Poll: Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

[will robie]

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

If you were resourceful enough, you'd be able to find the news item. Anyway, I am done with you. You are all hearsay and have been reduced to ad hominems. If you want my attention, you back up what you post. As far as I am concerned, you are just a troll trying in vain to discredit my posts which you have never done. When you quote something I posted, make sure you understand the context of my post. Or puede rin pansinin kita pag bored ako or nasa mood ako. Edited September 15, 2018 by will robie

[jc44 - RETIRED]

If you were resourceful enough, you'd be able to find the news item. Anyway, I am done with you. You are all hearsay and have been reduced to ad hominems. If you want my attention, you back up what you post. As far as I am concerned, you are just a troll trying in vain to discredit my posts which you have never done. When you quote something I posted, make sure you understand the context of my post. Or puede rin pansinin kita pag bored ako or nasa mood ako.

 

Again, will, so predictable.

 

 

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)

[Tremonti]

Sabi nga ni Ms. Imee Marcos "MOve On!" :D

[Pip0l]

I think the poll here should be reset to zero para mas accurate yung result.

 

Dati i believe na nanalo si leni fair and square. But now? I may have to think twice.

 

Ang dami na proofs ang lumalabas ngayon na may dayaan nangyare in favor of leni robredo.

[tk421]

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.

Nope that’s just BBM’s so-called evidence. I’m asking about PET’s statement that they said there was evidence of cheating and that they believed Marcos. You said it was fact that PET believed it so. Where’s their statement saying that? Still waiting... zzz

[will robie]

Nope that’s just BBM’s so-called evidence. I’m asking about PET’s statement that they said there was evidence of cheating and that they believed Marcos. You said it was fact that PET believed it so. Where’s their statement saying that? Still waiting... zzz

If you were really listening to the news and are updated on the goings on in the electoral protest, you'd know that it is still in the recount stage and not in the presentation-of-evidence stage. Aside from this thread, you're getting vitiated badly on the other threads. Just an observation.

Edited September 17, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

If you were really listening to the news and are updated on the goings on in the electoral protest, you'd know that it is still in the recount stage and not in the presentation-of-evidence stage. Aside from this thread, you're getting vitiated badly on the other threads. Just an observation.

 

So you're basically saying that PET isn't doing the recount because of the evidence presented by the Marcoses. And... you resorting to ad-hominem right now seems to indicate you don't have any more valid arguments to present. Soo... *PWNed*

[will robie]

 

So you're basically saying that PET isn't doing the recount because of the evidence presented by the Marcoses. And... you resorting to ad-hominem right now seems to indicate you don't have any more valid arguments to present. Soo... *PWNed*

Huh? Did you understand my post? Read and understand my post again. I will repeat it. The electoral protest is still in the recount stage and not in the presentation-of-evidence stage. Pwned? If that belief will make you sleep better at night, go on and believe it. An observation is not an ad hominem. Haha! Anong valid arguments ang pinagsasabi mo? It's a fact that the electoral protest is still in the recount stage. It is no use exchanging with a poster who does not have a clue of what it is talking about. I will treat your posts as spam the next time you quote me.

Edited September 17, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

This was your previous post. Let me repeat what you said:

 

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

 

 

Huh? Did you understand my post? Read and understand my post again. I will repeat it. The electoral protest is still in the recount stage and not in the presentation-of-evidence stage. Pwned? If that belief will make you sleep better at night, go on and believe it. An observation is not an ad hominem. Haha! Anong valid arguments ang pinagsasabi mo? It's a fact that the electoral protest is still in the recount stage. It is no use exchanging with a poster who does not have a clue of what it is talking about. I will treat your posts as spam the next time you quote me.

 

Riight. But before, you were insisting that they are entertaining BBM’s petition presisely because of “some overwhelming” evidence. Tapos ngayon wala pa pala sa presentation of evidence. Hilig nyo talaga sa historical revisionism, ‘no? Pati posts mo gusto mo i revise.

 

Double PWNed.

