Question: Who won the 2020 election?

[HallBall02]

Just taking a pulse here. Sometimes I wonder if what I think is in the majority on this site, hard to tell sometimes with an often passionate but too loud of a minority.

Simple question: Who won the 2020 Presidential Election?

 

[SHUSA]

Just taking a pulse here. Sometimes I wonder if what I think is in the majority on this site, hard to tell sometimes with an often passionate but too loud of a minority.

Simple question: Who won the 2020 Presidential Election?

some here say it was rigged, trump won, and its honorable to defend the position even two years later. even just right now

 

[SPK145]

Biden won, plain and simple.

 

[shu09]

Biden won, plain and simple.

Exactly. I'm not sure why this is even a topic on this board.

 

[HALL85]

some here say it was rigged, trump won, and its honorable to defend the position even two years later. even just right now

The poll results dispute your claim.

 

[HallBall02]

Glad there is consensus here.

You have to admit some of the GOP leaders have had a hard time answering this simple question though 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[HALL85]

Glad there is consensus here.

You have to admit some of the GOP leaders have had a hard time answering this simple question though 🤷🏻‍♂️

Different point…politicians take extreme positions? No kidding. You just realized this?

 

[SPK145]

You have to admit some of the GOP leaders have had a hard time answering this simple question though 🤷🏻‍♂️

Absolutely they do.

Just like some of the dem leaders have a hard time thinking Trump won the 2016 election without Russia's help. Agreed?

 

[ed odowd]

Biden won with help from Zuckerberg.

 

[HallBall02]

Absolutely they do.

Just like some of the dem leaders have a hard time thinking Trump won the 2016 election without Russia's help. Agreed?

Is that a thing? Who is saying that btw?

Trump certainly might have won 2016 without Russian interference. So if any Dem is saying Trump only won bc of Russia's help it is probably not accurate.

However, what has been (I think) proven by FBI/CIA/Mueller investigation that A) Russian tried to interfere in the election, B) Russian wanted Trump to win and C) Trump tried to meet with Russians to get an edge in the election and the only thing that wasn’t proven is that there was any real cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign (though his people tried), correct?

Again, if any Dem was saying he won 2016 only bc of Russia interference...it can't be proven. If they said any of the other stuff above(A-C), I think it would be accurate.

 

[HallBall02]

Different point…politicians take extreme positions? No kidding. You just realized this?

Not all politicians do. That why there are moderates on both side although their numbers are unfortunately declining.

With most of the states having only a minority of folks able to vote in primaries and extreme gerrymandering the wak-a-do blowhards are getting elected more and more. You do realize this correct?

 

[HALL85]

Not all politicians do. That why there are moderates on both side although their numbers are unfortunately declining.

With most of the states having only a minority of folks able to vote in primaries and extreme gerrymandering the wak-a-do blowhards are getting elected more and more. You do realize this correct?

So you agree with my point. Thanks.

 

[HallBall02]

So you agree with my point. Thanks.

Actually I disagree. One you infer all, I do not believe all politicians take extreme points.

Also extreme positions and outright lying to the general public (while undermining the legitimacy of voting results) has only been normalized by GOP the last 2 years. Before the 2020 election a president or party I don’t think ever has gone this far to undermine our election process/results.

Sad that you have difficulty understanding that and you think that the Jan 6 debacle is ordinary political maneuvering.

 

[HALL85]

Actually I disagree. One you infer all, I do not believe all politicians take extreme points.

You inferred…I didn’t.

 

[HallBall02]

You inferred…I didn’t.

Ok. Maybe you didn’t.

What about the entire second point? Even if your party head become one of your extreme hot heads, which is not good for anyone. In this case it borders sedition.

I mean pressure people to make fake electors to overturn election. This is not just extreme points, it goes further.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Is that a thing? Who is saying that btw?

Trump certainly might have won 2016 without Russian interference. So if any Dem is saying Trump only won bc of Russia's help it is probably not accurate.

