Daily reminder that Trump is still your president

[Scout]

you said absolutely nothing of substance with this post.

I guess what isn't of substance? I was pretty clearly explaining that a county corresponding with the median voter for some period of time is no guarantee that that county always will. And that's a pretty obvious fact on it's face. A county's population can change, the electorate can change, the general distribution of the population can change, which type of population comprising the middle can change. There's pretty clearly a lot of explanatory variables there just if you think about it for a little bit.

how about the variable of fraudulent mail in ballots and 300% voter turnouts in some counties.

hmmmm. why dont you work that into your equation, scout.

Which counties had 300% voter turnout? And which counties had a significant number of mail-in ballots that weren't sent by real living people? Any citation on this?

[Alex_Murphy]

I guess what isn't of substance? I was pretty clearly explaining that a county corresponding with the median voter for some period of time is no guarantee that that county always will. And that's a pretty obvious fact on it's face. A county's population can change, the electorate can change, the general distribution of the population can change, which type of population comprising the middle can change. There's pretty clearly a lot of explanatory variables there just if you think about it for a little bit.

how about the variable of fraudulent mail in ballots and 300% voter turnouts in some counties.

hmmmm. why dont you work that into your equation, scout.

Which counties had 300% voter turnout? And which counties had a significant number of mail-in ballots that weren't sent by real living people? Any citation on this?

you seem to know something I dont.

[Scout]

how about the variable of fraudulent mail in ballots and 300% voter turnouts in some counties.

hmmmm. why dont you work that into your equation, scout.

Which counties had 300% voter turnout? And which counties had a significant number of mail-in ballots that weren't sent by real living people? Any citation on this?

you seem to know something I dont.

? I know that the common argument from people who don't believe the election ressults is that there were ballots either sent by "fake people" somehow or "dead people" so I was asking for proof to back up that assertion.

[Alex_Murphy]

Which counties had 300% voter turnout? And which counties had a significant number of mail-in ballots that weren't sent by real living people? Any citation on this?

you seem to know something I dont.

? I know that the common argument from people who don't believe the election ressults is that there were ballots either sent by "fake people" somehow or "dead people" so I was asking for proof to back up that assertion.

the proof is in the hands of the trump litigators and doj investigators and will be in front of the justices of the US Supreme Court. why would I, someone who is not a poll worker nor has access to the data associated with the voter fraud, be able to present that to you in a message board? it is also noteworthy, that the evidence would be sealed (at least I would hope so) as to preserve the integrity of the investigation reduce exposure to only the interested parties.

cant compromise the integrity of the investigation that is feverly live and producing more leads everyday as suggested by the OP's post, just to appease some liberal leftist message board poster crying to see some proof.

[lettherebehouse]

Aye yo Scout wuz’good muh-nigguh? You still hit the streets with Det7mile and Miggy?

[Alex_Murphy]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-reque ... 97396.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The FBI has reached out to an election integrity researcher for evidence of potential crimes in the 2020 election, according to the researcher, who is also a former Trump campaign official.

The evidence was collected by the Voter Integrity Project (VIP) led by Matt Braynard, former data and strategy director for President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign.

“The @FBI has proactively and directly requested from me the VIP findings that indicates illegal ballots,” Braynard said in a Nov. 29 tweet.

“By Tuesday, we will have delivered to the agency all of our data, including names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.”

His account was backed by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, a conservative nonprofit that says it retained Braynard to conduct the work.

[Scout]

you seem to know something I dont.

? I know that the common argument from people who don't believe the election ressults is that there were ballots either sent by "fake people" somehow or "dead people" so I was asking for proof to back up that assertion.

the proof is in the hands of the trump litigators and doj investigators and will be in front of the justices of the US Supreme Court. why would I, someone who is not a poll worker nor has access to the data associated with the voter fraud, be able to present that to you in a message board? it is also noteworthy, that the evidence would be sealed (at least I would hope so) as to preserve the integrity of the investigation reduce exposure to only the interested parties.

cant compromise the integrity of the investigation that is feverly live and producing more leads everyday as suggested by the OP's post, just to appease some liberal leftist message board poster crying to see some proof.

So, you think they currently have bombshell evidence that is not publically available? Not necessarily impossible on it's face, but I have some follow-up questions from that.

1. Why have court cases been so unsuccessful so far? It's important to note that for any case that is appealed federally up to the Supreme Court, the Trump campaign needs to argue all their evidence up front as they have it. They are not allowed to hide evidence until a later point. You can only bring in new evidence if it was just recently discovered. Generally in appeals situations, you are not allowed to bring in new evidence except with specific exemptions. An appeal is about arguing that a case was "wrongly decided" instead of presenting a new case each time.

