Poll: Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

[will robie]

Discredit Chong? WHAT FOR?

The PET has spoken in simple english...clealy and straight to the point. Even the news says the PET ruling favors the VP and not the wannabe

 

Did you read the whole PET ruling? Yes or no lang.

 

Sabi mo chochongohin ka niya, whatever that means. Instead of making a nonsensical post, just discredit it point for point. But I don't expect you to do that since the sense in your posts leave much to be desired.

Edited September 28, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

Does it mean one can't comprehend thus the need to take someone"s (bias) interpretation for that matter? Or maybe reality bites kaya in need of some soothing "interpretation"

Bias? Haha! I am posting the thorough and incisive explanation that the good attorney posted and you talk about bias? Another off tangent post.

Oh well ginusto mong magpaunggoy sa isang CHONGgo that's your choice. You can continue to live in your world of make believe. For all I care.

As usual, another nonsensical post from someone who has not discredited anything I posted. Naks, may nalalaman ka pang "for all I care'.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Source: Attorney Glenn Chong's Facebook post.

 

Tutal ang usapan ay si Glenn Chong, I just showed a very incisive and thorough explanation from the good attorney.

 

Sa mga nagcecelebrate na basag daw ako at yung mga alipores niya na mukhang nagpapalakpakan ang mga tenga sa tuwa, easy lang kayo. Understand the PET ruling first before celebrating.

 

For someone who loves to claim that other people rely on hearsay, you rely a lot on hearsay Facebook posts.

 

I did read the PET decision. Chong's post is wrong.

 

"Walang categorical declaration na 25% na nga ang shading threshold. Ang malinaw na sinabi ng PET, ang Rules ay hindi nagbago – 50% pa rin ang threshold na susundin ng PET sa protesta."

 

Malinaw na nakalagay sa PET decision: "After assiduously going through the parties' comments and arguments, the Court herein resolves to partially grant the Subject Motion insofar as setting aside the use of fifty percent (50%) threshold in the revision proceedings is concerned." - Paragraph 3, Page 5. Hindi yan mahirap intindihin.

 

Page 9-11, pinag-usapan ng PET yung threshold na talagang ginamit para sa 2016 elections. 20-25% ang factual finding ng PET.

 

Kaya sa dispositive portion, inamend yung PET Revisor Guidelines, at ginawang basehan ng segregation at classification ng ballots ang Election Return na generated ng VCMs - the same VCMs that used the 20-25% threshold. Kaya rin may nilagay na linyang ito: "All issuances of the Tribunal insofar as it maintains the use of a numerical threshold are hereby modified accordingly." Kasi nga, hindi na 50% ang gagamitin.

 

Also: "incisive and thorough" my ass. Walang kinalaman ang mga pauso ni Chong noong Senate hearing sa decision ng PET. In fact irrelevant yung discussions sa Senate dahil any allegation pertaining to the credibility of the electronic polling was thrown into the trash bin when the PET junked Marcos' first cause of action sa protest niya. As usual, overreaching at madrama nanaman si Chong. Try na lang niya mag-staged-walkout uli.

Edited September 28, 2018 by johncarter44

[rooster69ph]

Did you read the whole PET ruling? Yes or no lang.

 

 

YES!!!

 

to know the truth better to rely on the ruling itself than someone’s FB post

[will robie]

 

For someone who loves to claim that other people rely on hearsay, you rely a lot on hearsay Facebook posts.

 

I did read the PET decision. Chong's post is wrong.

 

"Walang categorical declaration na 25% na nga ang shading threshold. Ang malinaw na sinabi ng PET, ang Rules ay hindi nagbago – 50% pa rin ang threshold na susundin ng PET sa protesta."

 

Malinaw na nakalagay sa PET decision: "After assiduously going through the parties' comments and arguments, the Court herein resolves to partially grant the Subject Motion insofar as setting aside the use of fifty percent (50%) threshold in the revision proceedings is concerned." - Paragraph 3, Page 5. Hindi yan mahirap intindihin.

