ttu_85 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

vote = getVote();
If (vote == 'r') ++switchVoteToBiden
If (vote == 'd') ++repVote

---

Your code doesn't work. I think you were looking for this

vote = getVote();
//If (vote == 'r') ++switchVoteToBiden
//If (vote == 'd') ++demVote
//at end of loop
demVote += switchVoteToBiden;

Much easier. See you never added switchVoteToBiden to demVote.
and Trump would have had all dem votes. If you are going to cheat it has to be believable.

---

Dominion may be hiring.

---

Ha, I dont think you would want me working for Dominion.

Would you want a conservative writing code that is not transparent or subject to public review ?

---

No but I'd be fine if neutral/dem experts reviewed subject to a court order and NDA if the company requested it.

Objection! I see no evidence that the judges were wearing Trump brand suits.

GeorgiAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

vote = getVote();
If (vote == 'r') ++switchVoteToBiden
If (vote == 'd') ++repVote

---

Your code doesn't work. I think you were looking for this

vote = getVote();
//If (vote == 'r') ++switchVoteToBiden
//If (vote == 'd') ++demVote
//at end of loop
demVote += switchVoteToBiden;

Much easier. See you never added switchVoteToBiden to demVote.
and Trump would have had all dem votes. If you are going to cheat it has to be believable.

---

Dominion may be hiring.

---

Ha, I dont think you would want me working for Dominion.

Would you want a conservative writing code that is not transparent or subject to public review ?

---

No but I'd be fine if neutral/dem experts reviewed subject to a court order and NDA if the company requested it.

---

Your profession seems to be 16 years behind the times. You guys in this area are clueless.

Maury Ballstein said:

---

Embarrassing - the court records and quotes have been shared for weeks on this board, public record. They couldn't get away making up quotes whole cloth. WaPo is a hundred times more accurate than wherever you get your news if you've been brainwashed this badly.

---

I'm not accusing them of making up quotes. Go read my post history on this thread. My post you replied to was asking him for justification based on something he said and I misinterpreted.

Then my apologies. I misunderstood you.

LOL wait people really think WapO and Ny Times are actually legit news outlets oh F16

mesocosm said:

---

The state legislatures are not going to decide this election. That is fantasy

---

I'm telling you what I believe is the goal given how hard it is to prove fraud in court WITHOUT those audits being done. Fraud is difficult to prove even in the civil context because the intent element almost always has to be shown using circumstantial evidence obtained through discovery. In this case the equivalent of discovery is a full audit.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I take WaPos opinions with a grain of salt. Bezos has TDS as bad as I do. Bezos and Trump hate each other.

But this was just listing quotes from elsewhere, not opinions.

---

Incredible that you're an attorney and think like you do. Does pure emotion overwhelm your judgment in the cases you're getting paid to handle?

Conservative Ag said:

---

mesocosm said:

---

The state legislatures are not going to decide this election. That is fantasy

---

I'm telling you what I believe is the goal given how hard it is to prove fraud in court WITHOUT those audits being done. Fraud is difficult to prove even in the civil context because the intent element almost always has to be shown using circumstantial evidence obtained through discovery. In this case the equivalent of discovery is a full audit.

---

Exactly. If there was nothing to hide why resist the audit? Why resist the voter signature verification?

Remember many of these "election workers" were trained and paid on Zuckerberg's 400 million in select large Dem urban centers.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Trump's actual legal team had filed less than 5 lawsuits. OPs first quote involves a conservative group, not Trump.

As with all progressives, OP lies.

---

Yet Rudy tweets about cases as big "wins" that the Trump legal team hasn't filed. So Rudy is a liar too? I guess it's ok to celebrate a "win" and discount a "loss" when have a boatload of losses.

Pato said:

---

These were never serious lawsuits. It's just another way to raise money from suckers.

---

You mean like Biden begging for your donations to find his transition team?

SLAM said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

The straight news reporting at NYT, Wapo, and Fox is excellent and factual. Just ignore the opinion sections and segments if you don't like them.

---

Excellent and factual, lolololol


You and they are #fakenews

---

They've published hundreds of news articles in the past week. Can you find a single material error in any of their reporting? The news sections not opinion section.

Twitter randos and far right blog posts get posted here as authority.

---

HUNDREDS OF NEWS ARTICLES!

*from sources widely known to use fake information*

K

---

Should be easy to find one then. You can't find even one.

ttu_85 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

vote = getVote();
If (vote == 'r') ++switchVoteToBiden
If (vote == 'd') ++repVote

---

Your code doesn't work. I think you were looking for this

vote = getVote();
//If (vote == 'r') ++switchVoteToBiden
//If (vote == 'd') ++demVote
//at end of loop
demVote += switchVoteToBiden;

Much easier. See you never added switchVoteToBiden to demVote.
and Trump would have had all dem votes. If you are going to cheat it has to be believable.

