US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

prawnsambo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well she doesn’t need CCTV from Michigan then does she ?

Nope. I think Sidney's approach to the law is to load a blunderbuss with every crazy fraud allegation out there and fire it at the nearest courthouse. On top of the altered document, she's also named a plaintiff who insists that they are not party to the claim. This (as well as the alteration) is a very serious no no.

Also, and this is the cherry on top, she's registered a lot of domains including sidneypowell2024.com and sidneypowellforpresident.com, because of course she did.

prawnsambo

By the way, if anyone wants to go down the rabbit hole of what exactly people were 'testifying' to at the Michigan 'hearing', this thread is a wild ride. I'd say it beggars belief, but with Sidney Powell actually putting some of this stuff in front of actual judges in actual court, we're already through the looking glass.

Seanachai

StringerBell wrote: »

I have absolutely zero respect, or time for those who will come out now now against trump after standing by and condoning all that has gone on this part 4 years when the ship has already sunk.

Spineless the lot of them.

Can you actually believe the gall of GOP Senators making noises about not confirming a Biden appointment because of some tweets they didn't like?

Do the testimonies from challengers and observers not seem credible at all to you? Being intimidated out of the room, observing blatant interference with ballots etc. I know that the 'correct' opinion over here is to see Trump supporters as either being zany religious nuts, rednecks, or I'm alright Jacks but they seemed pretty lucid, earnest and upset from the footage that I watched. Some of them are even registered Democrats.

The best one I've seen was of Dem staff assuming a woman of Indian descent was one of them and filling her in on the gameplan. When they saw her Rep badge they said 'Oh you're on the wrong side'. If there was in fact significant fraud and Biden is inaugurated on the back of it, that's a worse scenario for the US because the bitterness will be unreal.

The Raging Bile Duct

prawnsambo wrote: »

By the way, if anyone wants to go down the rabbit hole of what exactly people were 'testifying' to at the Michigan 'hearing', this thread is a wild ride. I'd say it beggars belief, but with Sidney Powell actually putting some of this stuff in front of actual judges in actual court, we're already through the looking glass.

That thread is absolutely brilliant. Comedy gold.

TomOnBoard

Seanachai wrote: »

Do the testimonies from Rep challengers and observers not seem credible at all to you? Being intimidated out of the room, observing blatant interference with ballots etc. I know that the 'correct' opinion over here is to see Trump supporters as either being zany religious nuts, rednecks, or I'm alright Jacks but they seemed pretty earnest and upset from the footage that I watched. Some of them are even registered Democrats.

The best one I've seen was of Dem staff assuming a woman of Indian descent was one of them and filling her in on the gameplan. When they saw her Rep badge they said 'Oh you're on the wrong side'. If there was in fact significant fraud and Biden is inaugurated on the back of it, that's a worse scenario for the US because the bitterness will be unreal.

The answer to your first question is a resounding No!

Accordingly, for me the rest is just ignorance of how the process is supposed to work/misinterpretations at best and downright BS/lying at worst.

robinph

Seanachai wrote: »

Do the testimonies from Rep challengers and observers not seem credible at all to you?

No, they don't seem credible.

prawnsambo wrote: »

By the way, if anyone wants to go down the rabbit hole of what exactly people were 'testifying' to at the Michigan 'hearing', this thread is a wild ride. I'd say it beggars belief, but with Sidney Powell actually putting some of this stuff in front of actual judges in actual court, we're already through the looking glass.

Seanachai

robinph wrote: »

No, they don't seem credible.

Fair enough, I find them pretty credible and I believe they're being honest about what they witnessed, esp the cyber warfare expert who testified in PA & AZ. From my perspective, it seems that they're just being dismissed because the 'other side' finds them repulsive, that's a dangerous position to take that will only go against them in the long run.

I don't agree with the general consensus that Trump has caused a great division in the US, that division was largely caused by people being dismissed and scoffed at the same way they are now. He may have flared it up with his language and stoked it for his advantage. For all the waffle about unity, this is going to cause even more division, when the euphoria about beating the monster fades they're going to have to try and work with people who have lost any shred of faith they may have had in them previously.

listermint

Seanachai wrote: »

Fair enough, I find them pretty credible and I believe they're being honest about what they witnessed, esp the cyber warfare expert who testified in PA & AZ. From my perspective, it seems that they're just being dismissed because the 'other side' finds them repulsive, that's a dangerous position to take that will only go against them in the long run.

