What would you do?

[wbtravis007]

Maybe the political divide in our country is about who trusts the system and who doesn't?

While I try to have a healthy realism that some people will take advantage of a thing, I have always chosen not to live my life always on guard for it. For me, it would be an unhealthy existence. I saw a definition somewhere in the past year or so that anxiety is nearly always about the future, about worrying what might go wrong, and I can't fathom choosing that kind of instability in my stomach.

As I say on this bored often, I know that I don't know what I don't know. I take with a grain of salt anything that is proclaimed as fact on the internet that does not come with verifiable proof.

There's a lot of things I don't know about the claims on both sides of the election integrity issue. One side says one thing, the other side says the complete opposite. Either one side is lying, or the other, but most times both. But there are some things, given my skills, that I can verify for myself. And based on my own knowledge, if I can verify the claims of one side of an issue, that side gains credibility, and the other side loses credibility. Here's one:

I have been able, using verified, publicly available data, to determine one of the indictment charges that Fani Willis has made against Donald Trump, John Eastman and Ray Stallings Smith is demonstrably FALSE. She charges them with making false statements. One of them was claiming that either 1043 or 904 people voted on 11/3/2020 from illegal post office box addresses. (Pages 21,51 and 73 of the indictment)

That I can verify. I did so. I found that there were at least 1077 votes in the Georgia 2020 election from addresses that are either standalone post offices or standalone UPS Store addresses (I have Google map photos of the addresses). Using a Post Office or UPS Store box as your residence address is actually a felony in Georgia. And my verification is not exhaustive, but it is valid. Fani Willis made a false statement that she could have verified (She has more resources available to her than I have). She decided to include it in her indictment without verifying it was false. And, even worse, none of the MSM, who could have easily done what I did, bothered to check what she claimed. And on the subject of the MSM, I have another personal experience with them that verifies to me that they are not interested in the truth, just on their pre-decided narrative.

There are other Willis charges there that I don't have the data which I need to verify. But based on that one case, her charge and her indictment is suspect and loses credibility.

There are several other issues I have looked into, and so far all of them have been verified on the side of those who question the results of the election of 2020. And I continue to look into claims that I have the data to verify. So, unlike our trollboy, who relies on his 'experts' for his opinion, I have researched for myself, and I know what I know.

For you, skoop, I offer this: If you want to get into contact with me, I will show you the proof I have. If you agree to share with the bored your opinion after you've seen my proof. Not that it would convince any of the closed minds here, but it would be nice to have independent validation.

It is not the people you know. It is the people you don't know who run and control the system.

I’m sure that the attorneys for Trump, Eastman, and Smith would appreciate getting your information about those post office box addresses. I doubt that even they, though, would use that info to try to suggest that a Motion to Dismiss should be granted with respect to those defendants.

If given the opportunity, a jury will decide, based on all of the evidence, including yours.

Your seemingly recently-acquired contempt of our judicial system and the rule of law in our country reveals your ignorance of many things, again.

If you’re really so sure that the jury’s verdict will ensure Trump’s election, and that it will be overturned on appeal, it seems to me that you should be able to at least temporarily enjoy a moment of non-hyperventilation.

I’m with Skoop here.

[wbtravis007]

Maybe the political divide in our country is about who trusts the system and who doesn't?

While I try to have a healthy realism that some people will take advantage of a thing, I have always chosen not to live my life always on guard for it. For me, it would be an unhealthy existence. I saw a definition somewhere in the past year or so that anxiety is nearly always about the future, about worrying what might go wrong, and I can't fathom choosing that kind of instability in my stomach.

Rec!

Always a voice of reason here.

[silverscreenselect]

I have been able, using verified, publicly available data, to determine one of the indictment charges that Fani Willis has made against Donald Trump, John Eastman and Ray Stallings Smith is demonstrably FALSE. She charges them with making false statements. One of them was claiming that either 1043 or 904 people voted on 11/3/2020 from illegal post office box addresses. (Pages 21,51 and 73 of the indictment)

As usual, the only thing Flock proves with his "publicly available data" is that his reading comprehension abilities are sadly lacking. One of the acts (Act 113) alleged to have been committed by Trump in the indictment, says that he made at least one of a list of 13 allegedly false statements to Raffensparger on January 2, 2021. Those 13 statements included one that 904 people who voted in Georgia were registered at a post office box. They also included a statement that Trump won Georgia by 400,000 votes. Willis isn't claiming that the statement about 904 people voting illegally was Trump's only false statement and isn't prosecuting him solely because of that allegedly false statement.

Similarly, on page 73, Count 4 of the indictment alleges that another defendant, Ray Smith, made at least one false statement out of a list of six given. Again, she doesn't have to prove that all those statements were false.

