Trump supporters...please show class. Don't be sore losers...

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

No, but they have the numbers to push candidates to the fringes of their parties though the primary process.  We need a better way, imo.  

Couldn’t agree more.

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Interesting, another tolerant liberal weighs in with a silly take. 
 

I shall donate $38 in your screen name, but as that is not enough, I’ll throw in $38 for So Tier and another $38 for good measure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The money ends up with Putin to support Rhinos efforts in Lithuania.😁

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

the pandemic definitely wasn't Trump's fault. neither was the rather poor response, most of the world was not ready. and the Ds hammered it as if it was his fault which is par for the course when you are in charge. i think it was wrong to do so, morally, but strategically you really can't blame them.

 

however, the vaccine is not Trump's either. or God's for that matter. we have awesome science humans for such things.

 

Wasn't Trump's fault?  Who destroyed our pandemic infrastructure? Why were we not more prepared?  Why do we have the worst infection and death rates?

 

 

[BillStime]

Still pigs

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

the pandemic definitely wasn't Trump's fault. neither was the rather poor response, most of the world was not ready. and the Ds hammered it as if it was his fault which is par for the course when you are in charge. i think it was wrong to do so, morally, but strategically you really can't blame them.

 

however, the vaccine is not Trump's either. or God's for that matter. we have awesome science humans for such things.

We're probably not all that far off on views on the pandemic.  The federal response under DJT can and should rightly be reviewed and criticized appropriately.  Stepping aside from that for a second, I think Andrew Cuomo is an abhorrent public servant, a horrible governor and an entitled c*ckmuncher.  I see him as chief architect of the "Let's Get taxpayers to Flee NYS!" party.   However, I gave him a pass and a considerable amount of acknowledgement for being thrust into the spotlight in the era of COVID.  It was an un-winnable position to be put in and it's hard to fault him for being caught woefully unprepared and absent a clue on what to do.  This is separate and apart from his handling of late, and the deaths and blood on his hands at our elder care facilities. 

 

Anyway, I feel it is proper and just to acknowledge DJTs role in bringing together the government, private industry and the scientific community in effort to make PPE, ventilators, money and regulation to fast track a solution to a very complex problem.   I saw the teams at his press conference, saw the passion in their eyes, saw the teamwork to help build the dreamwork, and I think that does not happen under most presidential administrations.  History indicates that death and destruction are generally good for the people in power, and we've see a substantial amount of power-grabbing and fear mongering in the past year.  

 

As for God--to each his own.  

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Still pigs

 

 

  Seek professional help at once!

[Westside]

3 hours ago, shoshin said:

"60% of each contribution first to Save America, up to $5,000/$5,000, then to DJTP's (Donald J. Trump for President's) Recount Account, up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000.40% of each contribution to the RNC's Operating account, up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000. Any additional funds will go to the RNC for deposit in the RNC's Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account, up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000."

I wonder how much china donated to the turnip? I seem to recall a huge jump in money raised not to long ago.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

21 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

The money ends up with Putin to support Rhinos efforts in Lithuania.😁

Some of you guys are odd.  Do you obsess over neighbors that moved away? 

 

The man is doing fine and living his best life in a new neighborhood.  You guys have the echo chamber you want and can criticize the echo chamber the rest of us enjoy.  

 

Everybody wins.  

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Seek professional help at once!

 

Why? I'm fine. 

You? 

Still nurturing DR's ego?

[snafu]

47 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Why are you here?  @Deranged Rhino and @Foxx created a hyper controlled environment for you snowflakes - you think you're going to win here?

 

Did DR come out of hiding yet? LMAO

 

 

 

Win what?

There's a prize to win here, or does everyone get a participation medal?

Why tune out and push away opposing voices here if you're going  to try to mock the "controlled environment" elsewhere?  

 

 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Win what?

There's a prize to win here, or does everyone get a participation medal?

Why tune out and push away opposing voices here if you're going  to try to mock the "controlled environment" elsewhere?  

 

 

 

Did DR come out of hiding yet?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

Why are you here?  @Deranged Rhino and @Foxx created a hyper controlled environment for you snowflakes - you think you're going to win here?

 

Did DR come out of hiding yet? LMAO

 

 

Oh Lord, this now.  

 

I guess it's on me for trying, so let's see it through.  Elaborate on what a BillStime thinks a leh-nerd skin-erd might think is a 'win' on a message board.  Tell me what you see.  

