| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 01:18 - Sep 29 with 204554 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Who will be watching? First one kicks off in 24 hours time.
The Democrats have pulled Joe back from his campaign trail recently to get him prepared, so hopefully it will be a decent exchange.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to have great confidence as they have spent the last month looking for any dirt they can dig up so Joe can use if he gets stuck.
It’s no coincidence that this vote influencing Facebook algorithm story is being shamelessly and inaccurately made into a race issue on the eve of the debates. So transparent and disingenuous, it’s a shame politics has come to this on this level where black people are being used in this way to score political points. I would be furious if I was them, but it does seem a lot of people are not falling for this one and calling it out for what it is.
People finally seem to be getting wise to this political race baiting which is refreshing to see.
It’s also telling that in the week of the debate they try and paint Trump as a tax evasion offender. I think that’s what they wanted the tax returns to show, they seem to have got annoyed when it turns out his tax returns were fine in accordance to what his companies profits were - but decided to run with it anyway. Any news is good news in their mind as it’s another thing Joe can use when in a tricky spot.
But I hope the discussions remain political and doesn’t turn into some form of gossip peddling reality TV episode.
Although I think there should be some kind of drinking game involved if it does turn that way, how many times Biden completely loses his thread of thought and blurts out “I mean, think about it...” you have to take a shot. 
I will be watching with great interest anyway.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:05 - Nov 21 with 1330 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:02 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Like what consequence?
“Unsubstantiated” is open to interpretation. Is it unsubstantiated to say officials were holding back uploads of votes from Trump strongholds?
Fact shows that to be true, as court ordered audits found batches of them (all for Trump) but the intent cannot be proven.
A judge not agreeing does not mean something is unsubstantiated. It means there hasn’t been sufficient levels of persuasive evidence, something notoriously difficult when dealing with the notion of intent.
Hence my point that all that should matter is the question of “are there unacceptable errors here?”.
So far that answer has been yes. |
That would mean that all the affidavits submitted claiming irrefutable evidence are true.
Do you think none of those people have lied? |  | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:10 - Nov 21 with 1320 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:05 - Nov 21 by Gwyn737 |
That would mean that all the affidavits submitted claiming irrefutable evidence are true.
Do you think none of those people have lied? |
Of course. I don’t think many people would risk the penalty of perjury and prison.
I would be fairly certain the vast majority, if not all, are true.
But having a true affidavit doesn’t mean it’s a piece of evidence that will lead to prosecution. If I swear under oath that a boss was backdating batches of ballots and it’s absolutely true. He comes along and swears the opposite (and lies)... it probably gets thrown out.
Yet my affidavit is true, shows fraud and corruption. There should be no consequence for me showing the courage to stand up to that.
If my affidavit was proven false (CCTV showing it did not happen), then we agree.
But it’s important you make that distinction here. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 11:17]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:12 - Nov 21 with 1318 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:10 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Of course. I don’t think many people would risk the penalty of perjury and prison.
I would be fairly certain the vast majority, if not all, are true.
But having a true affidavit doesn’t mean it’s a piece of evidence that will lead to prosecution. If I swear under oath that a boss was backdating batches of ballots and it’s absolutely true. He comes along and swears the opposite (and lies)... it probably gets thrown out.
Yet my affidavit is true, shows fraud and corruption. There should be no consequence for me showing the courage to stand up to that.
If my affidavit was proven false (CCTV showing it did not happen), then we agree.
But it’s important you make that distinction here. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 11:17]
|
Happy to go with that. And, if proven false then should be held to account.
Fairness works both ways. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:16 - Nov 21 with 1312 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:12 - Nov 21 by Gwyn737 |
Happy to go with that. And, if proven false then should be held to account.
Fairness works both ways. |
Agreed.
False accusations of corruption are possibly nearly as damaging as corruption itself. But a judge deeming something false and deeming something insufficient is wildly different.
If the lawsuits do get thrown out, it’s likely to be the latter as opposed to the former. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:23 - Nov 21 with 1301 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:16 - Nov 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Agreed.
