Poll: Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

[tk421]

1. You hate the current admin so much, bcoz according sayo madaming unlawful abuses. Yet in your first paragraph you are defending your relatives unlawful way of reacting to the unlawful actions. Great Job ! - kaya pala ang mga reasoning mo between the govt.vs communist ay ganyan. LOL.

 

2. Ang ganda ng logic mo about the father and the son.

 

3. Basahin mo 3rd paragraph mo, ikaw na mismo sumubo lahat ng sinabi mo sa 1st and 2nd paragraph mo. Mukang pina ikot ka ata ng ka debate mo.

 

1. Oh... defending a fellow from unlawful actions is in itself unlawful... WTF?

 

2. Truth hurts. They are power hungry.

 

3. Yeah, he said Roxas and the other politicians are running for office because they are power hungry (ano pa nga ba ang gusto nila gawin sa posisyon nila? Tumulong sa tao... gaya ni "tatay"?). Ano ang kinain ko dun at ano kagagawan nun sa 1st paragraph? Sinu support pa nga niya yun 2nd paragraph, 'no.

[darksoulriver]

ngayong si De Castro na ang bagong CJ ng SC....

 

ano kaya ang epekto nito sa PET sa kaso nila BBM at LR.

[will robie]

Only someone with warped reasoning will say that those who filed an electoral protest are power hungry. I decided a couple of weeks ago that it is useless replying to someone who doesn't know what it is talking about.

Edited August 28, 2018 by will robie

[darksoulriver]

si namayapang Senadora Mirriam Defensor Santiago ay isa din palang Power hungry..

[Bolj]

1. Oh... defending a fellow from unlawful actions is in itself unlawful... WTF?

 

2. Truth hurts. They are power hungry.

 

3. Yeah, he said Roxas and the other politicians are running for office because they are power hungry (ano pa nga ba ang gusto nila gawin sa posisyon nila? Tumulong sa tao... gaya ni "tatay"?). Ano ang kinain ko dun at ano kagagawan nun sa 1st paragraph? Sinu support pa nga niya yun 2nd paragraph, 'no.

1.it only shows how hypocrite you are. You rant on almost everything about duterte yet you do the same on the very issues you rant about.

 

2&3 sige dream on ka sa gusto mo, pero kitang kita you got pawned by your own reasoning. Pa depensa depensa kapa kakainin mo din pala sa huli. Halos lahat pwedeng ibato sayo ngayun dahil sa warped reasoning mo at logic

[camiar]

 

Riiiiiight... being beaten by the police instead of the man he's trying to protect is called "power-hungry" for you.

 

So at least you admit Marcos is power hungry, then.

There is nothing wrong with being power hungry.

 

That's normal social behaviour for type A persons.

 

I was only pointing out to you that people file cases against injustice against them not because they are power hungry but because they felt aggrieved.

 

Yan ang hindi makapasok sa kokote mo dahil sa obsession mo na siraan si Marcos.

Edited August 29, 2018 by camiar

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Only someone with warped reasoning will say that those who filed an electoral protest are power hungry. I decided a couple of weeks ago that it is useless replying to someone who doesn't know what it is talking about.

 

Walang problema sa pagfile ng electoral protest. Ika nga, sa pulitika dito, walang natatalo, dinadayaan lang.

 

Pero yun magfa-file ng electoral protest, tapos wala namang ebidensya ng pandaraya, eh ibang usapan na yun.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Only someone with warped reasoning will say that those who filed an electoral protest are power hungry. I decided a couple of weeks ago that it is useless replying to someone who doesn't know what it is talking about.

 

Walang problema sa pagfile ng electoral protest. Ika nga, sa pulitika dito, walang natatalo, dinadayaan lang.

 

Pero yun magfa-file ng electoral protest, tapos wala namang ebidensya ng pandaraya, eh ibang usapan na yun.

