Are Trump protests finished?

[Mr. Dazzle]

You say all these things though and then post stuff which flat out isn't true.

For example a few pages back you said the highest proportion of people killed by police are white. Its true that more white people are killed by police in absolute terms, but thats what you'd expect cause there are more white people. In terms of the relative proportions its skewed heavily the other way...here's just one link, I found half a dozen in 30s of Google.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Or you say that Facebook bunged 300 million to the Democrats to install voting machines in democrat areas, whereas in reality Mark Zuckerberg (i.e. not facebook) donated money to the non partisan Center for Civic Life.

Those are just two examples. IMO you post some of the bare facts but put what I would say is a very selective and biased view on them. Which makes me think either you're getting the interpretation from a blog or whatever, or you're equally biased.

[wheelnut]

Those are just two examples. IMO you post some of the bare facts but put what I would say is a very selective and biased view on them. Which makes me think either you're getting the interpretation from a blog or whatever, or you're equally biased.

We have to remember now that all opinions are equally valid. If I ever have a heart attack I won't bother with a cardiothoracic surgeon - I'll just go on youtube.

[cheb]

You do know that doctors use Youtube as a training resource don't you?

[DEADPOOL]

You say all these things though and then post stuff which flat out isn't true.

For example a few pages back you said the highest proportion of people killed by police are white. Its true that more white people are killed by police in absolute terms, but thats what you'd expect cause there are more white people. In terms of the relative proportions its skewed heavily the other way...here's just one link, I found half a dozen in 30s of Google.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Or you say that Facebook bunged 300 million to the Democrats to install voting machines in democrat areas, whereas in reality Mark Zuckerberg (i.e. not facebook) donated money to the non partisan Center for Civic Life.

Those are just two examples. IMO you post some of the bare facts but put what I would say is a very selective and biased view on them. Which makes me think either you're getting the interpretation from a blog or whatever, or you're equally biased.

I think you might be right about the shooting rate. Apparently a report which did make those claims has been debunked: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08 ... draws-fire

So let me get back to you on that. A quick Google suggests there are a multitude of statistics on this issue and I'm not currently in the mood to trawl through them. It's a hot topic though so I will investigate.

As for FaceBook not being Mark Zuckerberg, that's a semantic issue. If you didn't realise that's what I meant, why did you pick his name?

It was $350m plus a further $100m which was used to buy staff sorry I mean hire staff and buy "equipment". Just have to take your word for it that the organisation is bipartisan. I remain skeptical. If on the other hand those staff were nonpartisan, how is it that exclusively Republican observers were denied the opportunity to observe in those few key swing states?

Again it is true to suggest I can't "know" that but I have never heard a convincing explanation for the videos I saw of people being locked out and windows being covered up etc. Guess we'll never know so this is a more a comment about how misinformation, disinformation or even actual events can be manipulated to suit a particular narrative.

[Cousin Jack]

It was $350m plus a further $100m which was used to buy staff sorry I mean hire staff and buy "equipment". Just have to take your word for it that the organisation is bipartisan. I remain skeptical. If on the other hand those staff were nonpartisan, how is it that exclusively Republican observers were denied the opportunity to observe in those few key swing states?

Again it is true to suggest I can't "know" that but I have never heard a convincing explanation for the videos I saw of people being locked out and windows being covered up etc. Guess we'll never know so this is a more a comment about how misinformation, disinformation or even actual events can be manipulated to suit a particular narrative.

I also don't 'know' because I wasn't there, but the report I saw were allegedly about large numbers of Republican supporters observing and harassing tellers at the count. The supporters were excluded, and since they then carried on the harassment through the windows, these were blocked off.

Rather different from a normal process of observers at a count.

[wheelnut]

You do know that doctors use Youtube as a training resource don't you?

Yes, but I doubt they use Bubba from Bumfuck, Idaho as an authorative source.

[Mr. Dazzle]

As I've said loads of time, despite nearly 5 dozen attempts* to overturn the election in court, Trump and Co. have not managed to produce any actual evidence. I know DEADPOOL is going to say "they won't let the evidence be heard" but that's not the stories I've been seeing in the news. My favourite was in Georgia where a Trump lawyer was arguing observers had been barred from the counting room.

I remember seeing this 'live' in the news, but it still makes me laugh. Full details of the case are available here.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/set ... ?cb=9b2c6f

9 Perplexed by the Campaign’s use of terms such as “nonzero number of people,”
the federal court put the question to the Campaign’s attorney directly:
THE COURT: I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this Court, are people representing the Donald J. Trump from President, representing the Plaintiff, in that room?
MR. MARCUS [COUNSEL FOR THE CAMPAIGN]: Yes
THE COURT: I’m sorry, then what’s your problem?
(Exhibit 3 at 11:1-7.)

For those who don't know, when a judge prefaces a question with "I'm asking you as a member oft the bar of this Court" they mean "you're pissing me of so you'd better not lie 'cause you're gonna get disbarred".

*Weird way of saying >60 but I like the turn of phrase

[cheb]

You do know that doctors use Youtube as a training resource don't you?

Yes, but I doubt they use Bubba from Bumfuck, Idaho as an authorative source.

