Why Trump should not be reelected

[gww]

Ben
Ok, for the record, you admit in your belief that the courts are corrupt even though you hope not.

I on the other hand do not believe that all the courts that were presented stuff are corrupt.  You say I twisted words and all the world will see it.  I say your response with the lin wood in it was based on my previous statement inferring  that you had to believe that every body was crooked for you to give credence to binnall's claims.  By your response to this accusation of mine you said you hope not but than said you might.  Why screw around and not just say you believe they are all corrupts.  I didn't mix a bunch of words telling you that I did not buy that.  You are correct, the whole world can see this.  I can live with that and even may be happy with that.  Let the people read and take what they will.  Other wise they may be bamboozled into thinking all the judges and election officials might be crooked by just having your statement to read..  I could see one judge being crooked just like one citizen might cheat but do not believe the whole system is corrupt.

You mentioned my math problem and attributed it binnell statement.  You being up on all this should have heard about that math problem way before binnall testimony.  I did not attribute it to him but just showed some supposed evidence that was presented earlier to show that binnall statements might be worth putting in context cause these misleading talking points were what his ilk is pedaling.  He was pedaling 70.000 voters to the 690,000 voters in two different elections as if that fact on its own with out what untoward thing caused it means anything.  It is not fraud just cause you are mad that more people voted.  You accuse that I did not read his statement.  Where do you come off?  Did I tell you that?  You are kinda like the pot calling the kettle black if you are pointing out somebody is going to get read for making things up  don't you think?

What I did say is that some of the stuff he is pedaling is getting debunked by courts and news media.

You ask about whether I say binnall was lying.  That is like asking me if I think you are lying.  You might believe this cockamamie you are spreading cause you don't have enough info or might be delusional or you might not care and just have an agenda.  How could I tell the difference from here.   

Binnall is a supposed lawyer who went to school to learn how to phrase things in a fashion that would keep him from crossing the line into perjury.  Doesn't mean he isn't a payed advocate to make the most out of all he can. 
I might consider it lying but the courts might have a different standard which is why they ask some like kind lawyers in court if they were presenting evidence of fraud and those lawyers put in that spot directly by judges said no even though they threw it around in their opening arguments. 
Cheers
gww

[Ben Framed]

>Ben
>Ok, for the record, you admit in your belief that the courts are corrupt even though you hope not.

Those are your words not mine. I admit you are attempting at twisting my words even again, I am beginning to wonder if  you are simply trolling or really serious? Did you not just read my words?

> I say your response with the lin wood in it was based on my previous statement inferring  that you had to believe that for you to give credence to binnall's claims.

I am not giving credence to his claims. If you will slow down, read carefully, you see what I said referring to Attorney Lin Woods' claims "it shudders me to think of such." Meaning surely he is mistaken!  I also said if so I want to see the evidence. I will now add; If his claims are true, I would think everyone else would want to see this alleged evidence also? Wouldn't you?  The reality is some are still rejecting clear evidence such as given under oath by Jesse Binnall before the Senate Homeland Security hearing on election fraud. What about you? For the record, do you believe the evidence given by Mr Binall is lies?

> You accuse that I did not read his statement.

You are once again "mistaken" and wrong.
Quoting myself "I can not force you to read the statement of Jesse Binall, nor believe it if you have, or even understand it if you have." My meaning here is was if you have read it gww. I was not intending to suggest you have not read it that is why I put the comma.

> It is not fraud just cause you are mad that more people voted. 

You are again mistaken.  It is my opinion based on not only Mr Binalls testimony, but many many others, plenty of folks voted. More than enough to assure Mr Trump clearly won the election. Considering evidence of Mr Binall and many many others.
And furthermore speak for yourself,  I'm not mad, in fact I am just getting warmed up.

> What I did say is that some of the stuff he is pedaling is getting debunked by courts and news media.

Yes that is what you say. But not what Mr Binall says. He says just the opposite. Must I quote him once again? OK here you go. "Our evidence has never been refuted; only Ignored." Jesse Binnall. Notice I put ignored in red so you would not miss it this time.

>You ask about whether I say binnall was lying.  That is like asking me if I think you are lying.  You might believe this cockamamie you are spreading cause you don't have enough info or might be delusional or you might not care and just have an agenda.  How could I tell the difference from here. 

As far as your misleading accusation of me being delusional or might not care or just have an agenda. I am simply chasing facts, not fiction that the left is peddling. If I did not care I would not be so diligently seeking the truth, . As far as cockamamie as you put it that I am spreading; I am spreading nothing. Another attack and false accusation. I am telling you what Mr Binall has stated under oath. Your continued false accusations and personal attacks on me will profit you nothing. As far as you asking, how could I tell the difference from here? Sadly, I really don't know if some are capable of seeing the truth. I hope that does not include you.  But the first thing you can do in seeking the truth as far as the election situation is concerned: Start with Mr Binalls testimony before the Senate as sworn under oath and check out the facts for yourself EVERYTHING look them up which he posted. All is found in the avenues he stated. I surely welcome truthful information I really hope you do as well? I am supposing anyone with good judgement can plainly see Mr Binall is truthful because of the evidence his hard working team has gathered under stress in a very short time with opposition of courts and officials at each turn as he stated in his report. This evidence given thus far with backing. Plenty information has been posted here since the mystery of halting of vote counting on election night. The ocean of evidence.