However, what has been (I think) proven by FBI/CIA/Mueller investigation that A) Russian tried to interfere in the election, B) Russian wanted Trump to win and C) Trump tried to meet with Russians to get an edge in the election and the only thing that wasn’t proven is that there was any real cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign (though his people tried), correct?

Again, if any Dem was saying he won 2016 only bc of Russia interference...it can't be proven. If they said any of the other stuff above(A-C), I think it would be accurate.

This may be a shock to you, but countries trying to interfere in elections is not new. Many countries try to interfere with our elections. Special ops have been interfering in other countries for decades. We have interests in who wins other elections. Other countries have interests in who wins here. I guarantee Russia and China will try to interfere in 2024. Shame on us if we don't protect ourselves. I also guarantee there will be people, both democrats and republicans, who will seek any kind of advantage they can get from foreign countries if it's available. Heck our last presidentaial election saw social media companies trying to censor what could and could not be posted about certain candidates.

Didn't the President in 2012 get caught on a hot mic making some kind of deal with Putin? You think after that Putin was neutral on who won?

 

[HALL85]

Ok. Maybe you didn’t.

What about the entire second point? Even if your party head become one of your extreme hot heads, which is not good for anyone. In this case it borders sedition.

I mean pressure people to make fake electors to overturn election. This is not just extreme points, it goes further.

I’m not defending Trumps actions at all. If he is guilty of those charges, indict and prosecute him. Just stop with the prime time circus.

 

[cernjSHU]

I’m not defending Trumps actions at all. If he is guilty of those charges, indict and prosecute him. Just stop with the prime time circus.

Those Watergate hearings were quite the circus. These hearings provide the public with more information than what was previously provided in a very helpful timeline that shows this was a planned out coordinated effort on behalf of Trump to someohow overturn the election by almost any possible means.

Whether there is enough evidence for a criminal indictment is a separate issue. The public should know what he tried to do and but for some courageous people at various states and at DOJ, this country could have faced its great Constitutional crisis and which would have turned very ugly.

Ignore it that’s your prerogative. But it’s not a circus. It’s providing very helpful information from essentially republicans who upheld their duty in the face of enormous pressure.

 

[HALL85]

Those Watergate hearings were quite the circus. These hearings provide the public with more information than what was previously provided in a very helpful timeline that shows this was a planned out coordinated effort on behalf of Trump to someohow overturn the election by almost any possible means.

Whether there is enough evidence for a criminal indictment is a separate issue. The public should know what he tried to do and but for some courageous people at various states and at DOJ, this country could have faced its great Constitutional crisis and which would have turned very ugly.

Ignore it that’s your prerogative. But it’s not a circus. It’s providing very helpful information from essentially republicans who upheld their duty in the face of enormous pressure.

Two different things. The public has the right to know but Congressional hearings have become a total joke. This one is no different.

 

[HallBall02]

Two different things. The public has the right to know but Congressional hearings have become a total joke. This one is no different.

Riiight have you watched it? My guess you haven’t seen most of it bc there is noway you would say it was a joke if you watched it.

All the evidence is there if you pay attention. The guy tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power and there was testimony from members of his own team, his lawyers, republican leaning election officials and the panel has two repubs on panel that essential lost their careers for doing the right thing.

It is not a joke. Your takes are a joke, these hearings are either a sneak peak into future prosecutions into a lot of folks OR a taste to come when a future president or powerful politician abusing power to do the same and potentially succeed.

 

[HALL85]

Riiight have you watched it? My guess you haven’t seen most of it bc there is noway you would say it was a joke if you watched it.

All the evidence is there if you pay attention. The guy tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power and there was testimony from members of his own team, his lawyers, republican leaning election officials and the panel has two repubs on panel that essential lost their careers for doing the right thing.

It is not a joke. Your takes are a joke, these hearings are either a sneak peak into future prosecutions into a lot of folks OR a taste to come when a future president or powerful politician abusing power to do the same and potentially succeed.

Do you get royalties on viewership? I haven’t watched any of it. I know what Trump is, I would never vote for him and if the Justice Department believes charges should be brought, they will act.

