The art of the deal

And Merv Griffin practically owned Hollywood @ the time.

He lost though.

No, I think there was fraud, there are reasons, means and evidence. White and bottled.

70 court judges said there wasn't though

It's not enough to convince me. I don't think most judges are honest, knowledgeable and brave enough to stand up to globalism and sacrifice their jobs.

Rotflmao. It was trumps judges. Holy shit this is hilarious!

I do not understand what you are talking about.

This is like the third time today you've been told: many of the judges were appointed BY HIM!!! |f they were corrupt, then surely it's a good thing that he's not president anymore BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONE WHO PICKED THEM!!

I do not understand what you are saying, as you know, justice is independent of the executive.

You're not American, are you?

The judge is appointed by the president. That's how a person becomes a judge in the first place. That's common knowledge here.

In our system, judges are not beholden to political leaders in either the legislative or executive branches; in fact, their isolation from the other branches increases the likelihood that they will rule fairly and faithfully according to law. It also means that the federal courts can play an important role in monitoring the other branches of government, as well as state governments, by preventing and punishing misconduct and abuse. An obvious and important example of this is the United States Supreme Court v. Nixon (1974) case, which ruled against President Richard Nixon, reminding him that even he is not above the law.

Evidently not! As you can tell by the fact that judges rejected the case of the very president who appointed him in the first place!

Doesn't get much fairer than that - he got to pick his own judges and he STILL lost. And if that's a sign of corruption for you, then guess what? The president who picked such corrupt judges lost the election and has been replace so all is well.

I dont think so, or very obtuse. As on one side of his mouth he talks corruption, and the other side he talks law. Walking contriction.

Correct, not one of them had the balls to hear the evidence...

Well, don't worry, the president who appointed all those dishonest cowardly judges lost the election and has been replaced.

The power of the executive over the judges is very limited, and that is correct, it should be more limited. Judges act on their own. It is correct that it is so.

??? So you want judges to be picked by.........

..........themselves???

Help me out here, where were you going with this one? Under your system, can I just declare myself a federal judge right now and rule that we're done with this whole thing?

You see, as I told you. I don't think he really lost the election. But the electoral result has been accepted, even if it is fraudulent, because it has not been demonstrated within the legal political system, etc.

If it hasn't been demonstrated in the legal system then why do YOU believe it??

The vote has to be clean enough for people to trust.

It is the system that has to prove that it is not committing fraud, making the method safe.

If there are dirty things, people will distrust, that's not good. It is legitimate to distrust the result. Regardless of how good or bad it has been.

The citizen always has the last word. You are confusing things. Because it talks about proving something, and in the case of proving that there has been fraud, it is a different matter.

Before talking about the indications of fraud, which you seem to be denying. I need you to at least understand that every citizen is free to distrust the cleanliness of the result.

No, YOU have to prove that the vote WASN'T clean! Constitution says so.

You talk a lot about proving as if it were something easy to do such a thing, it is also difficult to prove the murders, and that it cannot be proven does not mean that there has not been a murder, but it is not known who or how he did it.

You should forget about insisting on this story, wondering what would happen if, according to you, you voted for Joe Biden, I don't think so, but supposing that it were so.

What would happen if it were proven that there was fraud?

Would you still want Biden to continue as president or would you prefer that the candidate who was actually voted for govern, even if it was not the one you voted for?

These questions are important.

I think you haven't even checked the evidence, because you don't want to risk putting yourself in that awkward situation that leads to a moral contradiction.

It's easy to do when you have evidence. But 70 times the judges asked for evidence and all you produced was inadmissible nonsense. You're finding it hard PRECISELY BECAUSE you're trying to prove something that didn't actually happen.

Why not ask these existential questions AFTER proving that it actually happened?

You have to understand this first, otherwise I can't explain the rest.

First you have to understand that the citizen is free to decide if he wants to believe in the validity of the electoral result.

That the electoral process tries to validate itself, and if it does not succeed, it is an error of the system itself, which has not provided sufficient means to guarantee its honorability and cleanliness.

Without demonstration there is no democracy. It is not necessary to prove electoral fraud to distrust it.

You will have noticed that the word democracy and demonstration have the same root meaning people. Democracy comes from voting being able to show something to the people, if it can't show that to the people, it doesn't serve the purpose for which it exists.

A result may be unreliable, it does not mean that there has been fraud, it means that it is not certain that it is true to reality. On the basis that there are not enough mechanisms to guarantee that it has not been corrupted. For example, the case of buying votes, or voting by mass mail, or counting machines giving errors.

Then you can't explain the rest, period! The Constitution says that you have to prove that fraud did happen. Burden of proof is on the accuser. If you don't like it, America is not for you!

Demonstration is Latin, by the way, not Greek. Demos meaning people is a Greek word. Demonstration is de + monstrare, literally "to explain about something" - nothing to do with people at all.

Between distrusting the result and believing that there has been fraud, there is a stretch, and from believing that there is fraud to being able to prove it, there is another stretch. But you seem to be ignoring this.