2. In the event that courts do not overturn the results of the election, how would that theoretical outcome change your view of these events?

[Scout]

Aye yo Scout wuz’good muh-nigguh? You still hit the streets with Det7mile and Miggy?

Rip to miggy. he's too big time now

[kobeunderbite]

Who the heck is Scout?

MCS fag who enjoys living with horse blinders on apparently.



What's funny is that with all of these statistical and mathematical anomalies associated with Biden "winning" we can now confirm that people like op only like "math" and "science" when it's convenient for them. Like when they need to pretend that cutting off your penis makes you a woman.

That's not really what a statistical anomaly is, and is pretty clearly not really any sort of evidence of fraud, particularly when it's really clear and obvious why those bellwether counties are no longer bellwethers. Like a theoretical "bellwether country" only works when you assume a voting population is behaving fairly similar and there is a small amount of swing voters that are going back and forth. And, I guess that's pretty much how it was from 84-12 since Reagan created some real political realignment. And it's pretty clear that Trump began some real political alignment in 2016 which became even more drastic now. Even with all that, it's easy to just say that counties aren't magic.

You know sometimes, instead of going blue in the face spitting out these talking points (you're going off script here anyway, there are more effective ways to counter the bellwether statistical anomalies), it can be less exhausting to simply accept occam's razor. Much in the same way, it can be simpler to just accept your gender, rather than attempt to subvert God and nature by dismembering yourself.

[Alex_Murphy]

? I know that the common argument from people who don't believe the election ressults is that there were ballots either sent by "fake people" somehow or "dead people" so I was asking for proof to back up that assertion.

the proof is in the hands of the trump litigators and doj investigators and will be in front of the justices of the US Supreme Court. why would I, someone who is not a poll worker nor has access to the data associated with the voter fraud, be able to present that to you in a message board? it is also noteworthy, that the evidence would be sealed (at least I would hope so) as to preserve the integrity of the investigation reduce exposure to only the interested parties.

cant compromise the integrity of the investigation that is feverly live and producing more leads everyday as suggested by the OP's post, just to appease some liberal leftist message board poster crying to see some proof.

So, you think they currently have bombshell evidence that is not publically available? Not necessarily impossible on it's face, but I have some follow-up questions from that.

1. Why have court cases been so unsuccessful so far? It's important to note that for any case that is appealed federally up to the Supreme Court, the Trump campaign needs to argue all their evidence up front as they have it. They are not allowed to hide evidence until a later point. You can only bring in new evidence if it was just recently discovered. Generally in appeals situations, you are not allowed to bring in new evidence except with specific exemptions. An appeal is about arguing that a case was "wrongly decided" instead of presenting a new case each time.

2. In the event that courts do not overturn the results of the election, how would that theoretical outcome change your view of these events?

the evidence is sealed. the article I linked from the epoch times eludes to that.

you have to understand to some degree that the lower courts including the federal circuits and state courts have limited jurisdiction over these constitutional issues. the evidence was not surrendered which opens the legal maneuver to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

An appeal may be made to the Supreme Court from a lower state court if the state's highest court declined to hear an appeal or lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

in essence the faster the trump campaign and legal team can get in front of the US Supreme court the sooner their case can be heard at the highest level ( writ of certiorari )

so in essence, the losses at the lower level are not losses per se, but necessary steps in the process to appealing to the SCOTUS in order to have venue and jurisdiction over such controversial constitutional issues. the opinions set by justices in this case will set precedents for years to come.

hope that helps.

[Scout]

MCS fag who enjoys living with horse blinders on apparently.



What's funny is that with all of these statistical and mathematical anomalies associated with Biden "winning" we can now confirm that people like op only like "math" and "science" when it's convenient for them. Like when they need to pretend that cutting off your penis makes you a woman.

That's not really what a statistical anomaly is, and is pretty clearly not really any sort of evidence of fraud, particularly when it's really clear and obvious why those bellwether counties are no longer bellwethers. Like a theoretical "bellwether country" only works when you assume a voting population is behaving fairly similar and there is a small amount of swing voters that are going back and forth. And, I guess that's pretty much how it was from 84-12 since Reagan created some real political realignment. And it's pretty clear that Trump began some real political alignment in 2016 which became even more drastic now. Even with all that, it's easy to just say that counties aren't magic.