Humor me more, carter. A post of someone who totally vitiated the Comelec and Smartmatic in the Senate hearings on election fraud could not possibly be hearsay. Hearsay kasi sinabi mo? Hahaha! You and your nonsensical posts. Yes, it is easy to understand. Did you even take note of the adverb "partially"? The PET did not fully and categorically grant what Robredo wanted, hence, what the good attorney said holds water. I am waiting for something substantial from you that discredits what Attorney Chong posted. I get the feeling I will wait in vain.

YES!!!

 

to know the truth better to rely on the ruling itself than someone’s FB post

Binasa mo ba talaga or did you just rely on what carter posted? Haha! So far, I don't see any counter argument from you to vitiate Glenn Chong's post. Nabasa mo lang, tapos? Haha!

Edited September 29, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

Page 9-11, pinag-usapan ng PET yung threshold na talagang ginamit para sa 2016 elections. 20-25% ang factual finding ng PET.

 

Kaya sa dispositive portion, inamend yung PET Revisor Guidelines, at ginawang basehan ng segregation at classification ng ballots ang Election Return na generated ng VCMs - the same VCMs that used the 20-25% threshold. Kaya rin may nilagay na linyang ito: "All issuances of the Tribunal insofar as it maintains the use of a numerical threshold are hereby modified accordingly." Kasi nga, hindi na 50% ang gagamitin.

 

Also: "incisive and thorough" my ass. Walang kinalaman ang mga pauso ni Chong noong Senate hearing sa decision ng PET. In fact irrelevant yung discussions sa Senate dahil any allegation pertaining to the credibility of the electronic polling was thrown into the trash bin when the PET junked Marcos' first cause of action sa protest niya. As usual, overreaching at madrama nanaman si Chong. Try na lang niya mag-staged-walkout uli.

So far, you haven't vitiated any of Glenn Chong's claims except saying "Also: "incisive and thorough" my ass. Walang kinalaman ang mga pauso ni Chong noong Senate hearing sa decision ng PET. In fact irrelevant yung discussions sa Senate dahil any allegation pertaining to the credibility of the electronic polling was thrown into the trash bin when the PET junked Marcos' first cause of action sa protest niya. As usual, overreaching at madrama nanaman si Chong. Try na lang niya mag-staged-walkout uli." Trying to discredit Chong through ad hominems and not discredit what he posted point by point? Pitiful.

 

So what about pages 9-11? There is nothing there that debunks what Chong said.

Edited September 29, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

Another one of Glenn Chong's posts but what Dick Gordon said said it all:

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by will robie

[rooster69ph]

Binasa mo ba talaga or did you just rely on what carter posted? Haha! So far, I don't see any counter argument from you to vitiate Glenn Chong's post. Nabasa mo lang, tapos? Haha!

nagtanong ka sinagot kita ng simpleng simpleng yes or no tulad ng hiniling mo...ibahin mo ako di ako tulad mo na nag rely lang sa FB post ni CHONGgo at di ng PET ruling mismo.

 

kahit pagbaligbaligtarin pa nun idol mong unggoy at agpakita ka pa ng kung anu-anong opinion ng sino pa man ang decision ng PET sino ba ang masusunod at siyang ipatutupad.

 

what is there to counter when the PET has already decided... oo nabasa ko ang ruling at tapos na nga. tapos na ang usapan kung ano ang tatanggaping treshold. kahibangan mo na lang ang nagpapatuloy sa isyu na ito sa kapapaniwala sa isang CHONGgo hahaha.

 

kung iyan na lang ang ikasasaya mo ...go on...sabi ko nga for all i care

Edited September 29, 2018 by rooster69ph

[darksoulriver]

tutal magpapalit na ulit ng CJ na pipiliin ni PDUTS

 

masyado kayong excited mag-antay na lang kayo ng Verdict ng PET

[will robie]

nagtanong ka sinagot kita ng simpleng simpleng yes or no tulad ng hiniling mo...ibahin mo ako di ako tulad mo na nag rely lang sa FB post ni CHONGgo at di ng PET ruling mismo.

