Poll: Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

[haroots2]

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

 

 

What is your basis on this? Ganito ba official statement ng PET?

[tk421]

 

What is your basis on this? Ganito ba official statement ng PET?

 

My basis is on an objective view of how these protests are allowed to go through the recount process. May sinabi ba ang PET na may evidence of cheating? Kung ganun eh biased na agad sila.

 

Ang pagka alam ko the official line of the PET is that the evidence has yet to be proven kaya nga nag ri recount diba?

Ngayon: itanong mo din yan tanong mo sa akin kay Will "you just have to discern" Robie kung ano ang basis niya, para patas.

Edited September 10, 2018 by tk421

[haroots2]

 

My basis is on an objective view of how these protests are allowed to go through the recount process. May sinabi ba ang PET na may evidence of cheating? Kung ganun eh biased na agad sila.

 

Ang pagka alam ko the official line of the PET is that the evidence has yet to be proven kaya nga nag ri recount diba?

Ngayon: itanong mo din yan tanong mo sa akin kay Will "you just have to discern" Robie kung ano ang basis niya, para patas.

 

Basta may merit yung kaso kaya ito pinayagan. Kung walang evidence na pinakita e di mukhang katawa tawa naman yung kampo ni BBM nung hinain nila yung kaso sa PET. And kung puro haka haka lang yung prinesent nila BBM ibabasura lang din yan and wala ng recount na nangyari.

[tk421]

 

Basta may merit yung kaso kaya ito pinayagan. Kung walang evidence na pinakita e di mukhang katawa tawa naman yung kampo ni BBM nung hinain nila yung kaso sa PET. And kung puro haka haka lang yung prinesent nila BBM ibabasura lang din yan and wala ng recount na nangyari.

 

Kasi nga ang liit ng margin nun 1st and 2nd place. Kahit naman dati sa US elections nag recount sila sa Florida dahil sobrang lapit din ng votes (1,000+ lang ata if I can recall).

 

So hindi porke't pinayagan ang recount ay may strong evidence of cheating na. As I said: it still needs to be proven and the votes properly (re)counted.

 

Tsaka nagbayad pa nga sila BongBong at Leni para sa recount na yan diba? Ibig sabihin hindi din ganun ka clear cut yun accusations, otherwise auto VP na ang Marcos ninyo.

Edited September 10, 2018 by tk421

[haroots2]

So ang argumento lang palang kailingan sasabihin lang sa korte Your Honor the margin is very little I demand a recount and I pay for whatever it cost. Granted na pala agad. WOW ang galing.

 

Sana ganyan din sa Barangay Elections para mahigit kalahati may recount.

Edited September 10, 2018 by haroots2

[tk421]

In essence, yes. Parang sinabi mo sa pag fa file ng kaso sa korte kelangan ipakita mo muna lahat ng evidence mo (at ma convince yun judge na agrieved ka nga) bago pa man mag start ang trial.

 

Ganun na nga ba ang litigation process ngayon?

[haroots2]

In essence, yes. Parang sinabi mo sa pag fa file ng kaso sa korte kelangan ipakita mo muna lahat ng evidence mo (at ma convince yun judge na agrieved ka nga) bago pa man mag start ang trial.

 

Ganun na nga ba ang litigation process ngayon?

 

wow talaga. In essence YES :D Di na pala kailangan to show probable cause or any initial findings basta gusto kasuhan di napwede i junk.

[tk421]

Dyan pumapasok yun small margin of votes kaya pumayag yun PET.

 

Sinabi ba ng PET mismo na may evidence of cheating sa official stance nila? O haka haka niyo lang yan? I may be missing something, pero please show that statement from them.

Edited September 11, 2018 by tk421

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Why will the SC even accept a case where there is no evidence?

 

Because the point of going through the revision is precisely to see if there is evidence to support the allegation. This is not like a criminal case that goes through a preliminary investigation where the prosecutor weighs evidence prior to filing the criminal information. If that is how you are approaching an electoral protest, then your approach is inaccurate and misleading.

[tk421]

Ang kukulit nga, gusto pilit nila na i frame sa reality nila na may nakita kuno na cheating yun PET kaya sila nag ri recount. Uulitin natin: evidence of cheating has yet to be proven. Kung meron man cheating na nangyari, hindi na yan dadaan sa recount.

[will robie]

 

Because the point of going through the revision is precisely to see if there is evidence to support the allegation. This is not like a criminal case that goes through a preliminary investigation where the prosecutor weighs evidence prior to filing the criminal information. If that is how you are approaching an electoral protest, then your approach is inaccurate and misleading.

The fact of the matter is the PET won't accept a case without evidence. Hindi nila tatanggapin kung walang ebidensiya. They won't base it on hearsay unlike some people on this forum. Like I said, the presentation of evidence is the next step after the recount.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

wow talaga. In essence YES :D Di na pala kailangan to show probable cause or any initial findings basta gusto kasuhan di napwede i junk.