You know sometimes, instead of going blue in the face spitting out these talking points (you're going off script here anyway, there are more effective ways to counter the bellwether statistical anomalies), it can be less exhausting to simply accept occam's razor. Much in the same way, it can be simpler to just accept your gender, rather than attempt to subvert God and nature by dismembering yourself.

How can I be spitting talking points if I'm also going off script? Seems like it might just be an opinion I came to based on how data is generally analyzed as opposed to being given or am subject to talking points. Like, the bellwether argument just isn't super compelling as evidence. I don't spend a ton of time diving into the conspiracy of this stuff so I'm not familiar with whatever arguments you commonly have. But it's really just not convincing at all.

[kobeunderbite]

That's not really what a statistical anomaly is, and is pretty clearly not really any sort of evidence of fraud, particularly when it's really clear and obvious why those bellwether counties are no longer bellwethers. Like a theoretical "bellwether country" only works when you assume a voting population is behaving fairly similar and there is a small amount of swing voters that are going back and forth. And, I guess that's pretty much how it was from 84-12 since Reagan created some real political realignment. And it's pretty clear that Trump began some real political alignment in 2016 which became even more drastic now. Even with all that, it's easy to just say that counties aren't magic.

You know sometimes, instead of going blue in the face spitting out these talking points (you're going off script here anyway, there are more effective ways to counter the bellwether statistical anomalies), it can be less exhausting to simply accept occam's razor. Much in the same way, it can be simpler to just accept your gender, rather than attempt to subvert God and nature by dismembering yourself.

How can I be spitting talking points if I'm also going off script? Seems like it might just be an opinion I came to based on how data is generally analyzed as opposed to being given or am subject to talking points. Like, the bellwether argument just isn't super compelling as evidence. I don't spend a ton of time diving into the conspiracy of this stuff so I'm not familiar with whatever arguments you commonly have. But it's really just not convincing at all.

Just to help you along, it's a talking point to dismiss anomalies under the umbrella of the Trump effect (of supposed realignment). It's not on script to use this talking point to counter the specific statistical anomalies of bellwether county performance.

Think of it this way, wearing a dress can perhaps help you look more feminine. However, you shouldn't wear a dress to try to prove to someone that you are a woman.

[kobeunderbite]

KUB, I see fatherhood hasn't soften you one bit...

Gone git!

[Scout]

the proof is in the hands of the trump litigators and doj investigators and will be in front of the justices of the US Supreme Court. why would I, someone who is not a poll worker nor has access to the data associated with the voter fraud, be able to present that to you in a message board? it is also noteworthy, that the evidence would be sealed (at least I would hope so) as to preserve the integrity of the investigation reduce exposure to only the interested parties.

cant compromise the integrity of the investigation that is feverly live and producing more leads everyday as suggested by the OP's post, just to appease some liberal leftist message board poster crying to see some proof.

So, you think they currently have bombshell evidence that is not publically available? Not necessarily impossible on it's face, but I have some follow-up questions from that.

1. Why have court cases been so unsuccessful so far? It's important to note that for any case that is appealed federally up to the Supreme Court, the Trump campaign needs to argue all their evidence up front as they have it. They are not allowed to hide evidence until a later point. You can only bring in new evidence if it was just recently discovered. Generally in appeals situations, you are not allowed to bring in new evidence except with specific exemptions. An appeal is about arguing that a case was "wrongly decided" instead of presenting a new case each time.

2. In the event that courts do not overturn the results of the election, how would that theoretical outcome change your view of these events?

the evidence is sealed. the article I linked from the epoch times eludes to that.

you have to understand to some degree that the lower courts including the federal circuits and state courts have limited jurisdiction over these constitutional issues. the evidence was not surrendered which opens the legal maneuver to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

An appeal may be made to the Supreme Court from a lower state court if the state's highest court declined to hear an appeal or lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

in essence the faster the trump campaign and legal team can get in front of the US Supreme court the sooner their case can be heard at the highest level ( writ of certiorari )

so in essence, the losses at the lower level are not losses per se, but necessary steps in the process to appealing to the SCOTUS in order to have venue and jurisdiction over such controversial constitutional issues. the opinions set by justices in this case will set precedents for years to come.

hope that helps.

Just to be clear, a lot of that is not true. State courts do not have federal jurisdiction yes, but all federal courts have equal federal jurisdiction. A lower federal court could easily rule on whatever evidence you believe exists. Since it's controversial, it would definitely be appealed up the chain, but all these lower federal courts have the same jurisdiction to make these decisions. It's also important to note that you can't just dramatically change your argument when you're at the Supreme Court, as I've said. That's just not how this stuff works. Appeals are supposed to be made on the same arguments. You'd have to file a new case and start from the lower-level federal courts. Is there currently any open federal case by the Trump campaign alleging to have evidence of fabricated votes that need to be tossed?

