2020 US Elections

[FogBlueInSanFran]

^ and on ‘Ignore’ you go

Yes, it’s all our fault we called it right from the beginning and he fucked it all up. Meh, I can live with that.

 

[penguins4kompany]

Nah. Not necessarily. You can disagree with the war and think it's imperialism, but yet condemn the lack of courage in someone who did not consider it imperialism, but yet found an excuse to show little patriotism.

The former is based on your value system, and the latter on the value system of the person who failed to show courage by coming up with a rake reason to not take part.

Patriotism shouldn't come into it , yeah that was what was sold at the time I imagine , but you think 1 in 3 probably saw through that spiel but had no choice either way . Again, you can't look beyond those people in power who enforced the draft or started the war in the first place. They're the real villains.

 

[SWP's back]

No, just This thread is so self righteous and myopic . Its just odd that it can cause that much of a hysterical pack mentality when Biden and Harris are arguably not offering anything radically different in the scheme of things. I fail to see what the big deal is when Harris has a legacy of draconian sentences for black offenders. Likewise, Biden 's complicit role, in the United States' decimation of the ancient worlds . Whether through spite, gain, or other these lands were coveted and targetted with relative ease for whatever reason by them. . The guy's a coward for his part in that injustice, however limited.
Add to that , both seem quite disingenuous. Kamala almost seems like she's drunk whenever I've seen her . The VP debate was a tell tale sign. He actually was trying to engage in political discourse with her but even on that stage got mere platitudes, if almost she knew it was in the bag no matter how it went. And then the fly takes the headlines. The relevant policy matters got overlooked by the trivial and was accepted en masse.

Twitter went down for 20 hours or so(which is I think is unprecedented) coinciding with the final leader's debate , where Biden had to go without his earpiece after the rep's clocked it from the first one where , unvetted by the network, Joe was getting fed lines it seemed. So a pretty much media blackout of a more calm reasoned, maybe desperate at this point trump but prevailing none the less in the last debate was stricken from the records of a major social media source . Obviously sanders should have been given the opportunity and we could have had a real political mauling

So much made up bollocks in one post. No wonder you love Trump. Off you fuck onto ignore.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Actually that wasn't his point. Even though it seems a ton of folks are trying really hard to misunderstand him. Perhaps that was Cuomo's intent.

Cuomo's question "YOU got any proof that anything was done that was of fraudulent...?" asked a purposely narrow question. The guy isn't from any of the States in which claims of Fraud or Irregularities are being made. So he personally had no proof. Notice Cuomo doesn't ask if he has seen or heard of any evidence of Fraud.

So clearly the only truthful answer is "No, I personally don't.". But he knew answering it that way will give Cuomo the soundbite win he wants and Cuomo will go on a moralizing monologue.

So instead he attempts to use an analogy to show that he doesn't have to personally have proof to believe it. "I don't have evidence that men landed on the moon" Cuomo then cuts him off before he finished bwith something like, "yet I believe it because I believe the people who had the evidence and claimed we did."

The point he was making there was that he didn't have to personally have the evidence to believe it. But Cuomo and many (here and elsewhere) misunderstood his point. It didn't help that silly Cuomo in trying to show his aggressive interviewing style jumped on the incomplete analogy without understanding where it was going and asked another dumb question about what's believable. "So you believe the earth is round?" or something silly to that effect.

To which the guy also answers "yes I believe the earth is round coz we have proven that." That answer should have clued many in on what his point was originally about the moon landing..

As this too supports his original point that one need not be the one to have gone to space to see a round earth before one chooses to believe it is.

And even if it wasn't apparent to some what his "moon landing" analogy meant to convey, all you had to do was listening to the 2nd part of the claim

When he finally got tired of Cuomo's interruptions a blurted out over Cuomo's silly "cut you off mid sentence" style and said.

"What it comes down to here is I have to TRUST THE PEOPLE that are doing the investigating, my colleagues from those other States..."


In order words, just like I trust that we went to the moon without ever being there, or that the earth is round without ever having observed it myself, I am trusting my colleagues in the States who are saying there is evidence. And he then gives an example of such evidence from Michigan.

