02 Dec 20
I keep hearing how Trump has no evidence of widespread voter fraud. What would skeptics of Trump's election fraud claims accept as evidence?
Define this evidence. Give me an example of evidence so you cannot change the criteria and say he didn't prove enough. I suspect any evidence would be called not evidence by a Biden supporter.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidThat's not how it works. Those seeking to overturn the results of an election have the burden to present evidence of irregularities and those irregularities much be shown to have affected the result of the election:
I keep hearing how Trump has no evidence of widespread voter fraud. What would skeptics of Trump's election fraud claims accept as evidence?
Define this evidence. Give me an example of evidence so you cannot change the criteria and say he didn't prove enough. I suspect any evidence would be called not evidence by a Biden supporter.
"“The prevailing view today is that courts should not invalidate election results because of problems unless it is shown that the problems were of such magnitude to negate the validity of which candidate prevailed,” said Edward B. Foley, director of election law at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/politics/when-courts-overturn-elections.html
The article gives a few examples where this burden, heavy as it may be, was satisfied:
"There was the case in Paterson, N.J., earlier this year, for instance, in which a judge recommended a do-over election for a seat on the City Council after evidence surfaced that mail-in ballots had been tampered with. (Just 240 votes separated the first- and second-place candidates.)
And this week in Clark County, Nev., local officials voted to rerun one race for a county commission seat that had a margin of just 10 votes,"
"In one high-profile example, a Florida judge voided Miami’s mayoral election in 1998 and ordered a new vote, citing “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional and criminal conduct” in the casting of absentee ballots."
Trump has presented nothing substantive in any court that would satisfy such a standard.
02 Dec 20
The person making the positive claim (a statement of fact) has the burden of presenting evidence, especially in the legal world. The positive claim in this case is:
"There was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and it was enough to change the results."
So far no election commission, officials, or lawyers have presented evidence of that claim that a court reviewed and found compelling. Indeed, today, AG Barr stated the opposite of the above quote. Recently the President's personal lawyer answered a judge's question by admitting the case he was presenting was not about fraud.
No one has to set out their personal definition of fraud and what evidence they would accept. Those things are written into laws and election regulations.
Present the evidence and it will be weighted. Not by a declaration. Not by a tweet. But by the law.
02 Dec 20
@no1marauder said"In one high-profile example, a Florida judge voided Miami’s mayoral election in 1998 and ordered a new vote, citing “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional and criminal conduct” in the casting of absentee ballots."
That's not how it works. Those seeking to overturn the results of an election have the burden to present evidence of irregularities and those irregularities much be shown to have affected the result of the election:
"“The prevailing view today is that courts should not invalidate election results because of problems unless it is shown that the problems were of such ma ...[text shortened]... allots."
Trump has presented nothing substantive in any court that would satisfy such a standard.
How did they find the evidence to justify a new vote? What was the specific evidence?
@metal-brain saidDo your own homework. The link is right in the article I gave. Or try googling "miami mayoral election 1998".
"In one high-profile example, a Florida judge voided Miami’s mayoral election in 1998 and ordered a new vote, citing “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional and criminal conduct” in the casting of absentee ballots."
How did they find the evidence to justify a new vote? What was the specific evidence?
EDIT: Sorry that should be "miami mayoral election 1997".
02 Dec 20
@montymoose saidIf Trump had his lawyers make a case for evidence a partisan biased person like sonhouse would not be inclined to accept it no matter how strong the indicators are.
The person making the positive claim (a statement of fact) has the burden of presenting evidence, especially in the legal world. The positive claim in this case is:
"There was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and it was enough to change the results."
So far no election commission, officials, or lawyers have presented evidence of that claim th ...[text shortened]...
Present the evidence and it will be weighted. Not by a declaration. Not by a tweet. But by the law.
Do you expect Trump to find a videotape in a cave in Afghanistan with people bragging about how they rigged our election? Evidence doesn't just fall into a guy's lap. How is he supposed to find evidence?
What is evidence? What is good enough for a recount? If Trump pays for the recount why would anybody object? There is no downside to getting a more accurate count. Should evidence be required when a recount hurts nobody?
02 Dec 20
@no1marauder saidIf you cannot answer my question just say so. I thought maybe you read it first.
Do your own homework. The link is right in the article I gave. Or try googling "miami mayoral election 1998".
EDIT: Sorry that should be "miami mayoral election 1997".
02 Dec 20
@no1marauder saidYour example doesn't exactly give a favorable view of absentee votes. Here is an excerpt from the link below:
That's not how it works. Those seeking to overturn the results of an election have the burden to present evidence of irregularities and those irregularities much be shown to have affected the result of the election:
"“The prevailing view today is that courts should not invalidate election results because of problems unless it is shown that the problems were of such ma ...[text shortened]... allots."