[kobeunderbite]

Trump is doing pretty poorly with these lower-level, middling cases. It's kind of nerve wracking for Trump supporters to see.

I wonder how Bush performed in the lower-level, middling Bush v Gore litigations before it reached SCOTUS?

[Alex_Murphy]

So, you think they currently have bombshell evidence that is not publically available? Not necessarily impossible on it's face, but I have some follow-up questions from that.

1. Why have court cases been so unsuccessful so far? It's important to note that for any case that is appealed federally up to the Supreme Court, the Trump campaign needs to argue all their evidence up front as they have it. They are not allowed to hide evidence until a later point. You can only bring in new evidence if it was just recently discovered. Generally in appeals situations, you are not allowed to bring in new evidence except with specific exemptions. An appeal is about arguing that a case was "wrongly decided" instead of presenting a new case each time.

2. In the event that courts do not overturn the results of the election, how would that theoretical outcome change your view of these events?

the evidence is sealed. the article I linked from the epoch times eludes to that.

you have to understand to some degree that the lower courts including the federal circuits and state courts have limited jurisdiction over these constitutional issues. the evidence was not surrendered which opens the legal maneuver to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

An appeal may be made to the Supreme Court from a lower state court if the state's highest court declined to hear an appeal or lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

in essence the faster the trump campaign and legal team can get in front of the US Supreme court the sooner their case can be heard at the highest level ( writ of certiorari )

so in essence, the losses at the lower level are not losses per se, but necessary steps in the process to appealing to the SCOTUS in order to have venue and jurisdiction over such controversial constitutional issues. the opinions set by justices in this case will set precedents for years to come.

hope that helps.

Just to be clear, a lot of that is not true. State courts do not have federal jurisdiction yes, but all federal courts have equal federal jurisdiction. A lower federal court could easily rule on whatever evidence you believe exists. Since it's controversial, it would definitely be appealed up the chain, but all these lower federal courts have the same jurisdiction to make these decisions. It's also important to note that you can't just dramatically change your argument when you're at the Supreme Court, as I've said. That's just not how this stuff works. Appeals are supposed to be made on the same arguments. You'd have to file a new case and start from the lower-level federal courts. Is there currently any open federal case by the Trump campaign alleging to have evidence of fabricated votes that need to be tossed?

you're extremely confused.

the pending results data and evidence of an investigation does not need to be unsealed prematurely.

I haven't read the arguments of the trump campaign and legal team appeal but from the Giuliani briefings the arguements haven't changed.

this is the worst case for liberals and leftists (a very small minority of the will of the american people) who had hoped to steal this election. This case is before the SCOTUS with FBI and DOJ investigation wrapping up. the results will overturn the election.

[Scout]

You know sometimes, instead of going blue in the face spitting out these talking points (you're going off script here anyway, there are more effective ways to counter the bellwether statistical anomalies), it can be less exhausting to simply accept occam's razor. Much in the same way, it can be simpler to just accept your gender, rather than attempt to subvert God and nature by dismembering yourself.

How can I be spitting talking points if I'm also going off script? Seems like it might just be an opinion I came to based on how data is generally analyzed as opposed to being given or am subject to talking points. Like, the bellwether argument just isn't super compelling as evidence. I don't spend a ton of time diving into the conspiracy of this stuff so I'm not familiar with whatever arguments you commonly have. But it's really just not convincing at all.

Just to help you along, it's a talking point to dismiss anomalies under the umbrella of the Trump effect (of supposed realignment). It's not on script to use this talking point to counter the specific statistical anomalies of bellwether county performance.

Think of it this way, wearing a dress can perhaps help you look more feminine. However, you shouldn't wear a dress to try to prove to someone that you are a woman.

Is it a talking point or just kind of clearly obvious? Like, a bellwether is only a bellwether if it represents the median voter. If that paradigm changes (increased rural voters for Republicans, and increased suburban voters for Democrats), pretty clearly that middle is going to change in some way. Even then as I said, counties aren't magic. They're approximations and not guaranteed to be correct even if there actually wasn't realignment. There would just need to be something way more compelling and causative to taut as evidence of fraud.

You seem kind of obsessed with trans people. Very strange.

