Quantcast
US Election 2020 Thread - Page 249 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Bjornebye

US Election 2020 Thread

Recommended Posts

It became obvious during the Election that Red Shift is a bit of a loon, leave him to it and pop him on ignore as I’ve done, it’s better all round.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Red Shift said:

It was thrown out because nobody knew how to refute it.

 

More data here

 

This particular group of data experts gave evidence in Georgia, but the court wasn’t equipped to look at what it meant. They put it in the too hard basket and called it ‘human error’.

Don't think that actually happened.

Trump's team made a claim but produced no verifiable evidence to back that claim up.

Ergo, it gets thrown out

If what you said actually happened then there would have been recourse to appeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Red Shift said:

It was thrown out because nobody knew how to refute it.

 

More data here

 

This particular group of data experts gave evidence in Georgia, but the court wasn’t equipped to look at what it meant. They put it in the too hard basket and called it ‘human error’.

I absolutely refuse to accept that. 

 

Trump and his team have spent months looking for anything and anyone to back up their claims that the election was stolen, we have all seen the wonderfully amazing witnesses they have produced. 

What we have here, apparently, is data in the public domain that shows it was indeed (or potentially) stolen. Trump and his team (or another set of stop the steal people) take a case to Georgia where these data experts give evidence that points to massive anomalies in the voting. 

The defence say, we don't understand and obviously because we are only backed and funded by the State of Georgia and the United States we can not find an expert of our own. The court then says, "yeah fair enough, we can understand that, if only I had some sort of power where I could give a date in the future by which time you need to find an expert to refute these claims, but because I can't do that, I won't accept the expert testimony presented to me but will just say "human error" and dismiss the case".

 

Obviously since this historic event took place at a court in Georgia, neither Trump or his team of lawyers, who are still claiming the election was stolen from them due to voting irregularities, have mentioned this unbelievable court case in Georgia.   

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, mattyq said:

Don't think that actually happened.

Trump's team made a claim but produced no verifiable evidence to back that claim up.

Ergo, it gets thrown out

If what you said actually happened then there would have been recourse to appeal.

 

 

Yes, but as we’ve already noted, Trump’s defence team were incompetent. Also, consider the term verifiable evidence. That’s for the court to decide. It looks like they ignored this valid data, or, this valid data was not put forward in the court case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I absolutely refuse to accept that. 

 

Trump and his team have spent months looking for anything and anyone to back up their claims that the election was stolen, we have all seen the wonderfully amazing witnesses they have produced. 

What we have here, apparently, is data in the public domain that shows it was indeed (or potentially) stolen. Trump and his team (or another set of stop the steal people) take a case to Georgia where these data experts give evidence that points to massive anomalies in the voting. 

The defence say, we don't understand and obviously because we are only backed and funded by the State of Georgia and the United States we can not find an expert of our own. The court then says, "yeah fair enough, we can understand that, if only I had some sort of power where I could give a date in the future by which time you need to find an expert to refute these claims, but because I can't do that, I won't accept the expert testimony presented to me but will just say "human error" and dismiss the case".

 

Obviously since this historic event took place at a court in Georgia, neither Trump or his team of lawyers, who are still claiming the election was stolen from them due to voting irregularities, have mentioned this unbelievable court case in Georgia.   

No. What we have here, according to data forensics, is a batch of election data that indicates anomalies that were never addressed and probably never will be. The average person (like me) wouldn’t even understand what it all means, however, data experts - people that get paid big money to analyse data - are all saying “something doesn’t add up.”

 

With so many ordinary Americans appearing to be losing faith in a voting system that is being updated for the 21st century, using more sophisticated tech, it behooves everybody involved to be as transparent as is possible,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Trump and his team have spent months looking for anything and anyone to back up their claims that the election was stolen, we have all seen the wonderfully amazing witnesses they have produced. 

 

And they have done a comically, absurdly shit job of it.

Other than drumming up some Gotham-style caricatures, they've come up with absolutely nowt.

I'd say out of those "months and months", they've spent around 10 actual legitimate minutes, if that.

The rest of it has been mainly social media bluster and magnification.