I'd rather hope not, but dismissing something because it's on YT could be a mistake.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Dodgy Geezer had a brilliant phrase..."the sniff test". It's pretty easy to see (smell?) when something deserves scepticism IMO.

[cheb]

I can see why nonzero might be used, if they said many, or lots, then there could be pettifogging arguments about the actual number. Amusingly it doesn't exclude negative numbers, are there non people in the USA?

Like is a scotch egg a substantial meal. How big is the egg? A wren's egg or an ostrich egg? Does it come with any garnishes, accompaniments or salad? Do you have to eat all of it for it to be a substantial meal?

I doubt the lawyers involved are working for a flat fee for the case.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I doubt the lawyers involved are working for a flat fee for the case.

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

Yu'd think it would be a nice simple case; observers aren't allowed in the room, observers aren't allowed close enough, observers aren't granted free access and so on. All pretty yes/no things. Yet when it's time to go on record officially suddenly the objections start to wobble.

[DEADPOOL]

Dodgy Geezer had a brilliant phrase..."the sniff test". It's pretty easy to see (smell?) when something deserves scepticism IMO.

Well it's a good point. As I allude to above, it's difficult being a skeptic and there is the danger of leaning one side or the other and ending up submerged in madness. That is true for both left and right, neither extreme is a good place to be.

But what I discover is that in leaning to the right, it's like a switch. Suddenly, you're one of them. A Trump supporter! I'm not as it happens, I just think he's had a ridiculously hard time and I find myself defending his position more as an advocate. Devils advocate if you will.

Being "on the other side" i.e. not automatically accepting some stupid left wing woke nonsense (lets not go there!) means people really won't enter into a dialogue within any (non anonymised) social media. You're either one side or the other and you dare not challenge any say, anti Trump dialogue or you get booted. Lost a couple of FB "friends" that way.

Whenever I visit some media approved forum or social media, I see a lot of stories being circulated which I know are simply not true (AOC springs to mind) but you literally cannot question them. On top of that, people with my right wing tendency are being labelled domestic terrorists or white supremacist and that in itself does not particularly convince me to "see the other side".

So I have to hang out on the right and you appear to be correct, I have been "taken in" by a statistic relating to proportion of police shootings**. I don't know exactly were I picked that up and tbh, there's still the massively disproportionate representation of criminal activity for one particular group but I will try to find out how exactly I fell for it.


**even a quick Google suggest that while the actual statistic is incredibly difficult to pin down (thats statistics for you) the overwhelming volume of evidence suggests that blacks are in fact disproportionately more likely to get shot.

[wheelnut]

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

The ones he’s hired to represent him in the impeachment hearing are bizarre.

Perhaps there’s no more decent, capable lawyers that want anything to do with him. just like all the US banks.

Watching the prosecution lawyers at the moment.

[DEADPOOL]

I doubt the lawyers involved are working for a flat fee for the case.

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

Trump is way too toxic as a private individual. The left are after him and more importantly, after anyone who sides with him. People get sacked for being "Trumpists". I rather suspect he has to put up with whoever is brave enough to have a go. The left will be after them too and that means basically the entire agency of the USA will make their lives a misery forever.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I imagine it takes a certain kind of person to be a lawyer who represents cases they don't actually believe in (most of them probably fit this bill TBF). Said person probably cares less about Trump's cause and more about taking Trump's money...and if that's your goal, it pays to be as odd as your client.

[JackyJoll]

I imagine it takes a certain kind of person to be a lawyer who represents cases they don't actually believe in (most of them probably fit this bill TBF). Said person probably cares less about Trump's cause and more about taking Trump's money...and if that's your goal, it pays to be as odd as your client.

You’re not a proper lawyer if you don’t take on cases that are patently wrong.

Everyone is, or should be, entitled to legal representation.

[Horse]

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

The current ones he’s hired to represent him in the impeachment hearing are bizarre.

ftfy

First lot resigned a few days ago. Or were let go. Or agreed to differ. Whatever.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Everyone is, or should be, entitled to legal representation.

I imagine lots of lawyers take on cases of people they'd rather not defend for the 'pure' legal rights aspect of it. Upholding due process if you will.

I bet it takes a next level of person though to represent someone making grasping at straws claims trying to overturn an election.

[DEADPOOL]

Everyone is, or should be, entitled to legal representation.

I imagine lots of lawyers take on cases of people they'd rather not defend for the 'pure' legal rights aspect of it. Upholding due process if you will.

I bet it takes a next level of person though to represent someone making grasping at straws claims trying to overturn an election.

I was fully expecting Trump to twist this charade to his advantage by making it more about the "alleged" fraud than the so called "insurrection". It's not as if the impeachment even stands a chance so it's his last chance to have these allegations broadcast to the world. Whether you believe there's anything to them or not. Seems like his first set of lawyers decided not to go down that route!

I still say he's great entertainment value.

[Yambo]

You do know that doctors use Youtube as a training resource don't you?

I wonder if they have a foolproof method of deciding which YouTube video is a good/worthwhile training resource.

Perhaps they do what I do, read the comments below the vid and decide from there.