---

Dominion may be hiring.

---

Ha, I dont think you would want me working for Dominion.

Would you want a conservative writing code that is not transparent or subject to public review ?

---

No but I'd be fine if neutral/dem experts reviewed subject to a court order and NDA if the company requested it.

---

Your profession seems to be 16 years behind the times. You guys in this area are clueless.

---

You're correct. Lawyers are notoriously slow to adapt.

Quote:

---

Despite the cascade of losses, Trump and his allies pressed forward with new cases. In Arizona, a second formal election contest was filed in state court Friday by a group of plaintiffs represented by the conservative Thomas More Society, the same organization whose request to overturn the election results was roundly rejected by Hagedorn, the Wisconsin judge, on Friday.

---

So, again, it is about weaving some fact with opinion, hyperbole, and misdirection.

The WAPO article includes factual quotes from the judge's ruling, but it spins it into something completely different.

1) this isn't a "Trump team" loss, as the plaintiff was not the President or the President's legal team.
2) "cascade of losses", hyperbole/opinion. How many is a "cascade"? and again, majority tied to other plaintiffs, not the president or his legal team.

I remember how disgusted I was in 2000 at how embarrassing the whole mess was with the "hanging chads." We have had 20 years to fix this crap and instead we have made everything worse. The insane part here is nobody wins. We have a ****ty and corrupt system that isn't going to be fixed as long as TDS "trumps" integrity.

If you think there was "zero" fraud, you are beyond hope. If you think the fraud was not systemic and not enough to change the outcome, well, I disagree, but at least you are not completely blind. If I was in state leadership in any state in the US I would make audits and election security a common priority. Rather than wait for a law suit because the outcome I wanted happened.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Despite the cascade of losses, Trump and his allies pressed forward with new cases. In Arizona, a second formal election contest was filed in state court Friday by a group of plaintiffs represented by the conservative Thomas More Society, the same organization whose request to overturn the election results was roundly rejected by Hagedorn, the Wisconsin judge, on Friday.

---

So, again, it is about weaving some fact with opinion, hyperbole, and misdirection.

The WAPO article includes factual quotes from the judge's ruling, but it spins it into something completely different.

---

Calling 1-46 a cascade of losses is being generous. Whether all these lawyers have written contracts with the campaign is besides the point, they're working together on a common goal with similarly shoddy evidence and legal theories.

Maury Ballstein said:

---

Calling 1-46 a cascade of losses is being generous. Whether all these lawyers have written contracts with the campaign is besides the point, they're working together on a common goal with similarly shoddy evidence and legal theories.

---

cool, you made a claim, now prove it

I'm certain some of the lawyers in these suits are not happy with the other lawyers in other suits, leave it as a hunch for now till the books come out

Ok, so we're the judges wearing Trump suits in court, or when they wrote the opinions?

It's not clear.

If the roots of the tree were poison then then the fruit is also. It cannot be trusted. The court must go back to Election Day and use votes that are not questioned. Count those.

pacecar02 said:

---

Maury Ballstein said:

---

Calling 1-46 a cascade of losses is being generous. Whether all these lawyers have written contracts with the campaign is besides the point, they're working together on a common goal with similarly shoddy evidence and legal theories.

---

cool, you made a claim, now prove it

I'm certain some of the lawyers in these suits are not happy with the other lawyers in other suits, leave it as a hunch for now till the books come out

---

You doubt Sidney Powell, Giuliani, and state GOP committees are sharing, coordinating, and using the same affidavits in separate suits? It's not just about the court cases, it's the PR campaign and donation grifting too.

Pato said:

---

These were never serious lawsuits. It's just another way to raise money from suckers.

---

yup, trump's raised over $200 million since the election. overturning the election results was never the goal.

Quote:

---

The Trump campaign and RNC announced the massive fundraising haul of $207.5 million Thursday evening, which they said was raised by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the RNC, the two joint fundraising committees Trump Victory and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, and Trump's new Save America political action committee.

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Trump's actual legal team had filed less than 5 lawsuits. OPs first quote involves a conservative group, not Trump.

As with all progressives, OP lies.

---

A distinction without a difference. Trump and/or his surrogates have filed and lost over 40 lawsuits. There, ya happy now

No. His legal team has only filed 5 cases. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.

Leftist: its so terrible that Trump would stoop to "packing the court" with far right extremist.

Also leftist: look how awesome these quotes are from leftists judges while showing obvious partsianship.

mesocosm said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Trump's actual legal team had filed less than 5 lawsuits. OPs first quote involves a conservative group, not Trump.

