2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

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

These ballots haven't yet been added to the overall totals for each candidate, as per an earlier ruling, so will have no effect at all on the result from the state.  The irony is that, as you say, they could have even narrowed the gap between Biden and Trump, but now definitely won't.

 

(Referring to the earlier ruling to count these ballots separately, but not add them to the official count):

"While the order is a win of sorts for President Donald Trump in the barrage of litigation he has endorsed to try to wrestle a victory in the presidential race, the practical impact may be limited or perhaps nonexistent.

Indeed, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said on Friday night that the order was actually a rebuff for Republicans because it would lead to no change in the status quo".

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/06/pennsylvania-republicans-supreme-court-mail-ballots-434744

 

 

7 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

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

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.

 

DSD, here's placeholder's original post.

  

1 hour 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?

 

I'm not disputing the fact of the donation terms.  They are what they are and they're completely transparent about it.  I've seen them before and I'm not commenting on whether there's right or wrong in the terms.  I'm disputing the red part of the quote as pure speculation.  placeholder is claiming that Trump's motivation to continue to fight for what he believes is right is not Trump's true intention but rather he just wants to make money.  That's baseless speculation that doesn't belong here.  It's not like any of these funds are going to end up in Trump's pocket.

11 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

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

It's not voter fraud so much as election fraud that's being pursued.  That's where claims of massive numbers comes in.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Do you think they would be filing lawsuits if they didn't have any evidence?"

 

In view of the fact that these suits are being routinely dismissed for lack of evidence, yes.

My BOLD.

 

In the UK and a number of other countries around the world there is an Act to prevent Vexatious Litigations.

 

In the US this is only an option in California. What is occurring at present would in other countries qualify IMHO, as the lawsuits are frivolous and without substance. Not that this childish, petulant, behaviour would likely be present in other 'democratic' countries.

 

Vexatious litigation is deemed to be action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. I would suggest this is what is currently going on and only the lawyers are benefitting from it. The courts must be getting extremely pst off at the moment .

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's not voter fraud so much as election fraud that's being pursued.  That's where claims of massive numbers comes in.

And your link to evidence is missing as usual.

8 hours ago, BobBKK said:

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

I hope that was tongue in cheek. Trump has condemned Whistleblowers in the past, calling them traitors, etc.

 

Interesting that he praised the (later debunked) Whistleblower in the Post Office.

 

How the wiggly worm turns when it suits him.

 

Right up there with 'stop the count- I'm losing, keep counting- I'm winning'.

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

DSD, here's placeholder's original post.

  

 

I'm not disputing the fact of the donation terms.  They are what they are and they're completely transparent about it.  I've seen them before and I'm not commenting on whether there's right or wrong in the terms.  I'm disputing the red part of the quote as pure speculation.  placeholder is claiming that Trump's motivation to continue to fight for what he believes is right is not Trump's true intention but rather he just wants to make money.  That's baseless speculation that doesn't belong here.  It's not like any of these funds are going to end up in Trump's pocket.

What nonsense! They weren't completely transparent about it.

'The emailed solicitations send supporters to an “Official Election Defense Fund” website that asks them to sign up for recurring donations to “protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day.”  The fine print makes clear most of the money will go to other priorities. '

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1191781-donations-under-8k-to trump ‘election-defense’-instead-go-to-president-rnc/#comments

 

It was uncovered by people reading the fine print. They got caught out. As for my speculation being baseless...compared to someone maintaining that the electoral lawsuits are in good faith after they are repeatedly being summarily dismissed? My explanation fits the facts far better than yours. Trump is telling his supporters that it's about combatting electoral fraud in big print and in small print is saying otherwise.  He may not be getting that money for his personal use, but there's nothing that says he can't hire his family and pay them with those funds. Nothing.

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's not voter fraud so much as election fraud that's being pursued.  That's where claims of massive numbers comes in.

And how can all those government experts be denying that case unless they are all in on it together?