I don't agree with the general consensus that Trump has caused a great division in the US, that division was largely caused by people being dismissed and scoffed at the same way they are now. He may have flared it up with his language and stoked it for his advantage. For all the waffle about unity, this is going to cause even more division, when the euphoria about beating the monster fades they're going to have to try and work with people who have lost any shred of faith they may have had in them previously.

no they are not credible because their EVIDENCE is not credible. They are being dismissed in a court of law, mostly by CONSERVATIVE judges.

duploelabs

Seanachai wrote: »

Do the testimonies from challengers and observers not seem credible at all to you? Being intimidated out of the room, observing blatant interference with ballots etc. I know that the 'correct' opinion over here is to see Trump supporters as either being zany religious nuts, rednecks, or I'm alright Jacks but they seemed pretty lucid, earnest and upset from the footage that I watched. Some of them are even registered Democrats.

The best one I've seen was of Dem staff assuming a woman of Indian descent was one of them and filling her in on the gameplan. When they saw her Rep badge they said 'Oh you're on the wrong side'. If there was in fact significant fraud and Biden is inaugurated on the back of it, that's a worse scenario for the US because the bitterness will be unreal.

There is no threat of perjury as its not an official court but a vehicle of propaganda so any of the 'testimonies' could be complete bull with no reciprocity for bearing false witness. Put them in front of a proper judge and zero evidence will be produced, oh no wait, that's already happened

VinLieger

Seanachai wrote: »

The best one I've seen was of Dem staff assuming a woman of Indian descent was one of them and filling her in on the gameplan. When they saw her Rep badge they said 'Oh you're on the wrong side'. If there was in fact significant fraud and Biden is inaugurated on the back of it, that's a worse scenario for the US because the bitterness will be unreal.

Yeah that's called hearsay and in a legal context is absolute garbage which is why ever case using it has been thrown out of court, by republican judges i might add.


There is still ZERO evidence of any kind of fraud and the bitterness is gonna exist regardless because Trump has lied to all his supporters and no matter the actual evidence they will never believe anything that doesnt agree with what he has said. To be honest even if he told them tomorrow "i was making it all up" i believe they have drank so much of the kool aid at this stage id expect to see new conspiracies about hes been gotten to by the deep state etc.

TomOnBoard

listermint wrote: »

no they are not credible because their EVIDENCE is not credible. They are being dismissed in a court of law, mostly by CONSERVATIVE judges.

Not only are they being dismissed in Court, but the same people alleging such massive fraud in these drive-by pretend 'heaings' are actually saying to Judges in Court that they are not alleging fraud!

When you have the audacity to use the Administrator/joint owner of 8kun (formerly 8Chan and home of Qanon) as one of your star witnesses, you immediately lose ALL credibility!

ancapailldorcha

Seanachai wrote: »

Fair enough, I find them pretty credible and I believe they're being honest about what they witnessed, esp the cyber warfare expert who testified in PA & AZ. From my perspective, it seems that they're just being dismissed because the 'other side' finds them repulsive, that's a dangerous position to take that will only go against them in the long run.

I don't agree with the general consensus that Trump has caused a great division in the US, that division was largely caused by people being dismissed and scoffed at the same way they are now. He may have flared it up with his language and stoked it for his advantage. For all the waffle about unity, this is going to cause even more division, when the euphoria about beating the monster fades they're going to have to try and work with people who have lost any shred of faith they may have had in them previously.

American conservatives and GOP voters have shown their true selves over the past four years. All they care about is the feeling of screwing over people they hate and fawning over Trump. After he lost the election (and the popular vote for the second time), it made working with these people all but impossible. Trying would be a waste of everyone's time.

robinph

Seanachai wrote: »

Fair enough, I find them pretty credible and I believe they're being honest about what they witnessed, esp the cyber warfare expert who testified in PA & AZ. From my perspective, it seems that they're just being dismissed because the 'other side' finds them repulsive, that's a dangerous position to take that will only go against them in the long run.