Congress has lost total credibility with the way they conduct these hearings. I have better things to do with my time. Chill out…I’m fine.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Riiight have you watched it? My guess you haven’t seen most of it bc there is noway you would say it was a joke if you watched it.

All the evidence is there if you pay attention. The guy tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power and there was testimony from members of his own team, his lawyers, republican leaning election officials and the panel has two repubs on panel that essential lost their careers for doing the right thing.

It is not a joke. Your takes are a joke, these hearings are either a sneak peak into future prosecutions into a lot of folks OR a taste to come when a future president or powerful politician abusing power to do the same and potentially succeed.

LOL funny to read about importance of things in the system we've had for close to 250 years such as the peaceful transfer of power at a time politicians and the media are challenging the legitamacy of the Supreme Court. Respect the peaceful transfer of power, but not the Supreme Court. A lot of clips of unsuccessful sttempts of people trying to break into their state capital building. Some might call that an insurrection attempt.

 

[HallBall02]

LOL funny to read about importance of things in the system we've had for close to 250 years such as the peaceful transfer of power at a time politicians and the media are challenging the legitamacy of the Supreme Court. Respect the peaceful transfer of power, but not the Supreme Court. A lot of clips of unsuccessful sttempts of people trying to break into their state capital building. Some might call that an insurrection attempt.

What does that have anything to do with the Jan 6th hearings? I think you have been brainwashed by Fox News propaganda.

Everyone shouldn’t stop watching propaganda tv, Foxnews msnbc etc. 😩

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

What does that have anything to do with the Jan 6th hearings? I think you have been brainwashed by Fox News propaganda.

Everyone shouldn’t stop watching propaganda tv, Foxnews msnbc etc. 😩

I guess you don't see the irony in these 2 situations happening at the same time. If you take off the blinders and see past orange man bad, you might see the irony. But I'd guess you're one of those who fears Trump will run in 2024 and there's not greater thing that can happen in the next 2 years than making Trump unable to run.

 

[HALL85]

I guess you don't see the irony in these 2 situations happening at the same time. If you take off the blinders and see past orange man bad, you might see the irony. But I'd guess you're one of those who fears Trump will run in 2024 and there's not greater thing that can happen in the next 2 years than making Trump unable to run.

Not to mention, there was this thing called the "Impeachment Hearings" that were occurring back toward the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020, right when something else was happening, called THE PANDEMIC!!! Investigating a phone call ad nauseum instead of marshalling all of our efforts against a virus that has killed over a million citizens.

 

[HallBall02]

Good read.

Seemed like a balance perspective

The Case for Prosecuting Donald Trump Just Got Much Stronger

New testimony may have produced a smoking gun.

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Good read.

Seemed like a balance perspective

The Case for Prosecuting Donald Trump Just Got Much Stronger

New testimony may have produced a smoking gun.

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

I would love for them to bring a case against Trump. I just don't see it happening. This goes on the premise that Trump wanted to incite violence which seems like a slippery slope. How many other politicians have done the same thing over the years? How many politicians used their platform last week to incite a crowd against the Supreme Court. If something happens to a justice will those politicians be complicit? Dangerous slope.

 

[SPK145]

Good read.

Seemed like a balance perspective

The Case for Prosecuting Donald Trump Just Got Much Stronger

New testimony may have produced a smoking gun.

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

If this can keep Trump from running again than this will be good.

But much of her testimony is based on hearsay (in a trial much of it would be inadmissible) and the Secret Service seems to have refuted her hearsay testimony.

Still an obvious witch hunt though, she hugged her questioner Liz Cheney after her testimony. That's not a bi-partisan investigation.

 

[shu09]

Agree w/ SPK, hope it's enough to retire Trump permanently from politics. But was this person under oath yesterday? I read a report from NBC that the Secret Service agent(s) involved are prepared to testify under oath that what she said is NOT true.

The political charade continues.

 

[HALL85]

Agree w/ SPK, hope it's enough to retire Trump permanently from politics. But was this person under oath yesterday? I read a report from NBC that the Secret Service agent(s) involved are prepared to testify under oath that what she said is NOT true.

The political charade continues.

And this is why I refuse to watch this BS.