[will robie]

This was your previous post. Let me repeat what you said:

Yes, BBM submitted a smorgasbord of evidence. So? What's your point? I can't help it. I just have to perpetually discredit you. I don't even have to think to debunk your posts.

Riight. But before, you were insisting that they are entertaining BBM’s petition presisely because of “some overwhelming” evidence. Tapos ngayon wala pa pala sa presentation of evidence. Hilig nyo talaga sa historical revisionism, ‘no? Pati posts mo gusto mo i revise.

 

Double PWNed.

The evidence was submitted by BBM but the electoral protest is still in the recount stage. The evidence that I was talking about will get presented when the protest reaches the presentation-of-evidence stage. Are you having a difficult time comprehending what I am saying? Double pwned? Hahaha! Not in your wildest dreams. Hahaha!

[tk421]

Yes, BBM submitted a smorgasbord of evidence. So? What's your point? I can't help it. I just have to perpetually discredit you. I don't even have to think to debunk your posts.

The evidence was submitted by BBM but the electoral protest is still in the recount stage. The evidence that I was talking about will get presented when the protest reaches the presentation-of-evidence stage. Are you having a difficult time comprehending what I am saying? Double pwned? Hahaha! Not in your wildest dreams. Hahaha!

 

Medyo nawalala ka na sa sarili mong convoluted logic ah. Parang may temporal loop yun explanation mo. Time travelers ba ang PET? Ni hindi pa pala na pi present ang evidence, pero tinanggap nila yun "protest" because of said evidence? What are you taking?

[will robie]

 

Medyo nawalala ka na sa sarili mong convoluted logic ah. Parang may temporal loop yun explanation mo. Time travelers ba ang PET? Ni hindi pa pala na pi present ang evidence, pero tinanggap nila yun "protest" because of said evidence? What are you taking?

What I said wasn't even convoluted logic. What I said was cold, hard facts. When you use a term, make sure you know what that term is. Namimilosopo ka, sablay na naman. It is now glaringly obvious you have no inkling of what I am talking about. How many times should I say that the evidence will be presented when the electoral protest is in the presentation of evidence stage?

Edited September 20, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

You don't even know what you are talking about, so how can we also understand? Eh malinaw na sinabi mo that the PET took on the Marcos' petition because of evidences. You said this was a fact. I said, show us that statement that PET said it was because of said evidence that they accepted his petition because cold, hard facts are backed up by evidence. So far, the only reply I'm getting from you is that "you're clueless, you haven't read the news, etc., etc". Seriously, it's making my stomach churn.

 

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for that proof...

[will robie]

You don't even know what you are talking about, so how can we also understand? Eh malinaw na sinabi mo that the PET took on the Marcos' petition because of evidences. You said this was a fact. I said, show us that statement that PET said it was because of said evidence that they accepted his petition because cold, hard facts are backed up by evidence. So far, the only reply I'm getting from you is that "you're clueless, you haven't read the news, etc., etc". Seriously, it's making my stomach churn.

 

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for that proof...

What I said was clear. BBM has a smorgasbord of evidence which he submitted to the PET. The evidence will be shown after the recount stage when the electoral protest will be in the presentation-of-evidence stage. Why didn't you quote my post before this post where I explained it thoroughly? Because it is obvious that you are just here to troll.

Edited September 21, 2018 by will robie

[jcs1000]

pls check atty chong's testimony.... you may find it as well sa youtube... meron talagang dayaan...

 

magaling lang mag delay - motion.. motion... motion.. si makalintal kaya di pa matapos.. at ma declare si marcos as vp....

[flatwall]

Dpt madaliin n yng protest n bbm Dahl mhgt two yrs n...

[jc44 - RETIRED]

pls check atty chong's testimony.... you may find it as well sa youtube... meron talagang dayaan...

 

magaling lang mag delay - motion.. motion... motion.. si makalintal kaya di pa matapos.. at ma declare si marcos as vp....