[flockofseagulls104]

I have been able, using verified, publicly available data, to determine one of the indictment charges that Fani Willis has made against Donald Trump, John Eastman and Ray Stallings Smith is demonstrably FALSE. She charges them with making false statements. One of them was claiming that either 1043 or 904 people voted on 11/3/2020 from illegal post office box addresses. (Pages 21,51 and 73 of the indictment)

As usual, the only thing Flock proves with his "publicly available data" is that his reading comprehension abilities are sadly lacking. One of the acts (Act 113) alleged to have been committed by Trump in the indictment, says that he made at least one of a list of 13 allegedly false statements to Raffensparger on January 2, 2021. Those 13 statements included one that 904 people who voted in Georgia were registered at a post office box. They also included a statement that Trump won Georgia by 400,000 votes. Willis isn't claiming that the statement about 904 people voting illegally was Trump's only false statement and isn't prosecuting him solely because of that allegedly false statement.

Similarly, on page 73, Count 4 of the indictment alleges that another defendant, Ray Smith, made at least one false statement out of a list of six given. Again, she doesn't have to prove that all those statements were false.

I guess it's like progressive education. Here's ten answers to the math problem on the test. Maybe one of them is right, so I get credit. Is this how the legal system works nowadays? If she is threatening to put someone in jail, I think she has the burden of making sure she is correct in her charges?
She has the burden of proof. She is charging someone with a crime. It is not a multiple-choice question. If just one of her charges is provably false, there is not just reasonable doubt, there is indisputable doubt. But we don't follow the old, traditional rules when it comes to Trump, do we?

[Ritterskoop]

Flock, I'm not ignoring your proposal, I am mulling it.

I'm not sure what would be different if you could prove what you say about Georgia votes.

It feels like most of the crimes alleged in Georgia are things would still be wrong, and worth charging people with crimes. Doesn't mean they should be convicted; that's up to a jury. But those things seem charge-worthy.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock, I'm not ignoring your proposal, I am mulling it.

I'm not sure what would be different if you could prove what you say about Georgia votes.

It feels like most of the crimes alleged in Georgia are things would still be wrong, and worth charging people with crimes. Doesn't mean they should be convicted; that's up to a jury. But those things seem charge-worthy.

What would be different is that you are not a polarizing figure on this bored, though you do tend to side with the accepted media narrative. If I could show you proof that the accepted narrative is in error, and that, as a representative (or former representative) of the media, you are willing to accept it, maybe it would broaden the perspective of some on this board. And, extrapolating to the real world, if some current members of the MSM had the courage to examine the evidence contrary to their narrative, perhaps some of the polarization would be lessened.

[wbtravis007]

Flock, I'm not ignoring your proposal, I am mulling it.

I'm not sure what would be different if you could prove what you say about Georgia votes.

It feels like most of the crimes alleged in Georgia are things would still be wrong, and worth charging people with crimes. Doesn't mean they should be convicted; that's up to a jury. But those things seem charge-worthy.

What would be different is that you are not a polarizing figure on this bored, though you do tend to side with the accepted media narrative. If I could show you proof that the accepted narrative is in error, and that, as a representative (or former representative) of the media, you are willing to accept it, maybe it would broaden the perspective of some on this board. And, extrapolating to the real world, if some current members of the MSM had the courage to examine the evidence contrary to their narrative, perhaps some of the polarization would be lessened.

Back in the day, when the Hare Krishnas were roaming the airports handing out beads and other stuff hoping to engage with anyone willing to hear their pitch, my strategy always was to avoid eye contact.

Kind of like what I’ve always cautioned my wife and kids about whenever we’ve been in a restaurant where there’s a Mariachi guy (or guys) or somebody else with another instrument hoping that they can get enough of an opening to play a song at your table to try to make you feel obligated to pay them something: Don’t make eye contact!

Even at carnivals, or when people in Vegas or NYC or elsewhere are trying to hand you stuff, hoping to engage, a polite “thanks but we’re good” is a perfectly fine response.

Just saying.

[flockofseagulls104]

Still mulling it over, skoop?
If you are truly objective, you can see how trollboy is ignoring evidence right in front of his face. If I told him the world was round, he would respond with quotes from flat earthers. Would he respond the same way to you if you were convinced by the evidence I could show you? I don't know. Are you game?

[wbtravis007]

Still mulling it over, skoop?
If you are truly objective, you can see how trollboy is ignoring evidence right in front of his face. If I told him the world was round, he would respond with quotes from flat earthers. Would he respond the same way to you if you were convinced by the evidence I could show you? I don't know. Are you game?

Wow.