Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blackman1
Weren’t you just complaining that the system failed and is wrought with fraud? Now you’re saying the system works.
Or do I have you mistaken for someone else.
|
No, you just failed to comprehend what I said whether on purpose or to be obtuse, I do not know.
The "system" is the vote, the count and any court action that follows. They are all part of "the system"and some parts may work well, some not so well and there could be fraud, there could be mistakes like the Penn. SC obviously made, like not letting poll watchers close enough "if" that happened. A court will decide that and perhaps offer a remedy that could change the count without affecting the outcome, which the court will decide. The fact that the courts will decide this, is proof that the system works as well as it can be expected to with sometimes bias judges which we pretty much can't do anything about but it's better than no judges at all.
How the hell can a lawyer not understand such basic concepts of law? They can't, which leads me to believe that you say things you know are not true because, well, because that's who you are, just like Trump, you'll say anything you please and don't carer what anybody thinks.
I'm sure if you are a lawyer and I have my doubts, surely you have heard a judge say, "present your evidence" and the lawyer turns over affidavits. Does the judge say "no, affidavits are not evidence"? Of course not. He or she may decide that without corroborating evidence the affidavits don't amount to "proof" but they sure as hell are evidence. The judge could say the evidence you have submitted does not meet the rules of evidence and therefore after a judges consideration is deemed not to be evidence that will be allowed but before a judge hears it, the lawyer is calling it evidence.
