60 Percent Of Americans Will Have An Election Denier On The Ballot This Fall (3 Viewers)

[the moops]

538 Article on this terrible trend. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/republicans-trump-election-fraud/

There are a lot of election deniers on the ballot. Out of 552 total Republican nominees running for office, we found 201 who FULLY DENIED the legitimacy of the 2020 election. These candidates either clearly stated that the election was stolen from Trump or took legal action to overturn the results, such as voting not to certify election results or joining lawsuits that sought to overturn the election.

But not all Republicans running embrace Trump’s claims. A total of 77 have FULLY ACCEPTED the results of the 2020 election while another 90 have ACCEPTED WITH RESERVATIONS, meaning they think President Biden won, but still raised concerns about the integrity of the election.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

 

[joffer]

buttery males

 

[Amused to Death]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

That's more of an indictment on Republican voters than it is on the committee. Rule of law and the Constitution should matter.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

That's more of an indictment on Republican voters than it is on the committee. Rule of law and the Constitution should matter.

The composition of those polled in my attachment was:

26% Republican

45% Independent

29% Democrat

See? Nobody cares.

 

[Amused to Death]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

That's more of an indictment on Republican voters than it is on the committee. Rule of law and the Constitution should matter.

The composition of those polled in my attachment was:

26% Republican

45% Independent

29% Democrat

See? Nobody cares.

Your link said 40% of Republicans would still back Trump. And popularity shouldn't determine who needs to follow the law and Constitutional duties.

Tune out if you want. Let's see if any indictments are coming and if so, what the reaction is then.

 

[timschochet]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

I don’t understand your point in posting this in this thread. We know that much of the public is indifferent to the Jan 6 hearings, that’s sad IMO. Are you suggesting that they SHOULD be indifferent? And are you arguing that we should be indifferent to the fact that so many Republican politicians have glommed on to Trump’s claim that he won the election?

 

[John123]

Seems about right. HIllary and Stacy Abrams have certainly brainwashed a lot of people in to thinking they were both denied their rightful places on the throne.

 

[Amused to Death]

Seems about right. HIllary and Stacy Abrams have certainly brainwashed a lot of people in to thinking they were both denied their rightful places on the throne.

Hillary and Abrams are responsible for the 201 2020 election deniers on ballots in 2022?

 

[timschochet]

Seems about right. HIllary and Stacy Abrams have certainly brainwashed a lot of people in to thinking they were both denied their rightful places on the throne.

There is a real difference here. Hillary called Trump and conceded on election night Abrams fought in the courts but after she lost, conceded. I did not respect Abrams’ fight but she never attempted anything illegal or violent.

 

[the moops]

Seems about right. HIllary and Stacy Abrams have certainly brainwashed a lot of people in to thinking they were both denied their rightful places on the throne.

Weak. Any thoughts on this batch of deniers? Try and answer without mentioning Clinton or Abrams

 

[John123]

Seems about right. HIllary and Stacy Abrams have certainly brainwashed a lot of people in to thinking they were both denied their rightful places on the throne.

Weak. Any thoughts on this batch of deniers? Try and answer without mentioning Clinton or Abrams

Didn't read the article and have no plans to. From what I can tell anyone who even hints that some of the practices employed during the last election may have resulted in inaccurate voting are considered an election denier. But only on one side as usual. I'll respectfully decline to participate in your witch hunt.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

I don’t understand your point in posting this in this thread. We know that much of the public is indifferent to the Jan 6 hearings, that’s sad IMO. Are you suggesting that they SHOULD be indifferent? And are you arguing that we should be indifferent to the fact that so many Republican politicians have glommed on to Trump’s claim that he won the election?

Yes, they should be indifferent. The Jan 6 committee was an absolute farce.

As far as transfer of power, there are checks and balances that are in place to ensure this happens. They worked.

As far as Republicans agreeing that Trump won the election, that's their God given right. If you don't agree, vote against them. But the only people who care about the Jan 6 stuff are just base Democrats and they weren't voting for those Republicans anyway.