Great entertainment and plenty of magnates' fortunes stoked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twice impeached U.S. President Donald Trump has instructed aides not to pay Rudy Giuliani's legal fees, and has demanded that he personally approve any reimbursements for expenses Giuliani claims to have incurred while traveling on the president's behalf.

 

https://boingboing.net/2021/01/13/trump-wont-pay-rudy-giulianis-legal-bills.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cloggypop said:

Twice impeached U.S. President Donald Trump has instructed aides not to pay Rudy Giuliani's legal fees, and has demanded that he personally approve any reimbursements for expenses Giuliani claims to have incurred while traveling on the president's behalf.

 

https://boingboing.net/2021/01/13/trump-wont-pay-rudy-giulianis-legal-bills.html

 

Nothing to see here.

Rudy would well recall all Trump's unpaid bills from the good old days...

Besides, he was doing it for "justice" not pay.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Can we get that pissed up woman back talking please. The rigged election witness from last month. She was great 

I'd imagine she's keeping her absurd head down at the moment- Dominion responded by saying that she worked for them for a day as a cleaner, and they're currently suing Sidney 'KraKaren' Powell for $1.3 billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's absolutely hilarious that almost everyone caught in the aftermath was caught because they were all so excited "storming the capitol" that they recorded it in high definition from multiple angles and post the videos on social media.

 

They felt invincible because they thought Donny boy had their back. Guess what, you're a fucking pawn and he would feed your body alive into a woodchipper if it got him an extra minute in power.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Red Shift

 

The thing is, you're quite happy to appeal to "experts" as long as they agree with you. 

 

Trumps team have failed to show anything credible in about 60 cases. They didn't win a single one showing any kind of fraud.

 

And in different courts, in different states, with different judges.

 

They have nothing because is all bullshit.

 

The YouTube video "Plandemic" has "Doctors" in it. Doesn't mean it isn't a steaming pile of horse shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Red Shift said:

Yes, but as we’ve already noted, Trump’s defence team were incompetent. Also, consider the term verifiable evidence. That’s for the court to decide. It looks like they ignored this valid data, or, this valid data was not put forward in the court case.

What is this ‘defence team’ of which you speak? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

During impeachment, there doesn't seem to be a prosecution and a defence... or witnesses, or a defendant present?

 

So, it's not a trial per se?

 

It's a motion, like legislation, decided by Parliamentarians' votes?

 

Is it more like a vote of "no confidence"?  With a bit of permanent disgrace, de-legitimisation, rejection and ejection thrown in?

 

@TheHowieLama ??

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what we have seen and what has been put forward so far, all Trump and his acolytes have put forward is thin air. Many of them claim as 'fact' that the election was stolen, when they don't have facts or evidence to back their claims up. The same people that claim the other side have no facts to accuse Trump, very strange. 

 

I don't have any time for either side, fucking politicians. But when I see some of the banners and t-shirts of some of the Trump supporters then you have to shift uncomfortably in your chair. These are not nice people, these are not people that welcome democracy. I am not saying that all Trump voters are vile racists but he does attract their vote. 

 

We thought we had problems with 17.4m or so million v 16.1m voters in Brexit. Trump got 73 million votes, even after 4 years of shitting on the office of president. The USA has many problems and Trump certainly isn't and never was the answer, but I don't see an easy way out of this mess that they are in. 

 

Maybe instead of policing the world they need some time policing their own country, instead of spending phenomenal amounts of money on their armed forcers they need to spend some of that on their people. Yeah fat chance. 

 

After that film 'King Ralph' staring John Goodman in the early 90s I think Trump was the real life revenge sequel. 

 

I think trump will resign (like Nixon did) and Pence will pardon him, like Nixon was pardoned. I think Pence will do this and claim he wants the nation to heal and that might just work. Making Trump a martyr in my opinion won't help and they already played their assassination card on JFK so that's out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

During impeachment, there doesn't seem to be a prosecution and a defence... or witnesses, or a defendant present?

 

So, it's not a trial per se?

 

It's a motion, like legislation, decided by Parliamentarians' votes?

 

Is it more like a vote of "no confidence"?  With a bit of disgrace, de-legitimisation, rejection and ejection thrown in?

 

@TheHowieLama ??