[darksoulriver]

 

Pero yun magfa-file ng electoral protest, tapos wala namang ebidensya ng pandaraya, eh ibang usapan na yun.

 

are you really serious?

 

OMG! hahaha

[camiar]

 

are you really serious?

 

OMG! hahaha

Di nya alam na the protester's causes for action has to be reviewed and validated by the Supreme Court even before PET is formed, and he/she has to pay a large amount of money upfront to cover the cost. Kung walang cause for action and evidence, why would SC even allow it?

 

He's not really serious. Wala lang mai-post. Pero kelangang maka-quota for the day.

Edited September 4, 2018 by camiar

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

are you really serious?

 

OMG! hahaha

 

Sure I am. Go ahead and explain the alleged scheme by which Robredo supposedly cheated Marcos. Sana with technical explanations of why only certain areas are being contested while others are not.

 

While you're at it, kindly explain:

 

- why the cybercrime case filed by the Marcos camp over the hash code of the VCMs was junked due to lack of evidence?

- why Marcos' first cause of action in his electoral protest was junked by the PET?

- why Marcos alleged that certain "square boxes" surrounding vote shades were signs of electoral fraud when they were actual features of the ballots and VCMs?

- why the contents of the affidavits of Marcos' witnesses - who are also his supporters - are not supported by the minutes of voting filed by the local election officials?

- why Marcos insists that "early transmissions" that allegedly occurred are signs of fraud, when it was Marcos who was leading in the votes early in the election count?

I'll wait.

 

Di nya alam na the protester's causes for action has to be reviewed and validated by the Supreme Court even before PET is formed, and he/she has to pay a large amount of money upfront to cover the cost. Kung walang cause for action and evidence, why would SC even allow it?

 

He's not really serious. Wala lang mai-post. Pero kelangang maka-quota for the day.

Spoken like a guy who doesn't know what "cause of action" means, or what the legal processes are. All it means is that the PET found Marcos' allegations to contain the elements of election fraud, as any initiatory pleading should. There has been no determination of any sufficiency of evidence, precisely because that is what the revision is for: to determine if there is any evidence to support Marcos' allegations.

 

The PET has deferred action on the technical and forensic examination of ballots from Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao. On your own theory that the SC would allow the case to proceed only if there was a cause of action and evidence, eh di talo na agad si Marcos dito.

 

Sa susunod, kung di mo alam kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga legal terms or kung di mo alam yung mga legal processes, huwag kang magpanggap. Halatang-halata.

[camiar]

 

Spoken like a guy who doesn't know what "cause of action" means, or what the legal processes are. All it means is that the PET found Marcos' allegations to contain the elements of election fraud, as any initiatory pleading should. There has been no determination of any sufficiency of evidence, precisely because that is what the revision is for: to determine if there is any evidence to support Marcos' allegations.

The PET has deferred action on the technical and forensic examination of ballots from Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao. On your own theory that the SC would allow the case to proceed only if there was a cause of action and evidence, eh di talo na agad si Marcos dito.

 

Sa susunod, kung di mo alam kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga legal terms or kung di mo alam yung mga legal processes, huwag kang magpanggap. Halatang-halata.

Oh e di ang galing mo. Pinamumukha mo ngayon na magaling ka sa legal terms.

 

Pero di mo maintindihan yung layman's statement ko na Supreme Court had to "review the cause of action before they allow the PET to be formed". Para sa aming mga engineers at non-lawyers, this is equivalent to a prosecutor doing preliminary investigation to determine probable cause. Among other things, lack of probable cause may help protect the accused from malicious complaints.

 

 

Di mo ba naintindihan yung statement ko dahil hindi sya stated in legalese terms? Hindi ito legal forum. Ordinaryong tao ang mga kasali dito.

 

 

Ito kasi ang statement mo na walang sense:

 

"Pero yun magfa-file ng electoral protest, tapos wala namang ebidensya ng pandaraya, eh ibang usapan na yun."