 

[the moops]

Didn't read the article and have no plans to. From what I can tell anyone who even hints that some of the practices employed during the last election may have resulted in inaccurate voting are considered an election denier. But only on one side as usual. I'll respectfully decline to participate in your witch hunt.

If you would take the 2 minutes to read the article you would see that your thoughts on this are wrong. They break down deniers into categories.

 

[The Commish]

The electorate has taken a major shift in the last 50 years. It's depressing if you think about it.

 

[timschochet]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

I don’t understand your point in posting this in this thread. We know that much of the public is indifferent to the Jan 6 hearings, that’s sad IMO. Are you suggesting that they SHOULD be indifferent? And are you arguing that we should be indifferent to the fact that so many Republican politicians have glommed on to Trump’s claim that he won the election?

Yes, they should be indifferent. The Jan 6 committee was an absolute farce.

As far as transfer of power, there are checks and balances that are in place to ensure this happens. They worked.

As far as Republicans agreeing that Trump won the election, that's their God given right. If you don't agree, vote against them. But the only people who care about the Jan 6 stuff are just base Democrats and they weren't voting for those Republicans anyway.

Sorry you think this way. Anyone who believes the hearings are a farce probably haven’t watched them.

 

[Amused to Death]

The electorate has taken a major shift in the last 50 years. It's depressing if you think about it.

Scary when and such a large portion of the population can give nothing more than a collective shrug of the shoulders to an attempted overturn of a free and fair election. Then have the unmitigated audacity to refer to the investigation as a "witch hunt".

 

[The General]

“In governors races, more election deniers stand to prevail. At least two election deniers and four election doubters are poised to be inaugurated as governors next year.

We don’t forecast elections for attorney general or secretary of state, but there are also seven election deniers running for attorney general and seven for secretary of state, the post that oversees election administration in most states.

Indeed, an election denier winning election and taking office is more than a symbolic concern. An election-denying secretary of state could refuse to certify an election that he or she believes was rigged.”

 

[Amused to Death]

“In governors races, more election deniers stand to prevail. At least two election deniers and four election doubters are poised to be inaugurated as governors next year.

We don’t forecast elections for attorney general or secretary of state, but there are also seven election deniers running for attorney general and seven for secretary of state, the post that oversees election administration in most states.

Indeed, an election denier winning election and taking office is more than a symbolic concern. An election-denying secretary of state could refuse to certify an election that he or she believes was rigged.”

Yeah you wanna see riots, just wait till a state decides their voting machines were rigged and decide to submit the slate of electors for their candidate instead.

 

[The General]

“In governors races, more election deniers stand to prevail. At least two election deniers and four election doubters are poised to be inaugurated as governors next year.

We don’t forecast elections for attorney general or secretary of state, but there are also seven election deniers running for attorney general and seven for secretary of state, the post that oversees election administration in most states.

Indeed, an election denier winning election and taking office is more than a symbolic concern. An election-denying secretary of state could refuse to certify an election that he or she believes was rigged.”

Yeah you wanna see riots, just wait till a state decides their voting machines were rigged and decide to submit the slate of electors for their candidate instead.

Yep. The next person may not be dumb enough to ask on a recorded call and will have a receptive AG / Gov.

 

[knowledge dropper]

Many people see this as 40% of the ballots have only candidates in on the steal

 

[massraider]

Didn't read the article and have no plans to

You seem ready to run for office in Arizona

 

[roadkill1292]

They're going to try to toss results on the flimsiest of pretexts this November and in 2024.

They are grossly overestimating the opposition's complacence when it happens. But I rest assured that the actions will be defended on this board.

 

[Amused to Death]

They're going to try to toss results on the flimsiest of pretexts this November and in 2024.

They are grossly overestimating the opposition's complacence when it happens. But I rest assured that the actions will be defended on this board.

"Hey its legal !"

 

[Desert_Power]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

I don’t understand your point in posting this in this thread. We know that much of the public is indifferent to the Jan 6 hearings, that’s sad IMO. Are you suggesting that they SHOULD be indifferent? And are you arguing that we should be indifferent to the fact that so many Republican politicians have glommed on to Trump’s claim that he won the election?

Yes, they should be indifferent. The Jan 6 committee was an absolute farce.

