6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The past doesn't necessarily determine the future.  You could have two strikes and still hit it out of the park.  Your reasoning is logically flawed.  No matter.  We're all going to have to wait it out.

Santayana said those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Your baseball analogy is flawed too, there have been more than two strikes against Trump's lawyers.

The only win they have had is getting observers closer to the vote counters in  Pennsylvania. That's a walk to first base, not a home run.

To use a cricketing analogy instead, Trump's lawsuits are like a batsman being squared up by a fast bowler. Or perhaps I should go to Hail Mary passes.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're the one who contended that they wouldn't be filing cases if they didn't have evidence. But they have been and they don't.

Well, you'll have to explain how a lawsuit can be filed absent evidence.  I'm at a loss on that one.

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Well, you'll have to explain how a lawsuit can be filed absent evidence.  I'm at a loss on that one.

They've been doing it, haven't they. They make silly allegations and then the suits get dismissed. This happens all time. Trump did it throughout his career. Ever hear of frivolous litigation?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Well, you'll have to explain how a lawsuit can be filed absent evidence.  I'm at a loss on that one.

You can file a lawsuit without evidence, then it gets tossed out by the judge. In case you haven't noticed, that's what is happening to the Trump lawsuits now.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Santayana said those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Your baseball analogy is flawed too, there have been more than two strikes against Trump's lawyers.

The only win they have had is getting observers closer to the vote counters in  Pennsylvania. That's a walk to first base, not a home run.

To use a cricketing analogy instead, Trump's lawsuits are like a batsman being squared up by a fast bowler. Or perhaps I should go to Hail Mary passes.

It was an analogy, you understand.  This, though, is not a baseball game so more "strikes" are allowed.  You can also hit quite a few home runs, too.

 

The Santayana quote is an ill fitting analogy.

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The past doesn't necessarily determine the future.  You could have two strikes and still hit it out of the park.  Your reasoning is logically flawed.  No matter.  We're all going to have to wait it out.

Talk about logically flawed reasoning:  The past has shown that Trump has been filing lawsuits without evidence.  So the answer to your question remains "yes".

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The law of probability.

I know that's just a joke.  As long as freedom exists probabilities cannot always be determined.  The future is plastic, based on probabilities, and none can say what it holds.

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

They've recruited the Rhino Paul Ryan.  I believe that explanation suffices.  In any case, everyone here should be happy as Fox was the last of the competition.

 

Rather, it's that even arch conservative Rupert Murdoch and his Fox empire have recognized what pretty much the rest of the world already knows -- that Trump is done and dusted as regards the 2020 presidential election.

 

Same with major Trump donor Sheldon Adelson and his LV Review-Journal editorial telling Trump to give it up!!!

 

The dominoes are falling and only the deluded can't see them. Open your eyes and watch them fall.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/12/las-vegas-review-journal-trump-defeat-436302

 

Quote

 

The editorial page of a newspaper owned by GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson thinks it's time for President Donald Trump to face the reality of his defeat.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote that absent concrete evidence, Trump’s continued claims of pervasive voter fraud “does a disservice to his more rabid supporters” because the idea is “simply false.”

“In fact, rhetoric from Trump surrogates alleging widespread illegal activity has been devoid of detailed evidence supporting the charge that there was a concerted effort to ‘steal’ the election through corruption,” states the editorial published Wednesday night.

 

 

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I know that's just a joke.  As long as freedom exists probabilities cannot always be determined.  The future is plastic, based on probabilities, and none can say what it holds.

Right. Every day is a new day and what we've learned in the past is entirely irrelevant. Yours is an arguement in favor of spending all your money on lottery tickers.

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by placeholder

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They've been doing it, haven't they. They make silly allegations and then the suits get dismissed. This happens all time. Trump did it throughout his career. Ever hear of frivolous litigation?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Come now.  That's just your opinion.  And you're welcome to it.

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Come now.  That's just your opinion.  And you're welcome to it.

https://www.medialaw.org/component/k2/item/3470-donald-j-trump-is-a-libel-bully-but-also-a-libel-loser

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In other elections that has held true, DSD.  In this election, though, no one has conceded. 

Let's be honest about this though. It is the loser in this election who has not conceded.

Something that has never happened before, once the race was "called." Biden has won, simple as that.