> What I did say is that some of the stuff he is pedaling is getting debunked by courts and news media.

As far as courts, I have not read or heard from any court that has debunked one word of what Mr Binall said in his sworn statement. Where did you find this, let me in on it please.. Which court has debunked a word of Mr Binnalls' statement. I am defending Mr Binall against (obvious predigest) here in our little debate. Attack on. lol Media, you mean the same media which falsely accused Trump of collusion with the Russians night and day. We know how that went. Fake NO EVIDENCE, UNLIKE what we have here; EVIDENCE Unless Binall and many many more are flat out lying.

 
>Binnall is a supposed lawyer who whet to school to learn how to phrase things in a fashion that would keep him from crossing the line into perjury.  Doesn't mean he isn't a payed advocate to make the most out of all he can.

It doesn't take a genius to present the evidence he has presented under oath. It does take Guts, he has both brains and guts...

Cheers
Ben

[gww]

ben
I have no problem if somebody cheats and is caught and punished for it.  That is how it is supposed to work.  That is the only way that my little one vote really counts.  However, that includes trying to suppress votes in their use the legal system.  I feel lucky that the legal system seems to be working.  I am smart enough to know that a quarter of a billion can by a whole bunch of legal guns.  Your position still relies on the legal system being broke.  There is nothing stopping binnal of using the legal system and the legal system seems to be part of his complaint.  I am pretty sure these lawyer teams have every drop of binnalls so called evidence.
Quote from you:

As far as courts, I have not read or heard from any court that has debunked one word of what Mr Binall said in his sworn statement.

From binnall himself:

When we filed suit, state officials , even courts delayed proceedings for days then offered us merely hours to brief and argue our cases.

Please don't tell me nobody has heard his stuff.

Again, it comes down to the fact that you have to believe every official is crooked to take his statement too far.

If biden cheated to win, I would be angry but he did not.  The only one wanting to cheat is trump and he said this was what he was going to do even before the election.  If he was nothing else, he was clear in pre-warning every one.  He has tried hard since then but has only accomplished misleading some people on how strong his case is.  The system is holding against his attack.

Russian collusion.  All I know for sure besides the muller report is that during senate confirmation several appointees did lie and have to correct statements on their contacts with russia at the very beginning of trumps term.  Hmm, why lie and that obstruct.  This is probably part of the reason biden got 80 million votes.

I did not like it but figured even if people were influenced by russian profaganda, they were still the ones that pulled the lever and so trump won.  Funny thing about voting is we have the right to hurt our selves.  So I accepted the election.

However, that is over and we are talking this election. 

Now, for what ever reason, biden got the most votes. 

Biden is and will be president for better or worse.

The american system is working properly and the whole system is not corrupt.
Anyway
Cheers
gww

[Ben Framed]

ben
I have no problem if somebody cheats and is caught and punished for it.  That is how it is supposed to work.  That is the only way that my little one vote really counts.  However, that includes trying to suppress votes in their use the legal system.  I feel lucky that the legal system seems to be working.  I am smart enough to know that a quarter of a billion can by a whole bunch of legal guns.  Your position still relies on the legal system being broke.  There is nothing stopping binnal of using the legal system and the legal system seems to be part of his complaint.  I am pretty sure these lawyer teams have every drop of binnalls so called evidence.
Quote from you:

As far as courts, I have not read or heard from any court that has debunked one word of what Mr Binall said in his sworn statement.

From binnall himself:

When we filed suit, state officials , even courts delayed proceedings for days then offered us merely hours to brief and argue our cases.

Please don't tell me nobody has heard his stuff.

Again, it comes down to the fact that you have to believe every official is crooked to take his statement too far.

If biden cheated to win, I would be angry but he did not.  The only one wanting to cheat is trump and he said this was what he was going to do even before the election.  If he was nothing else, he was clear in pre-warning every one.  He has tried hard since then but has only accomplished misleading some people on how strong his case is.  The system is holding against his attack.

Russian collusion.  All I know for sure besides the muller report is that during senate confirmation several appointees did lie and have to correct statements on their contacts with russia at the very beginning of trumps term.  Hmm, why lie and that obstruct.  This is probably part of the reason biden got 80 million votes.

I did not like it but figured even if people were influenced by russian profaganda, they were still the ones that pulled the lever and so trump won.  Funny thing about voting is we have the right to hurt our selves.  So I accepted the election.

However, that is over and we are talking this election. 

Now, for what ever reason, biden got the most votes. 

Biden is and will be president for better or worse.

The american system is working properly and the whole system is not corrupt.
Anyway
Cheers
gww

>  I am smart enough to know that a quarter of a billion can by a whole bunch of legal guns.

Hum very interesting, what is your meaning here? Who is footing the money, who will receive these "legal" guns? The left? Why all of a sudden are you bringing guns into the picture of this debate? Is this some kind of twisted threat? You may have some explaining to do?