 

The Glenn Chong who totally debunked Smartmatic and Comelec in the Senate hearing on electoral fraud. Yes, iba talaga ako sayo kasi hindi ako nakikinig sa puro hearsay. Binasa mo? Kung binasa mo, you should have had an input to vitiate Attorney Chong's. So far, you've been replying with nonsense like this.

kahit pagbaligbaligtarin pa nun idol mong unggoy at agpakita ka pa ng kung anu-anong opinion ng sino pa man ang decision ng PET sino ba ang masusunod at siyang ipatutupad.

Another idiotic ad hominem which does not discredit even remotely Attorney Chong's post.

[will robie]

what is there to counter when the PET has already decided... oo nabasa ko ang ruling at tapos na nga. tapos na ang usapan kung ano ang tatanggaping treshold. kahibangan mo na lang ang nagpapatuloy sa isyu na ito sa kapapaniwala sa isang CHONGgo hahaha.

 

kung iyan na lang ang ikasasaya mo ...go on...sabi ko nga for all i care

What is there to counter and tapos na usapan kung ano ang tatangaping threshold? This statement proves you did not read it or if you really read it, you have no inkling what the PET decision was all about. Hahaha!

 

Hindi yan ang ikakasasaya ko. Yung statement mong ito ang kinakatawa mo kasi hindi mo talaga alam ano ang decision ng PET.

[Calvin Chua]

Hindi matanggal si Leni sa pagkabise kahit ano pa gawin ni BBM at Duterte..bakit kaya

[will robie]

Hindi matanggal si Leni sa pagkabise kahit ano pa gawin ni BBM at Duterte..bakit kaya

Simply because the protest is not done yet. Duterte is not involved in this protest. Just like everyone else, he is awaiting the result of the process.

[will robie]

What is there to counter and tapos na usapan kung ano ang tatangaping threshold? This statement proves you did not read it or if you really read it, you have no inkling what the PET decision was all about. Hahaha!

 

Hindi yan ang ikakasasaya ko. Yung statement mong ito ang kinakatawa ko kasi hindi mo talaga alam ano ang decision ng PET.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Humor me more, carter. A post of someone who totally vitiated the Comelec and Smartmatic in the Senate hearings on election fraud could not possibly be hearsay. Hearsay kasi sinabi mo? Hahaha! You and your nonsensical posts. Yes, it is easy to understand. Did you even take note of the adverb "partially"? The PET did not fully and categorically grant what Robredo wanted, hence, what the good attorney said holds water. I am waiting for something substantial from you that discredits what Attorney Chong posted. I get the feeling I will wait in vain.

 

Again: PET junked the "credibility" cause of action of Marcos. Any allegation pertaining to the credibility of the automated elections is therefore immaterial and irrelevant to the PET proceedings. Kahit hanggang 2038 magpa-Senate hearing si Chong, walang katuturan yan sa PET proceedings.

 

The grant was partial because the PET resolved to do away with the 50% threshold and to simply defer to the Election Returns generated by the VCMs - the same VCMs that utilized the 20-25% threshold. So the portion of the Motion to do away with the 50% threshold was granted, while the portion of the Motion to adopt instead a uniform 25% threshold was not granted, simply because the COMELEC data suggested that the threshold was a range (20-25%) rather than a fixed 25% threshold.

 

OTOH, your beloved Chong claimed that the PET is still using the 50% threshold. That is patently false.

 

I know you won't believe me because you prefer to believe people under the Marcos payroll, but seriously you don't need to pretend to be objective, halata naman na hindi eh. Just say you won't believe anything anti-Marcos para walang problema.

 

So far, you haven't vitiated any of Glenn Chong's claims except saying "Also: "incisive and thorough" my ass. Walang kinalaman ang mga pauso ni Chong noong Senate hearing sa decision ng PET. In fact irrelevant yung discussions sa Senate dahil any allegation pertaining to the credibility of the electronic polling was thrown into the trash bin when the PET junked Marcos' first cause of action sa protest niya. As usual, overreaching at madrama nanaman si Chong. Try na lang niya mag-staged-walkout uli." Trying to discredit Chong through ad hominems and not discredit what he posted point by point? Pitiful.

