Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing

[Bob Juch]

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — A conservative group has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.

Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff.

A Fulton County Superior Court judge in Atlanta signed an order last year requiring True the Vote to provide evidence it had collected, including the names of people who were sources of information, to state elections officials who were frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence with investigators.

In their written response, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.

More: https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elec ... 007cd23115

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, Democrats can understand complicated issues. Maybe it's because they ignore all sides of complicated issues but the one they choose. That makes it soooo much easier.

[silverscreenselect]

Yes, Democrats can understand complicated issues. Maybe it's because they ignore all sides of complicated issues but the one they choose. That makes it soooo much easier.

True the Vote does a much better job of substantiating their claims in front of gullible tools like Flock than in front of judges and/or juries.

[Weyoun]

This is no surprise. They’ve had over three years to demonstrate evidence of something, and they haven’t, because they need to string along fools like flock for more money.

[Bob78164]

True the Vote does a much better job of substantiating their claims in front of gullible tools like Flock than in front of judges and/or juries.

I seem to remember someone saying that if True the Vote couldn't substantiate their claims, he'd leave the Bored and never come back. Am I misremembering or was that a lie? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

True the Vote does a much better job of substantiating their claims in front of gullible tools like Flock than in front of judges and/or juries.

I seem to remember someone saying that if True the Vote couldn't substantiate their claims, he'd leave the Bored and never come back. Am I misremembering or was that a lie? --Bob

So sue me.

Since I became semi-retired, I have devoted most of my time to election integrity in Georgia. I know that I don't know what I don't know, but I am sure I know more about this subject in detail than any of you. I am not going to share what I know on this bored, because I have seen firsthand the willingness and glee that some of you people like to use personal information as a weapon. While I don't have TVT's data, like the FBI and GBI have had for a long time, and I don't have the computer resources to analyze it even if I had it, I am confident that they are telling the truth.

Because I have had the opportunity and resources to examine several of the other claims relating to the Georgia State Voter Roll in detail, and have personally verified these claims, all of which are considered 'debunked' and disregarded by the SOS and the MSM on down to you useful idiots. I have personally experienced the incredible bias of one of the 'Major' news networks and their complete lack of interest in finding the truth when they have already decided on their storyline and their willingness to publicly smear good, decent people for the sake of their storyline. I can tell you, for however much it means to you, (which is nothing), you are not being told the truth. But you are happy with that. Far be it from me to intrude on your ignorant bliss.

[silverscreenselect]

Since I became semi-retired, I have devoted most of my time to election integrity fruitless efforts to find examples of election fraud in Georgia.

Fixed it for 'ya.

[Pastor Fireball]

True the Vote does a much better job of substantiating their claims in front of gullible tools like Flock than in front of judges and/or juries.

I seem to remember someone saying that if True the Vote couldn't substantiate their claims, he'd leave the Bored and never come back. Am I misremembering or was that a lie? --Bob

Considering that Former Guy promised that we would never hear from him again if he lost the 2020 election and that Putin's other useful idiot Tucker Charlatan said that he would commit suicide if the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl, I'm going with the latter choice. Just bluster and empty promises from these people.

[flockofseagulls104]

Since I became semi-retired, I have devoted most of my time to election integrity fruitless efforts to find examples of election fraud in Georgia.

Fixed it for 'ya.

Yup, good answer.

[wbtravis007]

True the Vote does a much better job of substantiating their claims in front of gullible tools like Flock than in front of judges and/or juries.

I seem to remember someone saying that if True the Vote couldn't substantiate their claims, he'd leave the Bored and never come back. Am I misremembering or was that a lie? --Bob

I think that there was one person, and only one, on this board who actually thought that he would honor that pledge -- flockofsappybutmeanspiritedseagulls himself. So, I wouldn't consider that his statement was a lie. Just another of the countless demonstrations of his most glaring weakness: an utter absence of self-awareness. I think that he honestly thought that he would be able to abide by his pledge this time. The rest of us knew that it would be broken, just as all of the others have been.

The first one that I remember was over twenty years ago. He said -- (and I thought that this was an odd statement) -- that if Rush Limbaugh were to hire a lawyer in connection with his OxyContin addiction, he would never listen to him again. I don't recall him ever offering an explanation -- even a lame one -- for re-negging on that one.

He seems to consider himself to be intellectually rigorous. The truth is, though, that he's emotionally driven and hopelessly undisciplined.

Remember the more-recent and short-lived "Perspective" series? That one sure didn't last long, either.

None of them have lasted long, and none ever will.

[flockofseagulls104]

Remember the more-recent and short-lived "Perspective" series? That one sure didn't last long, either.

Remember my challenge to you that you weasled out of?

None of you have the guts to defend your views by yourself. And you can't stay on one topic for more than 5 seconds. But you can find all kinds of stupid things to say about me. No problem there.

[wbtravis007]

Remember the more-recent and short-lived "Perspective" series? That one sure didn't last long, either.

Remember my challenge to you that you weasled out of?