> Your position still relies on the legal system being broke.

Bunkum. I have stated what Mr Binall has stated.

> From binnall himself:
   Quote
   When we filed suit, state officials , even courts delayed proceedings for days then offered us merely hours to brief and
   argue our cases. >Please don't tell me nobody has heard his stuff.

I haven't that told you any such thing that I can recall. Ignore is the word.
I did not say the courts have not heard his evidence, that I can recall, but have said time and time again, his evidence has been ignored. Once again and how many times?  "Our evidence has never been refuted; only Ignored." Jesse Binnall

ig?nore
/iɡˈn?r/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: ignored; past participle: ignored
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
"he ignored her outraged question"
Similar:disregard, take no notice of, pay no attention to, pay no heed to, pass over, shut one's eyes to, be oblivious to
turn a blind eye to, turn a deaf ear to, brush aside, shrug off, push aside, never mind, look the other way, snub, slight,
spurn, shun, disdain, look right through, look past, turn one's back on, give someone the cold shoulder, freeze out, steer clear of, send to Coventry, give someone the brush-off, knock back, give someone the go-by, set aside, take no account of
veto,break,contravene,fail to comply with,fail to observe,disobey,breach,defy,flout,fly in the face of,omit,leave out,bypass,
overlook,neglect,exclude,skip,fail to consider (something significant).

 

> Again, it comes down to the fact that you have to believe every official is crooked to take his statement too far.

So you say.

>However, that is over and we are talking this election.

That is what I was talking about until you once again brought up the media in your last post. Hum

> Now, for what ever reason, biden got the most votes.

He most certainly did. " for what ever reason" does not matter to you?

>  Biden is and will be president for better or worse.

He most certainly is not.....   Not until January 20, is the inauguration Date. Unless that falls on a Sunday, in which case the date is moved to January 21. But don't you count on it! You on the left have forgotten a major point. Obama and team spied on Trump before and after the election, even after he became President, illegally. Most likely hoping to find anything in order that the left could go to the Constitution for correction. It may very well be that the United States Intelligence has done the same? But legally. Who knows who and what might have been uncovered just waiting on the President to go to the Constitution for correction of all misdoings collected of all these "citizens". I don't know.

[gww]

Come on ben, You ain't going to crazy town now are you.  You understand english and slang.  You know what legal guns means in this context I mean come on, lawyers of course..  I know I am not wasting my time on somebody that far gone that they can try to turn that statement into something else.  You also know that trump has collected over a quarter of a billion in legal fund donations. I've only mentioned this fund several times in previous post.  Don't play dumb on this cause it does not help your case cause like you mentioned earlier, every one can read this.

You definitions:  Maybe the courts ignored, disregarded cause there was no legal there, there.  Really pretty simple.

You went way out on you last statement.  I guess all I can say is come on jan 20 so that you are no longer in doubt of who is in the white house and whos signatures count on bill and laws. 
Cheers
gww

[Ben Framed]

Come on ben, You ain't going to crazy town now are you.  You understand english and slang.  You know what legal guns means in this context I mean come on, lawyers of course..  I know I am not wasting my time on somebody that far gone that they can try to turn that statement into something else.  You also know that trump has collected over a quarter of a billion in legal fund donations.  Don't play dumb on this cause it does not help your case cause like you mentioned earlier, every one can read this.

You definitions:  Maybe the courts ignored, disregarded cause there was no legal there, there.  Really pretty simple.

You went way out on you last statement.  I guess all I can say is come on jan 20 so that you are no longer in doubt of who is in the white house and whos signatures count on bill and laws. 
Cheers
gww

I took you statement word for word. For me questioning you of your word for word, was not unreasonable. In return, you again attacked me personally. What you originally said is obvious, no slang there, no indication of it from my seat. Legal guns are what we the people own as guaranteed in the Second amendment.  Your man has already stated he will buy back certain types of what is now legal guns. Which is a whole other topic.  So again I ask you, what is your meaning here? "Who is footing the money, who will receive these "legal" guns once bought? The left? Why all of a sudden are you bringing guns into the picture of this debate? Is this some kind of twisted threat?",  these were my original questions. Since you have chosen to attach my charter instead of explaining as a gentlemen should. I will take it that is your last "slang" post, (The lawyer bit), is your way of explaining? Hum

[Ben Framed]

gww I have enjoyed our little debate but I am getting sleepy. I have a big day tomorrow so there won't be much time for debate. Do not worry, I am not bugging out on you so don't take it so. You can take all the free shots at me that you wish tomorrow, but remember I will be back! lol. Good night 

[gww]

ben
Maybe that is why you have such belief that you are getting robbed.  Instead of taking things in context of the whole conversation where all the above were part of the same conversation, you went by the specific words instead of context.  Even though the whole picture is there you looked at one part of it and took it out of context.  I did not impugn you in more than that which is what you did.  How could you forget the quarter billion legal fund that was mentioned in several post above and leap to just the actual words when the minute you seen the quarter billion mentioned again you should have knew.

