2020 United States Presidential Election

[Icetee168]

2 hours ago, Beregond said:

wow serious?

he really want coup ah?😁

if trump continue to do whatever he likes...

sooner or later one of the president needs to die in order for the nation to wake up

 

[Datsun366]

Most likely negotiations regarding stuff such as money spent on election and other goodies.

Trump will squeeze every drop and then some.

Do you believe there is no cheating in big business?

 

[Yewheng]

7 hours ago, Jamesc said:

2020 Trump no evidence of cheating.

2016 Special Investigation confirm Russian interference. Mueller Report.

You see..  The election just happened last week and trump and his team already start to get more and more evidence of fraud, if you guys read these news. People had not been charged yet. This one need time not like immediately it will happen. Like I said there is this thing called choice supportive bias.. 

 

Choice supportive bias simply means say you support this party, whatever negative news about this party, you guys will always think of reasons why it is fake or whatsoever or not take it too seriously. Then if the other party that you guys hate or never support, whatever negative news about that other party, you guys will think it is true without giving it a thought. This applies to anything.. Like if a person support man u will have all the good things to say about man u and if these bad things they will neglect it. Actually this applies to those that do not like pap or those that do not like opposition party too. As you guys see.. All singapore stuff.. When things that put pap in bad light they magnifyed it. So it's everywhere.. We just need to aware of this this call choice supportive bias and take a step back and think so that we can think more clearly. 

 

Maybe my explanation not that good.. But if you guys understand what choice supportive bias.. It should be easy to understand like what you posted and also so fast jump to conclusions where the election only happened just last week. A lot of things need time.. Like investigation, people to get charge to court and etc.. It does not happen overnight. The debank.. Erm.. When people start get charged to court.. Can use that debank explanation to get through it? No, it need pure evidence not debank explanation where there is something going on and then immediately straight after that debank news come out. Where got so fast know whether is it true or not true one? Investigation haven't even started yet. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Yewheng

[Yewheng]

Haha.. Trump now use motivation words. So weird to hear it from trump.. 

[Ysc3]

Trump wins Alaska, Republicans add another seat in US Senate

[Jamesc]

2 hours ago, Yewheng said:

choice supportive bias.. 

We understand choice supportive bias.

What we are saying is Trump has no credible evidence.

One star witness is a convicted criminal. A child sex offender.

The other star witness told another judge I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone.

The judge threw out the case and said hearsay from hearsay from hearsay.

Not admissible in court as evidence.

What a bunch of jokers.

[Yewheng]

20 minutes ago, Jamesc said:

We understand choice supportive bias.

What we are saying is Trump has no credible evidence.

One star witness is a convicted criminal. A child sex offender.

The other star witness told another judge I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone.

The judge threw out the case and said hearsay from hearsay from hearsay.

Not admissible in court as evidence.

What a bunch of jokers.

It's not up to us to decide. It's up to court to decide. So democrats can't decide on whether evidence is credible or not. That will be determined by court. Also what we read on the news may not paint a full picture. Like maybe trump and his team has more then the I hear people say this and this.. Trump filed few hundreds page for lawsuit. Surely it has more then 1 hear people say this this and that that.. A lot of things that published in the news do not show every single details. So a lot of things we might not even realised or know, coz we just look on the news as source only. Until we all follow through till even to court hearing. Then we will know 100%.

 

That is why I think we should allow live steam in parliment. Live stream in parliment main objective is not to catch mps sleeping (that's a different debate, coz I feel the concerning is polices matters) , not to catch who never attend the session or who left the session halfway or etc.. I feel the live steam in parliament is to allow people who are interested in politics and also topics to get a full picture of everything that happened in parliment. Yes there are videos that we can watch for parliment debate. But then there might have instances that is not saved in the video and public would not know what is happening behind the scenes. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Yewheng

[Invigorated]

When the media called Alaska for trump, trump quotes it as a win. 

When AP called him the winner, in 2016 he announced it within hours that he has won and then Hillary sends him her congratulatory wishes.