As far as transfer of power, there are checks and balances that are in place to ensure this happens. They worked.

As far as Republicans agreeing that Trump won the election, that's their God given right. If you don't agree, vote against them. But the only people who care about the Jan 6 stuff are just base Democrats and they weren't voting for those Republicans anyway.

Sorry you think this way. Anyone who believes the hearings are a farce probably haven’t watched them.

Pretty disappointing. Usually appreciate his takes even when we disagree. Ignoring/making light of these serious threats to democracy isn't a good look.

 

[Amused to Death]

Ignoring/making light of these serious threats to democracy isn't a good look.

"Hey guys, they failed to oust the legitimate President so no big deal. Now if you try to make people accountable, that's a Banana Republic!"

 

[Snotbubbles]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

I don’t understand your point in posting this in this thread. We know that much of the public is indifferent to the Jan 6 hearings, that’s sad IMO. Are you suggesting that they SHOULD be indifferent? And are you arguing that we should be indifferent to the fact that so many Republican politicians have glommed on to Trump’s claim that he won the election?

Yes, they should be indifferent. The Jan 6 committee was an absolute farce.

As far as transfer of power, there are checks and balances that are in place to ensure this happens. They worked.

As far as Republicans agreeing that Trump won the election, that's their God given right. If you don't agree, vote against them. But the only people who care about the Jan 6 stuff are just base Democrats and they weren't voting for those Republicans anyway.

Sorry you think this way. Anyone who believes the hearings are a farce probably haven’t watched them.

Pretty disappointing. Usually appreciate his takes even when we disagree. Ignoring/making light of these serious threats to democracy isn't a good look.

I've been a lawyer for a long time. I won't watch the Jan 6 hearings for a few reasons.

1. You can't have a one-sided prosecution. You need an opposing party to call and question witnesses.

2. Congressional Committees do not follow the Federal Rules of Evidence so testimony that is considered untrustworthy (like hearsay) is allowed. This makes #1 even more important.

 

[Amused to Death]

1. You can't have a one-sided prosecution.

Good thing that's not happening.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Ignoring/making light of these serious threats to democracy isn't a good look.

"Hey guys, they failed to oust the legitimate President so no big deal. Now if you try to make people accountable, that's a Banana Republic!"

A Congressional Committee isn't trying to hold people accountable since they don't follow the rule of evidence. If you want to hold people accountable you'd do that in a court of law.

 

[Snotbubbles]

1. You can't have a one-sided prosecution.

Good thing that's not happening.

 

[Amused to Death]

Ignoring/making light of these serious threats to democracy isn't a good look.

"Hey guys, they failed to oust the legitimate President so no big deal. Now if you try to make people accountable, that's a Banana Republic!"

A Congressional Committee isn't trying to hold people accountable since they don't follow the rule of evidence. If you want to hold people accountable you'd do that in a court of law.

That would be the next step if Garland feels there's enough evidence to indict. Certainly as a lawyer you would side with Garland's decision whatever that may be, right?

 

[Desert_Power]

Dennis Nedry: Hey, Dodgson! Over here.
Lewis Dodgson: You shouldn't use my name.
Dennis Nedry: [To surrounding people] Look! Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
[No response]
Dennis Nedry: See? Nobody cares.

Jan. 6 Hearings Have No Impact on Opinion | Monmouth University Polling Institute

4 in 10 would back a Trump presidential bid in 2024

www.monmouth.edu

I don’t understand your point in posting this in this thread. We know that much of the public is indifferent to the Jan 6 hearings, that’s sad IMO. Are you suggesting that they SHOULD be indifferent? And are you arguing that we should be indifferent to the fact that so many Republican politicians have glommed on to Trump’s claim that he won the election?

Yes, they should be indifferent. The Jan 6 committee was an absolute farce.

As far as transfer of power, there are checks and balances that are in place to ensure this happens. They worked.

As far as Republicans agreeing that Trump won the election, that's their God given right. If you don't agree, vote against them. But the only people who care about the Jan 6 stuff are just base Democrats and they weren't voting for those Republicans anyway.

Sorry you think this way. Anyone who believes the hearings are a farce probably haven’t watched them.