 

So what about pages 9-11? There is nothing there that debunks what Chong said.

 

Funny, as I only really started making fun of Chong in the last two sentences, while the first two sentences are factual statements on the status of the PET proceedings vis-a-vis the Senate hearings. Nakakatuwa naman na yung "ad hominem" lang yung napansin mo, but I have no expectations naman na maiintindihan mo yung mga legal arguments na hindi paid for by Marcos.

 

Obviously hindi mo binasa yung PET decision and you are just relying on paid Marcos propaganda. Page 9-11 specifically talks about the threshold used during the 2016 elections. Hindi daw 50%. Tinanggap ito ng PET. Kaya nga may amendment sa Revisor Guidelines, at lahat ng PET issuances na may nakalagay na numeric threshold ay amended. Ibig sabihin, kung nakalagay "50% threshold" dati, deemed amended na yun based on the 20-25% factual finding.

 

So ano basehan ni Chong na sabihin na 50% pa rin ang threshold?

 

Wala.

 

Parang ikaw, walang basehan sa mga paniniwala mo.

 

Pero sige, para walang away: Tama si Atty Chong, talo si Leni, panalo si Marcos, yehey makakapagnakaw na uli ang mga Marcos sa Pilipinas! Woohoo! Happy days are here again!

 

(Called shot: yung huling sentence lang na yan ang mababasa ni will at wala siyang ibang naiintindihan sa sinulat ko, tapos sasabihin nanaman niya na wala akong na-"vitiate" <btw that word does not mean what will thinks it means, please don't use that word the way will uses it that's just stupid> sa sinabi ni Chong kahit malinaw naman na yung sinasabi ni Chong ay mali at hindi sang-ayon sa mismong text ng PET decision. )

Edited September 30, 2018 by johncarter44

[will robie]

 

Again: PET junked the "credibility" cause of action of Marcos. Any allegation pertaining to the credibility of the automated elections is therefore immaterial and irrelevant to the PET proceedings. Kahit hanggang 2038 magpa-Senate hearing si Chong, walang katuturan yan sa PET proceedings.

Yada, yada, yada. Hindi mo pa din masupalpal si Chong. Bokya ka pa din.

 

The grant was partial because the PET resolved to do away with the 50% threshold and to simply defer to the Election Returns generated by the VCMs - the same VCMs that utilized the 20-25% threshold. So the portion of the Motion to do away with the 50% threshold was granted, while the portion of the Motion to adopt instead a uniform 25% threshold was not granted, simply because the COMELEC data suggested that the threshold was a range (20-25%) rather than a fixed 25% threshold.

Correction, partially granted. Don't try to modify what the PET said.

 

OTOH, your beloved Chong claimed that the PET is still using the 50% threshold. That is patently false.

Prove it but I will be waiting in vain for your proof.

 

 

I know you won't believe me because you prefer to believe people under the Marcos payroll, but seriously you don't need to pretend to be objective, halata naman na hindi eh. Just say you won't believe anything anti-Marcos para walang problema.

Another idiotic allegation that you can't prove. Haha! Sige, allegations pa more. Haha!

Edited September 30, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

Funny, as I only really started making fun of Chong in the last two sentences, while the first two sentences are factual statements on the status of the PET proceedings vis-a-vis the Senate hearings. Nakakatuwa naman na yung "ad hominem" lang yung napansin mo, but I have no expectations naman na maiintindihan mo yung mga legal arguments na hindi paid for by Marcos.

You weren't able to vitiate what Chong said kaya hangang ad hominem na lang yung post mo.

Edited September 30, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

Obviously hindi mo binasa yung PET decision and you are just relying on paid Marcos propaganda. Page 9-11 specifically talks about the threshold used during the 2016 elections. Hindi daw 50%. Tinanggap ito ng PET. Kaya nga may amendment sa Revisor Guidelines, at lahat ng PET issuances na may nakalagay na numeric threshold ay amended. Ibig sabihin, kung nakalagay "50% threshold" dati, deemed amended na yun based on the 20-25% factual finding.