9 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

These ballots haven't yet been added to the overall totals for each candidate, as per an earlier ruling, so will have no effect at all on the result from the state.  The irony is that, as you say, they could have even narrowed the gap between Biden and Trump, but now definitely won't.

 

(Referring to the earlier ruling to count these ballots separately, but not add them to the official count):

"While the order is a win of sorts for President Donald Trump in the barrage of litigation he has endorsed to try to wrestle a victory in the presidential race, the practical impact may be limited or perhaps nonexistent.

Indeed, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said on Friday night that the order was actually a rebuff for Republicans because it would lead to no change in the status quo".

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/06/pennsylvania-republicans-supreme-court-mail-ballots-434744

True, these ballots won't effect the outcome in PA.  By themselves.  Still, it's a win which proves my argument that you can't conclude all of Trump's current and future legal challenges are frivolous and unwarranted based on past lack of success.

 

Now y'all can minimize this win all you like but until we know what other lawsuits are about we can't assume that they will be similarly negligible.

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

True, these ballots won't effect the outcome in PA.  By themselves.  Still, it's a win which proves my argument that you can't conclude all of Trump's current and future legal challenges are frivolous and unwarranted based on past lack of success.

 

Now y'all can minimize this win all you like but until we know what other lawsuits are about we can't assume that they will be similarly negligible.

Clutching at straws.

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm disputing the red part of the quote as pure speculation.

It is through the use of "it seems quite likely" that it is obviously opinion. Opinion is speculation. It is not a statement of fact. Something you and I have discussed much about at length. You have speculated much in this thread today also.

If I were to remove every "opinion" from this forum, there wouldn't be much left.

However, how many people can afford way over $8,000 to begin to assist in the legal fight?

It was also not made clear to small donators that their hard earned cash wasn't in fact going where they thought it was.

Many posters here believe from both sides of the fence, that honesty is important.

Mr Trumps camp is seemingly having problems with that issue at the moment, so it is hardly surprising that opinion of a negative type is likely to follow. Once someone does not believe one statement you made, the whole pack of cards of what went before can come crashing down.

I would suggest the further this boat is pushed out, the worse the long term damage for the RNC will be long term.

The world hopes this becomes finalised soon. Reality can only be denied for so long after all.

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What nonsense! They weren't completely transparent about it.

'The emailed solicitations send supporters to an “Official Election Defense Fund” website that asks them to sign up for recurring donations to “protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day.”  The fine print makes clear most of the money will go to other priorities. '

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1191781-donations-under-8k-to trump ‘election-defense’-instead-go-to-president-rnc/#comments

 

It was uncovered by people reading the fine print. They got caught out. As for my speculation being baseless...compared to someone maintaining that the electoral lawsuits are in good faith after they are repeatedly being summarily dismissed? My explanation fits the facts far better than yours. Trump is telling his supporters that it's about combatting electoral fraud in big print and in small print is saying otherwise.  He may not be getting that money for his personal use, but there's nothing that says he can't hire his family and pay them with those funds. Nothing.

Calm down, placeholder.  You're getting all wound up.

 

You made the claim that Trump's intention wasn't to win the Presidency via all these legal challenges but to merely make money.  Read your own writing.  To say that is to speculate as to Trump's intentions.  You aren't in Trump's head.  Therefore you're putting something out there that can certainly be false and misleading.

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's not voter fraud so much as election fraud that's being pursued.  That's where claims of massive numbers comes in.

Finding a single shred of evidence to back that up seems to be just a tad delayed right now though, wouldn't you say?

I mean if it happened and there is proof, shouldn't an inkling of said proof have been offered to a single court by now?

 

I have not doubt Trump is not happy with him as he contradicts his most ridiculous lies!????

From Trump's twitter account:

"Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump 20h

“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.”

@ChanelRion @OANN"

????????????????????

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by candide

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

True, these ballots won't effect the outcome in PA.  By themselves.  Still, it's a win which proves my argument that you can't conclude all of Trump's current and future legal challenges are frivolous and unwarranted based on past lack of success.