Is this the cyber warfare expert who was actually something like working at IT support for the military for a year?

prawnsambo

Seanachai wrote: »

Fair enough, I find them pretty credible and I believe they're being honest about what they witnessed, esp the cyber warfare expert who testified in PA & AZ. From my perspective, it seems that they're just being dismissed because the 'other side' finds them repulsive, that's a dangerous position to take that will only go against them in the long run.

The 'Cyber Warfare' guy was tracked back to a training unit. He actually lied about his level of experience. If that's his starting point, everything else he says is both unreliable and inexpert. Add to that the fact that his testimony provided no actual evidence and was at best hypothetical and at worst made up.

Seanachai wrote: »

I don't agree with the general consensus that Trump has caused a great division in the US, that division was largely caused by people being dismissed and scoffed at the same way they are now. He may have flared it up with his language and stoked it for his advantage. For all the waffle about unity, this is going to cause even more division, when the euphoria about beating the monster fades they're going to have to try and work with people who have lost any shred of faith they may have had in them previously.

You've literally described the process by which Trump has caused division and undermined the electoral system. At the last count (iirc - it could be more now) he's 1 for 39 in court challenges in various counties. The one win was a procedural one and had no bearing on any of his allegations. His lawyers (and those for other parties that have included his campaign in their filings) have all said, in court that their cases DO NOT allege fraud. Because there are penalties for making baseless claims in court that no lawyer wants to fall foul of. All such allegations have only been made in fora where there are no penalties for making them.

Oh. And Trump has raised (so far) $150 million from deluded supporters for these cases. As of the last mailing he sent out, 75% of what he collects actually funds his PAC and not the court cases. This is grift, pure and simple. As long as he's fighting these so-called cases, he can do this. Once he concedes, he has to stop raising money until the next election cycle starts.

Seanachai

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

American conservatives and GOP voters have shown their true selves over the past four years. All they care about is the feeling of screwing over people they hate and fawning over Trump. After he lost the election (and the popular vote for the second time), it made working with these people all but impossible. Trying would be a waste of everyone's time.

Some do certainly, I don't think this reflects the majority of the Trump supporters though, I think a decent amount of people everywhere don't actually personally like the politicians they vote for. I'm sure there are Dem voters who can't believe that Biden is the least worst choice.

The same could be said for the Dem/progressive side, their contempt towards those they see as being backward and less worthy is blatant. Just look at how blue-collar and rural Americans are portrayed in tv and movies, esp those from the Southern states. Obama turned out to be just another neoliberal who dealt in platitudes and optics, it's no surprise that his admirers here hail him as a hero. I don't believe in the hero-worship of any politician or even calling them by their first names like we do here.

The metropolitan Dem element seems to be hellbent on shoe-horning a sizeable section of the more libertarian populace into their way of life and then they get vexed about the kickback. How many Biden supporters are going to feel any real improvement in their day to day lives two years down the line, besides not having to listen to the orange man so much?

Seanachai

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah that's called hearsay and in a legal context is absolute garbage which is why ever case using it has been thrown out of court, by republican judges i might add.


There is still ZERO evidence of any kind of fraud and the bitterness is gonna exist regardless because Trump has lied to all his supporters and no matter the actual evidence they will never believe anything that doesnt agree with what he has said. To be honest even if he told them tomorrow "i was making it all up" i believe they have drank so much of the kool aid at this stage id expect to see new conspiracies about hes been gotten to by the deep state etc.

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

prawnsambo

Seanachai wrote: »

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

The GOP don't need to engage in election fraud. They've got that covered with voter suppression, gerrymandering and mass voter de-registrations. To name a few.

robinph

Seanachai wrote: »

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that if things were the other way round and there was zero evidence of fraud there would be equal shouting and screaming about the non-existent fraud?

Or is this just another claim with zero proof of anything behind it?

VinLieger

Seanachai wrote: »

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

LOL you are verging on Q levels of paranoia

ancapailldorcha

Seanachai wrote: »

Some do certainly, I don't think this reflects the majority of the Trump supporters though, I think a decent amount of people everywhere don't actually personally like the politicians they vote for. I'm sure there are Dem voters who can't believe that Biden is the least worst choice.