As I stated earlier today I do not object to people using their legal options, to which they have every right.

The word "frivolous" has been used repeatedly in recent days about the legal challenges here though.

While I admire the tenacity of people to fight when the chips are down, there has to come a moment when reality overtakes ideology and delusion.

For a growing number of Americans that is happening more and more with every passing day, painful as it is.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You can file a lawsuit without evidence, then it gets tossed out by the judge. In case you haven't noticed, that's what is happening to the Trump lawsuits now.

Seems everyone here is citing the same reasoning.  I've already shown that it's flawed.  It's not so difficult to understand.  You can't take what happened in the past and project the same results indefinitely, or even short term, into the future.  If that's you're only argument, a logically flawed one, then I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Seems everyone here is citing the same reasoning.  I've already shown that it's flawed.  It's not so difficult to understand.  You can't take what happened in the past and project the same results indefinitely, or even short term, into the future.  If that's you're only argument, a logically flawed one, then I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Get thee to the lottery station.

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Right. Every day is a new day and what we've learned in the past is entirely irrelevant. Yours is an arguement in favor of spending all your money on lottery tickers.

Then please be so kind as to provide a detailed explanation of how probabilities work.  Just make sure it's a functioning explanation.  You know, absent any leaky holes.

1 minute ago, darksidedog said:

As I stated earlier today I do not object to people using their legal options, to which they have every right.

 

I second that, well said. Although I think, at this point, when there is no merit in any of these options, it does more harm than good to the country. I am not even taking sides here, it does not matter WHO won. But it matters that someone has won obviously, both the electorate and also the public vote. Time to move on and get to work. US and the world is facing serious challenges.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Seems everyone here is citing the same reasoning.  I've already shown that it's flawed.  It's not so difficult to understand.  You can't take what happened in the past and project the same results indefinitely, or even short term, into the future.  If that's you're only argument, a logically flawed one, then I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

ANd of course, as we've seen from a different thread, it seems quite likely that Trump isn't fighting this to win, he's fighting it to make money. What kind of lowlife does it take to ask supporters to donate money to fight a legal case but then keep most of it for his own purposes?

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Come now.  That's just your opinion.  And you're welcome to it.

https://www.medialaw.org/component/k2/item/3470-donald-j-trump-is-a-libel-bully-but-also-a-libel-loser

That's an opinion too.  Call it a "credentialed" opinion if you like.  It's still an opinion.

 

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by Tippaporn

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Seems everyone here is citing the same reasoning.  I've already shown that it's flawed.  It's not so difficult to understand.  You can't take what happened in the past and project the same results indefinitely, or even short term, into the future.  If that's you're only argument, a logically flawed one, then I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

 

While I reckon, that your kin will always be there (did you know that approx. 15% of the population is so dumb with an IQ below 80 that even the army won't recruit them as cannon fodder because they are too dangerous for the own troops), I do look forward to the day, when matured sane people, able to counsel and negotiate will have the lead again.

While Biden certainly is too old for the job and while it is sad that a country of the US has to fall back to an almost 80 years old man (which is not Biden's fault, I admire him for his life time achievements), it was so nice to listen to his speeches and to hear the calm, assuring and insightful sound of reason (instead of rabid barking).

The Department of Homeland Security breaks from Trump and his baseless claims of election fraud, calling this year's presidential race 'the most secure in American history'

 

"The Department of Homeland Security broke from President Donald Trump's baseless allegations of a "stolen" election on Thursday and said there is no evidence of fraud. 

"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history," the DHS said in a statement. The Department's Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees found "no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.""

 

8 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Let's be honest about this though. It is the loser in this election who has not conceded.

Something that has never happened before, once the race was "called." Biden has won, simple as that.

As I stated earlier today I do not object to people using their legal options, to which they have every right.

The word "frivolous" has been used repeatedly in recent days about the legal challenges here though.

While I admire the tenacity of people to fight when the chips are down, there has to come a moment when reality overtakes ideology and delusion.

For a growing number of Americans that is happening more and more with every passing day, painful as it is.