 

Now y'all can minimize this win all you like but until we know what other lawsuits are about we can't assume that they will be similarly negligible.

What kind of organization is it that files so many lawsuits that are summarily dismissed? If you deal with a habitual liar, do you live in the expectation that the next words out of his mouth will be true?

1 minute ago, darksidedog said:

Finding a single shred of evidence to back that up seems to be just a tad delayed right now though, wouldn't you say?

I mean if it happened and there is proof, shouldn't an inkling of said proof have been offered to a single court by now?

Again, DSD, it all depends on one's source of information.  Not all sources are considered equal these days.  Very unfortunate about that.  Regardless, the truth exists.  It's always out there for anyone who's willing to look.

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, DSD, it all depends on one's source of information.  Not all sources are considered equal these days.  Very unfortunate about that.  Regardless, the truth exists.  It's always out there for anyone who's willing to look.

Yes, but I wasn't asking about sources of information.

I was asking where is any evidence? Courts normally look for some after all, and it seems to be in very short supply in the Trump camp right now.

Accusations get wilder by the moment, but evidence? Zip. Nada! Nothing!

The truth is very much out there. It in this case is everywhere, though some seem unable to see the wood for the trees.

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, DSD, it all depends on one's source of information.  Not all sources are considered equal these days.  Very unfortunate about that.  Regardless, the truth exists.  It's always out there for anyone who's willing to look.

I've had occasion to deal with some of that "truth" My favorite so far was of a video that purported to show electoral workers altering ballots. At any rate, given your posture on the issues, it is clear that it is not possible to convince you that there was no fraud, but only that there was. I am going to make a bold prediction and say that even after the elections are certified in Biden's favor, you will go on alleging fraud.

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, DSD, it all depends on one's source of information.  Not all sources are considered equal these days.  Very unfortunate about that.  Regardless, the truth exists.  It's always out there for anyone who's willing to look.

Permit me to doubt the truth will be found anywhere in the sources of information you presumably favor, only "alternative facts" and accusations of fake news.

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Not all sources are considered equal these days.

 

True, we do not read from Chicken Bones or Shades in the Mist, nor Coffee stains on the bottom of the cup.

Despite the claims, that is not an entirely new phenomenon. But similar to the medieval ages, there are folks shouting heresy and blasphemy, when educated people debate evidence.

 

3 minutes ago, IgboChief said:

 

True, we do not read from Chicken Bones or Shades in the Mist, nor Coffee stains on the bottom of the cup.

Despite the claims, that is not an entirely new phenomenon. But similar to the medieval ages, there are folks shouting heresy and blasphemy, when educated people debate evidence.

 

These subscribers to conspiracy theories live in an hermetic world. It's worse today because with so much information out there it's easy to find the dots that confirm your belief and ignore all the others. Probably lots of them are Qanon followers. They believe that there will be massive trials involving members of the Deep State who conspired against Trump. They did believe that Trump was going to have a landslide victory. You'd think that his loss would shake their faith. But there was a case study done once of a sect that believed the world was coming to an end on a specific date. That day came and went. The world went on. So you would expect that they would give up their belief. Not so. They actually doubled down on it. The psychological phenomenon whose name was coined to explain it is "cognitive dissonance".  The same will happen here. Trump's loss will just reinforce their belief in conspiracies and the Deep State.

24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

These subscribers to conspiracy theories live in an hermetic world. It's worse today because with so much information out there it's easy to find the dots that confirm your belief and ignore all the others. Probably lots of them are Qanon followers. They believe that there will be massive trials involving members of the Deep State who conspired against Trump. They did believe that Trump was going to have a landslide victory. You'd think that his loss would shake their faith. But there was a case study done once of a sect that believed the world was coming to an end on a specific date. That day came and went. The world went on. So you would expect that they would give up their belief. Not so. They actually doubled down on it. The psychological phenomenon whose name was coined to explain it is "cognitive dissonance".  The same will happen here. Trump's loss will just reinforce their belief in conspiracies and the Deep State.

