Fact Checkers Fact.....

[Spicerack]

What will the Left fall back on now their go to liars have been exposed?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13328184/candace-owens-wins-challenge-against-facebook-fact-checker-politifact/

[Peter Pedant]

hey why doesnt anyone ask ME if any of the boolloo I write is troo or not? because it is obviously boolloo I suppose
OR
it is so ay-falutin that no one understands ( xc my dog)

[Sunk]

TCL
I know the timetable.
8 December is when the votes are finalised, by which time all challenges and recounts must be over, and the result is certified everywhere.

[THECORBYLOON]

It's a right old faff but.

You'd think the College could meet, vote electronically, have that verified and the Congress could give its decision all on the same date.

[Spicerack]

https://twitter.com/rasmussen_poll/status/1329939739072475137

[Peter Pedant]

yeah but no but
if 80% of people think Prince Harry is the son of that red headed army officer James foo-dah
it doesnt make it so does it
( DNA shows he isnt - no I dont want to show a ref)

[Peter Pedant]

or Hanratty didnt shoot valerie stone 1962
he did no matter what people believe

or president trump is a russian plant ( well some truth in that)

[Peter Pedant]

// You'd think the College could meet, vote electronically,//
yes - no corbo

there is NOW this big thing about swearing fealty to the Carnstitootion and the said constitution prescribes the how-to elect a president. Quite precisely
the states shall select electors according to their state law... etc

so you cant send an email ( and thereby change the carnstitootion ) without letting Trump in to declare the whole thing a sham ( changing the carnstitootion as he wants)

we dont have any of this - the 1790 carnstitootion is so wonderful it must be interpreted as they framed it then ( originalists) - alot of whom Trump ironically has appointed to the supreme court

also I dont think any previous president has treated fed employees as his personal servants {" are you my man?" comey wasnt and was sent on his way)

[richtee]

Storie pp
Spicerack- In the words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious?

[Peter Pedant]

// Why do Giuliani and his band cry “fraud” when they face the press but not when they go naked into the courtroom?//

well they are allowed to anyway
there are much loser rules about contempt in the land of the free - interferes with free speech

altho - - any lawyers out there - since the contempt rules are about a fair trial with juries and appeals are heard without juries....
you shoudl in england be allowed more comment during an appeal than the original trial. Judges are so wise you see they know they shouldnt be swayed by the Daily Mail

[Peter Pedant]

thx richtee - I didnt think anyone read my posts let alone understood them and pointed out errors
thzx again

[Peter Pedant]

looser
dam
loser apples to trump - ter dah

[THECORBYLOON]

I had a look at Rasmussen's website and the poll was of a thousand folk.

Their findings are not the clearest I've ever read. It includes,

"Forty-seven percent (47%) say it’s likely that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure that Biden would win, but 50% disagree. This includes 36% who say it’s Very Likely and 41% who consider it Not At All Likely."

Eh?

[Peter Pedant]

polls - - - and then there are readers' letters ( Times ed apparently - one of them)

[ichkeria]

I think the reason, apart from the fact that they have no case, is that this a cynical exercise in voter manipulation. There may be broadly three types of people pushing this: those who really believe it, those who don’t really but are afraid to tell the emperor he had no clothes, and quite probably people who don’t believe it but want to sow mistrust. Sidney Powell probably is a genuine moron, but Giuliani and co might just have the cynical idea that if you throw enough mud at the wall some will stick

[Spicerack]

Oh, I knew it would fall short as I was posting it, Corby.
What the hell. You guys seem to want an Admin full of neo-cons and war hawks. If they do pull off the con, you'll have it. Enjoy.

[Zacs-Master]

Well well well. This is a milestone day on answerbank. A debate about facts.

[Spicerack]

Personally, I'd say there's another type, Ichi.
People who just blindly assert there was no fraud and studiously ignore all the glaring evidence to the contrary.
Boy, I'd hate to be as narrow minded as some people on this site.

[THECORBYLOON]

SPICERACK, can you make sense of the figures I quoted?

There are those who believe the claims made by the Trump campaign but it's the opinions of the various courts, having considered the evidence, that matter and not opinion polls.

[ichkeria]

"Personally, I'd say there's another type, Ichi.
People who just blindly assert there was no fraud and studiously ignore all the glaring evidence to the contrary. "

I was talking about the people on Trump's side.
The courts have had multiple chances to look at any evidence and to date none has been presented. May - if not all - the judgments have come from Republican-appointed officials. In fact it might be amusing to do a quick resume if one can be found, of judges' verdicts on the lawsuits. For example, the word "shoddy" was used in the latest Pennsylvania ruling.

[THECORBYLOON]

SPICERACK, if the evidence is so strong, why have so many court cases gone against the Trump campaign?