Trump has presented nothing substantive in any court that would satisfy such a standard.
"Judge Wilson's ruling was a sweeping indictment of the absentee ballot system, which last month was the subject of a state grand jury report that found it riddled with flaws. The panel's finding included the casting of ballots in the name of dead people and manipulation of elderly voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/05/us/fraud-ruling-invalidates-miami-mayoral-election.html
Here is another excerpt:
After a two-week trial last month in which 27 witnesses asserted their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify, Judge Wilson said 60 other witnesses he heard from gave ample evidence of fraud.
In his written decision the judge said the absentee ballots cast in the election included those from people who did not vote, did not live in Miami or the district in which their ballot was cast, and did not qualify as unable to vote at the polls. Several ballots were even doctored to alter a vote for Mr. Carollo into one for Mr. Suarez, the judge noted.
''This scheme to defraud, literally and figuratively, stole the ballot from the hands of every honest voter in the city of Miami,'' Judge Wilson wrote.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So there was a trial. Not sure what evidence was presented to justify a trial, but this whole case confirms what Trump has been saying about absentee voting all along. Furthermore, the examples of fraud the Judge stated happens in at least isolated cases all the time, so did they find "widespread" fraud in this case to meet the burden of proof that it was widespread?
I didn't see any evidence of widespread fraud in Miami-Dade County. How did they get a trial?
02 Dec 20
@Metal-Brain
Now even Trumps personal attorney William Barr has come out publicly saying there was ZERO widespread fraud and is telling that to Trump today.
Now the question is how long will he keep his job?
I guess you being a nice tame Trumpite cultist, NOW believe Barr is a traitor and DESERVES firing.
02 Dec 20
@sonhouse saidThat is false. He didn't say ZERO.
@Metal-Brain
Now even Trumps personal attorney William Barr has come out publicly saying there was ZERO widespread fraud and is telling that to Trump today.
Now the question is how long will he keep his job?
I guess you being a nice tame Trumpite cultist, NOW believe Barr is a traitor and DESERVES firing.
If he did it would be factually incorrect.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidEvidence is proof.
I keep hearing how Trump has no evidence of widespread voter fraud. What would skeptics of Trump's election fraud claims accept as evidence?
Define this evidence. Give me an example of evidence so you cannot change the criteria and say he didn't prove enough. I suspect any evidence would be called not evidence by a Biden supporter.
Not exactly, but keep it simple.
If I say to you trump is a narcissist type-2.
You say: show me the evidence.
I say to you: “Here’s a book with what it means, here’s a video of trump behaving. It’s evident that he’s a narcissist.”
We bring the case to court.
The judge says: “trump has never been diagnosed by a psychiatrist, after multiple sessions, by measurement of the DSM. And therefore there is no proof of Shavixmir’s claim.”
Case dismissed.
02 Dec 20
@shavixmir
Except Trump's own niece Mary Trump happens to have a Phd in psychology and has pronounced Trump as at least a narcissist. That is enough evidence for me, she grew up with this creep.
02 Dec 20
@shavixmir saidWhat is proof?
Evidence is proof.
Not exactly, but keep it simple.
If I say to you trump is a narcissist type-2.
You say: show me the evidence.
I say to you: “Here’s a book with what it means, here’s a video of trump behaving. It’s evident that he’s a narcissist.”
We bring the case to court.
The judge says: “trump has never been diagnosed by a psychiatrist, after multiple se ...[text shortened]... , by measurement of the DSM. And therefore there is no proof of Shavixmir’s claim.”
Case dismissed.
If I can prove votes were counted from dead people is that enough? Does it have to be a lot of dead people? What is the criteria?
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidNo, it doesn't confirm anything Trump was saying.
Your example doesn't exactly give a favorable view of absentee votes. Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"Judge Wilson's ruling was a sweeping indictment of the absentee ballot system, which last month was the subject of a state grand jury report that found it riddled with flaws. The panel's finding included the casting of ballots in the name of dead people and ma ...[text shortened]... d?
I didn't see any evidence of widespread fraud in Miami-Dade County. How did they get a trial?
It confirms there was some illegal misconduct in a local election 23 years ago regarding absentee ballots. Sorry, that isn't evidence regarding this election.
02 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidI already told you the criteria. Go back and read my first post in this thread.
What is proof?
If I can prove votes were counted from dead people is that enough? Does it have to be a lot of dead people? What is the criteria?