When AP called Biden this time round, we see him quoting far right outlets on voter fraud, we see him quoting hearsay that has been thrown out of courts, we hear him saying the press has no right to call the elections?

This has set another bar for hypocrites.

 

[Yewheng]

11 minutes ago, Invigorated said:

When the media called Alaska for trump, trump quotes it as a win. 

When AP called him the winner, in 2016 he announced it within hours that he has won and then Hillary sends him her congratulatory wishes.

When AP called Biden this time round, we see him quoting far right outlets on voter fraud, we see him quoting hearsay that has been thrown out of courts, we hear him saying the press has no right to call the elections?

This has set another bar for hypocrites.

 

Ya like I said choice supportive bias come into play.. Be it trump or Biden.. Both the same.. 

[Jamesc]

14 minutes ago, Yewheng said:

It's not up to us to decide. It's up to court to decide. So democrats can't decide on whether evidence is credible or not. That will be determined by court. Also what we read on the news may not paint a full picture. Like maybe trump and his team has more then the I hear people say this and this.. Trump filed few hundreds page for lawsuit. Surely it has more then 1 hear people say this this and that that.. A lot of things that published in the news do not show every single details. So a lot of things we might not even realised or know, coz we just look on the news as source only. Until we all follow through till even to court hearing. Then we will know 100%.

 

That is why I think we should allow live steam in parliment. Live stream in parliment main objective is not to catch mps sleeping (that's a different debate, coz I feel the concerning is polices matters) , not to catch who never attend the session or who left the session halfway or etc.. I feel the live steam in parliament is to allow people who are interested in politics and also topics to get a full picture of everything that happened in parliment. Yes there are videos that we can watch for parliment debate. But then there might have instances that is not saved in the video and public would not know what is happening behind the scenes. 

We are not deciding.

The judge has already decided.

One case the judge threw out the case because - I heard from someone that heard from someone  that heard from someone is called hearsay and is not admissible in court because the witness did not see it himself.

The other case the judge threw out the case because the witness that may or may not have seen something is a convicted criminal. A child sex offender.

Cannot accept a convicted criminal as a reliable witness lah.

 

[Yewheng]

5 minutes ago, Jamesc said:

We are not deciding.

The judge has already decided.

One case the judge threw out the case because - I heard from someone that heard from someone  that heard from someone is called hearsay and is not admissible in court because the witness did not see it himself.

The other case the judge threw out the case because the witness that may or may not have seen something is a convicted criminal. A child sex offender.

Cannot accept a convicted criminal as a reliable witness lah.

 

Nope.. Yes there are some that get thrown out but there are others that will be investigated. Whether that will affect the outcome of the president or not.. That one can say maybe it does not affect at all unless somehow in the end trump could overturn Pennsylvania and other states. But trump has every right to go for legal action if he finds any evidence of fraud. As what it is, what is reported in the news does not paint a full picture. The full picture can only be seen if we follow not just news media, but also through process of following the court and etc.. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Yewheng

[Jamesc]

5 minutes ago, Yewheng said:

Ya like I said choice supportive bias come into play.. Be it trump or Biden.. Both the same.. 

Yes everyone Yewheng is right

Trump supporters have so much choice supportive bias they imagine got cheating in 2020 until they believe they won the election.

Trump supporters have so much choice supportive bias they imagine got no cheating in 2016 although so many people went to jail.

 But Dems where got choice supportive bias?

Yewheng also rightly say

Dems supporters have no choice supportive bias because they know they lost in 2016 because of Russian cheating. Its not bias, its a FACT.

[Heartlander]

10 hours ago, Yewheng said:

 

 

This guy sums things up.. 

So darn true.. When election result is not in favour, they will call this election is rigged, fraud and etc. When the election result is in favour, they call it a fair election, no fraud, no rigged and etc. 

 

Look at year 2016 president election.. When trump was the winner.. Look at what democrat said? The election is rigged, Russian are involved and etc.. Now trump lost the election. Do they democrat say Russian are involved now? They are so happy that Biden win and say this election is fair. So now end up it is Republicans saying this election is fraud, rigged. Such an irony.. 