 

Glenn Chong is a representative of Marcos, and thus is not a credible source. Not to mention that COMELEC had found probable cause against Chong for electoral sabotage. in 2013.

 

Parehong panig naman may mga motion. Di porke't may motion na nakasalang, automatic na made-delay yung revision. Tuloy lang naman yun.

[will robie]

Representative of Marcos because you said so? As usual, another hearsay post.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Representative of Marcos because you said so? As usual, another hearsay post.

LOL di ka talaga nagbabasa ng news. Labas ka rin kasi minsan sa MTC para di naman puro sarili mong unsubstantiated posts ang binabasa mo.

 

http://politics.com.ph/kaya-pala-expert-poll-fraud-accuser-glenn-chong-linked-to-2013-ballot-theft-scandal-before-working-for-bongbong/

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/385074942/Marcos-Camp-s-Letters-to-Comelec

Iwan ko lang dito:

 

"PET upholds 25 pct shading threshold for 2016 polls"

 

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/26/18/pet-sides-with-vp-robredo-camp-in-ballot-shading-threshold-row

[rooster69ph]

Basag!!!!

 

Someone just celebrated too early...hahaha

[will robie]

LOL di ka talaga nagbabasa ng news. Labas ka rin kasi minsan sa MTC para di naman puro sarili mong unsubstantiated posts ang binabasa mo.

 

http://politics.com.ph/kaya-pala-expert-poll-fraud-accuser-glenn-chong-linked-to-2013-ballot-theft-scandal-before-working-for-bongbong/

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/385074942/Marcos-Camp-s-Letters-to-Comelec

A bunch of crap coming from a relatively unknown internet link. Puro allegations ang nasa link na pinapakita mo. Why can't they sue Chong if it's true? Prove it and and not just post hearsay. Mahilig ka talaga sa hearsay.

[will robie]

 

BREAKING THE BREAKING FAKE NEWS

I. VOTE SHADING TRESHOLD: Hindi totoo na pinaboran ng PET si Leni Robredo at ginawang 25% ang vote shading threshold. FAKE NEWS ITO!

Kung babasahin natin ng maigi ang 26-page resolution ng PET, walang deklarasyon dito na 25% na ang threshold na ipapatupad nito.

Katunayan, malinaw na sinabi ng PET na hindi isyu sa revision proceedings ang threshold dahil ang threshold na ginamit ng VCM ay hindi ang pinal na determinant o basehan kung ang boto ay bibilangin ba pabor kay BBM o kay Robredo. Ang mga balota ay isasailalim pa sa pagbusisi ng PET upang malaman ang totoong intensyon ng mga botante at titimbangin ito ayon sa objections at claims ng magkabilang panig (Par 1, Page 2).

OBJECTIONS AND CLAIMS: Maaring kontrahin ni BBM ang mga boto ni Robredo. Maari ring kontrahin ni Robredo ang mga boto ni BBM. Maaring angkinin ni BBM o ni Robredo ang mga botong hindi malinaw kung para kanino o mga botong hindi binilang ng makina.

Pulit-ulit na paglilinaw ng PET, hindi ito pinaalam ng Comelec na 25% ang threshold na ginamit nila sa mga VCM noong halalan. Ito ay taliwas sa mga sinabi ng Comelec at kampo ni Robredo. At ang sulat ni Comelec Commissioner Guia at ang RMA Guide na ibinigay nila sa PET ay hindi sapat na basehan upang baguhin o amyendahan ang Rules ng PET.

Dagdag pa ng PET, ang RMA Guide, standing alone, ay hindi official issuance o official act ng Comelec kaya wala talagang legal na basehan upang baguhin o amyendahan ang 2010 PET Rules, lalong-lalo na sa isyu ng revision ng mga balota (Par 6, Page 8). Dahil dito, ang 50% threshold na malinaw na nakasaad sa 2010 PET Rules ay nanatili at hindi nagbago. Ang 50% threshold pa rin ang patuloy na basehan ng PET.

