Trump

[pritch]

Except they aren't.

First time since 1960 (or 1906 if you discount the JFK election) - where the Incumbent president gained seats in the house and senate, but lost the election
First time (I believe) that an incumbent president has gained votes, but lost the election.
First time in recent memory that Ohio and Florida results didn't match the election outcome.
Biggest voter turnout (as a percentage) since 1900.
First time since 1968 that the turnout got over 60% (estimate final turnout was 72%).
The biggest change in voter turnout since 1840.

Those are not normal or expected, those are some serious outliers.

Not at all, you are just blind to reality, to the utter contempt normal people have for this corrupt arsehole. That's going to cause some "outliers" but you're attaching more significance to them than is justified. He lost in a landslide. Get used to it.

[TheDemonLord]

After previously claiming you had not been following the legal challenges, you are now attaching your standard of proof on their outcomes.

That's conflating 2 things: I've said my main cause for doubt is the number discrepancies. As above to Pritch - the result requires me to believe a number of firsts and a number of historically unprecedented results. Not impossible, but definitely improbable. Hence my Doubts.

However - I said right at the very start, when stating my doubts that I trust the checks and balances of the legal system.

So whilst I may not be following the legal challenges per se and don't care for what the lawyers are arguing - I will defer to the judgement once all of the legal wranglings have been completed.

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all, you are just blind to reality, to the utter contempt normal people have for this corrupt arsehole.

That's going to cause some "outliers" but you're attaching more significance to them than is justified. He lost in a landslide. Get used to it.

Which is it Pritch? A Moment ago you said this is all Normal, now you seem to state it was unprecedented and going to cause Outliers?

Is it normal or are there Outliers?

If there are Outliers and a number of historic firsts or rare events - you can hardly say that skepticism is unwarranted.

[sugilite:Me]

That's conflating 2 things: I've said my main cause for doubt is the number discrepancies. As above to Pritch - the result requires me to believe a number of firsts and a number of historically unprecedented results. Not impossible, but definitely improbable. Hence my Doubts.

However - I said right at the very start, when stating my doubts that I trust the checks and balances of the legal system.

So whilst I may not be following the legal challenges per se and don't care for what the lawyer
s are arguing - I will defer to the judgement once all of the legal wranglings have been completed.

So even though Barr has said no evidence of fraud, you are placing weight on Trumps Rudy Guliani teams "investigations" ?
Mate, you got to be having a laugh?

Trump will be pissed with Barr, that announcement will be reducing donations to his latest scam lol

[TheDemonLord]

So even though Barr has said no evidence of fraud, you are placing weight on Trumps Rudy Guliani teams "investigations" ?
Mate, you got to be having a laugh?

Trump will be pissed with Barr, that announcement will be reducing donations to his latest scam lol

That's clearly not what I've said - Lawyers gonna Lawyer, Judges gonna Judge. I trust the legal process and checks/balances.

What I placed my weight on is the oddities of the Numbers.

[sugilite:Me]

That's clearly not what I've said - Lawyers gonna Lawyer, Judges gonna Judge. I trust the legal process and checks/balances.

What I placed my weight on is the oddities of the Numbers.

Bullshit, you clearly stated you had attached your standard of proof to the court cases.
So they are close to 40/1 losing ratio, good luck with that.
And with classy individuals on the Trump team like the asshole below, this is who you are trusting huh?


https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampp...ris-krebs-shot

[TheDemonLord]

Bullshit, you clearly stated you had attached your standard of proof to the court cases.
So they are close to 40/1 losing ratio, good luck with that.
And with classy individuals on the Trump team like the asshole below, this is who you are trusting huh?

I'm not trusting anybody. I'm trusting the process, with it's checks and balances.

If, after all the legal wrangling completes, Biden is still the Winner - then Biden is the Winner. That is what I mean by that's my Standard of Proof. I'll defer to the courts, once all the Lawyers have done their Lawyering.

I've stated my reasons for being suspicious of the result, which is not based on Testimony, Affadavits etc. - Yourself and Pritch have your explanations, I've said it's not impossible, but it is (objectively) improbable, both on it's own merits and based on the above historical trends.

[pritch]

And with classy individuals on the Trump team like the asshole below, this is who you are trusting huh?

The link didn't work but I can see to what you are referring. The FBI should be on to that prick and his licence to practice should be revoked.

Lou Dodds, who gives every indication of being senile, said recently that Trump should take drastic action to stop the election being stolen. This sort of nonsense is dangerous in the US with all those educationally sub normal fuckwits in their make believe militias.