Many people don't even see other information, one of the problems of facebook. It emphasizes ones beliefs by showing more and more of that, and less and less if contradictory information.

sometimes I think Trump watched "House of Cards" as a training video about how to do politics

38 minutes ago, placeholder said:

These subscribers to conspiracy theories live in an hermetic world. It's worse today because with so much information out there it's easy to find the dots that confirm your belief and ignore all the others. Probably lots of them are Qanon followers. They believe that there will be massive trials involving members of the Deep State who conspired against Trump. They did believe that Trump was going to have a landslide victory. You'd think that his loss would shake their faith. But there was a case study done once of a sect that believed the world was coming to an end on a specific date. That day came and went. The world went on. So you would expect that they would give up their belief. Not so. They actually doubled down on it. The psychological phenomenon whose name was coined to explain it is "cognitive dissonance".  The same will happen here. Trump's loss will just reinforce their belief in conspiracies and the Deep State.

 

I reckon and agree. But what does that mean for a democracy?

In ancient times, the right to vote was earned by the ability to contribute to the defence of the state. Thus only, wealthy and educated people were part of the democracy.

 

I do believe, that democracy is the most desirable form of government and I also believe, that each woman and man deserve a vote and that the total of all votes will give the most preferable outcome. However, this opinion was always based on the hope to deal with matured, reasonable individuals -- everyone contributing to their best ability.

 

So how does this continuous toxic trolling fit into that? And what is the solution? Let's face it: Dems won clearly, but not by a landslide. There are 70 Mill. people out there, who voted for Trump, after having seen him in action for 4 years!

Please do not get me wrong: I am market liberal, with a slope to the right wing. I have no problems with Republican Votes per se. But a country cheering the chimps simply scares me.

 

Sorry for Off Topic.

Edited November 13, 20205 yr by IgboChief

3 minutes ago, IgboChief said:

 

I reckon and agree. But what does that mean for a democracy?

In ancient times, the right to vote was earned by the ability to contribute to the defence of the state. Thus only, wealthy and educated people were part of the democracy.

 

I do believe, that democracy is the most desirable form of government and I also believe, that each woman and man deserve a vote and that the total of all votes will give the most preferable outcome. However, this opinion was always based on the hope to deal with matured, reasonable individuals -- everyone contributing to their best ability.

 

So how does this continuous toxic trolling fit into that? And what is the solution? Let's face it: Dems won clearly, but not by a landslide. There are 70 Mill. people out there, who voted for Trump, after having seen him in action for 4 years!

Please do not get me wrong: I am market liberal, with a slope to the right wing. I have no problems with Republican Votes per se. But a country cheering the chimps simply scares me.

 

Sorry for Off Topic.

 

it's not off topic, it's US election.

 

qualifying people for taking part in elections is a difficult thing, and abuse takes place on both sides of the political spectrum, not just the right. many leftist politicians just promise money to the poor to get their vote, regardless of how bad the state coffers look.
less so in the USA, but in Europe that type of vote buying is pretty common, especially in less rigorist countries in which logic and common sense seem to be less important, which incidentially coincides with the countries the most hit by COVID...

 

 

7 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

This is what happens when a defeated leader is allowed 10 weeks in which to be as vengeful as possible to as many people as possible.

In Europe they're shown the door the following day and no further damage can be done.

... vengeful and destructive and time for a lot more total lies ... to wind up more of his redneck supporters who he knows can't now and never will see the woods for the trees.

13 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).

Why not concentrate on the mayhem happening right now rather than possible problems in the future ?

6 hours 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.

 

People have been correctly answering your question below.

 

7 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?

 

Just as a reminder, the answer is yes.  Trump has been filing lawsuits without evidence, and will no doubt continue to do so.

6 hours 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.

Please identify a credible news organization that likes Trump.

 

Could it be that what you think of as hatred is actually factual reporting of Trump's actions and their consequences?

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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

Neither you nor Trump have provided any evidence of election fraud on a scale that would change the result.  Disagreeing with the experts without evidence is not rational.  This lack of rationality discredits your posts.