9 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

"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!

Credentialed, as I was using the word, referred to the individual.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

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

Correct. If you base your claim on what the courts have done to the majority of trump's lawsuits (i.e facts) you will come to the conclusion they're warrantless and frivolous. If you base it on wishful thinking and inane conspiracy theories you will reach the wrong conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

"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."

At first I felt that I should point out to you that even if a media source leans in a certain way it is possible for that source to make factually correct reports. That's one of the hallmarks of quality journalism. But then I realized the futility of it.

 

"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."

I guess you're going all in on that knot...

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

If that is your idea of honesty, you need a refresher course. The MSM does hold opinions, but the fact is their reporting includesding an overwhelming amount of facts. Their opinions of Trump they manage to keep separate from their statement of facts. The rumors supported by such bizarre outlets as OANN, are repeatedly debunked but to no avail. As I pointed out before, Trump's lawyers in Pennsylvania asserted that Republican observers were denied entry to observe, but ended up admitting that a "non-zero" number did observe. 12 suits brought by Trump's lawyers have already been summarily dismissed. I don't care what kind of attitude accompanies these fact. They can't be dismissed by a rational thinker. 

Here's a link to a buzfeed list of allegations mostly supported by Trump partisans.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/election-rumors-debunked

 

The sad thing is that even though people such as yourself call on these investigation to clear the air and see if there really is something to the allegations, as long as Trump continues to assert he was cheated, the odds are overwhelming that so will you and the rest of his followers. No proof is ever good enough for the conspiracy-minded.

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

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

Correct. If you base your claim on what the courts have done to the majority of trump's lawsuits (i.e facts) you will come to the conclusion they're warrantless and frivolous. If you base it on wishful thinking and inane conspiracy theories you will reach the wrong conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

"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."

At first I felt that I should point out to you that even if a media source leans in a certain way it is possible for that source to make factually correct reports. That's one of the hallmarks of quality journalism. But then I realized the futility of it.

 

"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."

I guess you're going all in on that knot...

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If that is your idea of honesty, you need a refresher course. The MSM does hold opinions, but the fact is their reporting includesding an overwhelming amount of facts. Their opinions of Trump they manage to keep separate from their statement of facts. The rumors supported by such bizarre outlets as OANN, are repeatedly debunked but to no avail. As I pointed out before, Trump's lawyers in Pennsylvania asserted that Republican observers were denied entry to observe, but ended up admitting that a "non-zero" number did observe. 12 suits brought by Trump's lawyers have already been summarily dismissed. I don't care what kind of attitude accompanies these fact. They can't be dismissed by a rational thinker. 

Here's a link to a buzfeed list of allegations mostly supported by Trump partisans.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/election-rumors-debunked

 

The sad thing is that even though people such as yourself call on these investigation to clear the air and see if there really is something to the allegations, as long as Trump continues to assert he was cheated, the odds are overwhelming that so will you and the rest of his followers. No proof is ever good enough for the conspiracy-minded.

 

Well said, I tip my head. Good and balanced summary, free of partisanship.

 

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I'd fire him in a nano-second for going public about internal HR matters. 

 

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I'd fire him in a nano-second for going public about internal HR matters. 

Yes, I have no doubt. While wanting less government regulation so the employees have no protection from authoritarian "rulers". OK, I am prejudice favoring employee protections via union contracts and/or government regulation to protect employees.

14 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

A remarkably "Trumpetty" argument!

I'm not asking for any argument.  I'm asking to be supplied with some legal basis for declaring Biden the winner.  Do you have that or don't you?  Snarky one-liners don't work.  Should I wait?

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

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.

Hence why the guy in the OP is getting fired.  Trump disagrees.  To be honest, so do I.

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 

Be careful what you wish for. Biden will probably send USA to war again, the libs will screech about minority rights and attack the silent majority, and the debt will go up and up and the libs tears will go down and down. The pendulum will, inevitably, swing back one day. Biden is a much nicer man than Trump, undoubtedly, but he's going to be a figurehead as he fumbles his way through his 4 years (if he makes it to the end).

Yes, the debit goes up from the level at the end of the Obama administration ... wait, what? If Biden fumbles it will be at the hand of McConnell continuing blocking House passed bills.

 

13 minutes ago, IgboChief said:

 

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.

Again, lawsuits claim otherwise.  Don't get mad at me for it.

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Probabilities run between zero and one, although there is no such thing as either number in probability. All one can say is a vanishingly small probability of an event occurring, or an event being almost certain. Applying that to the current situation, IMO there is a vanishingly small probability Trump will succeed in overturning the result by legal action, and it is almost certain Biden will be the next President.

You may not be aware Trump has not been able to engage any high level lawyers to represent him in the various courtrooms, and has to rely on second or third rank legal eagles to pursue his cases. Perhaps the high profile lawyers understand both the probabilities of success, and being paid for their labors.

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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

You're absolutely correct, trump can't help himself. He's so despicable he just cannot hide it. The crushing defeat of trump in the election was such a wonderful thing to behold.

Let's hope that once chased out of the WH he will be tried, prosecuted and jailed for his numerous crimes. That would be the mother of all cake icings!!

12 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

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

Correct. If you base your claim on what the courts have done to the majority of trump's lawsuits (i.e facts) you will come to the conclusion they're warrantless and frivolous. If you base it on wishful thinking and inane conspiracy theories you will reach the wrong conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

"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."

