Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Merged] Kari Lake Files Lawsuit in Bid to Overturn Arizona Election Defeat


Portre

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I keep bringing up that they were dismissed on Standing because people keep saying that the evidence was looked at and tossed, when that is 100% not what happened! If you guys (maybe not you personally, Duck, I was responding to AgentOrange, if you recall the context of the post that brought me into this discussion) didn't keep claiming the evidence was looked at by the courts, we wouldn't be having this discussion! The fact is a third of all the cases were dismissed without the courts looking at the evidence. Whether you think that evidence was solid or worthy of dismissal is a completely separate question, because those cases never got to the evidence phase. Which is fine by me, I've said many times that I don't think there was any significant fraud during the election (not enough to change the outcome of the election, at least). But claiming the evidence was looked at and tossed is objectively false! 

That's all I'm saying, it shouldn't be controversial but somehow it is!

Well at least we got you to admit that in 2/3s of the 60ish lost cases evidence had the opportunity to be shown but no one was able to produce any compelling enough to prove their point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Where did I say that or are you lying about me?

I repeat, this is a discussion I am having with AgentOrange. He said this, and I got you mixed up with him! Why are you trying to make me out like I'm a liar? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I repeat, this is a discussion I am having with AgentOrange. He said this, and I got you mixed up with him! Why are you trying to make me out like I'm a liar? 

Orange man bad etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well at least we got you to admit that in 2/3s of the 60ish lost cases evidence had the opportunity to be shown but no one was able to produce any compelling enough to prove their point.

Actually, in a further third of the cases, they were dropped voluntarily before trial. It's actually pretty evenly split - with approximately 20 cases being dismissed on Standing, 20 dismissed voluntarily by those bringing the suits, and about 20 heard in court and dismissed (not quite, as there weren't exactly 60 cases, but the numbers are close enough to average it out to about a third for each split). 

Why wouldn't I admit to the truth? I'm not an election denier! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You are very poor at understanding what is happening and here you admit that. Thank you

You are very rude, do you realise that?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I repeat, this is a discussion I am having with AgentOrange. He said this, and I got you mixed up with him! Why are you trying to make me out like I'm a liar? 

Because that is what you do

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Actually, in a further third of the cases, they were dropped voluntarily before trial. It's actually pretty evenly split - with approximately 20 cases being dismissed on Standing, 20 dismissed voluntarily by those bringing the suits, and about 20 heard in court and dismissed (not quite, as there weren't exactly 60 cases, but the numbers are close enough to average it out to about a third for each split). 

Why wouldn't I admit to the truth? I'm not an election denier! 

Voluntarily dropping means they backed away when given the opportunity to show their evidence still.  So they had twice as many chances to show their evidence as you think they were denied.  So they had 40 opportunities.  But to be honest, I don't think they were denied even then.  You have to present evidence before you can even make a case,

For instance, I can't be tried for murder without any evidence of a murder occuring- it can something as simple as a missing person, a corpse, me making a threat, etc.  But stuff of that nature must be presented before it can even go to court.

I linked Kari Lake's court document.  The first "evidence" she submitted for her reasoning was a poll.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Because that is what you do

 

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Buck up

 

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

It's funny how the dishonest want to be treated nicely.

 

You are very rude, did you know that? 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

Voluntarily dropping means they backed away when given the opportunity to show their evidence still.  So they had twice as many chances to show their evidence as you think they were denied.  So they had 40 opportunities.  But to be honest, I don't think they were denied even then.  You have to present evidence before you can even make a case,

For instance, I can't be tried for murder without any evidence of a murder occuring- it can something as simple as a missing person, a corpse, me making a threat, etc.  But stuff of that nature must be presented before it can even go to court.

I linked Kari Lake's court document.  The first "evidence" she submitted for her reasoning was a poll.  

Lots of reasons for dropping cases voluntarily, you may be right on SOME of them. Either way, I'm not an election denier, so it's not really that big an issue to me! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

 

 

You are very rude, did you know that? 

Rude? Nope, harshly honest? Yep he sure is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stereologist said:

Buck up!

Then show me where I have "lied". And please don't get it mixed up with the places I have made errors and corrected them, I'm talking actual lies that I said knowing they were lies and repeated them anyway? If you can't back it up, buck yourself up, mate! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

Then show me where I have "lied". And please don't get it mixed up with the places I have made errors and corrected them, I'm talking actual lies that I said knowing they were lies and repeated them anyway? If you can't back it up, buck yourself up, mate! 

Do you need a safe place to hang out for a while? Please find one for your sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stereologist said:

Do you need a safe place to hang out for a while? Please find one for your sake.

Buck up! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

Lots of reasons for dropping cases voluntarily, you may be right on SOME of them. Either way, I'm not an election denier, so it's not really that big an issue to me! 

I don't really mind the election denying part, but rather the dismissal of th US court system.  It is not flawed like you portray it.  Evidence is presented in the initial process to even start a court case.  If the evidence is garbage and irrelevant then the case gets dismissed.

The ratio of cases dismissed and lost are also irrelevant- you only need one opportunity to show evidence.  If you can't do it then, then getting 40 more times isn't going to help you.  But 40 times was the number of times the MAGA people had.  To say that they weren't given an opportunity to present evidence after that would indeed be a bald face lie.  It was a lie after the first time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

And please show me where anyone stated you lied.

I kinda did at post #120....

Edit to add: Weird. Every post is showing post #100 for me.

Edited by Gromdor
Edit to add
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

And please show me where anyone stated you lied.

  See below: 

21 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Why are you trying to make me out like I'm a liar? 

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Because that is what you do

Please retract your statement that being a liar is "what I do"! Or provide evidence that this is in fact, "what I do"! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

I kinda did at post #100....

Edit to add: Weird. Every post is showing post #100 for me.

That was my post.

Gromdor you are polite. I am not when it comes to pointing out people are posting falsehoods

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  See below: 

Please retract your statement that being a liar is "what I do"! Or provide evidence that this is in fact, "what I do"! 

So  your ineptitude at following a discussion is my problem?

BUCK UP!

 

 

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to [Merged] Kari Lake Files Lawsuit in Bid to Overturn Arizona Election Defeat

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.