
Alternatively, if you want to keep things at the state level and closer to the people, than I would say have the county Sherriff's office oversee the process.
(Long Spike)
burden of proff is on the states, Rudy just has to raise doubt to get the Supreme Court involved
(sounds retarded)
Im not so sure about that. I believe this would fall under civil procedures, wherein the plantiff, the one making the accusations, has the burden of proof. But the SCOTUS is completely different in that it does not operate like a trail court, they hear the arguments from both sides, then they determine what the Constitution says and how it is interpreted, factor in precedent, and decide the case. They act like an appeals court where they decide what the law is, not what the facts of the case are, that is for a jury to decide, unless you ask for a bench trial where the judge decides the facts. If the states fail to certify, and not enough electoral votes go to either candidate then the SCOTUS tells the Senate to decide. They might take on a case that involves equal opportunity to all voters, which is what is being argued, from Bush v Gore, all voters have to be given the same opportunity to make their vote as everyone else in the state, there are allegations that Republican voters were not given the opportunity to correct their votes while Democrats were. That is pretty huge and could lead to hundreds of thousands of votes being tossed. Then the SCOTUS gets involved.
Now state courts are a different animal, Rudy DOES have the burden of proof and DOES have to show evidence, problem is it is a civil case, not criminal, different rules and procedures, the Plantiff, Rudy, has to file discovery motions to ask for evidence he needs and the other party HAS to follow them as court orders. Problem is there is no time for that, that stuff takes months to years. I think they are just thorwing everything they got and see what sticks, but also it is good public showing as it does get the allegations out there.