Nilinaw pa ng PET na wala ring basehan upang baguhin o magpatupad ng panibagong threshold sa 2018 Revisor’s Guide kung saan 50% din ang nakasaad na shading threshold (Par 1, Page 9).

In fact, ayon sa PET, hindi naman totoong 25% talaga ang threshold ng mga VCMs. Ayon mismo sa mga pleadings ng Comelec at kampo ni Robredo, makikita na hindi eksaktong 25% ang threshold na diumano ay ginamit. Ang nakita ng PET ay range of 20% - 25% (Par 4, Page 9). Mas lumabo ang threshold nila.

Dagdag pa ng PET, walang ipinalabas na opisyal na dokumento bago ang 2016 elections na magpapatunay na ang mga VCMs ay, in fact, nakaset sa 25% (Par 2, Page 10). Ito rin ang posisyon ko. Wala talagang patunay na 25% nga ang threshold na nakaset bago ang halalan.

Dahil ang layunin ng revision proceedings ay recount lamang ng mga boto ng magkatunggaling partido, nilinaw ng PET na ipapatupad ito sa pamamagitan ng pagmimick kung paano binasa at binilang ng VCMs ang mga boto (Par 5, Page 11). At dahil sa mga teknikal na kadahilanan ay hindi na magamit ang mga VCMs upang maipatupad ito, ang printed Election Returns na lamang ang pagbabasehan muna ng initial segregation o paghiwa-hiwalay ng mga balota at hindi na gagamitin ang threshold (Par 1, Page 18). Ito ang buod ng sinabi ng PET na “ang 50% shading threshold ay hindi na gagamitin” (Par 3, Page 11).

Ang mga katagang ito ang pinagbasehan ng pagbubunyi at pagpapakalat ng fake news ng kampo ni Robredo ngayon. Pinipili lang nila ang mga mapanlinlang na mga katagang gusto nilang bigyang diin dahil kung babasahin ng buo ang PET resolution, ito ang kahihinatnan:

1. Hindi na gagamitin ang shading threshold sa initial segregation o paunang paghiwa-hiwalay ng mga balota sa revision proceedings.

2. Ang printed Election Returns ang siyang gagamitin upang makita kung paano binilang ng mga VCMs ang mga boto.

3. Ang bawat partido ay maaring kontrahin ang boto ng kalaban. Sa pontong ito, maaring mag-object o kontrahin ni BBM ang mga 25% Yoda votes o pre-shaded votes ni Robredo upang matanggal o makaltas ito sa kanyang tally. Ang basehan ni BBM dito ay ang 2010 PET Rules at 2018 Revisor’s Guide kung saan nanatiling 50% ang shading threshold.

4. Sa pinal na appreciation stage ng PET o pagbusisi ng mga balota at mga objections and claims ng magkabilang panig pagkatapos ng revision proceedings, ang 2010 PET Rules at 2018 Revisor’s Guide kung saan nanatiling 50% ang shading threshold pa rin ang iiral.

5. Ang pananatili ng 50% shading threshold sa 2010 PET Rules at 2018 Revisor’s Guide ay solidong basehan upang matanggal ang mga gatuldok na boto ni Robredo pagdating sa pinal na appreciation stage ng protesta.

Kaya nga ang sabi ng PET, partial lamang ang reconsideration na ibinigay nila sa Motion ni Robredo na gawing 25% ang threshold. (Par 3, Page 6) Hindi siya pinagbigyan sa kanyang buong kahilingan. 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.

IN SUM, WALA NAMAN TALAGANG TOTOONG NAIPANALO SI ROBRESO SA ISYUNG ITO.

II. DECRYPTED BALLOT IMAGES: Dito pansamantalang nakalamang si Robredo. Kinatigan ng PET ang kanyang hiling na gamitin ang decrypted ballot images dahil hindi raw nagsumite si BBM ng mga patunay na ang mga ito ay nakompromiso, pinakialaman o kaduda-duda na. Dagdag pa ng PET, hindi sapat ang simpleng mga paratang lamang.