As with all progressives, OP lies.

---

A distinction without a difference. Trump and/or his surrogates have filed and lost over 40 lawsuits. There, ya happy now

---

Exactly.

Hey weren't many of these judges trump appointees? I guess frivolous is frivolous.

VanZandt92 said:

---

mesocosm said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Trump's actual legal team had filed less than 5 lawsuits. OPs first quote involves a conservative group, not Trump.

As with all progressives, OP lies.

---

A distinction without a difference. Trump and/or his surrogates have filed and lost over 40 lawsuits. There, ya happy now

---

Exactly.

Hey weren't many of these judges trump appointees? I guess frivolous is frivolous.

---

Surrogates? Trump appointed judges?

How the narrative shifts.

VanZandt92 said:

---

mesocosm said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Trump's actual legal team had filed less than 5 lawsuits. OPs first quote involves a conservative group, not Trump.

As with all progressives, OP lies.

---

A distinction without a difference. Trump and/or his surrogates have filed and lost over 40 lawsuits. There, ya happy now

---

Exactly.

Hey weren't many of these judges trump appointees? I guess frivolous is frivolous.

---

Hilarious that people don't realize all the judges he's appointed throughout this debacle

Trump is now 1 - 47. Closing in on 1 - 50.

Rittenhouse said:

---

WaPo? Lol

---

These direct quotes from judicial documentation are fake news!!!

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The Dems knew they could vote harvest and massage those votes in with all the CoVID mail in voting changes and it would be next to impossible to prove with physical evidence and all their true believer activists doing the harvesting that believe it is entirely justified. Game over catching that. The process was allowed to be grossly corruptible and no court has the guts to invalidate entire categories of votes.

Game: Cheaters.

---

Vote harvesting, as you know, does not involve the creation of fraudulent votes.

It is merely the practice (legal in some states) of picking up ballots for multiple voters and taking them to a drop off place.

It is unlawful in some states. And a lot of harvesting is pushed to become "assisted voting". I suspect there are also unsolicited ballots harvested and then mailed in in the same of people who didn't mark the ballots, which is fraud, but with the garbage security for mail in ballots, you might never catch those. But it is the activities around finding people who were mailed a ballot, then showing up to "help" them vote and then gathering and delivering that ballot for them that is suspect. People who don't know or don't care to vote also wouldn't generally be aware or care if they had "voted without knowing it", which is pretty easy when your political party in a local area runs the elections process and has very detailed information on who is receiving an unsolicited ballot and also has no recent history of voting. That data is now available and the extremely large number of unsolicited mail in ballots in some states were a clear invitation for activists to go out and "assist" others with casting votes, which those activists would construe as a public get out the vote service.

It has a history of being closely associated with fraud and facilitates fraud, and creates a chain of custody problem for votes by default.

Harvesting has to be made completely illegal. It is absolutely ridiculous that this is allowed in any way. ID and vote in person unless military, or GTFO. Open polling locations 12+ hours a day 7 days per week for a month, and find a little time to drag your lazy, sorry ass down there.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It is unlawful in some states. And a lot of harvesting is pushed to become "assisted voting". I suspect there are also unsolicited ballots harvested and then mailed in in the same of people who didn't mark the ballots, which is fraud, but with the garbage security for mail in ballots, you might never catch those. But it is the activities around finding people who were mailed a ballot, then showing up to "help" them vote and then gathering and delivering that ballot for them that is suspect. People who don't know or don't care to vote also wouldn't generally be aware or care if they had "voted without knowing it", which is pretty easy when your political party in a local area runs the elections process and has very detailed information on who is receiving an unsolicited ballot and also has no recent history of voting. That data is now available and the extremely large number of unsolicited mail in ballots in some states were a clear invitation for activists to go out and "assist" others with casting votes, which those activists would construe as a public get out the vote service.

It has a history of being closely associated with fraud and facilitates fraud, and creates a chain of custody problem for votes by default.

---

You are right that there is a very clear potential for people to use ballot harvesting to commit fraud.

One way that might be particularly tough to figure out would be to pick up ballots in areas that are strong on the other side and then deliver them to the wrong location or deliver them too late to be counted. If they didn't deliver them at all, then that would be obvious fraud if detected.

GeorgiAg said:

---

VanZandt92 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

The people attacking the source crack me up. This isn't an opinion piece. It's actual quotes from the judges in these cases. You'll dismiss real information but eat up Gateway Pundit opinion pieces for 3 meals a day. Hypocritical.

---

Yep. Just straight up info in that article.

---

Facts are liberal.

---

Liberals wouldn't know true facts if they hit them square in the face.