False accusations of corruption are possibly nearly as damaging as corruption itself. But a judge deeming something false and deeming something insufficient is wildly different.
If the lawsuits do get thrown out, it’s likely to be the latter as opposed to the former. |
Which is the only system we have.
If the lawsuits are thrown out and judgements are not accepted, where do we go? What died that mean for law in general?
As you know, I’ve no issue with irregularities being investigated. I struggle with trump standing there declaring “I won by millions”. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:30 - Nov 21 with 1298 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:23 - Nov 21 by Gwyn737 |
Which is the only system we have.
If the lawsuits are thrown out and judgements are not accepted, where do we go? What died that mean for law in general?
As you know, I’ve no issue with irregularities being investigated. I struggle with trump standing there declaring “I won by millions”. |
They will be accepted.
Contrary to what the idiots shout, he is not a dictator. He is someone voted in by the public and someone half the country came out to vote back in. If they are unable to sufficiently prove the results are wrong then I have little doubt he will step aside.
Trump has seen the evidence and the irregularities, maybe he does think he won by millions. He is allowed his opinion in the evidence he has seen just like everyone else is.
I find it a stretch to think there is a 17 million vote swing as some quarters are suggesting. Sounds ludicrous, but we are in strange times and I don’t ever underestimate the left and their hate for Trump.
I work with numbers and statistics every day of my life. I must say, I found much of the swings on the rust belt very odd indeed, combined with the malpractice where they were telling poll watchers they were going home at 10.30pm and when they leave to continue counting until 4am is only going to make people suspicious.
Do I think he will win the cases? No.
Do I think some dodgy things went down? I have very little doubt. On what scale however is another question all together. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:08 - Nov 21 with 1216 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Doc, did you know that Obama won his first election by charging his opponents with fraud? | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:13 - Nov 21 with 1195 views | FieryJack |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 22:08 - Nov 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
Doc, did you know that Obama won his first election by charging his opponents with fraud? |
Please try harder to curb your tendency to be an obsequious lackey. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:37 - Nov 21 with 1166 views | Kilkennyjack |
Well said Mrs Clinton ... 👠|  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:42 - Nov 22 with 1124 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 23:37 - Nov 21 by Kilkennyjack |
Well said Mrs Clinton ... 👠|
That’s the same woman that told Biden not to concede under any circumstance and that still hasn’t conceded the 2016 election. Interesting.
Anyway, another interesting glance on the other board where I am getting attacked for being “too calm” and putting my point across “too well” - apparently in order to believe what I say (and I do, always) then I have to be a bit more “shouty and sweary”.
Utterly bizarre.
It’s called knowing your subject inside out and having confidence in your stance after taking the position that represents most sense. Maybe they should try it instead of slating people and putting up silly memes.
And no (Best_Loser) I was not claiming Trump would win for months on end. In fact, I said I thought he would lose and often referred to it as a coin flip. The markets also mirrored much of that - just a point of order as someone also tried to make up what I had said for whatever reason they tend to.
Back to the thread.  [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 4:25]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:24 - Nov 22 with 1055 views | Kilkennyjack |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 02:42 - Nov 22 by Dr_Parnassus |
That’s the same woman that told Biden not to concede under any circumstance and that still hasn’t conceded the 2016 election. Interesting.
Anyway, another interesting glance on the other board where I am getting attacked for being “too calm” and putting my point across “too well” - apparently in order to believe what I say (and I do, always) then I have to be a bit more “shouty and sweary”.
Utterly bizarre.
It’s called knowing your subject inside out and having confidence in your stance after taking the position that represents most sense. Maybe they should try it instead of slating people and putting up silly memes.
And no (Best_Loser) I was not claiming Trump would win for months on end. In fact, I said I thought he would lose and often referred to it as a coin flip. The markets also mirrored much of that - just a point of order as someone also tried to make up what I had said for whatever reason they tend to.