 

 

Kung magaling ka sa legal procedures, ito ang ipaliwanag mo sa aming hindi maruunong sa legal procedures:

 

Kung walang merit yung electoral protest case, papayag ba and SC na magbuo ng PET? Papayag ba ang SC na umusad ang electoral protest ni BBM?

[will robie]

Walang problema sa pagfile ng electoral protest. Ika nga, sa pulitika dito, walang natatalo, dinadayaan lang.

 

Pero yun magfa-file ng electoral protest, tapos wala namang ebidensya ng pandaraya, eh ibang usapan na yun.

Who exactly are you referring to who does not have evidence?

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Oh e di ang galing mo. Pinamumukha mo ngayon na magaling ka sa legal terms.

 

Pero di mo maintindihan yung layman's statement ko na Supreme Court had to "review the cause of action before they allow the PET to be formed". Para sa aming mga engineers at non-lawyers, this is equivalent to a prosecutor doing preliminary investigation to determine probable cause. Among other things, lack of probable cause may help protect the accused from malicious complaints.

 

 

Di mo ba naintindihan yung statement ko dahil hindi sya stated in legalese terms? Hindi ito legal forum. Ordinaryong tao ang mga kasali dito.

 

 

Ito kasi ang statement mo na walang sense:

 

"Pero yun magfa-file ng electoral protest, tapos wala namang ebidensya ng pandaraya, eh ibang usapan na yun."

 

 

Kung magaling ka sa legal procedures, ito ang ipaliwanag mo sa aming hindi maruunong sa legal procedures:

 

Kung walang merit yung electoral protest case, papayag ba and SC na magbuo ng PET? Papayag ba ang SC na umusad ang electoral protest ni BBM?

 

Wala akong sinabi na magaling ako. Ang sinasabi ko, mali-mali yung paggamit mo ng mga legal terms. Ulit: kung di mo alam kung paano gamitin, huwag mo gamitin.

 

Di ko naintindihan? Mali lang kasi talaga. Ang electoral protest, fina-file sa PET. Hindi sa SC. Alam kong nakakalito kasi pareho lang naman ang bumubuo sa PET at sa SC, pero malaking bagay kung sa maling entity nag-file ng electoral protest ang isang talong kandidato. Dismissed agad ang protest niya, lack of jurisdiction ang bagsak ng kaso.

 

Oo, hindi ito legal forum. Pero electoral protest ang pinag-uusapan. As it is, highly technical ang mga ganitong kaso, pati na rin yung proseso. Hindi nakakatulong na magmamarunong ka tapos sablay naman pala ang pagkakaalam mo. Tuloy, yung iba nalilito, namamali yung alam nila.

 

So, para ipaliwanag sa "hindi marunong sa legal procedures:"

 

Ang electoral protest, fina-file sa PET. Ano ang titignan ng PET? Titignan nila kung nasa tamang form at kung may substance yung protest.

 

Sabi ng PET, sufficient in form and substance ang protest ni Marcos. Ano ibig sabihin nito? Tama yung porma ng protest (caption, structure ng protest, may pirma ng nag-file ng protest o pirma ng abugado niya, may CNFS, may Verification, kung may naka-annex sa protest may tamang label, etc.), tapos sapat yung nilalaman ng protest (may narration of facts, at kasama sa narration of facts yung alleged irregularities, at yung precincts na kasama).

 

Ibig sabihin ba nito, may merit yung protest? Hindi. Kasi kapag sinabing "meritorious" ang protest, ibig sabihin nun may sapat na ebidensya yung protest. Walang sinasabing ganyan ang PET. Ang sinabi lang, sapat yung proma, sapat yung nilalaman para ituloy ang kaso at bigyan si Marcos ng pagkakataon na patunayan niya yung allegasyon niya.

 

Tatlo yung "cause of action," o yung mga irregularities sa elections, ni Marcos. Yung una, binalewala ng PET. Sabi ng PET, walang anomalya ang automated election system. So kahit anong ilabas nina Marcos na "ebidensya" tungkol sa mga VCM at data cards etc., irrelevant na sa ginagawang recount ngayon.