I don't know who you're trying to convince, but certainly not me, and if you says you voted Mr. Joe Biden, I don't believe it.

I think you are just trying to provoke by saying that kind of things.

As your name says, going against anything anyother say, that's why I don't take you seriously.

If you are only here to contradict everything I say, you will see that this is precisely what makes me unable to take you seriously, since you are not capable of recognizing even something insignificant such as the fact that citizens have the right to not trust the result, and that it is the system that has to succeed in convincing people in a clean way, not by judicial or social coercion, etc.

Ignoring the fact that you couldn't prove your claims in court? No, I'm not ignoring that at all. It's the basis of my entire point, actually.

Prove that I didn't vote for Joe Biden. I dare you to. Prove in court that my vote should be struck down as fraudulent. If you can't, then I did, and my vote gets added to the count.

The case that people have allegedly voted for Mr. Joe Biden instead of Mr. Donald Trump, is in itself a reason to distrust the result. distrusting the ruling class. Then there is a lot of evidence, I have put some links. There are votes that have been proven to be fraudulent. The problem is being able to prove total fraud, and change the result, as many people think. In my case, I don't trust the result, I think there is enough fraud, another thing is that I can't prove it. I'm sorry for you. As much as I say try it, I can't.

The most I can do is put links for you to see the evidence, the testimonials, etc. but beyond that I can not do more.

You say that people are forced to believe that the result is clean. NO. In this way, the system of freedoms could not be maintained. The system is the one that must prove to the people to be clean. The citizen is free to believe what he wants.

.....the reason to distrust the result is because the result alleges that people actually voted for Joe Biden????

What complete nonsense. I certainly did. I dare you to try to have my vote struck down as fraudulent.

And I don't think you're even a citizen!

Citizens can believe what they want, it is a right contained in the first amendment of the United States, freedom of expression implies being able to express what one believes. If one does not believe that the vote was fair, one has the right to express it. And no one can pretend to force you to prove it in order to express your opinion.

Prosecutions of fraud are not based on the expression of your opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I did not say the opposite. You are pretending to say that I have said that. He hastens in his way of understanding things. There are intermediate steps that you are ignoring.

No, YOU'RE ignoring that the Constitutional requirement is on your proof of your accusations!

And if you have evidence, go straight to the courts with it. What the hell do you expect me to do with stuff that you can't even get accepted in a courtroom?

In the case you are talking about, you are inverting what a citizen can give an opinion based on whether he can prove that what he thinks is true. In that case there would be no freedom of expression. In that case we would not be talking about a system of freedom, but about a totalitarian dictatorship more like any other.

Constitution says you're free to prove your accusations whenever you like.

Oh, what's that? You can't? Then your case is thrown out of the courtroom then. The election result stands. Tough nougies.

It is long to explain, but there is a documentary that deals with the electoral fraud of 2020. Justice does not always serve to fix things, if the system is corrupt from above.

If it's too long to explain, then there's a strong chance you simply didn't understand the explanation and accepted it as a matter of convenience for yourself.

And don't worry, the president who appointed such corrupt judges lost the election and has been replaced. I'm not sure why you're struggling so hard to give the election to the exact president who appointed such corrupt judges.

It seems that you have it backwards, it is the system that has to convince me that the votes are counted correctly, not the other way around. If not... it wouldn't be constitutional, don't you think?

Do you think I have to believe something just because a judge doesn't say so? It seems ridiculous to me.

No. YOU'RE the accuser. YOU have to prove there was fraud. Constitution says so.

Why do you hate America?

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that in any way. You are interpreting the constitution in an erroneous way and with totalitarian overtones. The constitution is not made to justify a dictatorship, but to avoid it.

The voting system is the one that has to prove its validity by itself, citizens are not obliged to trust its validity.

Tough! The Constitution puts the burden of proof on the accuser! If that's too totalitarian for you, don't live in America!

If voting cannot prove itself clean, it is useless, it is not useful for what it was invented for. No matter what you say as you interpret the constitution, it cannot be interpreted contrary to its purpose.

No, YOU'RE the accuser. YOU have to prove that the vote WASN'T clean. Constitution says so.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that point of view. It is the system that has to show that the vote is clean. And the suspicion of the result is an undeniable right, regardless of anything.

Tough! The Constitution says you have to! American jurisprudence puts the burden of the proof on the accuser and if you can't do that, then the election was legitimate.

I don't have to prove that the result is fraud just because I don't trust it. It is the one who makes the vote who is responsible for doing it in such a way that the greatest number of people do not doubt the result.

Yes you do! Constitution says so! If you can't prove your accusations, then the election was legitimate. Why do you hate America?

It is not as simple as saying that justice has possession of what is true and what is false, it is nothing more than an instrument of the social system. You can't magnify that to make it some kind of all-powerful entity. Sometimes things cannot be proven, which does not mean that they did not happen and that others cannot believe them.