Back to the thread. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 4:25]
|
You said Trump would win.
We said Trump would lose.
You said the election was rigged by Sleepy Joe.
We said it wasn’t.
You lose twice.
Suck it up snowflake.
| |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:09 - Nov 22 with 1023 views | majorraglan |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:24 - Nov 22 by Kilkennyjack |
You said Trump would win.
We said Trump would lose.
You said the election was rigged by Sleepy Joe.
We said it wasn’t.
You lose twice.
Suck it up snowflake.
|
The response from the judge, who was for years a Republican Party official and nominated to be a judge by a Republican politician and appointed during Obama’s era was scathing to say the least.
Giuliani’s response was that this was part of a strategy to get it to the Supreme Court. Biden is nearly 6 million votes ahead. To date there has been no evidence of large scale orchestrated electoral fraud and that’s what the Republican judge has said in his judgement. A line needs to be drawn under this and the country needs to move on, the disease is spreading, thousands are losing their lives and it seems to be a case of Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:35 - Nov 22 with 1016 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:09 - Nov 22 by majorraglan |
The response from the judge, who was for years a Republican Party official and nominated to be a judge by a Republican politician and appointed during Obama’s era was scathing to say the least.
Giuliani’s response was that this was part of a strategy to get it to the Supreme Court. Biden is nearly 6 million votes ahead. To date there has been no evidence of large scale orchestrated electoral fraud and that’s what the Republican judge has said in his judgement. A line needs to be drawn under this and the country needs to move on, the disease is spreading, thousands are losing their lives and it seems to be a case of Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. |
This is the bit of it I don’t understand.
You don’t provide evidence to the lower courts in order to get to the Supreme Court?
Isn’t it a different lawsuit then?
Weird. What’s the point of having courts below the Supreme Court? | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:41 - Nov 22 with 1014 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 10:24 - Nov 22 by Kilkennyjack |
You said Trump would win.
We said Trump would lose.
You said the election was rigged by Sleepy Joe.
We said it wasn’t.
You lose twice.
Suck it up snowflake.
|
Where did I say he would win?
Where did I say it was rigged?
Think you are being a bit silly Kilk. The amount of people that just state things other people haven’t said and pretend they have is ever increasing.
Pretty telling. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:43 - Nov 22 with 1013 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:35 - Nov 22 by Gwyn737 |
This is the bit of it I don’t understand.
You don’t provide evidence to the lower courts in order to get to the Supreme Court?
Isn’t it a different lawsuit then?
Weird. What’s the point of having courts below the Supreme Court? |
District court has no say on the overall voting system and can only adjudicate on things specifically in that region.
The dominion case seems to be a nationwide case as opposed to a district case. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:47 - Nov 22 with 1010 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:35 - Nov 22 by Gwyn737 |
This is the bit of it I don’t understand.
You don’t provide evidence to the lower courts in order to get to the Supreme Court?
Isn’t it a different lawsuit then?
Weird. What’s the point of having courts below the Supreme Court? |
The supreme court is the final adjudication.
The lower courts are renowned for being corrupt, just look at the General Flynn case for an example.
Look at all the lower courts that tried to prevent the President doing government business for another.
New evidence is always being found in cases, when you know full well that the lower courts are going to throw out your case, why would you bother presenting all the evidence? | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:49 - Nov 22 with 1008 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:09 - Nov 22 by majorraglan |
The response from the judge, who was for years a Republican Party official and nominated to be a judge by a Republican politician and appointed during Obama’s era was scathing to say the least.
Giuliani’s response was that this was part of a strategy to get it to the Supreme Court. Biden is nearly 6 million votes ahead. To date there has been no evidence of large scale orchestrated electoral fraud and that’s what the Republican judge has said in his judgement. A line needs to be drawn under this and the country needs to move on, the disease is spreading, thousands are losing their lives and it seems to be a case of Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. |
Being 6 million votes ahead is irrelevant.