 

Yung pangalawang cause of action ang basehan ng recount ngayon. Walang ebidensya sa ngayon na nagkaroon ng dayaan.

 

Yung pangatlong cause of action, tungkol sa technical and forensic examination of ballots from Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao, deferred ang action ng PET. Practically speaking, kung walang significant difference ang resulta sa current recount, at hindi makaka-apekto ang ballot count ng Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao, malamang hindi na ito itutuloy ng PET.

 

Recap:

 

- PET ang may jurisdiction sa electoral protest, hindi SC.

- Walang sinabi ang PET na "meritorious" ang protest ni Marcos.

- Sinabi ng PET na walang anomalya ang automated elections system.

- Walang sinasabi ang PET na may ebidensyang naipresenta si Marcos sa mga allegasyon niya.

 

Sana malinaw na yan.

 

So ngayon, doon naman sa una kong sinabi. Bakit ko sinabi na walang ebidensya si Marcos?

 

Simple. Kasi wala naman talaga.

[camiar]

Nakakalito. Di ba ang PET ay binubuo lang ng SC kung may electoral protest?

 

Paano kung may significant difference ang resulta ng recount sa Basilan, Lanao del Sur at Maguindanao? Yun ba ang ebidensya na may dayaan na nangyari?

Edited September 5, 2018 by camiar

[darksoulriver]

 

Sure I am. Go ahead and explain the alleged scheme by which Robredo supposedly cheated Marcos. Sana with technical explanations of why only certain areas are being contested while others are not.

 

While you're at it, kindly explain:

 

- why the cybercrime case filed by the Marcos camp over the hash code of the VCMs was junked due to lack of evidence?

- why Marcos' first cause of action in his electoral protest was junked by the PET?

- why Marcos alleged that certain "square boxes" surrounding vote shades were signs of electoral fraud when they were actual features of the ballots and VCMs?

- why the contents of the affidavits of Marcos' witnesses - who are also his supporters - are not supported by the minutes of voting filed by the local election officials?

- why Marcos insists that "early transmissions" that allegedly occurred are signs of fraud, when it was Marcos who was leading in the votes early in the election count?

I'll wait.

 

 

 

masyado pa kasing premature yung complain nya that time... kita mo nman after that PET accepted his case of Election Protest! kung wala kang matibay na evidence yung protest mo it will go down to the trash bin...

 

so ngayong naglabasan na yung evidence of election fraud na maaaring ginawa ng Comelec in favor of Robredo still it will be proven pero mukhang nagsitakas na lahat yung Tech ng Smartmatic eh...

 

ikaw naman wla p ngang election may botohan ng nagaganap sus naman simple logic hindi ka aalma? saka what time ba may ginawa yung Smartmatic Tech dun sa server? Early ba yun o nung kasarapan na ng tulog ng tao hahaha

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

masyado pa kasing premature yung complain nya that time... kita mo nman after that PET accepted his case of Election Protest! kung wala kang matibay na evidence yung protest mo it will go down to the trash bin...

 

so ngayong naglabasan na yung evidence of election fraud na maaaring ginawa ng Comelec in favor of Robredo still it will be proven pero mukhang nagsitakas na lahat yung Tech ng Smartmatic eh...

 

ikaw naman wla p ngang election may botohan ng nagaganap sus naman simple logic hindi ka aalma? saka what time ba may ginawa yung Smartmatic Tech dun sa server? Early ba yun o nung kasarapan na ng tulog ng tao hahaha

 

Mali yan. Hindi porke't tinanggap ng PET ang protest ni Marcos, ibig sabihin may ebidensya.

 

"ikaw naman wla p ngang election may botohan ng nagaganap" - Noong simula ng bilangan si Marcos ang lamang. Kung ebidensya ng pandaraya yung "early transmissions" di ba ibig sabihin nun si Marcos ang nakinabang?