The same could be said for the Dem/progressive side, their contempt towards those they see as being backward and less worthy is blatant. Just look at how blue-collar and rural Americans are portrayed in tv and movies, esp those from the Southern states. Obama turned out to be just another neoliberal who dealt in platitudes and optics, it's no surprise that his admirers here hail him as a hero. I don't believe in the hero-worship of any politician or even calling them by their first names like we do here.

The metropolitan Dem element seems to be hellbent on shoe-horning a sizeable section of the more libertarian populace into their way of life and then they get vexed about the kickback. How many Biden supporters are going to feel any real improvement in their day to day lives two years down the line, besides not having to listen to the orange man so much?

I disagree.

I've never seen a politician being worshiped almost as a God before. It's simply unnerving but all the MAGA hats, flags and petulant shows of faux-defiance demonstrates much about GOP voters. Not all of course but they did all vote for Trump after hundreds of thousands of Americans died from covid so I can't sympathise with them.

As for the point on TV and movies, who watches them exactly? If people in these states didn't watch them then there'd be less incentive to make them. It's like complaining about Christmas selection boxes appearing in November. People want them so they get released. Trump supporters are not victims and never have been. They've chosen to be stripped of their rights and this is the result.

Improvement isn't on the table without radical change and the GOP have successfully subverted attempts at this by making the US resemble a kleptocracy akin to something one might see in Somalia. We now have an overtly political supreme court. If people want improvement they have to vote for it and actually think while voting and not just ticking red or blue.

If you're seeing your health insurance rise to unaffordable levels and are more concerned with overturning Roe vs Wade then you can't be surprised when the party you vote for reflects that.

Seanachai wrote: »

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

This is just silly. This isn't the US thankfully. Ireland does not have the same broken two-party, winner takes all system.

Seanachai

robinph wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that if things were the other way round and there was zero evidence of fraud there would be equal shouting and screaming about the non-existent fraud?

Or is this just another claim with zero proof of anything behind it?

What kind of evidence would you be looking for to back up an observation? I think it's pretty fair to say that most of our journalists generally give the Dem/progressive side a much easier time in comparison to conservative/libertarian Americans.

GOP supporters or even non-aligned American libertarians are generally the butt-end of the office joke here, all a progressive has to do is give the right soundbite and hang out of the right celebrity and they get rockstar status. What they actually do or fail to do doesn't seem to really matter, it would probably be career suicide in certain workplaces to express sympathy with a US con/lib viewpoint.

robinph

Seanachai wrote: »

What kind of evidence would you be looking for to back up an observation?

Some would be a start. But that seems to be lacking from any of the claims of fraud coming from Trump, so just curious if you have anything other that "we've done it so you guys will too" as the basis for your claim that it would be the same if the situation was flipped.

The basis of everything Trump has claimed with the election fraud is essentially that he'd have done the fraud like that, so the Dems must have.

Something that's been on my mind through all these challenges; what it the bar to get a case heard in the US? I mean some of the cases are complete nonsense beyond a Simpsons episode yet the court's time is wasted and people have to go through mistyped and misspelled documents riddled with errors to say "Eh, no.". It can take years for a drugs case to get in front of a judge but the civil judges are just sat on their hands waiting for any old nonsense to be filed?

VinLieger

Seanachai wrote: »

What kind of evidence would you be looking for to back up an observation? I think it's pretty fair to say that most of our journalists generally give the Dem/progressive side a much easier time in comparison to conservative/libertarian Americans.

GOP supporters or even non-aligned American libertarians are generally the butt-end of the office joke here, all a progressive has to do is give the right soundbite and hang out of the right celebrity and they get rockstar status. What they actually do or fail to do doesn't seem to really matter, it would probably be career suicide in certain workplaces to express sympathy with a US con/lib viewpoint.

Be careful, your victim complex is showing

MJohnston

Seanachai wrote: »

What kind of evidence would you be looking for to back up an observation? I think it's pretty fair to say that most of our journalists generally give the Dem/progressive side a much easier time in comparison to conservative/libertarian Americans.

GOP supporters or even non-aligned American libertarians are generally the butt-end of the office joke here, all a progressive has to do is give the right soundbite and hang out of the right celebrity and they get rockstar status. What they actually do or fail to do doesn't seem to really matter, it would probably be career suicide in certain workplaces to express sympathy with a US con/lib viewpoint.