The voting system doesn’t work like that. Clinton got 3 million votes more than Trump and lost. There is 6% more democrats than republicans, it’s not usually likely that the Republican candidate will receive more votes. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 13:25]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:50 - Nov 22 with 1007 views | Gwyn737 |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:43 - Nov 22 by Dr_Parnassus |
District court has no say on the overall voting system and can only adjudicate on things specifically in that region.
The dominion case seems to be a nationwide case as opposed to a district case. |
But surely if all challenges continue to fail, that’ll hold weight at the Supreme Court.
I can’t get my head around the withholding of evidence. All these cases being thrown out must be having an effect on the voters undecided on whether there was corruption. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:53 - Nov 22 with 1006 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:50 - Nov 22 by Gwyn737 |
But surely if all challenges continue to fail, that’ll hold weight at the Supreme Court.
I can’t get my head around the withholding of evidence. All these cases being thrown out must be having an effect on the voters undecided on whether there was corruption. |
It doesn’t have any impact at all.
Trump will lose pretty much all district challenges, they have openly said that. District court is very politicised as they are essentially having to say their state is corrupt.
Supreme Court will look at the nationwide case as well as the individual state cases and try and adjudicate if the vote is or can be reliable. Only 75% of votes can be recounted and checked so if there is sufficient doubt then they may rule to remedy that.
This was the case of such a large part being mail in balloting. It is open to manipulation and cannot be easily re-counted or checked. | |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:54 - Nov 22 with 1004 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 11:09 - Nov 22 by majorraglan |
The response from the judge, who was for years a Republican Party official and nominated to be a judge by a Republican politician and appointed during Obama’s era was scathing to say the least.
Giuliani’s response was that this was part of a strategy to get it to the Supreme Court. Biden is nearly 6 million votes ahead. To date there has been no evidence of large scale orchestrated electoral fraud and that’s what the Republican judge has said in his judgement. A line needs to be drawn under this and the country needs to move on, the disease is spreading, thousands are losing their lives and it seems to be a case of Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. |
I do hope that you have the good grace to apologise to all the people involved if there is evidence proving widespread fraud.
You should also realise that their are thousands of private citizens sifting through tons of data looking for signs of the fraud and finding it.
You should also be aware that many of the States broke not only their own laws, but also federal laws in their handling of the election.
They are also busy deleting data from their Government websites, which as it belongs to the "people" is also illegal. | | | |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 12:03 - Nov 22 with 999 views | Dr_Parnassus |
This whole notion they have to prove “widespread fraud” nonsense really needs to stop too.
6 million votes do not need to be overturned. Fraud does not have to be proven, only implied.
For example in Georgia there is a 12,000 vote difference. So to flip that state they have to show why they have been “cheated” out of that many. Whether that is “fraud”, “error” or “malpractice” is largely irrelevant. It’s not a criminal case so intent isn’t important.
Any accusation of fraud that is demonstrably provable beyond doubt will be met with the defence of “error”.
For example, votes counted under no legal supervision as required by law are unlawful ballots. You could argue that was fraud (poll workers pretending they are stopping counting and sending poll watchers home only to continue) however it will be said it was an error and misunderstanding.
But the important thing to note is the frequency of “error” and how uniform the cumulative error count is, which isn’t logical. Error shouldn’t be uniform. Supreme Court will be able to look at all of these “errors” as a whole and not through the spectrum of a single region.
An error should be a coin flip every single time in terms of who it favours. If there are 50 errors and they all favor Biden, the odds of that are 1 in 1 quadrillion. It’s essentially impossible, and a strong case of pre-meditation - which of course would throw the whole election into doubt and could end up bypassing it as a result and ending up a decision of the house.
So without knowing for sure, that seems to be their avenue. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 12:38]
| |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 16:23 - Nov 22 with 929 views | Groo |
|  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 16:29 - Nov 22 with 920 views | Groo |
| |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| 🇺🇸Presidential debate round 1 - “Matchday thread”🇺🇸 on 16:33 - Nov 22 with 915 views | Groo |
| |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