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Nakakalito. Di ba ang PET ay binubuo lang ng SC kung may electoral protest?

 

Paano kung may significant difference ang resulta ng recount sa Basilan, Lanao del Sur at Maguindanao? Yun ba ang ebidensya na may dayaan na nangyari?

 

Hindi. Laging may PET. May sariling budget, may sariling staff, may sariling tanggapan. Hindi lang nagko-convene ang PET kung walang protest.

 

Paano kung wala? Di natin alam kasi pina-defer muna ng PET yung parte ng protest ni Marcos. Huwag tayong maghulaan. Di yan nakakatulong.

[will robie]

 

Mali yan. Hindi porke't tinanggap ng PET ang protest ni Marcos, ibig sabihin may ebidensya.

Kaya nga tinanggap ng PET ang protesta kasi malakas ang ebidensiya.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Kaya nga tinanggap ng PET ang protesta kasi malakas ang ebidensiya.

 

LOL di talaga. The only thing the Resolution of the PET said was that Marcos's protest was "sufficient in form and in substance." No finding as to sufficiency or strength of evidence. Please don't invent things that the PET never said.

Edited September 7, 2018 by johncarter44

[will robie]

 

LOL di talaga. The only thing the Resolution of the PET said was that Marcos's protest was "sufficient in form and in substance." No finding as to sufficiency or strength of evidence. Please don't invent things that the PET never said.

No finding in sufficiency in strength of evidence because the protest is still in the recount stage. Take it easy. After the recount stage comes the presentation of evidence stage. Masyado ka naman advance magisip.

[darksoulriver]

nasagot na dn ako hihirit hehehe

 

ang tagal nman ng Comelec dun sa request ng Senado

[jc44 - RETIRED]

No finding in sufficiency in strength of evidence because the protest is still in the recount stage. Take it easy. After the recount stage comes the presentation of evidence stage. Masyado ka naman advance magisip.

 

Remind lang kita, ikaw yung nagsabi ng:

 

Kaya nga tinanggap ng PET ang protesta kasi malakas ang ebidensiya.

 

Sino nga ba ang advance mag-isip?

 

Pero salamat naman, umamin ka rin na walang sinabi ang PET na malakas ang ebidensya ni Marcos.

[will robie]

 

Mali yan. Hindi porke't tinanggap ng PET ang protest ni Marcos, ibig sabihin may ebidensya.

This was the post you made.

Kaya nga tinanggap ng PET ang protesta kasi malakas ang ebidensiya.

This was my reply to the post you made. So tell me. Why will the SC even accept a case where there is no evidence? Papaikutin mo pa ako.

 

LOL di talaga. The only thing the Resolution of the PET said was that Marcos's protest was "sufficient in form and in substance." No finding as to sufficiency or strength of evidence. Please don't invent things that the PET never said.

This was your reply to my post. I don't need to invent things because the crux of this protest is the evidence that BBM will provide. Again, why will the PET accept a protest without evidence?

No finding in sufficiency in strength of evidence because the protest is still in the recount stage. Take it easy. After the recount stage comes the presentation of evidence stage. Masyado ka naman advance magisip.

This was my reply to your post regarding "no finding as to the sufficiency or strength of evidence." Masyado ka ngang advance mag-isip.

Edited September 9, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

Tinanggap, not because there was evidence of cheating, but the numbers were too close to each other. So in entertain yun protest niya.

 

The evidence (if there is indeed one) would come from the PET recount. However, the standards used for the recount should also be consistent with the standards used during the actual election. Otherwise, all the ballots in all government positions during the last election would be suspected as 'wrong'.

 

Halimbawa kung 25% ang threshold last election at ginawang 50% ang threshold sa recount, eh dapat pala lahat ng ballots bilangin na uli, malay natin kung yun mga votes para kay Duterte puro 25% din ang shades pala.