Speaking for yourself, carter? Binasa mo ba talaga? The PET did not see any Comelec resolution prior to the 2016 elections that the threshold was reduced to 25%. Basahin mo at intindihin mo ulit. Sablay ka na naman.

Edited September 30, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

So ano basehan ni Chong na sabihin na 50% pa rin ang threshold?

Because nowhere in the PET Resolution did it say that the 25% is the official threshold and the 50% is still the official threshold unless the Comelec gave a resolution prior to the 2016 elections that 25% is the official threshold. Read up, kid. It is apparent, hindi ka nagbasa.

 

Wala.

Kasi sinabi mo?

 

 

Parang ikaw, walang basehan sa mga paniniwala mo.

 

Projecting again, carter?

 

Pero sige, para walang away: Tama si Atty Chong, talo si Leni, panalo si Marcos, yehey makakapagnakaw na uli ang mga Marcos sa Pilipinas! Woohoo! Happy days are here again!

Yes, tama si Atty. Chong. Talunan talaga si Robredo.

Edited September 30, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

(Called shot: yung huling sentence lang na yan ang mababasa ni will at wala siyang ibang naiintindihan sa sinulat ko, tapos sasabihin nanaman niya na wala akong na-"vitiate" <btw that word does not mean what will thinks it means, please don't use that word the way will uses it that's just stupid> sa sinabi ni Chong kahit malinaw naman na yung sinasabi ni Chong ay mali at hindi sang-ayon sa mismong text ng PET decision. )

 

Sa hinaba-haba ng post mo, hindi mo pa din masupalpal yung pinost ko. You can't even discredit my posts, let alone Glenn Chong's posts.

 

Called shot daw. If it's gonna make you sleep better at night. Sige na lang. Haha!

 

Was "vitiate" too hifalutin for you? Maybe next time I will use a simpler term so that you can understand.

Edited October 1, 2018 by will robie

[flatwall]

Mga tga pet madaliin nyo ang pgbilng..

[CPA]

In a war, the winners can write the history.

[will robie]

 

EVIDENCE VERSUS DENIAL

Naghain kahapon ang kampo ni Leni Robredo ng pagtutol sa hiling ni BBM sa kanyang Motion for Reconsideration (MR) sa PET na huwag ng gamitin ang mga larawan ng balota dahil tampered o pinakialaman na ang mga ito at hindi na mapagkatiwalaan ang integridad nito.

At dahil ang resulta ng halalan o Election Returns ay nakabase rin sa mga larawan ng balota, hindi na rin mapagkatiwalaan ang integridad ng mga Election Returns kaya hiniling din ni BBM na huwag ng gamitin ang mga ito sa revision proceedings.

Ang isyung ito ay pinagtatalunan ngayon ng magkabilang panig dahil may 194 ballot boxes (66 mula sa Camarines Sur + 128 mula sa Iloilo) ang sira na ang mga ballot boxes, basa na ang mga lamang balota, at nawawala ang Election Returns o resibo ng mga botante.

Humigit-kumulang ay nasa 93,000 boto ang pinagtatalunan sa mga presintong ito. Gusto ni Robredo na ang mga larawan ng balota na lang gagamitin sa recount. Mariing tinututulan ito ni BBM dahil nga tampered na ang mga larawan ng balota. Kaya ipinagpipilit ni Robredo ang mga larawan ng balota.

Sa MR ni BBM, malinaw na inilahad niya ang matibay na patunay na ang mga larawan ng balota ay tampered na nga. Sa Paragraphs 40 hanggang 46 ng nasabing MR, ipinakita ni BBM ang isang halimbawa – Clustered Precinct 40 sa Pili, Camarines Sur kung saan ang ballot image sequence number (katumbas ito ng serial number ng resibo) na siyang nagsisilbing control mark upang masiguro ang integridad ng mga larawan ng balota ay nagkawindang-windang na.

