Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • But they couch it in election integrity. They are acting on behalf of people they think were hurt. Asking for a hand recount by precinct is not in and of itself harmful. Technically that is all they did. The rhetoric was harmful but the action was a solution to the issue. The whole thing stemmed from challenging the method of recount.

    (the political motivations are why the judge ripped them)
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • Actual voter fraud!

      https://mobile.twitter.com/donmoyn/s...49872449777672

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
        They project that onto everyone, since they are doing it.

        Comment


        • I remember that story...the local news caught them on that BS like right away and they still went through with it. (also pulled a similar scam in another district in FL) That is Russian style election fraud.
          "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
          -aparch

          "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
          -INCH

          Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
          -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
            I remember that story...the local news caught them on that BS like right away and they still went through with it. (also pulled a similar scam in another district in FL) That is Russian style election fraud.
            It's almost like there may have been someone who lived through this practice in Russia that may have had an advisory role within the GOP....
            It's never too early to start the Pre-game festivities

            Go Cats!!! GO BLACKHAWKS!

            Cuck the Fubs... Let's Go WHITE SOX!!!

            Wildcat Born, Wildcat Bred....

            Comment


            • I think I read a story where recently when a town in Russia pulled the scam the fake candidate ended up winning and is now the mayor.
              "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
              -aparch

              "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
              -INCH

              Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
              -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                I think I read a story where recently when a town in Russia pulled the scam the fake candidate ended up winning and is now the mayor.
                This will make a great movie.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

                  This will make a great movie.
                  No need to relive 2016
                  Code:
                  As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                  College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                  BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                  Originally posted by SanTropez
                  May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                  Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                  I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                  Originally posted by Kepler
                  When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                  He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                  Comment


                  • Maybe I missed this elsewhere, but Trump’s lawyer saying in court that reasonable people wouldn’t believe her rigged voting machine claims.

                    https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/polit...aud/index.html
                    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                    "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                    "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                      Maybe I missed this elsewhere, but Trump’s lawyer saying in court that reasonable people wouldn’t believe her rigged voting machine claims.

                      https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/polit...aud/index.html
                      As silly as that argument sounds (and it certainly sounds silly), that's actually a defense that is fairly frequently used in a defamation case. If you can convince a jury that either no one did believe the statement, or no one reasonably could have believed the statement, the plaintiff really can't prove damages.

                      So, for example, if I came on here and claimed that it is factually true that you are personally responsible for both the JFK assassination and the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, it would obviously be a false statement (right???) and I just published it to third parties. But would or could anyone believe it to be true, thus harming your reputation? No.
                      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                        As silly as that argument sounds (and it certainly sounds silly), that's actually a defense that is fairly frequently used in a defamation case. If you can convince a jury that either no one did believe the statement, or no one reasonably could have believed the statement, the plaintiff really can't prove damages.
                        Didn't she file papers in a court of law suing Dominion or some such? If she did that knowing the claims were false then she might have a case against defamation but while putting her law license in jeopardy.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                          As silly as that argument sounds (and it certainly sounds silly), that's actually a defense that is fairly frequently used in a defamation case. If you can convince a jury that either no one did believe the statement, or no one reasonably could have believed the statement, the plaintiff really can't prove damages.

                          So, for example, if I came on here and claimed that it is factually true that you are personally responsible for both the JFK assassination and the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, it would obviously be a false statement (right???) and I just published it to third parties. But would or could anyone believe it to be true, thus harming your reputation? No.
                          Apparently, some 50+ million people do believe what Sidney was pushing, however.

                          Keep carrying that water.
                          What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

                            Didn't she file papers in a court of law suing Dominion or some such? If she did that knowing the claims were false then she might have a case against defamation but while putting her law license in jeopardy.
                            Yeah, I imagine that it'll probably depend upon what the rules are for lawyers in the states that might have some licensure authority over her.

                            It also might be a deal where it's her lawyer in the defense of the defamation claim that is asserting the "unbelievable" defense. That is, her lawyer might come in and claim that the client made those public statements, but no reasonable person could have believed them.

                            Personally I don't think it's a defense that will go very far, perhaps with one caveat. Obviously, many members of the public believed her statements. But I think that gets us to a more interesting part of this case. Really, from a damages standpoint, it's not so much general members of the public that we are talking about in terms of harm to the reputation of the company. Members of the public don't buy voting machines or the software that is used in them. Instead, if I were making the argument, I'd argue that no person charged with the responsibility of buying, operating or maintaining these machines on behalf of government agencies could really believe these claims. In other words, yeah the rubes out in the public might be fooled, but Secretary's of State, government employees charged with purchasing equipment, etc..., didn't believe a word of it.
                            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

                              Yeah, I imagine that it'll probably depend upon what the rules are for lawyers in the states that might have some licensure authority over her.

                              It also might be a deal where it's her lawyer in the defense of the defamation claim that is asserting the "unbelievable" defense. That is, her lawyer might come in and claim that the client made those public statements, but no reasonable person could have believed them.

                              Personally I don't think it's a defense that will go very far, perhaps with one caveat. Obviously, many members of the public believed her statements. But I think that gets us to a more interesting part of this case. Really, from a damages standpoint, it's not so much general members of the public that we are talking about in terms of harm to the reputation of the company. Members of the public don't buy voting machines or the software that is used in them. Instead, if I were making the argument, I'd argue that no person charged with the responsibility of buying, operating or maintaining these machines on behalf of government agencies could really believe these claims. In other words, yeah the rubes out in the public might be fooled, but Secretary's of State, government employees charged with purchasing equipment, etc..., didn't believe a word of it.
                              Remind the people how the Secretary of State got their job. And if they run on a platform about voting and getting rid of a specific voting machine, then the public's opinion VERY much matters.

                              Let alone, the source of the money to buy these machines are state legislators, and if they decide to listen to the court of public opinion to allow or not allow specific vendors, that would mean the public opinion matters.

                              Basically, public opinion matters when states buy stuff. Especially negative opinions.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

                                Remind the people how the Secretary of State got their job. And if they run on a platform about voting and getting rid of a specific voting machine, then the public's opinion VERY much matters.

                                Let alone, the source of the money to buy these machines are state legislators, and if they decide to listen to the court of public opinion to allow or not allow specific vendors, that would mean the public opinion matters.

                                Basically, public opinion matters when states buy stuff. Especially negative opinions.
                                Yeah, it may, but that's going to sort of be where the battle is, in my opinion.

                                Honestly, I have no idea how a state (or its officials) decide whether to purchase voting machine "x" versus voting machine "y". Furthermore, I don't even know how often they are replaced. The machines that I see in Minnesota look exactly the same as they did 25 years ago, but for all I know they might be completely different.

                                I just think that even if the plaintiffs are able to show that some public opinion poll shows 37% of the public believed the claims, I'm not certain that necessarily gets the plaintiffs to where they need to be. Again, if I were the defense I'd be digging up state officials left and right to have them testify that they haven't made any buying decisions based upon those claims, and don't intend to.
                                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X