impartialobserver

The environment in this case is not just a neighborhood or city.. Its the entire planet. I love how folks like you call it excuses when I point out simple objective reality. its 90 degrees here in Carson City..but by your logic, I am whining about the heat. Too funny

Extremely small sample size. 15 to 20 posters who create content. 15 or 20 out of millions is paltry.

That is not enough, not even close. Lets get this clear, I do not believe that widespread voter fraud happened. Just laying out the legal realities for someone.

My point is not to brag about positive job gains. Clear enough? It is to mock a certain somebody who thinks that the BLS fudges the numbers in order to make Biden and/or Harris look good. By the way.. monthly revisions happen every single month.. Been doing this for 9 years and have seen it every single month. August numbers will be preliminary and in Sept.. they will be revised. Nothing nefarious or interesting. Oh.. and then they are revised again in October and declared final. And then in march 2025.. the entire calendar year 2024 will be revised in a process called benchmarking.

to produce this "evidence", he needs to have full access to every ballot. To get the access that he wants, he needs proof other than unfavorable results.

He is the typical emotional, moral police, type of voter. Just one of many honestly.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm well, wonder how much of this 142,000 in annual job gains is Biden fudging the number?

So then it is not purely an issue of moral superiority on your part and them being inferior.. the environment that they are growing up in is not the same so expecting the same outcomes is foolish.

for the umpteenth time.. the defendants (sorry, had it mixed up) therefore those doing the recounts did have access to the ballots. It is not them who is bringing the cases forth.. is it? Trump is the plaintiff therefore has certain legal obstacles in front of him before he can see every ballot.. the data. He has the burden of proof upon him.

Every time there is a shooting, the internet lights up with folks saying that if there were stricter gun laws this would not happen. On the surface, I want to agree with them. But then I think about the sheer number of guns, how easy it is to buy one, and the population. That alone makes any law mostly a deterrent to some but not going to stop them all and that is what these folks who get outraged want. They do not want less of them.. they want this mythical land where the random, spree killers are stopped and yet garden variety drug deal gone bad does occur.

The trump campaign or whoever the defendant is does not get access to every single ballot. Only the plaintiff does. I have no problem with this. am just explaining this to someone

then we are done.. because I think you are misunderstanding me.

I need clarification... can you answer one simple question?

How successful they are at creating legislation and getting it to pass being the only quantifiable metric. From what I have seen when I meet them in person.. the older are no more knowledgeable about law or the technical details than the new ones.

and none of this is affected by the ubiquity of the internet, smart phones, automation, etc?

Those tell tales could be an indication of any number of things. he was starting to lose at the tables where he had been prodigious in years past. His business ventures were starting to not be cash cows.. they were still profitable but not as much. I just do not know of a way if you have the second amendment and legal CCW permits that you can eliminate these shootings completely. You can mitigate them but make the number go to zero... not so sure.

Its state law and you are getting up tripped on one detail. The defendant, Trump, in this case is legally barred from seeing the ballots in their raw. The plaintiffs are not barred. These laws have been in place since the 1960's and far good reason. These laws predate Trump ever running for office. It makes perfect sense why you do not want someone's voting choices along with their name, address, etc. being easily accessed. Would you agree?

Ok, lets clear up one detail.. would you say that Trump in these cases was the plaintiff or defendant? It really matters

the raw data that Trump's campaign wants access to is the paper forms along with the individual voter forms.. not rolled up totals. There is a good reason that laws are in place barring people from seeing this. For example, lets say that for a state Biden got 891,354 votes.. they want to see every ballot (physical or digital) that shows this. Is that clear?

it is not a matter of being hidden or anything nefarious. its a matter of established law that states that to get access to micro level voter data (person by person).. you need to have proof of fraud. The people bringing the cases to court (trump and his campaign) can only prove their case by getting access to the raw data. Do you see how it is confounding? They have the right to believe that these audits are false or done incorrect. it just happens that there exists no legal way for them to perform the audit themselves.

Even then, there are exceptions. Stephen Paddock did not let on that anything was bothering him. All that the very few people close to him knew was that his gambling fortunes were starting to not be so great.

Look I do not believe that widespread voter fraud occurred. However, the reason that the court cases were all thrown out is due to lack of evidence. The evidence can't be legally procured unless you have proof of the offense. This is why id10t Mike Lindell tried so hard to find another way. He knew that the evidence (if it even exists) was behind lock and key.

small sample size but have found that the long time politicians are no better to do their jobs than the new ones. At least those in NV. Older and more experienced does not translate to much from my experience.

I have said it before but the reason that all of the voter fraud cases failed was due to laws that predate all of this. In essence, the laws mostly demand that you have proof of the crime before you can have the voter rolls/data opened up to you. The evidence is the voter rolls.. so of course they all failed.

I am talking about any drug that you spend money on. the efficacy of the drug is secondary. This is the reason that prescription drug and gas prices get folks so worked up. The perceived lack of options and control. About Purdue Pharma, its my understanding that the only CRIMINAL (as opposed to civil) charges brought against them were fraud and kickback conspiracy. I can see why being found guilty of these would only result in fines.