Secondly, you have no issue impugning in many of your post.  I mean really, when you say I am not going to address all the double talk in your post.  Is that not impugning and now your feelings are hurt and you are the only gentleman.  Don't worry about it, I have thick skin and know we don't agree and I could still have this conversation and you or I will not lose money or get hurt during it even with a little impugning.

Secondly, having a good paid lawyer and going to court is how we solve problems that come up in america. If you get an outcome in court that you don't like, that does not mean you were ignored, it means you had your day and put on a case that lost.  That is how it works.

Lastly, Both of us are saying who is going to be president on jan twenty and I am saying that it is going to be biden based on evidence under the rules of constitution. 

I don't really know about the gentleman thing, I just say what I believe and make my points the best I can.
Cheers
gww

[Ben Framed]

> You mentioned my math problem and attributed it binnell statement.  You being up on all this should have heard about that math problem way before binnall testimony.

To be fair, I did not pay any attention to the math problem that you mentioned before. Only enough to make you aware that my concern is Jesse Binalls' evidence, being the context of my point of view of this debate, which is based on solid concrete old fashion detective work. Not math problems which have absolutely nothing to do with his presented evidence.  His sworn statement and its context has been the center of my focus since reply 27 as you well know. Just to be clear, Mr Binalls statement made it clear, leaving no doubt, that his evidence does not rely on math problems to support his facts in the tallies of his solid evidence found in the Nevada voter fraud investigation. A total of 130,000 existing fraudulent, ILLEGITIMATE votes found and uncovered in Nevada alone, yet sadly, this evidence continues to be ignored . Mr Binalls facts have been the core of context in this debate from my standpoint.  Your math problems are totally irrelevant and out of the realm of the context if you may suggest otherwise.  He and his crew reached these tallies not by estimations or statistical stand points, but by analyzing the list of ACTUAL voters with other list which are PUBLICLY available. He and his team went to great pain, explaining how each illegal vote was uncovered. It is not my intention to hurt your feeling but to be clear. I do not intend to leave the center of the context of this debate for your smoke blowing, of some mathematical problems which have absolutely nothing to do with the context of this subject being  (Jesse Binalls; statement)  However, We can separate the two, your math problems, and my stance of defending Jesse Binall, as they are clearly two different subjects. But if you wish to have your math problem answered, I will refer you to the topic "Why Trump should be redacted. A Christmas story in endless parts." Reply 16. Sidney Powell will do that. 


> You also know that trump has collected over a quarter of a billion  in legal fund donations. I've only mentioned this fund several times in previous post.

You have mentioned this a grand total of once in this debate is all I have found looking back. Even so, that one time statement is irreverent, and why I never commented on it in the first place, it is out of context of the grand picture of the debate, it changes nothing of what Mr Binall stated under oath. Be it One Trillion dollars or 38 cents, donated to Mr Trumps defence fund, it changes absolutely not one smidgin of evidence brought forth by Mr Binall.  Totally Irrelevant and out of context. Perhaps after Mr Binalls Sworn statement you may wish to donate also? 
 


> ben
Maybe that is why you have such belief that you are getting robbed.  Instead of taking things in context of the whole conversation where all the above were part of the same conversation,

No, wrong again. The reason that I have suspicion that the United States of America may be getting robbed is because of good investigative work done by folks like Jesse Binall for one, which has boldly dug and presented facts and clear evidence under oath to the senate so plainly anyone reading without predigest, should understand. Or for that matter even someone harboring predigest against Mr Binall, should understand. If they read closely and EXAMINE his statement.

> You went way out on you last statement.  I guess all I can say is come on jan 20 so that you are no longer in doubt of who is in the white house and whos signatures count on bill and laws.

Not really, I ended with  "I don't know."  After I had wrote of things that might need to be considered.

> Lastly, Both of us are saying who is going to be president on jan twenty and I am saying that it is going to be biden based on evidence under the rules of constitution.

There you go again..  ATTEMPTING to put words in my mouth with your assumptions, and broadcast it as fact:  Again I will not allow you to unjustly do so; When have I claimed, either Trump or Biden, will be ingratiated January 20? Ah-ah-ah, once again I remind you, look closely, read the words, do not imagine. You; Have said as much, not I. One more thing, you may want to read the Constitution a lit-tle closer as well.

> I don't really know about the gentleman thing, I just say what I believe and make my points the best I can.

As you should. But it may benefit you to expand your "news sources" a person can not get a clear picture of what is going on by listening to only one side of any situation. 

[gww]

ben
Even though there are legitimate reasons why binnells supposed allegations might have legitimate reasons for the numbers from public records to show as they do. Like his people from out of state voting.  Many people have jobs and vacation homes in more that one state but like the president picking Florida have a designated home.  He just makes a blanket statement with no meaning or proof of underlaying fact.

Secondly, he does not indicate in any fashion of who all those claimed fraudulent voters voted for.

I do not hold your views against you any more than I would hold jim jones followers veiws against them for being able to be misled. 

lastly, I did in a different thread also mention to you that I hoped you were not making donations to trumps defense fund cause giving your money to the poor would be much more righteous.
 