 

 

DSD, to say that Trump's lawsuits are warrantless and frivolous depends on where you get your information from.  Let's do be honest and admit that the entire MSM hates Trump.  What kind of reporting can one then expect from them?  To me that's only common sense.  If I wanted to date a woman I didn't know well, who just had a knock down ugly break up with her boyfriend, and I wanted someone's opinion the last person I'd go to for an objective opinion would be her old boyfriend.

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's an opinion too.  Call it a "credentialed" opinion if you like.  It's still an opinion.

 

"Credentialed" opinion?? If that's your way of saying that it's an opinion formed on the basis on facts?

LOL, I really hope you're able to undo the knot you've tied yourself into!

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In other elections that has held true, DSD.  In this election, though, no one has conceded.  To understand what that truly means would require knowledge of election law.  And since this election is not your typical election then, no, the fat lady has not sung in 2020.  Legally speaking there is no winner or loser at this time.  Granted, it doesn't prevent people from falsely claiming otherwise.

 

Unless someone can state what the actual law is that declares Biden a winner and Trump a loser then this point has been won by me.  I doubt anyone will be able to cite it.

A remarkably "Trumpetty" argument!

 

it is not a typical election, because the "fat man" is refusing to accept defeat, despite losing both the popular and Electoral College votes by a significant margin, a margin much greater than could be changed in a recount, or explained by voter fraud, which he alleges constantly but is absolutely unable to provide any evidence. The fat man has gagged the fat lady!

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by herfiehandbag

12 minutes ago, IgboChief said:

 

I second that, well said. Although I think, at this point, when there is no merit in any of these options, it does more harm than good to the country. I am not even taking sides here, it does not matter WHO won. But it matters that someone has won obviously, both the electorate and also the public vote. Time to move on and get to work. US and the world is facing serious challenges.

The point I think you're missing is the all important question as to how it was won.  That question must be in the mix and can't be ignored.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

DSD, to say that Trump's lawsuits are warrantless and frivolous depends on where you get your information from.<snip>

Since the suits are being thrown out left and right, no, it doesn't matter where you get your information from, they are warrantless and frivolous. 

All election officials have come out and declared nothing untoward happened as well.

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's an opinion too.  Call it a "credentialed" opinion if you like.  It's still an opinion.

 

I guess if someone chooses absolutely to surrender their powers of judgement in the interests of supporting their leader, you have a point. My favorite instance of Trump's dishonesty in pursuing these legal cases came when he was forced to sit for a depostion when a brought a lawsut against the author for publicly doubting that Trump was a billionaire. Trump was asked how he arrived at valuations of his properties and the role his feelings played in that

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2011/a6141-08-opn.html

  Now there''s evidence that Trump is a more conflicted character than we gave him credit for.  When he was with bankers he felt one way about the value of his property, but when he was reporting their value to the tax authorities quite another. 

34 minutes ago, placeholder said:

ANd of course, as we've seen from a different thread, it seems quite likely that Trump isn't fighting this to win, he's fighting it to make money. What kind of lowlife does it take to ask supporters to donate money to fight a legal case but then keep most of it for his own purposes?

That is false and misleading speculation and doesn't deserve to be here.  And you folks complain that Trump makes things up?  I guess subscribing to rumour and speculation only depends on whether you're favourable to it or not.  In any case, I wouldn't repeat stuff like that here.  Not part of this conversation.

 

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by Tippaporn

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The point I think you're missing is the all important question as to how it was won.  That question must be in the mix and can't be ignored.

 

I am actually aware of it: there was a public vote with observes from both parties overseeing the count. The outcome was very clear. Various national and international observers have confirmed, that they did not see any material or relevant irregularities. Even Republican Senators and Vote Observers. Furthermore, only one single Rumplestilzchen throws tantrums and behaves mad without producing any evidence.

 

All important questions answered.

10 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

The Department of Homeland Security breaks from Trump and his baseless claims of election fraud, calling this year's presidential race 'the most secure in American history'

 

"The Department of Homeland Security broke from President Donald Trump's baseless allegations of a "stolen" election on Thursday and said there is no evidence of fraud. 

"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history," the DHS said in a statement. The Department's Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees found "no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.""

 

Now you know what the OP is all about and why Trump is dumping him.

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Now you know what the OP is all about and why Trump is dumping him.

 

Trump is not dumping anyone. At this point, being dumped by Trump is the most valuable credential in your CV, when you can't hide that you were part of this for the last 4 years.