Pretty disappointing. Usually appreciate his takes even when we disagree. Ignoring/making light of these serious threats to democracy isn't a good look.

I've been a lawyer for a long time. I won't watch the Jan 6 hearings for a few reasons.

1. You can't have a one-sided prosecution. You need an opposing party to call and question witnesses.

2. Congressional Committees do not follow the Federal Rules of Evidence so testimony that is considered untrustworthy (like hearsay) is allowed. This makes #1 even more important.

I'm not going to argue these points as they have been beat to death in 1/6 threads. This thread isn't about 1/6.

This thread is about: "Out of 552 total Republican nominees running for office, we found 201 who FULLY DENIED the legitimacy of the 2020 election. These candidates either clearly stated that the election was stolen from Trump or took legal action to overturn the results, such as voting not to certify election results or joining lawsuits that sought to overturn the election."

That is a serious problem for our country. Folks that think an election was stolen are likely to do their best to steal future ones and rig the system in their favor to get revenge. Many of these candidates have been quite explicit in those goals. So it is disappointing to see you ignore that and deflect onto arguments about 1/6.

 

[Rubiobot]

Didn't read the article and have no plans to.

That figures.

 

[Rubiobot]

Anyone who believes the hearings are a farce probably haven’t watched them.

Actually, anyone who thinks the hearings are a farce think that because Trump said so.

 

[supermike80]

The electorate has taken a major shift in the last 50 years. It's depressing if you think about it.

Scary when and such a large portion of the population can give nothing more than a collective shrug of the shoulders to an attempted overturn of a free and fair election. Then have the unmitigated audacity to refer to the investigation as a "witch hunt".

I'm just gonna jump in here on this one. I am 100% in support of prosecuting every single person who stormed the capitol, or did anything illegal in regards to that terrible day. I have actually been pleased when some of the worst ones got 7-10 year sentences. A message has to be sent. I think it is, least I hope so.

But I swear to God...the more I hear or see the term "free and fair election" stuff from liberals I get more and more annoyed. I wish I knew why..I suppose it just seems to be some sort of mantra created by the democratic party, and their MSM puppets, and so many just parrot it over and over and over...This is one of the things that just irks me about liberals.

For another example...In Michigan, there is a ballot initiative called proposal 3 which would make abortions basically legal here. I am in support of that. But I swear if I see ONE MORE commercial talking about protecting this right in case of "rape or incest" which is SO small, I may just flip my vote. I hate the liberal parroting so much.
Ok rant over.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

buttery males

You looking for a fetish thread?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Ignoring/making light of these serious threats to democracy isn't a good look.

"Hey guys, they failed to oust the legitimate President so no big deal. Now if you try to make people accountable, that's a Banana Republic!"

A Congressional Committee isn't trying to hold people accountable since they don't follow the rule of evidence. If you want to hold people accountable you'd do that in a court of law.

That would be the next step if Garland feels there's enough evidence to indict. Certainly as a lawyer you would side with Garland's decision whatever that may be, right?

To be honest, I'm not sure how much of the evidence being presented in the hearings would even be allowed in a court of law. Chain of possession, authentication, hearsay, etc. Trump's attorneys would tear a lot of this stuff to shreds. I'm sure the Democrats don't want this to go into a courtroom either because right now, the evidence is being presented in a light most favorable to their position. You think a Republican representative like Liz Cheney is going to ask tough questions, hell no, she's nothing more than a rubber stamp. That all changes when a defense team gets to sift through evidence, question witnesses, and present their own evidence.

 

[Amused to Death]

But I swear to God...the more I hear or see the term "free and fair election" stuff from liberals I get more and more annoyed. I wish I knew why..I suppose it just seems to be some sort of mantra created by the democratic party, and their MSM puppets, and so many just parrot it over and over and over...This is one of the things that just irks me about liberals.

Well I guess I'm happy the only issue you have with my post is my choice of wording. How about we just call it a fair election, can we agree on that?