At first I felt that I should point out to you that even if a media source leans in a certain way it is possible for that source to make factually correct reports. That's one of the hallmarks of quality journalism. But then I realized the futility of it.

 

"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."

I guess you're going all in on that knot...

I knot know what you talk about.

 

Geezus, how many times do I need to explain the same thing.  If I was a teacher and you all were my students, I'm sorry to say but I'd have to flunk you all.

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hence why the guy in the OP is getting fired.  Trump disagrees.  To be honest, so do I.

Whenever anyone uses the expression "to be honest" I always check where my wallet is.

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, lawsuits claim otherwise.

 

A lawsuit says nothing. You can sue the world for being flat, if you want and have the money for it. Thank we live in a free world where even mad people are free to claim what they want. And I support that as long as it does not pose a threat for anyone and harms the future generations.

 

 

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by onthedarkside
flame comment

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hence why the guy in the OP is getting fired.  Trump disagrees.  To be honest, so do I.

And Trump clearly has the expertise to make a judgement on that. And his judgement is not at all influenced by that fact that he's been judged to be losing. And if you are siding with Trump's judgement over that of cyber expects, you expect to be taken seriously?

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, lawsuits claim otherwise.  Don't get mad at me for it.

Lawsuits that keep on getting summarily dismissed.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Patience, DSD.  Lots of lawsuits being filed.  Do you think they would be filing lawsuits if they didn't have any evidence?

Trumps lawyers have admitted that they can not change the election. The supporting evidence is non existent.  Are you admitting this or just a bit light on everything relevant? 

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hence why the guy in the OP is getting fired.  Trump disagrees.  To be honest, so do I.

Based on what?

4 hours ago, John1012 said:

 " since Republican President Donald Trump was defeated by Democrat Joe Biden in last week's election"  .......  more FAKE  news   ..... until all legal challenges and the constitutional process is followed DJ Trump is the President, and will remain so until midnight of January  19th 2021, unless he concedes.

I believe it is noon on January 20 Washington, DC time. However, Joe Biden is President Elect having defeated Donald Trump. This is fact whether Trump concedes or not. Conceding has nothing to do with the Constitutional mandate.

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

 

It's false? So Trump's plea for money isn't extremely misleading? It doesn't claim that the money is for his legal defense? It doesn't provide a motive for his continuing his legal suits? You think that's a decent way to treat his supporters?  How do you know it's false? It's a theory that agrees with the facts far better than one that contends he's contesting the election based on fraudulent acts.

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by placeholder

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I object to being called a nutter.  I don't mind debating with you guys but don't be slandering me for my opinions.

Your opinions do not appear to be rational.  BTW, slander is verbal, libel is written. What was that you were saying about flunking people?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Patience, DSD.  Lots of lawsuits being filed.  Do you think they would be filing lawsuits if they didn't have any evidence?

Very funny, considering law suits have already been filed ... and been dismissed by the courts for lack of evidence.

Trump..Your fired, and i won it was a very beautiful win,

regards worgeordie

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Seems to me the article failed to cite what authority has declared Biden a winner and Trump a loser.  The fat lady hasn't sung yet.  And when she does sing it may be an unexpected tune.

Funny, the 'authority" is the preliminary vote totals as reported by the states. while there is still the formal step of certifying the vote count ... the preliminary vote reports by the states are quite enough to see the incontestable wing by Biden. Formalities will be observed but the outcome as to the winner is not in any doubt. Trump leaves January 20 at noon.

 

 In response to a post saying Trump is pocketing money being asked for to fight legal cases, you responded:

42 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

 

The truth of it is that only donations above $8,000 actually contribute to that fund.

The first $8,000 goes to campaign debt and the RNC.

And yet you accuse others of false and misleading speculation?

Where are you getting your information from? Seriously! I want to know.

And so it begins.

 

Law360 - Pa. Judge Rejects Ballots Cured After Original Deadline

 

A Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court judge ruled Thursday that the state's top election official lacked the authority to extend the deadline for voters to fix issues with verifying their identities and ordered ballots that were cured after the original Nov. 9 deadline to not be counted.

 

The Trump campaign sued on Nov. 4 on the grounds that the state Election Code required proof of identification to be provided by Nov. 9 and that Boockvar did not have authority to change the deadline.

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

And so it begins.

 

Law360 - Pa. Judge Rejects Ballots Cured After Original Deadline

 

A Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court judge ruled Thursday that the state's top election official lacked the authority to extend the deadline for voters to fix issues with verifying their identities and ordered ballots that were cured after the original Nov. 9 deadline to not be counted.

 

The Trump campaign sued on Nov. 4 on the grounds that the state Election Code required proof of identification to be provided by Nov. 9 and that Boockvar did not have authority to change the deadline.

So no voter fraud.....still...and a proportion of those votes not to be counted will have been for Trump...well done huge win...5555

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by Surelynot

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, lawsuits claim otherwise.  Don't get mad at me for it.

Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits

https://www.salon.com/2020/11/13/trump-campaign-presents-238-pages-of-ridiculous-gop-poll-watcher-affidavits_partner/

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Patience, DSD.  Lots of lawsuits being filed.  Do you think they would be filing lawsuits if they didn't have any evidence?

yes!