If you can not remember you are talking to an individual person in a relations ship than I can see where you would go by only the words written and also why you might not be able to break things down past just the words to see the meaning also and also maybe the things that might make the words mean more that the plaing words say.  This would be a handy trait if you really wanted to know the truth behind what binnall is using and trying to do.   
Cheers
gww

[Ben Framed]

You have said in reply 42
> If biden cheated to win, I would be angry

Bunkum You are still going along with it as clear evidence has been given By Mr Binall.


>Even though there are legitimate reasons why binnells supposed allegations might have legitimate reasons for the numbers from public records to show as they do. Like his people from out of state voting.  Many people have jobs and vacation homes in more that one state but like the president picking Florida have a designated home.  He just makes a blanket statement with no meaning or proof of underlaying fact.

He did not say an additional address of a summer home or homes, or a person working in another state. He did say Persons who have Officially filled a Change of address through the Postal System. Once a person officially changes his or her address through the Postal System of change of address, he or she is obligated to vote in the district that the official address of change was made too. He or she is not allowed to vote at a vacation home address though he or she may receive mail at such a location, unless that person or persons has officially filed through the Postal Service as the NEW change of address.  This includes workers who may work in one state yet receiving mail in that state of employment. He of she still may vote back in their home state as long as they have NOT OFFICIALLY made a change of address through the postal service. There may be workers who have worked in numerous states who have made an Official change of address several times. Even so they can vote only once. That vote being at the last Official Change of address.  If they choose to vote additionally in each past residences or states they may have registered in at one time or another this is FRAUD. You are only allowed to vote once! Again what you suggest is pure bunkum. Mr Binall clearly pointed out this fraud and you are clearly attempting to debunk it. How many addresses are you registered to vote? How many times have you filed and Official change of address? How many times did you vote in this election? 
Apparently you did not READ this Mr Binalls statement. He did not refer to vacation homes, or people out of state working, He is speaking of of official residence.

"Here is what we found. Over 42,000: 42,000 PEOPLE voted more than once. Our experts were able to make this determination by REVIEWING the list of actual voters in comparing it to others with the same Name, Address, and Date of Birth. This method was able to catch people using different variations of the first name such as William and Bill and individuals who both registered both under a married name and a maiden name."

"At least 1,500 dead people are recorded as voting as shown BY COMPARING the list of mail voters with the social security DEATH RECORDS."

"More than 19.000 people voted even though they did not live in Nevada. This DOES NOT include military voters or students.  These voters were Identified by comparing the list of voters in the US Postal National Change of address data base among other sources."

" About 8,000 people voted from non-existent address.  Here we cross reference voters with the coding accuracy support system. Which allowed out experts to identify UNDELIVERABLE ADDRESSES."

"Over 15,000 voters were cast from commercial or VACANT address. Our experts found these voters by analyzing  OFFICIAL US postal records that FLAG non residential address in addresses vacant more than 90 days." 

"INCREDIBLY almost 4,000 non-citizens also voted. As determined by comparing official DMV records of NON-CITIZENS from the list of ACTUAL voters.  The list goes on and on. All in all, our experts identify 130,000 UNIQUE instances of  voter fraud In Nevada but the actual number is almost certainly higher."


> I do not hold your views against you any more than I would hold jim jones followers veiws against them for being able to be misled.

That is mighty kind of you but who is trying to mislead who? Is your last name Jones? And furthermore, I am really getting tired of your unfounded personal attacks.

> lastly, I did in a different thread also mention to you that I hoped you were not making donations to trumps defense fund cause giving your money to the poor would be much more righteous.

You may or may not have mentioned it in another thread or topic, maybe on another subject or on another day, another week, month or year. It is not my responsibility to keep up with all your post of every topic and post which you may have posted. As I stated before here on THIS topic which is the topic of context of this debate.  I will once again remind you quoting "  You have mentioned this a grand total of once in this debate is all I have found looking back. Even so, that one time statement is irreverent, and why I never commented on it in the first place, it is out of context of the grand picture of the debate, it changes nothing of what Mr Binall stated under oath. Be it One Trillion dollars or 38 cents, donated to Mr Trumps defence fund, it changes absolutely not one smidgin of evidence brought forth by Mr Binall.  Totally Irrelevant and out of context. Perhaps after Mr Binalls Sworn statement you may wish to donate also?
 

> If you can not remember you are talking to an individual person in a relations ship than I can see where you would go by only the words written and also why you might not be able to break things down past just the words to see the meaning also and also maybe the things that might make the words mean more that the plaing words say.  This would be a handy trait if you really wanted to know the truth behind what binnall is using and trying to do.   
Cheers
gww

I have no clue as to what that is suppose to mean,  I am only taking a shot in the dark while trying to answer.
Honestly, I do not know what you can see, or if clearly, even when truth has clearly been pointed out, even By Mr Binall.

[gww]

ben
This is is untrue. 

Once a person officially changes his or her address through the Postal System of change of address, he or she is obligated to vote in the district that the official address of change was made too

 
You can change where you mail is delivered short or long term and it would have nothing to do with where you vote.  I know people who change it for a two week vacation.

The fund is not out of line to mention if binnall is being a paid advocate.  That would have to be part of the equation of motive of what he is pushing and that it should not be taken at face value.  He wasn't paid enough to get a court to agree with him.
Cheers
gww

[Ben Framed]

ben
This is is untrue. 

