I thought proven by a court wins in the end.  Not just "evidence". #goallinemovedagain

You surprised? 

Whoops

A Shocking Turn – Raffensperger Says He Supports Fulton County Forensic Audit After Lying about Trump Phone Call and Ignoring Fraud Allegations in 2020 Election


Does this mean they think they destroyed enough of the evidence? Or is it just impossible to pretend the Dominion machines didn't just juke 60% of the votes in another election just a few weeks ago?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/shocking-turn-crooked-raffensperger-says-supports-fulton-county-forensic-audit-lying-trump-phone-call-ignoring-fraud-allegations-2020-election/

You surprised?

Seems like a black hole of reason! You keep throwing down and no results.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Seems like a black hole of reason! You keep throwing down and no results.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

A singularity of stupid, the more information you add to it the denser the dumbness gets.

I thought proven by a court wins in the end.  Not just "evidence". #goallinemovedagain

Court opinions are based on evidence?    Same conclusion. There is no logical difference between evidence and the court ruling.  Because the court ruling is based off evidence.  The court ruling is proof of the validity of evidence.

Court opinions are based on evidence?    Same conclusion. There is no logical difference between evidence and the court ruling.  Because the court ruling is based off evidence.  The court ruling is proof of the validity of evidence.

"THERE IS NO LOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND THE COURT RULING."

Then why did you argue over and over again that the EVIDENCE showing the election was stolen didn't exist simply because it wasn't allowed to be heard in court?

EVIDENCE exists even in the absence of a court ruling.  How many times has a guilty person been set free (or an innocent person sentenced) even though the evidence existed to decide the case differently, only the court excluded the evidence based on a technicality?

So, since you now admit that the EVIDENCE exists even though no court has ruled on it, you must also agree that the election was stolen -- because that's what the evidence shows.

Its getting very obvious the 'Reputable Private School' attended was ASSETS.

Its getting very obvious the 'Reputable Private School' attended was ASSETS.

They have Private Schools for "Special" students, too.

May explain why the name is a secret.

"THERE IS NO LOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND THE COURT RULING."

Then why did you argue over and over again that the EVIDENCE showing the election was stolen didn't exist simply because it wasn't allowed to be heard in court?

EVIDENCE exists even in the absence of a court ruling.  How many times has a guilty person been set free (or an innocent person sentenced) even though the evidence existed to decide the case differently, only the court excluded the evidence based on a technicality?

So, since you now admit that the EVIDENCE exists even though no court has ruled on it, you must also agree that the election was stolen -- because that's what the evidence shows.

"Evidence" refused to be "heard" in court isn't reputable evidence.  That's why the courts decide.   
So no the election is still legitimate.   The courts don't deal with frivolous cases that show no merit based on evidence. 
Not sure why you can't understand the simple fact that courts decide evidence 🤔  they weigh if the evidence is legit,  if it was gathered legally, etc for criminal actions.   

The fact courts vet evidence and admit new evidence is why outcomes can change.  Evidence refused to be heard on technicalities protect our rights and the justice system.  Evidence found illegally can't be used.  The ends do not justify the means. 

Its getting very obvious the 'Reputable Private School' attended was ASSETS.

No idea what that is,  but if we ever meet in real life and I can trust that you won't spread the info I have no issues telling you.   There are people here who know what school it is.  But stay mad bro. Keep finding ways to obfuscate the facts and change the focus like your orange idol does so well.  👌

"Evidence" refused to be "heard" in court isn't reputable evidence.  That's why the courts decide.   
So no the election is still legitimate.   The courts don't deal with frivolous cases that show no merit based on evidence. 
Not sure why you can't understand the simple fact that courts decide evidence 🤔  they weigh if the evidence is legit,  if it was gathered legally, etc for criminal actions.   

The fact courts vet evidence and admit new evidence is why outcomes can change.  Evidence refused to be heard on technicalities protect our rights and the justice system.  Evidence found illegally can't be used.  The ends do not justify the means.

Wrong.

"Reputable" evidence?  Is that a legal term?

Evidence is weighed based on its reliability and relevance.  I was unaware the evidence needed a reputation as well.   

Evidence obtained illegally is STILL EVIDENCE.  If you murder someone, and there is video evidence, then that PROVES you are guilty.  If the court denies the use of that evidence for some reason, it doesn't mean the evidence ceases to exist.  It also surely does not change the fact that you have been proven to be a murderer.

The only issue in that case is whether or not your civil rights were violated denying you a fair and unbiased trial -- i.e. due process.  If the evidence is tossed, then the state is going to have a harder time convicting.  Not that they CAN'T get a conviction, but there may or may not be more evidence.  Simply excluding SOME evidence is not a guarantee that the guilty party will walk, anyway. 

You seem to have a tough time with understanding how reality and the justice system don't always coincide.  Go figure.

Court opinions are based on evidence?    Same conclusion. There is no logical difference between evidence and the court ruling.  Because the court ruling is based off evidence.  The court ruling is proof of the validity of evidence.

So, evidence not included in a court ruling is "proven" not valid? 

There are many reasons why evidence is omitted from court proceedings or ordered to not be considered in rulings.  And many of them NOT because the evidence was proved not reliable.