 

 

 

 

The trial happens when it goes before the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mudface said:

The trial happens when it goes before the Senate.

 

With Trump actually present "in the dock"?

 

Does the Senate have to vote now to give this "trial" the go-ahead... or is the trial now a happening thing?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

With Trump actually present "in the dock"?

 

Does the Senate have to vote now to give this "trial" the go-ahead... or the trial now a happening thing?

 

It's a happening thing, one the House votes for impeachment, it gets sent to the Senate for a trial and vote on a conviction. More details here- https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

 

No idea if Trump would appear or even be expected to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, none of the previously impeached presidents- including Trump with his first impeachment- have been convicted in the Senate. Nixon probably would have been, but he resigned beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Just to add, none of the previously impeached presidents- including Trump with his first impeachment- have been convicted in the Senate. Nixon probably would have been, but he resigned beforehand.

 

It's almost as if these things proceed along political lines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skaro said:

 

It's almost as if these things proceed along political lines.

 

Yep, the current one is the 'most bipartisan' one ever even with just 10 Republicans voting for impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Just to add, none of the previously impeached presidents- including Trump with his first impeachment- have been convicted in the Senate. Nixon probably would have been, but he resigned beforehand.

If 10 have broken ranks you'd imagine they've been given the okay, as they don't have a moral bone in their body.

 

There will be a load of Republican senators who want to run next time and want him out of the way, Pence probably top of that list. 

 

Even if they don't oust him they can stop him running for office. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

If 10 have broken ranks you'd imagine they've been given the okay, as they don't have a moral bone in their body.

 

There will be a load of Republican senators who want to run next time and want him out of the way, Pence probably top of that list. 

 

Even if they don't oust him they can stop him running for office. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

If the impeachment isn't carried, they can't stop him running for office?

 

Not that I think he'd run anyway... it would be one of the "van Trump" family.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

If the impeachment isn't carried, they can't stop him running for office?

Edit: Added the 4th option

 

4 options (apparently - never trust what you read)

 

1: If he isn't impeached, then he's clear to do what he likes.

 

2: If he is impeached, he cannot run in 2024, and he loses all the benefits of being an ex president.

 

3: If the trial remains pending indefinitely, then he also cannot run in 2024.

 

4: If the senate does not impeach him, then it can hold a second vote to disqualify the president from holding office in the future. Only a simple majority is needed for that - and with the senate now being Dem controlled, this is a likely outcome.

 

My money is on number 3 or 4.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • Gini Wijnaldum has attracted further interest on the continent with Paris Saint Germain and Inter Milan reportedly very keen on signing the midfielder.   It is common knowledge that the Dutchman’s current contract expires in June, but to this point there has been no movement on a new deal leading to strong speculation that the very popular figure will be departing come the end of this campaign.   The most recent comment by either party came last month with Wijnaldum rather blunt about how things stand.   "There is no update yet. I also think I’m not the one who should give the update.   "The club should do that. So if there is an update, the club will give it."     The 30 year-old came very close to departing in the past off-season as new Barcelona manager Ronald Koeman had identified his countryman as a key part of his rebuilding plan, however Jurgen Klopp was able to hang to a key member of his squad.   And it is a good thing too as Wijnaldum has been at his consistent best and his durability has been a godsend for the manager in a squad wrecked by significant injuries.   He has made 37 appearances in all competitions and is set to lead the team in Jordan Henderson’s absence.   The Mirror ( via French publication Le Parisien) reports that  PSG have made it known that they are particularly interested in landing Wijnaldum on a free transfer while Inter Milan are monitoring the situation.   It is clear that if the Dutchman does depart Liverpool after five seasons and over 200 appearances, he will leave a sizable hole in the Liverpool midfield as well as his general impact in and around the squad.    
      View full article
    • Surprised the Brazilian PM didn't get involved to be honest. He's a massive twat and was fully expecting to make differenent rules for the National keeper. 
    • Still no official word on his injury after a week.  That makes me nervous.
    • I was a huge fan but he just cannot hack it unfortunately, as has been mentioned many times he might not fancy it or it could be too physical. I think it could be a psychological thing. 
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

  • top casino sites
  • new UK casino
×