That's generally because US Conservative or Libertarian (this is a complete lie of a label, true libertarians in US politics are extremely rare) politicians seek to suppress human and social characteristics as a core philosophy.

That's markedly distinct from say Irish conservatives, who tend to be more focused on economic conservatism, while generally (although lethargically) supportive of social progress.

Democrats or progressives are ostensibly given an easier time by the media (although I'd argue that this is in any way true) because they aren't trying to wipe out or suppress subsections of society due to some inescapable trait of that community (of course if you're deep in enough on insanity, you'll probably believe otherwise).

The reason for the quote "reality has a well-known liberal bias" is because the vast majority of humans prefer to be inclusive and accepting. Conservatism, particularly the American variety, attracts people who either prefer to be the opposite (pretty rare), or are so set on accumulating their own wealth that they're willing to ignore inclusivity to get it (much more common).

listermint

Seanachai wrote: »

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

You're lost buddy.


Totally lost.

28064212

Seanachai wrote: »

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

This is absolutely correct.

In much the same way that if Vincent Browne announced he had evidence showing state collusion in the murder of Veronica Guerin, it would be treated very differently to when Gemma O'Doherty did it

MadYaker

Seanachai wrote: »

Somehow I think if this was a 180 flip and the GOP were accused of fraud there would be moral outrage here and our media would be all over it. Claire Byrne would be doing her super-serious expression and various talking heads would be expressing their shock.

So you think if Joe Biden lost big and starting crying about non existent fraud with no evidence we’d all be up in arms saying the election was rigged? You’re wrong because you’re assuming that we’re all as blinkered as trump supporters and that isn’t the case. A lot of trumpets think everyone else is like them and will believe anything if it comes from the right sources. They lack self awareness.

Brussels Sprout

Seanachai wrote: »

GOP supporters or even non-aligned American libertarians are generally the butt-end of the office joke here, all a progressive has to do is give the right soundbite and hang out of the right celebrity and they get rockstar status. What they actually do or fail to do doesn't seem to really matter, it would probably be career suicide in certain workplaces to express sympathy with a US con/lib viewpoint.

You've probably noticed but the entire US political spectrum is a good bit further to the right of ours. The Republican party would be a far-right party by our standards. So yes must people here would be disgusted by their policies which seem to mainly be:

• Protect the Rich (The only big piece of legislation that Trump managed to pass via congress was a tax cut that disproportionately benefited the super wealthy)
• Talk incessantly about the American Dream while actively eroding the actual pathways to attaining it
• Loudly declaring overt Christianity but shy away from actually sharing resources
• Push Democracy to its limits in order to stay in power
• Undermine and oppose any legislation to try and prevent climate change
• Undermine and oppose any legislation to try and enact sensible gun controls

I think Irish people are innately suspicious of those espousing purely free-market ideas as Libertarians tend to do. With good reason too. We were after all the victims of indifferent cruelty in the name of The Market during The Famine.

Honestly, I see Libertarianism as nothing more then pure selfishness dressed up as a political philosophy. We're seeing that exact mindset in the unwillingness of Americans in particular to do the bare minimum to prevent a virus spreading in the name of "liberty" and "freedom".

Quin_Dub

28064212 wrote: »

This is absolutely correct.

In much the same way that if Vincent Browne announced he had evidence showing state collusion in the murder of Veronica Guerin, it would be treated very differently to when Gemma O'Doherty did it

And why do you think that might be?

Is it a Left/right thing or is it more likely to be a Journalist/Conspiracy Theorist thing?

Also - Vincent Browne wouldn't "Announce" he had evidence - He'd SHOW the evidence.

That's a key difference.

Simple suggestion for people looking at what is going on with Trump and the alleged Fraud.

Listen to what they say in the media where there are no consequences for lying and then listen/read what they are saying in actual Courts of Law where there are serious penalties for Perjury.

Other than the frankly batsh!t crazy stuff from Sidney Powell , every other Trump or Trump supporting lawyer has been at pains to repeatedly say "This is NOT a fraud case" when standing in front of judges.

Ask yourself why that might be.