Once a person officially changes his or her address through the Postal System of change of address, he or she is obligated to vote in the district that the official address of change was made too

 
You can change where you mail is delivered short or long term and it would have nothing to do with where you vote.  I know people who change it for a two week vacation.

The fund is not out of line to mention if binnall is being a paid advocate.  That would have to be part of the equation of motive of what he is pushing and that it should not be taken at face value.  He wasn't paid enough to get a court to agree with him.
Cheers
gww

Wrong again: Read gww read what you just quoted from me. Open your eyes. It does nor say mail can not be forwarded to another address. either long or short term. It said, Once a person Officially changes his or her address through the Postal System of change of address, he or she is obligated to vote in the district that the official address of change was made too  I said as much in post 50. Vacationers can receive mail at the vacation home. Workers can receive main in different states. No wonder our country is in the shape it is in and may be headed too!  Read the previous post!

[gww]

ben
Simply not true depending on the state law.  Many allow same day registration and provisional ballot.  You can be out of country and vote.  You can move with in the county and not change an address and still vote.  The claim would need some factual violation and not just a biased veiw of some public record.
I submit how this was handled by the courts.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20421618/supreme-court-order_trump-election-contest.pdf

It went to four courts.
Come on man, even the courts were dubious about the methodology of how they placed value on what binnalls team had come up with.

Cheers
gww

Ps Navada has put out a fact versus myth sheet on some of these allegations but you would have to really be looking for facts to be able to understand it.  Just going by the actual word with out putting situational meaning might still get you no where.  There is letter of the law and intent of the law.

[Ben Framed]

ben
Simply not true depending on the state law.  Many allow same day registration and provisional ballot.  You can be out of country and vote.  You can move with in the county and not change an address and still vote.  The claim would need some factual violation and not just a biased veiw of some public record.
I submit how this was handled by the courts.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20421618/supreme-court-order_trump-election-contest.pdf

It went to four courts.
Come on man, even the courts were dubious about the methodology of how they placed value on what binnalls team had come up with.

Cheers
gww

Ps Navada has put out a fact versus myth sheet on some of these allegations but you would have to really be looking for facts to be able to understand it.  Just going by the actual word with out putting situational meaning might still get you no where.  There is letter of the law and intent of the law.

>Simply not true depending on the state law. Many allow same day registration and provisional ballot.

Well there you go again.... Which part of what I said is "Simply not true". Simply Because you addad " Many allow same day registration and provisional ballot." does not make what I said un-true.

>Many allow same day registration and provisional ballot.

They most certainly do... But under SPECIFIC guidelines. Part of the most basic proof STARTS with; OFFICIAL proof of residence. And how does one prove this? By filing for such through the United States of America Postal Service, Which is then added to the official change of address data bank. Which is the VERY PLACE WHERE the respected ATTORNEY BINALL gathered much of of his most valuable information of wrongful out of state voting.  Just because one may receive mail when forwarded to a temporary address no matter how long the length of time, does not mean this person qualifies to vote from that temporary address to be allowed to register to vote in that district.. If you know of a state which does allow this kind of double dealing, you may wish to get intouch with Mr Binall so he can add this valuable information to his list of fraud.  Goodness man.

> Ps Navada has put out a fact versus myth sheet on some of these allegations but you would have to really be looking for facts to be able to understand it.  Just going by the actual word with out putting situational meaning might still get you no where.  There is letter of the law and intent of the law.

IS that so. Mr Binalls facts speak for themself. Even you, throughout this entire lengthy debate, refuse to accuse Mr Binalls report of being a lie. Why is that? I suppose the reason is obvious. All you have said is, he said this about it or she said that about it. Read it for yourself Man. 
I will ask you again; Is Mr Binalls report a lie, but this time I will take it a step further. Is any part of Mr Binlls statement to the Senate Homeland Security hearing on election fraud, UNDER OATH a lie?

PS I opened your 40 page report. Where in particular does this this report show proof of false hood by Attorney Binalls' testimony before the the Senate Homeland Security hearing on election fraud; which I posted in reply 27 and 35. What part proves he is lying? 

[gww]

ben
I did not say what you wrote was a lie, I said your point that binnals statement meant what it is implying about the addresses is wrong if his meaning is that it means fraud unless he has the specifics that prove it.  You of course knew I meant that but your game is avoiding discussing the merit of what you say you want to discuss.  You either have a blind spot or like to just play games.  Lets take the one little thing on addresses.  If he looks up a few numbers on public records and says they are there, he is probably not lying.  If however, he says those numbers mean something but can not prove they mean that, than he can not be relied on as a excuse to say something is wrong.  I seem to have to be making the same point over and over to somebody who just can not get it.  You keep accusing me of lying about you but that is only cause you are being too dense to get the points I am making.  You instead, just ignore said mentioned points and go back to "Is binnall lying".

You are welcome to believe binnall on this and to discount the underlying reasons that the info may not mean what you are taking from it but it will not change the facts as the majority of the public and the courts look at it.