On the other hand, naipalawanag daw ng sapat ng Comelec ang mga extraneous marks na squares sa ballot images kahit wala ito sa orihinal na balota. Dinagdag ito ng mga makina matapos bumoto ang mga botante.

Pero ang hindi naipaliwanag ng Comelec sa harap ng Senate Committee hearing noong July 31, 2018 ay ang mga ipinakita kong katunayan na ang mga ballot images na ito ay tampered na o pinakialaman na ng mga mandaraya. Malinaw sa ebidensiyang ipinakita ko na tumalon ang sequence numbers ng mga ballot images (nawala at nabura ang mga ballot images na ito) sa bandang unahan at gitna ng listahan ng magkasunod-sunod na pumasok na balota sa VCM at idinagdag ang mga ipinalit na tampered ballot images sa bandang hulihan ng nasabing listahan.

Ang sequence numbers na nakaimprinta sa bawat ballot image ay control marks ng nasabing ballot images. Kapag nagbago ang control marks na ito at hindi na magkasunod-sunod dahil may tumalon, nawala, nabura at nadagdag, ito ay malinaw na palatandaan ng tampering.

Katunayan, sa 368 VCMs sa 3rd Congressional District ng Camarines Sur, 4 VCMs lang ang may kompletong listahan ng ballot images - walang nawawala, nabubura o nadagdag na ballot images. Pero sa 362 VCMs, lahat ito ay may nawawala, nabubura o nadagdag na tampered ballot images. Sa 362 VCMs na ito, 37,152 ang idinagdag na tampered ballot images. Sa Naga City lamang, baluwarte ni Robredo, 13,936 ang idinagdag na tampered ballot images. May 2 VCMs na walang kahit anumang rekord.

Alam ko ito dahil kami ang nakadiskubre nito. Ito rin ang aking ibinigay na testimony complete with supporting documents and evidence nang ako ay tumestigo sa kasong Villafuerte vs Bordado sa House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal noong September 20, 2018.

Ayon sa kampo ni Robredo, hindi raw maaring kontrahin ni BBM ang decrypted ballot images dahil siya mismo ang humingi nito at may mga kinatawan siya ng magkaroon ng decryption sa Comelec. Kinatigan ito ng PET.

Ito ay patunay lamang na walang alam ang mga sumusulong sa pananaw na ito. Hindi maaring pigilan si BBM na kontrahin ang mga ballot images dahil lamang siya ang humingi ng decryption. Sa decryption lamang makikita kung ano ba talaga ang laman ng mga SD cards. Kaya pagkatapos lamang ng decryption makikita ang mga anomalya, iregularidad at dayaan sa halalan.

Kung susundin natin ang pananaw ng mga ignoranteng nasa kampo ni Robredo, hindi na mapabulaanan ang mga tampered decrypted ballot images dahil lang hiningi ang decryption - ang tanging paraan upang madiskubre ang mga ebidensiya ng dayaan - ng partidong gustong patunayan na tampered nga ang mga ito. Mga mandaraya lang ang magsusulong sa ganitong pananaw upang hindi madiskubre ang daya nila.

Ang dapat gawin ni BBM dito ay humingi ng reconsideration sa desisyon ng PET sa isyung ito at patunayan na tampered na nga ang mga decrypted ballot images na ito.

THE BREAKING FAKE NEWS IS NOW BROKEN!

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.

Edited September 26, 2018 by will robie

[rooster69ph]

tulad ng isang pagibig na nasawi hindi maiiwasang umasa ... sa wala. cho-CHONGgohin ka lang niya. hahahaha

[will robie]

tulad ng isang pagibig na nasawi hindi maiiwasang umasa ... sa wala. cho-CHONGgohin ka lang niya. hahahaha

This lame attempt at being funny won't pass on the political jokes thread.

 

Instead of discrediting the good attorney point by point, the reply is a lame attempt at being funny. But then again, what's new? Haha!

Edited September 26, 2018 by will robie

[rooster69ph]

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

 

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"

 

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.

Edited September 27, 2018 by rooster69ph