US Election 2020 - The Result

[surface]

Not a huge fan of Dawkins but if you disagree with him with regards to this particular quote you clearly haven't read the old testament very much.

I don't get 'fan' concept but I like listening to him as well his books are great and factual (as far as I can understand). If he is wrong about some things, he is wrong about some things. I think his "strident" nature of atheism bothers some.

That quote actually inspired Dan Barker to write a book "God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction ", where each chapter is a bible quote mine for each of the adjectives that RD used.

Back to thread topic, what RD used as adjectives for god fit reasonably well for trump as well; barring few ones like genocidal etc..

 

[tetrasect]

The court pretty much accepts it as a fact that both parties were denied access to the polls, elsewise it wouldn't have stated there isn't an equal defence claim.

Republicans: "We lost the F1 race because the democrats cheated and used military grade technology to control the weather and create invisible rain. We have an affidavit by Alex Jones."

Judge: "Let me just stop you right there. Even if there was "invisible rain", that would not mean that the republican driver had more of a disadvantage than the democrat driver. Case dismissed."

Konfab: "Judge accepts military grade invisible rain as fact."

 

[surface]

Biden only becomes President on Jan 20th 2021, I know you guys are not good with numbers but try and keep up.

WE INVENTED THE NUMBERS. WE WON.

 

[Cray]

I don't get 'fan' concept but I like listening to him as well his books are great and factual (as far as I can understand). If he is wrong about some things, he is wrong about some things. I think his "strident" nature of atheism bothers some.

Not saying he is wrong, he comes across as super switched on with regards to his field and he is very good at explaining himself. He just comes across as a bit of an ******* at times.... My issue with his is not with regards to his expertise, it's about the sort of person he sometimes allows himself to be.

 

[RanzB]

I saw this morning my brother is doubling down on his bets. I'm pretty sure he can't pay it so I don't know what's going to happen in a few weeks time.

Is your brother named Donald Trump?

 

[surface]

Not saying he is wrong, he comes across as super switched on with regards to his field and he is very good at explaining himself. He just comes across as a bit of an ******* at times.... My issue with his is not with regards to his expertise, it's about the sort of person he sometimes allows himself to be.

I hear you. Tbh, if I was a public figure, I wouldn't know how to not to be **** at times.

 

[Cray]

I hear you. Tbh, if I was a public figure, I wouldn't know how to not to be **** at times.

Never thought of that, very true.

 

[konfab]

Republicans: "We lost the F1 race because the democrats cheated and used military grade technology to control the weather and create invisible rain. We have an affidavit by Alex Jones."

Judge: "Let me just stop you right there. Even if there was "invisible rain", that would not mean that the republican driver had more of a disadvantage than the democrat driver. Case dismissed."

Konfab: "Judge accepts military grade invisible rain as fact."

That is a bona-fide strawman

The reason why election observers are part of the process is because the assumption that is made is that the people performing the work are humans and will have political bias. Hence an environment that doesn't have election observers is going to be biased towards the parties that are in control of the work.

Your strawman is built on the premise that election irregularities affect all parties equally. They do not.

 

[konfab]

I saw this morning my brother is doubling down on his bets. I'm pretty sure he can't pay it so I don't know what's going to happen in a few weeks time.

I would love to know what would actually happen with all the bets on the election if Trump actually wins. The bookies I used have already declared it, and thus (presumably) have paid out.

 

[greg0205]

I would love to know what would actually happen with all the bets on the election if Trump actually wins. The bookies I used have already declared it, and thus (presumably) have paid out.

If Donnie wins, it's a coup.

I presume all "election" bets will be off.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

I mean, obviously.

Dems have *always* been the hawks. Always.

Folks named Bush, Reagan and Nixon have no place in this discussion at all.

Trump is the first US president in recent memory not to have started a war.

To characterise Democrats as peace-loving hippies is incorrect. @SoldierMan is correct to identify war hawks within the Democratic establishment as there are many of them.

 

[cerebus]

That is a bona-fide strawman

The reason why election observers are part of the process is because the assumption that is made is that the people performing the work are humans and will have political bias. Hence an environment that doesn't have election observers is going to be biased towards the parties that are in control of the work.

Your strawman is built on the premise that election irregularities affect all parties equally. They do not.

If only there was some form of technology that could 'record' the entire event in video form and avoid all traces of human bias from the observation. And imagine if it could be published live on a sort of video tube, where anyone could immediately identify attempts to commit fraud. It would solve a lot of the problems, wouldn't it?

 

[DreamKing]

I provided documented arrests and charges of two Republicans committing election fraud. I asked rietrot for the same for Democrats.

He's underperforming with replies, and you just posted fee-fees.

Well done you!

but you guys said no fraud

in other words, that is ZERO fraud.

if I found ONE fraud, so I proved that you guys wrong, right?
so if reps committed fraud or dens committed fraud or other fraud, it is still fraud.

right?

PS: so you agreed the election has fraud, so I am happy.

 

[Itsa Trap]

Greeeat seems things are back to normal now that Biden is getting into office.

American interventionism is back, expect them to play the world's policeman again.

And Biden is surrounding himself with war hawks, specifically Antony Blinken. Lots of bombs and war in Syria here we come!!!!

But we won't hear a peep from our local Democrat sycophants when woman and children start being killed, because well what's a little innocent blood spilled compared to Trump in power.

Did they completely and utterly stop with the Pussygrabber in power?

No?


My goodness. How surprising.

 

[cerebus]

but you guys said no fraud

in other words, that is ZERO fraud.

if I found ONE fraud, so I proved that you guys wrong, right?
so if reps committed fraud or dens committed fraud or other fraud, it is still fraud.

right?

PS: so you agreed the election has fraud, so I am happy.

Yassie but this is desperate

 

[Itsa Trap]

Trump wins!!!

Yeah he pretty much keeps on posting that over and over. They just need to build him a mock Whitehouse with soft walls and lotsa toys to keep him busy.

 

[C4Cat]

Trump is the first US president in recent memory not to have started a war.

Really? Are you sure about that Chris?

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

I would love to know what would actually happen with all the bets on the election if Trump actually wins. The bookies I used have already declared it, and thus (presumably) have paid out.

Weirdly Ladbrokes has already paid me out for all my bets, including the one that says "Donald Trump NOT to be re-elected president" (officially this only happens on the 14th of December when the Electoral College votes).

On the other hand, Sky Bet still has not moved on this bet -- perhaps waiting on certification? I think the Friday 27th of November might be the hint here...

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Really? Are you sure about that Chris?

Yes, which war did he start?

 

[DreamKing]

Really? Are you sure about that Chris?

fact checked, yes. if you think not, tell us which one?