 

"Probable cause" is for criminal proceedings. Hindi applicable yan sa electoral protests. "Sufficiency in form and substance" lang ang threshold for proceeding with electoral protests. Please stop misleading everyone else.

The fact of the matter is the PET won't accept a case without evidence. Hindi nila tatanggapin kung walang ebidensiya. They won't base it on hearsay unlike some people on this forum. Like I said, the presentation of evidence is the next step after the recount.

 

Then humor me. What is Marcos' evidence?

[haroots2]

 

"Probable cause" is for criminal proceedings. Hindi applicable yan sa electoral protests. "Sufficiency in form and substance" lang ang threshold for proceeding with electoral protests. Please stop misleading everyone else.

 

Pinutol m onaman yung sinabi ko tapos ako pa yung nag mislead, Saan ba nila i babase yung form and substance?

"Di na pala kailangan to show probable cause or any initial findings"

[tk421]

The fact of the matter is the PET won't accept a case without evidence. Hindi nila tatanggapin kung walang ebidensiya. They won't base it on hearsay unlike some people on this forum. Like I said, the presentation of evidence is the next step after the recount.

 

 

You say that PET will not accept a case without evidence. If you say it's a fact, then it is documented. Please show us a statement that the PET explicitly says that there was evidence of cheating PRIOR to accepting the case. So your documentation better be dated from before June 8, 2018. Go!

 

Humor us.

[will robie]

 

 

You say that PET will not accept a case without evidence. If you say it's a fact, then it is documented. Please show us a statement that the PET explicitly says that there was evidence of cheating PRIOR to accepting the case. So your documentation better be dated from before June 8, 2018. Go!

 

Humor us.

I am not bored so I have one word to say about this post. Clueless.

Edited September 12, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

I am not bored so I have one word to say about this post. Clueless.

 

I KNEW IT! No evidence! Hula hula pag may time.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

Pinutol m onaman yung sinabi ko tapos ako pa yung nag mislead, Saan ba nila i babase yung form and substance?

"Di na pala kailangan to show probable cause or any initial findings"

 

Form: literally, kung tama yung porma ng petition (naka-address sa PET, may pirma ng petitioner, may verification, CNFS, etc.)

 

Substance: yung mga specific na alegasyon (dahil hindi puwede ang mga general "dinaya ako" allegations) , kung totoo, ay election offense na nasa jurisdiction ng PET.

 

Walang "initial findings." Walang "probable cause." Huwag manlinlang ng ibang tao kung di mo alam yung pinagsasabi mo.

[will robie]

I KNEW IT! No evidence! Hula hula pag may time.

You know nothing except trolling on the threads.

[tk421]

You know nothing except trolling on the threads.

 

What you said above is what trolling actually is...as it adds nothing to the disscussion.

 

I was asking for supporting documents... which you failed to provide. I consider you PWNed.

[will robie]

What you said above is what trolling actually is...as it adds nothing to the disscussion.

 

I was asking for supporting documents... which you failed to provide. I consider you PWNed.

What you said above is what trolling actually is...as it adds nothing to the disscussion.

 

I was asking for supporting documents... which you failed to provide. I consider you PWNed.

As far as i am concerned, you are a clueless troll who posts nonsense. Your queries are not necessary because it can be answered by common sense, something I doubt you have. Edited September 14, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

As far as i am concerned, you are a clueless troll who posts nonsense. Your queries are not necessary because it can be answered by common sense, something I doubt you have.

 

Nope. you said it was a fact. Fact means it is backed up by evidence. As you've often challenged us to produce evidence that are contrary to your views, it's now your turn to produce evidences on your own. It should be easy, right? You said PET said that there was evidences of cheating, that's why they went ahead with the recount. Show that statement from them, then.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

Nope. you said it was a fact. Fact means it is backed up by evidence. As you've often challenged us to produce evidence that are contrary to your views, it's now your turn to produce evidences on your own. It should be easy, right? You said PET said that there was evidences of cheating, that's why they went ahead with the recount. Show that statement from them, then.

 

Better yet, he should show us a copy of the electoral protest of BBM. That way we can all see for ourselves what the quality of the "evidence" is.

 

(Called shot: will won't do it, because excuses)

[tk421]

Double call shot: its common sense. Pero nun middle ages, common sense din naman that the earth was flat diba? Lol

[will robie]

 

Nope. you said it was a fact. Fact means it is backed up by evidence. As you've often challenged us to produce evidence that are contrary to your views, it's now your turn to produce evidences on your own. It should be easy, right? You said PET said that there was evidences of cheating, that's why they went ahead with the recount. Show that statement from them, then.

It is obvious that you are clueless because if you were listening to the news two years back, BBM had a smorgasbord of evidence. Nakahanap na ng kakampi si Mr. Hearsay.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

It is obvious that you are clueless because if you were listening to the news two years back, BBM had a smorgasbord of evidence. Nakahanap na ng kakampi si Mr. Hearsay.

 

If it was in the news, then there should be no problem posting the links here.