It does not help you going through life feeling like you got screwed when the facts indicate you did not but that is your burden and I believe a burden that a little time and distance from you feelings will allow you to come to the truth if that is what you are really looking for.
Cheers
gww

Ps some states allow the voter to cast a provisional ballot at the polling place not involving the post office at all.  Some want an eclectic bill or something.  Don't be so sure of you self on how things really work.

[Ben Framed]

ben
I did not say what you wrote was a lie, I said your point that binnals statement meant what it is implying about the addresses is wrong if his meaning is that it means fraud unless he has the specifics that prove it.  You of course knew I meant that but your game is avoiding discussing the merit of what you say you want to discuss.  You either have a blind spot or like to just play games.  Lets take the one little thing on addresses.  If he looks up a few numbers on public records and says they are there, he is probably not lying.  If however, he says those numbers mean something but can not prove they mean that, than he can not be relied on as a excuse to say something is wrong.  I seem to have to be making the same point over and over to somebody who just can not get it.  You keep accusing me of lying about you but that is only cause you are being too dense to get the points I am making.  You instead, just ignore said mentioned points and go back to "Is binnall lying".

You are welcome to believe binnall on this and to discount the underlying reasons that the info may not mean what you are taking from it but it will not change the facts as the majority of the public and the courts look at it.

It does not help you going through life feeling like you got screwed when the facts indicate you did not but that is your burden and I believe a burden that a little time and distance from you feelings will allow you to come to the truth if that is what you are really looking for.
Cheers
gww

Ps some states allow the voter to cast a provisional ballot at the polling place not involving the post office at all.  Some want an eclectic bill or something.  Don't be so sure of you self on how things really work.

If a person lives in a particular state, and is registered to vote there, then moves to another state, files a LEGAL change of address in the new state with the postal service. He is no longer a legal resident of the old state but a legal resident of the new state. period.....  Even if he owns 10 homes in the same district of the old state. If he is sent a mail in ballot from the original state because his name is still on the voter registration books there, as example in the case the books there may have not been updated, yet votes in the original state from which by the ballot was sent, by mail, He has voted in a state which he has claimed to have left his primary residency per his Legal Change of Address. A state which he is no longer a legal resident. This is the last time I will try to explain it to you. Mr Binall uncovered this through the CHANGE of address data base. The mail in ballots should have never been mailed to folks in other states once they had filled an official Postal change of address in their new state. (Again, I am not talking a bout a forwarded address) This is the issue Mr Binall has and is valid unless the law has changed.  I can not put it any plainer or clearer. Even if a person my have 25 vacation houses in 25 states, does not allow him or her the right to vote 25 times.
" These voters were Identified by comparing the list of voters in the US Postal National Change of address data base among other sources." Jesse Binall.

>You keep accusing me of lying about you but that is only cause you are being too dense to get the points I am making.

I have not once said you were lying. I have however pointed out time and again the many times you were wrong when you misrepresented what you continue to  perceive as my thoughts and sometimes you misrepresent my words. In  such cases,  I have replied to you, wrong, or there you go again, or that is untrue. I have that right to correct your wrong interpretations as well as your wrong assumptions and accusations when directed at me. Which seems to be very regularly with you. (even now for example). I have been very careful throughout this entire debate of not calling you names or using insulting words which may be interpreted as or  degrading you and your person. I feel I have made valid points whether you can see them or not. 

> You of course knew I meant that but your game is avoiding discussing the merit of what you say you want to discuss. You either have a blind spot or like to just play games.

See there you go again. Another Pinocchio. lol

> You are welcome to believe binnall on this and to discount the underlying reasons that the info may not mean.

I believe every word of what Attorney Binall said in the statement of reply 27 and 35.

I have given you every opportunity through out this entire debate to show me where Mr Binalls report is untrue, false, or otherwise misleading. I have not found anything erroneous in his statement.
Being his report is the context of my reason for debating with you in the first place. Said report, in my opinion is important. We are talking about the possible fraud on an entire Nation, My Nation and yours. This is nothing to argue about or play games. We all need to know the truth regardless of where the chips may fall or what party we may belong to or support. I have graciously given you every opportunity to show me where his statement is flawed. You have failed to do so. A word of advise, you will not win someone over by calling he or she names, or by insulting, or using degrading remarks. Only by legitimately refuting any part of what Mr. Binall stated as a lie, could you have brought me over to you side and way of thinking of any part proven wrong. This whole debate was an honest attempt of asking you is to show me where Mr Binall is wrong or lying in his  report. You have failed. I have nothing further to say to you on this subject. 

[gww]

ben
You first paragraph is how you interpret the law.  That does not mean that that is the intent of the law and how it is interpreted by the previous court ruling and such around that law that give the true meaning to the law.  It is previous enforcement that give value to any law.  Most of those enforcements balance against other laws that are also on the books.  I know you can read but that does not guarantee that you know how the law works.
I showed you a few exceptions that could make just numbers taken from some where not mean what is being implied that they mean.  The courts have agreed with where I am on this.  The courts are where problems of law are addressed.  Binnall is claiming he went to court and lost even in his own statement.
Cheers
gww
Ps  I wonder if one of those non-citizen voters was one of the ones that trump made a big deal out of naturalizing at the republican convention.  I am sure their naturalization would not have been reflected in the records binnall was showing cause it was in between the time of when they got their drivers license renewed.  He used a record that means nothing to insinuate something and did not find actual people behind those records that did anything wrong. 