Anyway I hope it's clear for everyone now. But I doubt it :)

Actually unbelievable that you would even attempt to defend in any way that abortion of a performance. His responses were pitiful beyond words.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

It's a GRIFT.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

No, just This thread is so self righteous and myopic . Its just odd that it can cause that much of a hysterical pack mentality when Biden and Harris are arguably not offering anything radically different in the scheme of things. I fail to see what the big deal is when Harris has a legacy of draconian sentences for black offenders. Likewise, Biden 's complicit role, in the United States' decimation of the ancient worlds . Whether through spite, gain, or other these lands were coveted and targetted with relative ease for whatever reason by them. . The guy's a coward for his part in that injustice, however limited.
Add to that , both seem quite disingenuous. Kamala almost seems like she's drunk whenever I've seen her . The VP debate was a tell tale sign. He actually was trying to engage in political discourse with her but even on that stage got mere platitudes, if almost she knew it was in the bag no matter how it went. And then the fly takes the headlines. The relevant policy matters got overlooked by the trivial and was accepted en masse.

Twitter went down for 20 hours or so(which is I think is unprecedented) coinciding with the final leader's debate , where Biden had to go without his earpiece after the rep's clocked it from the first one where , unvetted by the network, Joe was getting fed lines it seemed. So a pretty much media blackout of a more calm reasoned, maybe desperate at this point trump but prevailing none the less in the last debate was stricken from the records of a major social media source . Obviously sanders should have been given the opportunity and we could have had a real political mauling

Thats quite a strangled argument tbh. I dont know what you're trying to prove but at the end of the day Biden doesnt behave like a child, doesnt grab womens pussies, hasnt tried to overturn an election (You know a coup?)

Is there ANYTHING that Biden has done that is on a par with Trumps behaviour?

 

[Dax777]

Patriotism shouldn't come into it , yeah that was what was sold at the time I imagine , but you think 1 in 3 probably saw through that spiel but had no choice either way . Again, you can't look beyond those people in power who enforced the draft or started the war in the first place. They're the real villains.

You are missing the point. Sure, the villians are the villains

The question still remains, I'd someone be was okay with the war but personally wanted to avoid participating while being fine with others doing so... Said person would be something if a coward. This by the way isn't unique.

If the above was true about Trump, i.e he was okay with the war but tried to personally get out of participating... Many view that as cowardice and a lack of patriotism.

I can't say I disagree. Regardless of what my views were on the war

 

[Dax777]

Actually unbelievable that you would even attempt to defend in any way that abortion of a performance. His responses were pitiful beyond words.

Either his interrupted statement about moon landing was meant to show that you can believe a claim without personally having witnessed it or it wasn't.

And that can be gleaned by watching the video... You know, examining the evidence. If you disagree that it does, then give evidence from the video that supports your claim.


I'll wait...

 

[SWP's back]

A literal coup attempt going on and that **** focuses instead on Andrew Cuomo being disingenuous (in his wrong opinion) for his first post in three weeks. Jog the fuck on.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Either his interrupted statement about moon landing was meant to show that you can believe a claim without personally having witnessed it or it wasn't.

And that can be gleaned by watching the video... You know, examining the evidence. If you disagree that it does, then give evidence from the video that supports your claim.


I'll wait...

My opinion is founded on the fact that I’m very well rewarded for asking questions of others for a living - and am therefore well placed to qualitatively evaluate responses to questions with some authority.

His responses were utterly wank. The fact you’re defending them is comical.

 

[andyhinch]

My opinion is founded on the fact that I’m very well rewarded for asking questions of others for a living - and am therefore well placed to qualitatively evaluate responses to questions with some authority.

His responses were utterly wank. The fact you’re defending them is comical.

A response worthy of any court in the land, doffs cap.

 

[Dax777]

My opinion is founded on the fact that I’m very well rewarded for asking questions of others for a living - and am therefore well placed to qualitatively evaluate responses to questions with some authority.

His responses were utterly wank. The fact you’re defending them is comical.

Your appeal to authority notwithstanding, you still haven't answered my the question:

What was his point about the moon landing in reference to?

It doesn't matter whether byou think his response was wack or not. The question still remains. What was the intended point? And can it be deduced by listening to the rest of the interview?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Your appeal to authority notwithstanding, you still haven't answered my the question:

What was his point about the moon landing in reference to?

It doesn't matter whether byou think his response was wack or not. The question still remains. What was the intended point? And can it be deduced by listening to the rest of the interview?

The rest of the interview where the guy offered ZERO evidence of election fraud?

That interview?

 

[Dax777]

The rest of the interview where the guy offered ZERO evidence of election fraud?

That interview?

Yes Trevor, that interview. I must be terrible at communicating...

In layman's terms this is the crux of that man's answer:

"I personally don't have evidence of election fraud in other States. But I believe my colleagues in those States who claim there is fraud and evidence of it."

So, yes Trevor... He didn't have any evidence personally." Why would he?