[Scout]

the evidence is sealed. the article I linked from the epoch times eludes to that.

you have to understand to some degree that the lower courts including the federal circuits and state courts have limited jurisdiction over these constitutional issues. the evidence was not surrendered which opens the legal maneuver to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

An appeal may be made to the Supreme Court from a lower state court if the state's highest court declined to hear an appeal or lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

in essence the faster the trump campaign and legal team can get in front of the US Supreme court the sooner their case can be heard at the highest level ( writ of certiorari )

so in essence, the losses at the lower level are not losses per se, but necessary steps in the process to appealing to the SCOTUS in order to have venue and jurisdiction over such controversial constitutional issues. the opinions set by justices in this case will set precedents for years to come.

hope that helps.

Just to be clear, a lot of that is not true. State courts do not have federal jurisdiction yes, but all federal courts have equal federal jurisdiction. A lower federal court could easily rule on whatever evidence you believe exists. Since it's controversial, it would definitely be appealed up the chain, but all these lower federal courts have the same jurisdiction to make these decisions. It's also important to note that you can't just dramatically change your argument when you're at the Supreme Court, as I've said. That's just not how this stuff works. Appeals are supposed to be made on the same arguments. You'd have to file a new case and start from the lower-level federal courts. Is there currently any open federal case by the Trump campaign alleging to have evidence of fabricated votes that need to be tossed?

you're extremely confused.

the pending results data and evidence of an investigation does not need to be unsealed prematurely.

I haven't read the arguments of the trump campaign and legal team appeal but from the Giuliani briefings the arguements haven't changed.

this is the worst case for liberals and leftists (a very small minority of the will of the american people) who had hoped to steal this election. This case is before the SCOTUS with FBI and DOJ investigation wrapping up. the results will overturn the election.

Seems clear that you're not open to how this works. That's fine. I'd like some clarification on the second question then. If the election result is not overturned (or hell doesn't even see the Supreme Court as I'm thinking is somewhat likely), then what does that mean for you?

[kobeunderbite]

How can I be spitting talking points if I'm also going off script? Seems like it might just be an opinion I came to based on how data is generally analyzed as opposed to being given or am subject to talking points. Like, the bellwether argument just isn't super compelling as evidence. I don't spend a ton of time diving into the conspiracy of this stuff so I'm not familiar with whatever arguments you commonly have. But it's really just not convincing at all.

Just to help you along, it's a talking point to dismiss anomalies under the umbrella of the Trump effect (of supposed realignment). It's not on script to use this talking point to counter the specific statistical anomalies of bellwether county performance.

Think of it this way, wearing a dress can perhaps help you look more feminine. However, you shouldn't wear a dress to try to prove to someone that you are a woman.

Is it a talking point or just kind of clearly obvious? Like, a bellwether is only a bellwether if it represents the median voter. If that paradigm changes (increased rural voters for Republicans, and increased suburban voters for Democrats), pretty clearly that middle is going to change in some way. Even then as I said, counties aren't magic. They're approximations and not guaranteed to be correct even if there actually wasn't realignment. There would just need to be something way more compelling and causative to taut as evidence of fraud.

You seem kind of obsessed with trans people. Very strange.

You're not good at this. I never called it "evidence of fraud." But we're just going in circles now. This gets old, as much as I enjoy seeing you cut off your nose to stop the election from failing the smell test.

Think of that like cutting off your penis to try to stop the doctor from confirming your gender.

[Scout]

Just to help you along, it's a talking point to dismiss anomalies under the umbrella of the Trump effect (of supposed realignment). It's not on script to use this talking point to counter the specific statistical anomalies of bellwether county performance.

Think of it this way, wearing a dress can perhaps help you look more feminine. However, you shouldn't wear a dress to try to prove to someone that you are a woman.

Is it a talking point or just kind of clearly obvious? Like, a bellwether is only a bellwether if it represents the median voter. If that paradigm changes (increased rural voters for Republicans, and increased suburban voters for Democrats), pretty clearly that middle is going to change in some way. Even then as I said, counties aren't magic. They're approximations and not guaranteed to be correct even if there actually wasn't realignment. There would just need to be something way more compelling and causative to taut as evidence of fraud.

You seem kind of obsessed with trans people. Very strange.

You're not good at this. I never called it "evidence of fraud." But we're just going in circles now. This gets old, as much as I enjoy seeing you cut off your nose to stop the election from failing the smell test.

Think of that like cutting off your penis to try to stop the doctor from confirming your gender.

I'm just trying to have a good-faith discussion to understand where this mindset comes from, but that's fine I guess.