 

 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In NYS alone the restrictions are already lifting. 

 

Not really

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Not really

 

My comment on restrictions lifting had to do with airplane travel and quarantine requirements when traveling this winter.  I was also referring to the fact that as downstate NYer, Cuomo took care of his people by abandoning any pretense of COVID safety as it related to commuters and visitors from Ct, NJ and Pa.  He said it was more or less unreasonable to track potential COVID carriers in and around the metro NY area.  No word as to whether or not he waxed philosophically about a time, some time in the future, where people might carry hand-held, portable devices that would make them exceptionally easy to track and contact.  Maybe someday. 

 

However, he did flex his authoritarian muscles by ordering gyms, bars and restaurants to be closed by 10pm under threat of permanent closure.  New studies have revealed what's called a 'vampire' effect where the virus suddenly gets stronger at 10:01 pm.  Previously, it was thought by Governor Cuomo that the vampire effect was lessened or neutralized by the humble potato chip.  It's widely known, of course, that gym's are extraordinarily busy most nights from 10pm-4:30am.  Finally, he has directed that private residences in NYS limit the number of people to 10 as well.  In our large family, I'm getting to Mom's early so that if anyone get pinched it's one of the younger nieces and nephews.  Worst that happens at age 13 or 14 is they go to juvey. 

 

Nod to the Zeeb is this is what you were talking about.  This is certainly a tightening of restrictions on the compliant folk among us. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[shoshin]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thank you for the acknowledgment, and I want to validate you, your feelings and your observation. I strike a different path, I would classify this as a political cause much more so than a charitable donation.   I budget my money and make charitable donations to organizations that touch my heart and do what I consider to be The Lord's work.  

 

I'm fortunate enough to be able to navigate what I see as the chasm between the two. 

 

The political cause going forward is great. The charity is donating to bail someone out of the debt they already incurred. That's the heart-touching part!

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Because our legal system is not supposed to deal with claims with no evidence.  If you were to take the "well, we think something is wrong so we're going to court" thought process being used by trump and apply that to anyone who feels butt hurt about something the legal system as we know it would cease to exist.  What Trump and his supporters are doing right now is the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.

Here's the problem with the call for evidence BEFORE performing any data analysis on the population of votes in some specific state or county.  The evidence is an output of the process, not an input.  In order to assess the need for a recount or a review of the vote you need to produce allegations that lead to a conclusion that support enough probable cause to support the need to examine the data.

 

So you do a recount.  You do a recount strictly following the rules and procedures for counting and recording votes for that specific jurisdiction.  You compare the result of your recount analysis to the original "baseline" vote count.  If there is no meaningful statistical difference in the two counts then you conclude the original count was correct.  You are done and the result is confirmed.  If there is a meaningful statistical difference between the recount and the original count then you conclude the original count has some data disparities that require further analysis.

 

You identify the votes or data records counted in the original count but rejected in the recount which was performed strictly and correctly by applying the rules and procedures for the jurisdiction.  You identify the specific reason a vote was rejected like the person was dead or they did not reside in the jurisdiction and other reasons for rejection.  You produce a count by each category you have established.  Now we come to the evidence part.  I have all these votes that were counted in the original count that were rejected in the recount.  How did all these votes that were rejected in the recount get into the original count?

 

Then you look for answers to questions:

Did the people doing the count understand the rules and procedures for counting votes?

How did votes for dead people get into the count?

How did votes that were received late get into the original count?

How did votes from people not residing in the jurisdiction get into the original count?

And so on.

 

Then we can draw conclusions:

Like there were 1,000 votes from dead people that polling place XYZ included.  We need to interview the poll workers at XYZ and find out why they counted those votes.

 

But people wanting to see evidence before the analysis and investigation take place don't care about the evidence.  In most cases what they really want is to shut down discussion of the issues and shut down any investigation into the vote count.  Am I right?  You know I am.  They're not the least bit interesting in any evidence.  They're looking to avoid scrutiny and questions and consequences.  And avoid any potential to reverse the original result which they support.  So people asking for evidence before the investigation are full of crap.  And they know it.  We all know it.

 

 

 

[TBBills]

15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Here's the problem with the call for evidence BEFORE performing any data analysis on the population of votes in some specific state or county.  The evidence is an output of the process, not an input.  In order to assess the need for a recount or a review of the vote you need to produce allegations that lead to a conclusion that support enough probable cause to support the need to examine the data.