 

[cernjSHU]

If this can keep Trump from running again than this will be good.

But much of her testimony is based on hearsay (in a trial much of it would be inadmissible) and the Secret Service seems to have refuted her hearsay testimony.

Still an obvious witch hunt though, she hugged her questioner Liz Cheney after her testimony. That's not a bi-partisan investigation.

Some of her testimony was hearsay. However, hearsay information is used in front of a Grand Jury in order to obtain an indictment against a criminal defendant. These hearings are not a trial. That is for the DOJ to pursue.

It is an investigation. When law enforcement investigated a crime, we gather up all sorts of hearsay investigations. That may lead to more evidence which then can become admissible at a criminal trial. All of it is helpful.

Her hearsay information was not as important as her first hand knowledge. Namely, that Trump knew that people in the crowd was armed with knives and firearms and said, I don't care they are not here to hurt me. He wanted those people to march on the Capitol with him. His plan was to go into the Senate Chamber itself to obstruct the count.

I still do not see sufficient evidence of a criminal charge as of yet. However, her testimony moved the ball forward.

 

[cernjSHU]

Agree w/ SPK, hope it's enough to retire Trump permanently from politics. But was this person under oath yesterday? I read a report from NBC that the Secret Service agent(s) involved are prepared to testify under oath that what she said is NOT true.

The political charade continues.

This portion of her testimony is really not important. This was second hand information coming from the Deputy Chief of Staff of Mark Meadows. The incident inside the Limo has nothing to do with anything that would lead to a criminal charge. It just showed what an A-hole Trump is. That is not news. Has nothing to do with her credibility. As she is relating a story told to her from another person who viewed the incident.

 

[Pirata]

So hearsay is now the standard. Beautiful.

 

[cernjSHU]

So hearsay is now the standard. Beautiful.

I am sure most people do not even know what hearsay is. They hear the word and they automatically think it’s untrustworthy. Simply, hearsay is any statement made outside of the courtroom offered for the truth of the matter. Hearsay is not admissible at a trial.

Now all statements not made in court fit that definition. However, there are a whole host of exceptions to the hearsay rule that make it admissible at a trial as well as certain statements deemed not to be hearsay such as a defendant's statements.

Moreover, inadmissible hearsay at a trial are still admissible at a presentation to a grand jury. This is nothing new.

 

[HALL85]

I am sure most people do not even know what hearsay is. They hear the word and they automatically think it’s untrustworthy. Simply, hearsay is any statement made outside of the courtroom offered for the truth of the matter. Hearsay is not admissible at a trial.

Now all statements not made in court fit that definition. However, there are a whole host of exceptions to the hearsay rule that make it admissible at a trial as well as certain statements deemed not to be hearsay such as a defendant's statements.

Moreover, inadmissible hearsay at a trial are still admissible at a presentation to a grand jury. This is nothing new.

That’s a long way of saying you can play fast and lose with hearsay outside of a court room.

 

[Pirata]

I am sure most people do not even know what hearsay is

The January 6 hearings are not a court proceeding.

The dictionary definition applies.

hearsay​

[ heer-sey ]
noun
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:a malicious hearsay.


Synonyms: Scandal, gossip, scuttlebutt, talebearing, rumor, grapevine, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, tattle, noise, dirt, and more.

 

[HALL85]

The January 6 hearings are not a court proceeding.

The dictionary definition applies.

hearsay​

[ heer-sey ]
noun
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:a malicious hearsay.


Synonyms: Scandal, gossip, scuttlebutt, talebearing, rumor, grapevine, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, tattle, noise, dirt, and more.

And let’s not forget the public relations timing of it. Emergency session and then Congress leaves town Before rebuttals. The clown show continues.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

And let’s not forget the public relations timing of it. Emergency session and then Congress leaves town Before rebuttals. The clown show continues.

How can you call it a clown show when almost everyone testifying is aligned with the GOP?

Anyone claiming Hutchinson is lying should testify to that under oath, but I doubt they will, its easy to deny things on Twitter when you're not committing perjury.

If it means Trump is finished then the committe did this country a great service in my opinion.