None of you have the guts to defend your views by yourself. And you can't stay on one topic for more than 5 seconds. But you can find all kinds of stupid things to say about me. No problem there.

I have no idea what you’re talking about re: my weaseling out of something. Please enlighten me about that.

As for the rest of your post, I can’t make much sense out of that either.

But maybe it’ll be good for you to get that off of your chest, whatever it is.

[flockofseagulls104]

wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:41 am

TRAVIS:Ok. I’ll admit it.

Now, what’s your compromise?

---------------------

ME:
Against my better judgment, I will play. I will engage in a debate with you on this subject. A serious debate. At the first sign of you injecting any bullshit, it is over. I don't consider you, based on your history on this board, a serious person. But I will give you a chance.
...
This is probably not going to work, I know that from the start. But it will be a whole lot better than the way we debate things now. And to show if we can possibly do it at all.

---------------------------
TRAVIS:
Never mind. I take it back.

Good grief.
----------------
ME:
Point confirmed. You are not a serious person. Good luck.
------------------
TRAVIS:
I knew you’d never answer my question about what your “compromise” (your word) would be; i.e., under what circumstances you’d consider it to be appropriate for a baby (your characterization) to be killed.

Anyway, I appreciate your good wishes. Maybe you’re a little more mature than I had thought.
I was willing to explore my thoughts and convictions in a debate, rather than just throw barbs and links at each other. Maybe I would learn more about myself and learn things from a different perspective. But that seems to be beyond the scope of this bored. We seem to be happy just yelling at each other and telling the other guy how stupid they are.

[wbtravis007]

wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:41 am

TRAVIS:Ok. I’ll admit it.

Now, what’s your compromise?

---------------------

ME:
Against my better judgment, I will play. I will engage in a debate with you on this subject. A serious debate. At the first sign of you injecting any bullshit, it is over. I don't consider you, based on your history on this board, a serious person. But I will give you a chance.
...
This is probably not going to work, I know that from the start. But it will be a whole lot better than the way we debate things now. And to show if we can possibly do it at all.

---------------------------
TRAVIS:
Never mind. I take it back.

Good grief.
----------------
ME:
Point confirmed. You are not a serious person. Good luck.
------------------
TRAVIS:
I knew you’d never answer my question about what your “compromise” (your word) would be; i.e., under what circumstances you’d consider it to be appropriate for a baby (your characterization) to be killed.

Anyway, I appreciate your good wishes. Maybe you’re a little more mature than I had thought.
I was willing to explore my thoughts and convictions in a debate, rather than just throw barbs and links at each other. Maybe I would learn more about myself and learn things from a different perspective. But that seems to be beyond the scope of this bored. We seem to be happy just yelling at each other and telling the other guy how stupid they are.

Oh good grief. This is your example of me weaseling out of something? When I asked you what your "compromise" would be, and instead of answering you started a new thread with my question and wanted to go through a bunch of bullshit, and I declined? I really didn't care all that much about what your answer was going to be to begin with, and I certainly had no interest in wasting any more of my time with a lunatic who obviously wasn't going to answer anyway.

Guess I hurt your feelings. Did you ever answer that question in any other thread, or did you continue to weasel out of answering?

I've given you some advice before -- to seek help. Here's another bit of unsolicited advice: if you ever want to try to get someone to engage with you in a private exchange according to ridiculous regulations stipulated by you, try not to be such a dick about it.

I can see why you wouldn't have copied here your entire proposal. I'm guessing that even you are embarrassed by it with the benefit of hindsight. Here is the unedited version:

Against my better judgment, I will play. I will engage in a debate with you on this subject. A serious debate. At the first sign of you injecting any bullshit, it is over. I don't consider you, based on your history on this board, a serious person. But I will give you a chance.

This will be a debate between you and me, travis. NO OTHERS. I am not repressnting anyone's views but my own, and you are representing YOUR views on this subject. Anybody else posting on this thread will render it over and done with. And no posting links to/from 'experts'. For every expert you have, I can find a contradictory expert and vice versa. It is a waste of time.

This will be a debate of OUR opinions, no one else's.
I can't stop anyone from creating another thread to discuss this thread. But I can only hope you will not violate the intended spirit of this thread.

You have stated you admit that a fertilized egg is a human being. OK. We have that established.

What do you want?

I will start with a non-legalese statement. This is where I want to start. Don't pick on semantics, read it and understand its intended meaning.

Two people, one male and one female, who intentionally or unintentionally, produce another human life, are legally responsible for the well-being of that life. Except in specific circumstances, (which will be debated later), these two people have the responsibility for care of this human life from its conception until the life reaches the age of majority. They are forbidden to arbitrarily end that life except in specific circumstances.

This is probably not going to work, I know that from the start. But it will be a whole lot better than the way we debate things now. And to show if we can possibly do it at all.

And, when I thanked you for your good wishes and your maturity, I might have been just trying to be a little sarcastic.

[flockofseagulls104]

I tried, but you went right back to being a dick.

[jarnon]

FCC fines wireless carriers for sharing user locations without consent

I’m sorry, Flock. It will be much harder to track mules in 20204.