 

So you do a recount.  You do a recount strictly following the rules and procedures for counting and recording votes for that specific jurisdiction.  You compare the result of your recount analysis to the original "baseline" vote count.  If there is no meaningful statistical difference in the two counts then you conclude the original count was correct.  You are done and the result is confirmed.  If there is a meaningful statistical difference between the recount and the original count then you conclude the original count has some data disparities that require further analysis.

 

You identify the votes or data records counted in the original count but rejected in the recount which was performed strictly and correctly by applying the rules and procedures for the jurisdiction.  You identify the specific reason a vote was rejected like the person was dead or they did not reside in the jurisdiction and other reasons for rejection.  You produce a count by each category you have established.  Now we come to the evidence part.  I have all these votes that were counted in the original count that were rejected in the recount.  How did all these votes that were rejected in the recount get into the original count?

 

Then you look for answers to questions:

Did the people doing the count understand the rules and procedures for counting votes?

How did votes for dead people get into the count?

How did votes that were received late get into the original count?

How did votes from people not residing in the jurisdiction get into the original count?

And so on.

 

Then we can draw conclusions:

Like there were 1,000 votes from dead people that polling place XYZ included.  We need to interview the poll workers at XYZ and find out why they counted those votes.

 

But people wanting to see evidence before the analysis and investigation take place don't care about the evidence.  In most cases what they really want is to shut down discussion of the issues and shut down any investigation into the vote count.  Am I right?  You know I am.  They're not the least bit interesting in any evidence.  They're looking to avoid scrutiny and questions and consequences.  And avoid any potential to reverse the original result which they support.  So people asking for evidence before the investigation are full of crap.  And they know it.  We all know it.

 

 

 

It's b.c the Trumpies say they have evidence right now... Which is why people are asking for it.

Edited November 11, 2020 by TBBills

[shoshin]

19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Here's the problem with the call for evidence BEFORE performing any data analysis on the population of votes in some specific state or county.  The evidence is an output of the process, not an input.  In order to assess the need for a recount or a review of the vote you need to produce allegations that lead to a conclusion that support enough probable cause to support the need to examine the data.

 

So you do a recount.  You do a recount strictly following the rules and procedures for counting and recording votes for that specific jurisdiction.  You compare the result of your recount analysis to the original "baseline" vote count.  If there is no meaningful statistical difference in the two counts then you conclude the original count was correct.  You are done and the result is confirmed.  If there is a meaningful statistical difference between the recount and the original count then you conclude the original count has some data disparities that require further analysis.

 

You identify the votes or data records counted in the original count but rejected in the recount which was performed strictly and correctly by applying the rules and procedures for the jurisdiction.  You identify the specific reason a vote was rejected like the person was dead or they did not reside in the jurisdiction and other reasons for rejection.  You produce a count by each category you have established.  Now we come to the evidence part.  I have all these votes that were counted in the original count that were rejected in the recount.  How did all these votes that were rejected in the recount get into the original count?

 

Then you look for answers to questions:

Did the people doing the count understand the rules and procedures for counting votes?

How did votes for dead people get into the count?

How did votes that were received late get into the original count?

How did votes from people not residing in the jurisdiction get into the original count?

And so on.

 

Then we can draw conclusions:

Like there were 1,000 votes from dead people that polling place XYZ included.  We need to interview the poll workers at XYZ and find out why they counted those votes.

 

But people wanting to see evidence before the analysis and investigation take place don't care about the evidence.  In most cases what they really want is to shut down discussion of the issues and shut down any investigation into the vote count.  Am I right?  You know I am.  They're not the least bit interesting in any evidence.  They're looking to avoid scrutiny and questions and consequences.  And avoid any potential to reverse the original result which they support.  So people asking for evidence before the investigation are full of crap.  And they know it.  We all know it.

 

 

 

 

So you're saying you want an investigation without evidence to justify the investigation.

 

Some would call that a fishing expedition. 

 

You do an investigation based on evidence. To do an investigation without evidence is what police states do. 

 

Hillary lost by less than Trump and conceded. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

36 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Here's the problem with the call for evidence BEFORE performing any data analysis on the population of votes in some specific state or county.  The evidence is an output of the process, not an input.  In order to assess the need for a recount or a review of the vote you need to produce allegations that lead to a conclusion that support enough probable cause to support the need to examine the data.