 

This one is called choice supportive bias.. 

At least Hilary conceded defeat the next morning and not like this orange utan now filing groundless lawsuits in multiple states and filling Pentagon with his yes man to attempt coup. That is the greatest difference you should also highlight.

[Beregond]

1 hour ago, Ysc3 said:

Trump wins Alaska, Republicans add another seat in US Senate

imagine biden take over and make it a law must wear mask everywhere.

but the senate dun approve😂

[Jamesc]

6 minutes ago, Yewheng said:

Nope.. Yes there are some that get thrown out but there are others that will be investigated. Whether that will affect the outcome of the president or not.. That one can say maybe it does not affect at all unless somehow in the end trump could overturn Pennsylvania and other states. But trump has every right to go for legal action if he finds any evidence of fraud. As what it is, what is reported in the news does not paint a full picture. The full picture can only be seen if we follow not just news media, but also through process of following the court and etc.. 

Trump has every right to bring any claims he likes to the courts

but so far he has no won any.

Nobody disagrees with you here.

We also agree with you Trump have so much choice supportive bias that he keep going to court and getting his cases throw out because of no credible evidence by the judge.

 

[Jamesc]

1 minute ago, Beregond said:

imagine biden take over and make it a law must wear mask everywhere.

but the senate dun approve😂

I believe Biden should not force everyone to wear a mask.

Let the Dems wear a stupid mask if they want.

Loyal Trump supporters will NEVER wear a mask.

Next election won't be so close.

[Heartlander]

3 hours ago, Yewheng said:

You see..  The election just happened last week and trump and his team already start to get more and more evidence of fraud, if you guys read these news. People had not been charged yet. This one need time not like immediately it will happen. Like I said there is this thing called choice supportive bias.. 

 

Choice supportive bias simply means say you support this party, whatever negative news about this party, you guys will always think of reasons why it is fake or whatsoever or not take it too seriously. Then if the other party that you guys hate or never support, whatever negative news about that other party, you guys will think it is true without giving it a thought. This applies to anything.. Like if a person support man u will have all the good things to say about man u and if these bad things they will neglect it. Actually this applies to those that do not like pap or those that do not like opposition party too. As you guys see.. All singapore stuff.. When things that put pap in bad light they magnifyed it. So it's everywhere.. We just need to aware of this this call choice supportive bias and take a step back and think so that we can think more clearly. 

 

Maybe my explanation not that good.. But if you guys understand what choice supportive bias.. It should be easy to understand like what you posted and also so fast jump to conclusions where the election only happened just last week. A lot of things need time.. Like investigation, people to get charge to court and etc.. It does not happen overnight. The debank.. Erm.. When people start get charged to court.. Can use that debank explanation to get through it? No, it need pure evidence not debank explanation where there is something going on and then immediately straight after that debank news come out. Where got so fast know whether is it true or not true one? Investigation haven't even started yet. 

The obvious is that Hilary graciously accepted defeat the morning after the election, and the Obama administration facilitated transition despite the overhanging suspicion about Russian interference that had been proven subsequently.  

Hilary did not act like a sore loser in playground and pull all kinds of tricks to stop this transition of power, unlike Trump has filed multiple lawsuits across the States and most of them has been thrown out citing no evidence or merit. There is really no way Trump could overturn the results with the margins involved yet he simply refuse to defeat defeat. We can say what we want, but lets do it more objectively.

[Jamesc]

21 minutes ago, Yewheng said:

Nope.. Yes there are some that get thrown out but there are others that will be investigated. Whether that will affect the outcome of the president or not.. That one can say maybe it does not affect at all unless somehow in the end trump could overturn Pennsylvania and other states. But trump has every right to go for legal action if he finds any evidence of fraud. As what it is, what is reported in the news does not paint a full picture. The full picture can only be seen if we follow not just news media, but also through process of following the court and etc.. 

We follow you can already.

You can give us all the facts.

No need to pay CNN for fake news.