You're so set on what you think is right in your own mind and so quick to argue anything else. . .

Wrong.

"Reputable" evidence?  Is that a legal term?

Evidence is weighed based on its reliability and relevance.  I was unaware the evidence needed a reputation as well.   

Evidence obtained illegally is STILL EVIDENCE.  If you murder someone, and there is video evidence, then that PROVES you are guilty.  If the court denies the use of that evidence for some reason, it doesn't mean the evidence ceases to exist.  It also surely does not change the fact that you have been proven to be a murderer.

The only issue in that case is whether or not your civil rights were violated denying you a fair and unbiased trial -- i.e. due process.  If the evidence is tossed, then the state is going to have a harder time convicting.  Not that they CAN'T get a conviction, but there may or may not be more evidence.  Simply excluding SOME evidence is not a guarantee that the guilty party will walk, anyway. 

You seem to have a tough time with understanding how reality and the justice system don't always coincide.  Go figure.

Then there's only an indication of guilt, since "technically" not proven in court. . . :facepalm:

[sarcasm]

For those who don't grasp the concept of sarcasm. . .

So, evidence not included in a court ruling is "proven" not valid? 

There are many reasons why evidence is omitted from court proceedings or ordered to not be considered in rulings.  And many of them NOT because the evidence was proved not reliable.

You're so set on what you think is right in your own mind and so quick to argue anything else. . .

It's Cognitive Dissonance in its purest form.

Sports analogy time:

If an umpire calls every pitch sent your way  a strike, even those way outside the strike zone, the OFFICIAL outcome is a strike. 

But, based on eye witnesses, video, and maybe even testimony by the other team's players, the REALITY may be that the pitcher bribed the umpire for a favorable game for his team.

Just because the results are "certified" does not mean the results are correct.

Well, maybe everyone else is getting what the truth is wrong. . .

[end sarcasm]

What it appears is that OG's definition of the truth (or proven) is doled out by the courts.  Then by extension, truth is subject to interpretations, opinions, and therefore bias of those part of the court "ruling" process.  If one wants to accept that as "the truth", I guess that's that.  But don't force the logical, rational, and with a minimum amount of common sense to agree. . .

Well, maybe everyone else is getting what the truth is wrong. . .

[end sarcasm]

What it appears is that OG's definition of the truth (or proven) is doled out by the courts.  Then by extension, truth is subject to interpretations, opinions, and therefore bias of those part of the court "ruling" process.  If one wants to accept that as "the truth", I guess that's that.  But don't force the logical, rational, and with a minimum amount of common sense to agree. . .

He can't handle the truth -- if it means Trump won!

Sports analogy time:

If an umpire calls every pitch sent your way  a strike, even those way outside the strike zone, the OFFICIAL outcome is a strike. 

But, based on eye witnesses, video, and maybe even testimony by the other team's players, the REALITY may be that the pitcher bribed the umpire for a favorable game for his team.

Just because the results are "certified" does not mean the results are correct.

The OFFICIAL outcome is all that matters.  Which ideally is based off evidence.  Sports however is not the same as the justice system and does not carry the same weight.  The decision must be made in that split second and is not changed.  The justice system weighs all the LEGAL evidence and decides a binding outcome.  That binding outcome is the final result and supersedes all "evidence" until the new evidence is vetted back through the court system and a new or reaffirming outcome is released.

So, evidence not included in a court ruling is "proven" not valid? 

There are many reasons why evidence is omitted from court proceedings or ordered to not be considered in rulings.  And many of them NOT because the evidence was proved not reliable.

You're so set on what you think is right in your own mind and so quick to argue anything else. . .

Well, maybe everyone else is getting what the truth is wrong. . .

[end sarcasm]

What it appears is that OG's definition of the truth (or proven) is doled out by the courts.  Then by extension, truth is subject to interpretations, opinions, and therefore bias of those part of the court "ruling" process.  If one wants to accept that as "the truth", I guess that's that.  But don't force the logical, rational, and with a minimum amount of common sense to agree. . .

There must be one main affirming sense of truth.  Truth gained illegally is not valid (in the justice system).  That's why the evidence may prove something but the man may not be convicted of the crime.  This protects our rights.  If we only lived on a purely evidence based society for the justice system the government can invade your rights as long as the final result is gotten.  No warrants, no freedom, no rights.  We must also have one main source of truth for laws and certain things, if not everyone will believe their own version and society can't function.  The whole point of courts is it to be un-biased.  So far even without the courts no one here has proven ANY evidence of mass fraud enough to change the election results.  This is one of the reasons the courts threw out the cases.  There is no evidence.  Just unicorn dreams.  One day hopefully people here will realize this. 

The job of the courts is like a scientific test.  Have all the evidence and theories out there and come to a conclusion which one is correct. 

The court has 2 jobs.  Legality of evidence is step 1.  This protects everyone's rights.  Step 2 is the validity of evidence.  They serve to be an unbiased filter for evidence.  To root out illegal evidence and incorrect evidence.  They produce the final result based on all valid evidence they have.  Evidence must be valid to considered evidence in my opinion.  (for the justice system)