 

So you do a recount.  You do a recount strictly following the rules and procedures for counting and recording votes for that specific jurisdiction.  You compare the result of your recount analysis to the original "baseline" vote count.  If there is no meaningful statistical difference in the two counts then you conclude the original count was correct.  You are done and the result is confirmed.  If there is a meaningful statistical difference between the recount and the original count then you conclude the original count has some data disparities that require further analysis.

 

You identify the votes or data records counted in the original count but rejected in the recount which was performed strictly and correctly by applying the rules and procedures for the jurisdiction.  You identify the specific reason a vote was rejected like the person was dead or they did not reside in the jurisdiction and other reasons for rejection.  You produce a count by each category you have established.  Now we come to the evidence part.  I have all these votes that were counted in the original count that were rejected in the recount.  How did all these votes that were rejected in the recount get into the original count?

 

Then you look for answers to questions:

Did the people doing the count understand the rules and procedures for counting votes?

How did votes for dead people get into the count?

How did votes that were received late get into the original count?

How did votes from people not residing in the jurisdiction get into the original count?

And so on.

 

Then we can draw conclusions:

Like there were 1,000 votes from dead people that polling place XYZ included.  We need to interview the poll workers at XYZ and find out why they counted those votes.

 

But people wanting to see evidence before the analysis and investigation take place don't care about the evidence.  In most cases what they really want is to shut down discussion of the issues and shut down any investigation into the vote count.  Am I right?  You know I am.  They're not the least bit interesting in any evidence.  They're looking to avoid scrutiny and questions and consequences.  And avoid any potential to reverse the original result which they support.  So people asking for evidence before the investigation are full of crap.  And they know it.  We all know it.

 

 

 

Do you know what you are describing here?  How states audit and certify their vote totals before they finalize their elections.

 

You are committing the classic mistake I see when I review scientific manuscripts for various journals.  Poor science and poor researchers decide what they  want the outcome to be ahead of time, and then bend their experiments and data analysis to fit the presupposed conclusion.  Here, Trump announces the only way he could lose is if the election was rigged.  And now that he has lost, he and his sycophants scream that results are tainted because it violates the presupposed conclusion.

 

The states will validate their data.  If and only if during that verification issues show up, then further examination will be warranted.  Doing a recount and such just because you want to make up stories about a rigged process, with absolutely no data to support it, is ridiculous.

[snafu]

42 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Here's the problem with the call for evidence BEFORE performing any data analysis on the population of votes in some specific state or county.  The evidence is an output of the process, not an input.  In order to assess the need for a recount or a review of the vote you need to produce allegations that lead to a conclusion that support enough probable cause to support the need to examine the data.

 

So you do a recount.  You do a recount strictly following the rules and procedures for counting and recording votes for that specific jurisdiction.  You compare the result of your recount analysis to the original "baseline" vote count.  If there is no meaningful statistical difference in the two counts then you conclude the original count was correct.  You are done and the result is confirmed.  If there is a meaningful statistical difference between the recount and the original count then you conclude the original count has some data disparities that require further analysis.

 

You identify the votes or data records counted in the original count but rejected in the recount which was performed strictly and correctly by applying the rules and procedures for the jurisdiction.  You identify the specific reason a vote was rejected like the person was dead or they did not reside in the jurisdiction and other reasons for rejection.  You produce a count by each category you have established.  Now we come to the evidence part.  I have all these votes that were counted in the original count that were rejected in the recount.  How did all these votes that were rejected in the recount get into the original count?

 

Then you look for answers to questions:

Did the people doing the count understand the rules and procedures for counting votes?

How did votes for dead people get into the count?

How did votes that were received late get into the original count?

How did votes from people not residing in the jurisdiction get into the original count?

And so on.

 

Then we can draw conclusions:

Like there were 1,000 votes from dead people that polling place XYZ included.  We need to interview the poll workers at XYZ and find out why they counted those votes.

 

But people wanting to see evidence before the analysis and investigation take place don't care about the evidence.  In most cases what they really want is to shut down discussion of the issues and shut down any investigation into the vote count.  Am I right?  You know I am.  They're not the least bit interesting in any evidence.  They're looking to avoid scrutiny and questions and consequences.  And avoid any potential to reverse the original result which they support.  So people asking for evidence before the investigation are full of crap.  And they know it.  We all know it.

 

 

 

 

Here’s what you’re likely to encounter around here with your post:

“Take your reasonable, thought out remarks and shove them, Nazi Trumphole!”