I believe there is advice in the bible that say if a profit is wrong once than he is not a profit of god.  But you go ahead and believe binnals statement and expect everyone to disprove it before you find the truth that  you state is all you really want, When in fact, it is binnell who has to prove out that what he claimed means fraud against trump.   If he does not have the proof, than that makes him a wannabe but unsuccessful thief against honest americans. 
Cheers
gww

[Acebird]

If he does not have the proof, than that makes him a wannabe but unsuccessful thief against honest americans. 

Kodos gww.  What an excellent choice of words.

[cidersabuzzin]

ben
I did not say what you wrote was a lie, I said your point that binnals statement meant what it is implying about the addresses is wrong if his meaning is that it means fraud unless he has the specifics that prove it.  You of course knew I meant that but your game is avoiding discussing the merit of what you say you want to discuss.  You either have a blind spot or like to just play games.  Lets take the one little thing on addresses.  If he looks up a few numbers on public records and says they are there, he is probably not lying.  If however, he says those numbers mean something but can not prove they mean that, than he can not be relied on as a excuse to say something is wrong.  I seem to have to be making the same point over and over to somebody who just can not get it.  You keep accusing me of lying about you but that is only cause you are being too dense to get the points I am making.  You instead, just ignore said mentioned points and go back to "Is binnall lying".

You are welcome to believe binnall on this and to discount the underlying reasons that the info may not mean what you are taking from it but it will not change the facts as the majority of the public and the courts look at it.

It does not help you going through life feeling like you got screwed when the facts indicate you did not but that is your burden and I believe a burden that a little time and distance from you feelings will allow you to come to the truth if that is what you are really looking for.
Cheers
gww

Ps some states allow the voter to cast a provisional ballot at the polling place not involving the post office at all.  Some want an eclectic bill or something.  Don't be so sure of you self on how things really work.

If a person lives in a particular state, and is registered to vote there, then moves to another state, files a LEGAL change of address in the new state with the postal service. He is no longer a legal resident of the old state but a legal resident of the new state. period.....  Even if he owns 10 homes in the same district of the old state. If he is sent a mail in ballot from the original state because his name is still on the voter registration books there, as example in the case the books there may have not been updated, yet votes in the original state from which by the ballot was sent, by mail, He has voted in a state which he has claimed to have left his primary residency per his Legal Change of Address. A state which he is no longer a legal resident. This is the last time I will try to explain it to you. Mr Binall uncovered this through the CHANGE of address data base. The mail in ballots should have never been mailed to folks in other states once they had filled an official Postal change of address in their new state. (Again, I am not talking a bout a forwarded address) This is the issue Mr Binall has and is valid unless the law has changed.  I can not put it any plainer or clearer. Even if a person my have 25 vacation houses in 25 states, does not allow him or her the right to vote 25 times.
" These voters were Identified by comparing the list of voters in the US Postal National Change of address data base among other sources." Jesse Binall.

>You keep accusing me of lying about you but that is only cause you are being too dense to get the points I am making.

I have not once said you were lying. I have however pointed out time and again the many times you were wrong when you misrepresented what you continue to  perceive as my thoughts and sometimes you misrepresent my words. In  such cases,  I have replied to you, wrong, or there you go again, or that is untrue. I have that right to correct your wrong interpretations as well as your wrong assumptions and accusations when directed at me. Which seems to be very regularly with you. (even now for example). I have been very careful throughout this entire debate of not calling you names or using insulting words which may be interpreted as or  degrading you and your person. I feel I have made valid points whether you can see them or not. 

> You of course knew I meant that but your game is avoiding discussing the merit of what you say you want to discuss. You either have a blind spot or like to just play games.

See there you go again. Another Pinocchio. lol

> You are welcome to believe binnall on this and to discount the underlying reasons that the info may not mean.

I believe every word of what Attorney Binall said in the statement of reply 27 and 35.

I have given you every opportunity through out this entire debate to show me where Mr Binalls report is untrue, false, or otherwise misleading. I have not found anything erroneous in his statement.
Being his report is the context of my reason for debating with you in the first place. Said report, in my opinion is important. We are talking about the possible fraud on an entire Nation, My Nation and yours. This is nothing to argue about or play games. We all need to know the truth regardless of where the chips may fall or what party we may belong to or support. I have graciously given you every opportunity to show me where his statement is flawed. You have failed to do so. A word of advise, you will not win someone over by calling he or she names, or by insulting, or using degrading remarks. Only by legitimately refuting any part of what Mr. Binall stated as a lie, could you have brought me over to you side and way of thinking of any part proven wrong. This whole debate was an honest attempt of asking you is to show me where Mr Binall is wrong or lying in his  report. You have failed. I have nothing further to say to you on this subject.

Aw don't give up Ben it's just getting to the meaty bit! just take a couple of pills and some salt