Why CNN is interviewing a legislator who isn't from.any of the States where claims of Fraud were made is a question someone should probably ask... But hey, maybe not here :)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Your appeal to authority notwithstanding, you still haven't answered my the question:

What was his point about the moon landing in reference to?

It doesn't matter whether byou think his response was wack or not. The question still remains. What was the intended point? And can it be deduced by listening to the rest of the interview?

You never asked that question. In fact the two posts of yours that I quoted contained no questions - other than quoting Cuomo’s question and then criticising him for asking a purposely narrow question. Not sure what’s wrong with that - asking narrow questions is a key skill in the art of cross-examination. It reduces the opportunities for slippery cunts to be slippery.

In terms of your last post, when you refer to the point about the moon landings, who are you referring to? I’m sorry, but I’m not at all clear what you’re asking.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

In layman's terms this is the crux of that man's answer:

"I personally don't have evidence of election fraud in other States. But I believe my colleagues in those States who claim there is fraud and evidence of it."

He 'believes' they have evidence that NOBODY has seen though. The campaign have lost in court over 50 times because they failed to present ANY evidence of widespread voter fraud in any of the cases.

It was blindingly obvious he was being disingenuous about his beliefs on evidence.

 

[Dicko69]

@gordondaviesmoustache

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

View attachment 6664
@gordondaviesmoustache

Bit like those dead expensive washing machines with 'hydrothermal' technology.

 

[Dax777]

You never asked that question. In fact the two posts of yours that I quoted contained no questions

You are right, I didn't ask it in the form of a question.

"Either his interrupted statement about moon landing was meant to show that you can believe a claim without personally having witnessed it or it wasn't."

Did you think it was? There's ur question.

- other than quoting Cuomo’s question and then criticising him for asking a purposely narrow question.

Notot sure what’s wrong with that - asking narrow questions is a key skill in the art of cross-examination. It reduces the opportunities for slippery cunts to be slippery.

Or it can be used to reach an answer that isn't key to the issue. Whether this guy in particular has evidence isn't key to whether there in fact is evidence of fraud.

In terms of your last post, when you refer to the point about the moon landings, who are you referring to? I’m sorry, but I’m not at all clear what you’re asking.

My post was simply clarifying what I think the interviewee was trying to say when he brought up the moon landing. i.d. using it as an example of something you believe even though you have no personal evidence. And using that as the basis for why he can believe there was fraud without personally having evidence of it.

But Cuomo, and many here think he was saying -there was no evidence of thee moon landing and thus he doesn't believe it happened.-

That is an incorrect understanding of what he said.

That was my point.

 

[Dax777]

He 'believes' they have evidence that NOBODY has seen though. The campaign have lost in court over 50 times because they failed to present ANY evidence of widespread voter fraud in any of the cases.

It was blindingly obvious he was being disingenuous about his beliefs on evidence.

The way the questions are being framed sometimes is often disingenuous.

1.) You don't need "widespread voter fraud" which by the way has no real meaning or definition. It's just a made up phrase that can be used to dismiss evidence by claiming it's not widespread. What constitutes widespread and why is that what's required. No one ever asks :?

2.) What you should need or be required is evidence of Irregularities or fraud affecting a significant enough number of votes that is larger than the margin of victory in a particular state.

3.) Now when stated in clear and actionable terms as above in 2, there is evidence in at least 2 States, Michigan and Georgia that meets that standard.

4.) Many of the claims that have been tossed by the Supreme Court, should have been tossed regardless of it's merit.

5) If for example, you don't have Standing to bring a lawsuit, it doesn't matter what the merits of your claims are, it should and often does get tossed.

For example, if your friend's car was smahed and you have video evidence of this, you can't sue the perpetrator for smashing your friend's car, just because you think what he did was is wrong. You don't have Standing. Only your friend has standing to press charges. So if you Syed, because you thought you'd friend was being a wimp for not saying, your case will be tossed. Regardless of the evidence you have.

5.) For a lot of these cases, the Supreme Court is Not the right Court to answer these cases. Thankfully the Justices understand this. And the Activists agree coz it suits them :)

I know for most who believe there is no evidence of fraud, they also don't check.

The evidence presented at the Georgia Senate (video of continued vote counting after telling everyone they were done counting for the night and the poll watchers and media left) to me is CLEAR evidence of an Irregularity which contravenes the election laws of Georgia.

Now I can dismiss word of mouth claims, but I can't dismiss the unexplained reason for continuing to count votes after stopping and telling everyone you were done for the night, then waiting till everyone left, before continuing to count. I simply can't!