-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Godder said in US Politics:
but it would be nice if the President listened to his legal teams, who will no doubt be raising this on some level.
His three top members of his legal team are right behind the material cheating claims.
Right down to authorising filing claims with literally no evidence? A claim that Republican observers were not permitted to observe the counting of votes led to the lawyer having to admit to the judge when questioned that there were in fact Republican observers present and permitted to observe the count - clearly a lawsuit worth filing...
-
@voodoo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@voodoo said in US Politics:
Did you ask yourself how Trump increased his own popular vote by 10m over 4yrs? Is he a-cheatin too?
There's been zero claims (as far as I know) from the Democrats that Trump cheated. Or that Putin cheated on his behalf in this election. And look at history. Has a very poor candidate ever done as well as Joe did.
And the idea that people voted for Joe because of the orange man is the inane assertion
And there are other overall factors that just don't stack up. But as I said I will wait for the detailed evidence
Where is my "whoosh" emoji???
To answer your qns anyway:
Why would the side that won the popular vote and the electoral college count comfortably bother to claim fraud? They just want to get on and govern. [Edit - I also imagine they don't believe there was any fraud on any scale large enough to be of importance. Kinda what most moderate republicans believe (and yes @Siam, before ask, I spoke to them all...😉 😁)]
What has Putin got to do with anything? I certainly didn't mention him.
Nobody has EVER done as well as Joe did. Or as well as Trump did.
BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE THAN EVER VOTED
Or was that fraudulent too?
Of course a bunch of people voted for Biden because they dislike Trump. Just as a bunch voted for Trump because they dislike Biden. How is that not obvious?
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@voodoo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@voodoo said in US Politics:
Did you ask yourself how Trump increased his own popular vote by 10m over 4yrs? Is he a-cheatin too?
There's been zero claims (as far as I know) from the Democrats that Trump cheated. Or that Putin cheated on his behalf in this election. And look at history. Has a very poor candidate ever done as well as Joe did.
And the idea that people voted for Joe because of the orange man is the inane assertion
And there are other overall factors that just don't stack up. But as I said I will wait for the detailed evidence
Where is my "whoosh" emoji???
To answer your qns anyway:
Why would the side that won the popular vote and the electoral college count comfortably bother to claim fraud? They just want to get on and govern. [Edit - I also imagine they don't believe there was any fraud on any scale large enough to be of importance. Kinda what most moderate republicans believe (and yes @Siam, before ask, I spoke to them all...😉 😁)]
What has Putin got to do with anything? I certainly didn't mention him.
Nobody has EVER done as well as Joe did. Or as well as Trump did.
BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE THAN EVER VOTED
Or was that fraudulent too?
Of course a bunch of people voted for Biden because they dislike Trump. Just as a bunch voted for Trump because they dislike Biden. How is that not obvious?
FIFY
-
@voodoo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@voodoo said in US Politics:
Did you ask yourself how Trump increased his own popular vote by 10m over 4yrs? Is he a-cheatin too?
There's been zero claims (as far as I know) from the Democrats that Trump cheated. Or that Putin cheated on his behalf in this election. And look at history. Has a very poor candidate ever done as well as Joe did.
And the idea that people voted for Joe because of the orange man is the inane assertion
And there are other overall factors that just don't stack up. But as I said I will wait for the detailed evidence
Where is my "whoosh" emoji???
I know, right? It’s like this
-
Want to know why Main Stream Media isn't trusted any more? The NZ Herald headline is misleading clickbait
Donald Trump tried to launch nuclear strike after election loss
on the face of it, the indication is launching nukes. When you open the article, it's exploring bombing Iran's nuclear capabilities ... which is a problem, but nothing like deploying nuclear weapons.
FFS Herald (and others), he's a muppet, he's lost, but your credibility gets absolutely smashed when you put up headlines like this.
Maybe this should be grumpy old man territory, but the clickbait gets me proper cross these days.
-
@nzzp said in US Politics:
Want to know why Main Stream Media isn't trusted any more? The NZ Herald headline is misleading clickbait
Donald Trump tried to launch nuclear strike after election loss
on the face of it, the indication is launching nukes. When you open the article, it's exploring bombing Iran's nuclear capabilities ... which is a problem, but nothing like deploying nuclear weapons.
FFS Herald (and others), he's a muppet, he's lost, but your credibility gets absolutely smashed when you put up headlines like this.
Maybe this should be grumpy old man territory, but the clickbait gets me proper cross these days.
And a big reason why I am not prepared to pay for using their app to flick through the “news”. Same with Stuff that keeps putting up an argument if “support quality journalism” then gets taken to the media council( or whatever it’s called) and pulled up for publishing deliberately misleading clickbait
-
@nzzp said in US Politics:
Want to know why Main Stream Media isn't trusted any more? The NZ Herald headline is misleading clickbait
Donald Trump tried to launch nuclear strike after election loss
on the face of it, the indication is launching nukes. When you open the article, it's exploring bombing Iran's nuclear capabilities ... which is a problem, but nothing like deploying nuclear weapons.
FFS Herald (and others), he's a muppet, he's lost, but your credibility gets absolutely smashed when you put up headlines like this.
Maybe this should be grumpy old man territory, but the clickbait gets me proper cross these days.
Thats fucking average alright
-
wasn't this thread locked?
does someone have a short explanation on whats the runoffs are about...ive ignored a bit of US politics for a while
-
@TeWaio said in US Politics:
Georgia elections looking close so far, but leaning Democrat.
Given both Republicans won in November, but feel just short of 50%, this is quite a turnaround.
Turnout is breaking records, ~2x the typical numbers for senate runoff
Grist for the voter fraud rumour mill
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
wasn't this thread locked?
does someone have a short explanation on whats the runoffs are about...ive ignored a bit of US politics for a while
Explanation here. https://www.vox.com/21551855/georgia-ossoff-perdue-loeffler-warnock-runoff-election-2020-results
Basically if no one gets a 50% majority then the top two candidates run off to decide winner.
Early days in the count but bound to be tight.
If the GOP lose Senate power over this (because the candidates have gone all in with Trump) there will surely be a party backlash against him. -
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
wasn't this thread locked?
does someone have a short explanation on whats the runoffs are about...ive ignored a bit of US politics for a while
It was. But due to special request due to the Georgia runoff @Duluth has reopened.
In opening it @Duluth has requested we all keep it seemly, on topic and no name calling.
-
@booboo said in US Politics:
It was. But due to special request due to the Georgia runoff @Duluth has reopened.
In opening it @Duluth has requested we all keep it seemly, on topic and no name calling.
There was some vile shit posted in here
We've had to lock this thread several times over the years. Getting bored of posters who are monomaniacal and/or emotional about US politics on a NZ rugby site
I was hoping to make a code change to be able to ban posters from this thread only. It wasn't possible.. So if you act like a fluffybunny in here you'll lose access to the entire politics sub forum
-
A work censor for a word beginning with c
It goes back at least 15 years. I can't remember if there was a reason Bartman picked it
US Politics