The other day Maria Bartiromo, who was considered a good financial journaalist once, gave Trump an oportunity to rant unopposed for an extended period on Fox. During his unhinged verbal meanderings he stated that the FBI and the Dept of Justice had worked against his reelection. This ignores that Barr, who Trump appointed, has supported his 'mad king' faithfully since he was appointed.

Today Barr bit back. The subsequent meeting should be ummm interesting?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ce-voter-fraud

It's a long time since Giuliani practiced law - and it shows. He's ranting that the DOJ should be investigating "irregularities." The same irreglarities for which he has no evidence.
The Constitution gives responsibility for running elections to the individual states. There is normally no role for federal government agencies.

[pritch]

A grifter's gonna grift.

Pardons for sale...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b6c869173c9f92



And pardons for services rendered?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/01/p...ons/index.html



On a lighter note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc2frG1QJRY

[pritch]

Powerful stuff.


https://nitter.dark.fail/gpbnews/sta...597264240640#m

[testastretta]

You are arguing a point that I've moved on from and confusing it with the point I'm currently making.

I'm not talking about the Ballot Requests, I'm talking about the received Ballots - that Biden with 100% of the received ballots, by registered Democrats and 100% of the received ballots by unregistered voters, still cannot make the total of mail-in votes that he received.

100% of any group in a naturally occurring set of numbers is suspicious.

What have you moved on from? The 700,000 votes? The incorrect Mastriano totals?
Your wanking on about Biden needing 100% of Democrat and unregistered votes and still not having enough is not even true.
Trump recieved approximately 27,000 less votes from republicans than republican ballots returned, about 4%. But that percentage could be and most likely is higher. At 10% that would have brought his total votes down to around 560,000 with 62,000 going to Biden and or Jorgenson. Trumps total then taken up to 595,000 by way of unregistered voters.
In a swing state and a type of voting constantly citicised by Trump this is entirely possible.

[husaberg]

Not at all, you are just blind to reality, to the utter contempt normal people have for this corrupt arsehole. That's going to cause some "outliers" but you're attaching more significance to them than is justified. He lost in a landslide. Get used to it.

"First time since 1968 that the turnout got over 60% (estimate final turnout was 72%)."

other than 2004 and 2008......


The other thing of course was where was TLDL when this stat was happening, only 4 times has a US press won the presidency but lost the popular vote

1824: Andrew Jackson won pluralities of both the popular vote and the Electoral College, but not a majority, sending the election to the House of Representatives. There were three other candidates, like Jackson members of the Democratic-Republican Party — John Quincy Adams, William Crawford and Henry Clay. Clay threw his support to Adams, sealing the victory for Adams, who made Clay his secretary of state. Irate at this “corrupt bargain,” Jackson quit the Senate and ran again for president in 1828. That time, he won easily.


1876: Democrat Samuel Tilden beat Republican Rutherford B. Hayes by more than 200,000 votes. But he needed 185 Electoral College votes and got only 184 to Hayes’s 165; 20 votes in Florida, Louisiana, Oregon and South Carolina were disputed. Congress set up a commission composed of representatives of both parties to decide the winner; on March 2, three days before the inauguration, they chose Hayes — a compromise the Democrats agreed to in exchange for a promise to pull federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction.

1888: The campaign was riddled with corruption, including charges that votes were bought and Black votes suppressed. It ended with Democratic President Grover Cleveland winning the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes over Republican Benjamin Harrison, but losing the electoral vote 233 to 168. Cleveland would take back the office in the next presidential election.

2000: Republican George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. But the Electoral College vote was tight, and it all came down to Florida, where a recount devolved into disputes over the markings on individual ballots. On Dec. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount with Bush ahead in Florida, giving the election to the former Texas governor. Bush won 271 electoral votes, Gore 266.


2016: Trump won the Electoral College, 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227 — but lost the popular count by 2.8 million votes. Though the electorate has of course grown over the years, Trump lost the popular vote by a greater margin than anyone ever elected president.

Powerful stuff.


https://nitter.dark.fail/gpbnews/sta...597264240640#m

That shows all that is wrong with the trump politics.

[pritch]

By now we should all understand what s230 is about. Unless s230 is repealed he is going to withhold approval of the military budget. Ah well, it's only forty nine days.

[SaferRides]

A most interesting day with William Barr, the Attorney General, stating that there was no widespread election fraud.

So, will Trump accept reality or have a major meltdown?

[Laava]

A most interesting day with William Barr, the Attorney General, stating that there was no widespread election fraud.

So, will Trump accept reality or have a major meltdown?

Trump accepting reality? I think that ship has sailed!