Ang mga sequence numbers o serial numbers sa bandang unahan o kalagitnaan ng PDF ballot image file ay nawawala o kinidnap at pinalitan o dinagdagan ito sa bandang hulihan ng nasabing file. Nahuli ito dahil ang sequence numbers o serial numbers ay lumagpas na sa bilang ng mga balotang ginamit ng mga botante sa presinto noong araw ng halalan.

Sa halimbawa na ito sa Clustered Precinct 40, ang bumoto at ang balotang ginamit sa araw ng halalan ay 612 lamang. Dapat ang sequence numbers o serial numbers ng mga larawan ng balota ay hanggang 612 din lang. Pero ayon sa PDF ballot image file, ang sequence numbers o serial numbers ng mga larawan ng balota ay umabot na sa 767. OMG!

Bakit umabot sa 767 ang sequence numbers o serial numbers? Dahil nawala o kininap ang mga larawan ng balotang may numerong 1 hanggang 40, 55 hanggang 67, 78 hanggang 83, at 128 hanggang 221 o 155 larawan ng mga balota ang nawala o kinidnap. Ito ay pinalitan at idinagdag sa bandang hulihan kaya ang panghuling sequence number o serial number na 612 ay nadagdagan ng 155 at naging 767 na ito. OMG!

ITO AY MALINAW NA PATUNAY NG TAMPERING NG MGA LARAWAN NG BALOTA.

Anong depensa ng kampo ni Leni Robredo?

Naguguluhan lang daw si BBM. Nakakalito ang mga argumento. Walang patunay na ipinakita.

Saksakan talaga ng kabobohan, kasinungalingan at panlilinlang ang kampo ni Robredo.

Kahit siguro ang payak na pag-iisip ay makakaintindi na may matibay na patunay si BBM na tampered na nga ang mga larawan ng balota. Pero todo tanggi pa rin si Leni Robredo.

Ayon sa kanya, tumugma daw ang mga larawan ng balota sa transmitted results, Election Returns at Statement of Votes na nagpapakita ng totoong boto nina Robredo at BBM.

MGA BOBO!

Ang larawan ng balota ang dokumentong pinagbasehan o ang ugat ng transmitted results, Election Returns at Statement of Votes. Kapag tinamper o binago ang mga larawan ng balota, magbabago rin ang transmitted results, Election Returns at Statement of Votes. Kaya nga ang larawan ng balota ang tinarget sa dayaan dahil dito nagmumula ang lahat ng pekeng resultang iniluluwa ng mga makina.

In sum, denial lang at walang kakwenta-kwenta ang depensa ni Leni Robredo. Ang ebidensiya ni BBM ay nanatiling matibay at matatag.

P.S. Sa 7 bayan sa Camarines Sur at sa Naga City pa lamang, umabot na sa mahigit 37,000 ang mga larawan ng balota na tinamper o binago.

Source: FB page of Atty Glenn Chong

 

I don't expect a sensible reply, if any, from the yellow trolls on this.

Edited November 17, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

CHECKMATE SI LENI ROBREDO

Wala ng pagpipilian ang Comelec kundi ipawalangbisa ang lahat ng resulta ng halalan mula sa Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur at Basilan dahil sa napatunayang malawakang dayaan sa mga lugar na ito.

Inaasahang gagawin ito ng Comelec sa mga susunod na buwan bago maghalalan sa Mayo 2019.

Ang mga lugar na ito ay saklaw din ng protesta ni BBM. Dahil napatunayan na ang malawakang dayaan sa protesta ni Abdusakur Tan sa Comelec (Abdusakur Tan versus Mujiv Hataman), malaking bawas ito, in terms of time, sa protesta ni BBM.

Kapag napawalangbisa na ang mga boto sa mga lugar na ito, mababawasan si Leni Robredo ng 477,985 votes at mababawasan naman si BBM ng 169,160 votes. Dahil mas maraming boto ang makakaltas kay Leni Robredo kaysa kay BBM, mananalo si BBM ng 45,352 votes.

Source: Atty. Glenn Chong's FB page

[rooster69ph]