You have asked me why I believed that there is electoral fraud, it is difficult to explain all the details, in that case you would have to be me, which is impossible.

Some evidence

https://bridgeurl.com/election-fraud
https://hereistheevidence.com/

Search for "2000 mules documentary"

Uh, yeah, actually, things can cannot be proven ARE treated as though they didn't happen. That's the point. You can't just go around accusing people without providing evidence.

I think you're getting it backwards. The electoral system works as long as it can prove to the citizens that the votes are counted correctly, then there are no fights, but if everything is hidden, it is manipulated, persecuted, censored, etc. all that it does is take away all the meaning of the vote itself. If the vote is not FREELY credible by the citizens, then it is not constitutional.

I hope you understand, I learned that from a very young age, and I cannot consider a version that determines what should be externally and independently of the will of the individual, from whom the powers of the state emanate.

No. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Constitution. That means YOU have to prove there WAS fraud.

It is the state that has to show me, and all the citizens who distrust the cleanliness of the vote that it has been clean, not the other way around.

No. Constitution says the burden of proof is on the accuser. That's you!

You don't have to prove anything to distrust the result, I'm trying to explain it to you. If it were so, the system could not work, because then the power of the state would not emanate from the freedom of the citizen.

Apparently the system *does* work because the burden of proof has always been on the accuser and you all completely failed to produce one shred of evidence that EVEN A SINGLE BALLOT was fraudelent - never mind millions of them!!!

Voting has to be clean and transparent enough to make people trust the validity of the result. Not the other way around. I do not trust the validity, because I am a free citizen, the powers of the state flow from the freedom of the individual, not the other way around.

On the contrary, it would be a dictatorship. I don't have to prove anything. I wish I could try it but that is very difficult.

Yes you do - you're the one accusing fraud! The burden of proof is on you! Constitution says so!!!

Are you even American? This is like sixth grade civics. The burden of proof is on the accuser, always, in all cases. It's one of America's great contributions to pioneering modern law.

There is an intermediate between someone distrusting the result and being able to prove that the result is not clean. Which cannot be guaranteed. It is a system error if it is not able to prove its cleanliness. I don't know how to explain it.

People accept the process because they believe in the cleanliness of the result. That allows for peace. But if people don't believe in the process, there can be problems.

If I had to prove it before being able to distrust the result, then I could never distrust the result, therefore, I would not be able to establish a complaint so that it is investigated and possible evidence is found, it would be a dictatorship.

No, it is the system itself that has to try to be clean enough so that people can trust its cleanliness and honorability.

It's not a dictatorship to say that if you don't have a good reason to dispute the result THEN THE RESULT STANDS!

Because someone does not trust the result, he is not obliged to show that it is not reliable for others who do trust him.

Yes he is! Constitution! It is a Constitutional obligation! The judge has to ask for evidence that it happened, not for evidence that it didn't happen.

I am not accusing at this time, but stating my state of belief that the elections were fraudulent and changed the result.

Hmm, let's see how I explain it. I don't have to believe something just because there is a system that says it's not proven.

I obviously have evidence, I don't believe things just because. But they may not be enough for other people, or for the court system. It is a complicated matter.

"I'm not accusing, but it was fraud."

If you have evidence, go straight to a courtroom with it!!!!! The 2000 mules movie has already been ruled inadmissible in court BECAUSE IT IS NOT REAL EVIDENCE!

Until now, only the billionaire Trump has been one of the few who has faced any of this. Among other things because his wealth does not depend on those powers.

Ok. You still have to prove it in court though.

I am not accusing, I do not believe that the vote is clean, besides, it is the only way that I can continue to have faith in humanity. Because I believe there is fraud, I can have some hope in humanity.

"I am not accusing. But there was fraud."

How do you not get this????

It would be impossible for a system of freedoms to work if those who distrust a vote are forced to trust its validity if they do not have the means to demonstrate that it is not in accordance with reality. Nor has the system proven that the vote is consistent with reality.

If we cannot trust the validity of the result, the counting procedure, etc. we have a vote that is useless for what was invented.

If they do not have the means to demonstrate the basis of their accusations then THAT IS A PRETTY BIG SIGN RIGHT THERE THAT THE ACCUSATION WERE ENTIRELY MADE UP!!!

Can't prosecute fraud without evidence. Constitution says so. Election stands as legitimate.

I have said, I believe that there is fraud, and that it changes the result. But from there to being able to prove that it really is so, and also knowing who all the culprits are, there is a long way. You cannot subordinate a belief that motivates distrust of the electoral result to the obligatory need to be able to prove that it is not reliable.

It is a right of every citizen in a free country to distrust the voting system. It is the system that has to find a way to be credible for people, and not people should be forced to believe in something even if they don't want to.

No, YOU have to prove that the system DIDN'T run it credibly! Constitution says so!

Yup... correct... statistical analysis proved it...

Oh yeah? What were the p-values?

American shaman asks....