 

[Amused to Death]

To be honest, I'm not sure how much of the evidence being presented in the hearings would even be allowed in a court of law. Chain of possession, authentication, hearsay, etc. Trump's attorneys would tear a lot of this stuff to shreds. I'm sure the Democrats don't want this to go into a courtroom either because right now, the evidence is being presented in a light most favorable to their position. You think a Republican representative like Liz Cheney is going to ask tough questions, hell no, she's nothing more than a rubber stamp. That all changes when a defense team gets to sift through evidence, question witnesses, and present their own evidence.

How much of the hearings have you actually watched for yourself?

 

[supermike80]

But I swear to God...the more I hear or see the term "free and fair election" stuff from liberals I get more and more annoyed. I wish I knew why..I suppose it just seems to be some sort of mantra created by the democratic party, and their MSM puppets, and so many just parrot it over and over and over...This is one of the things that just irks me about liberals.

Well I guess I'm happy the only issue you have with my post is my choice of wording. How about we just call it a fair election, can we agree on that?

It's not the wording and it isn't you specifically. Its the repetitiveness. How about we just call it "the election" Seems like that might be OK.

So instead...we say this:
Scary when and such a large portion of the population can give nothing more than a collective shrug of the shoulders to an attempted overturn of a free and fair election an election. Then have the unmitigated audacity to refer to the investigation as a "witch hunt".

 

[Amused to Death]

But I swear to God...the more I hear or see the term "free and fair election" stuff from liberals I get more and more annoyed. I wish I knew why..I suppose it just seems to be some sort of mantra created by the democratic party, and their MSM puppets, and so many just parrot it over and over and over...This is one of the things that just irks me about liberals.

Well I guess I'm happy the only issue you have with my post is my choice of wording. How about we just call it a fair election, can we agree on that?

It's not the wording and it isn't you specifically. Its the repetitiveness. How about we just call it "the election" Seems like that might be OK.

Well "fair election" counters the narrative it was rigged. Even a rigged election is an election. So IMHO, adding the adjective is a necessary distinction when talking about efforts to overturn it.

Anyway, this is just an unnecessary distraction from my point that its a shame such a large portion of the public can muster little more than a weak "so what" in response. And this entire line of discussion is completely irrelevant to the main point of the thread - that we have so many people running for positions of power where they can outright disregard the will of the people if they so choose, and have shown a willingness to do just that.

 

[Snotbubbles]

To be honest, I'm not sure how much of the evidence being presented in the hearings would even be allowed in a court of law. Chain of possession, authentication, hearsay, etc. Trump's attorneys would tear a lot of this stuff to shreds. I'm sure the Democrats don't want this to go into a courtroom either because right now, the evidence is being presented in a light most favorable to their position. You think a Republican representative like Liz Cheney is going to ask tough questions, hell no, she's nothing more than a rubber stamp. That all changes when a defense team gets to sift through evidence, question witnesses, and present their own evidence.

How much of the hearings have you actually watched for yourself?

Didn't watch one second of the televised hearings.

 

[massraider]

Trump's attorneys would tear a lot of this stuff to shreds

I'm sorry, this seems hard to believe

 

[Zow]

The electorate has taken a major shift in the last 50 years. It's depressing if you think about it.

Eh, I look two significant and probably foreseeable factors that have caused this:

1. Elected officials, due to improved technology and ease of transportation, don't have directly work with and basically live with elected officials from across the isle.
2. If one is very smart and successful, what the incentive to run? It's likely a significant pay cut and, with the advancement of technology and communication mechanisms, one gets his or her entire life dissected during his or her respective campaigns and one's privacy goes out the window.

Presently, being upper management at some fortune 500 company >>>>>> elected official.

 

[Amused to Death]

To be honest, I'm not sure how much of the evidence being presented in the hearings would even be allowed in a court of law. Chain of possession, authentication, hearsay, etc. Trump's attorneys would tear a lot of this stuff to shreds. I'm sure the Democrats don't want this to go into a courtroom either because right now, the evidence is being presented in a light most favorable to their position. You think a Republican representative like Liz Cheney is going to ask tough questions, hell no, she's nothing more than a rubber stamp. That all changes when a defense team gets to sift through evidence, question witnesses, and present their own evidence.

How much of the hearings have you actually watched for yourself?

Didn't watch one second of the televised hearings.

OK, glad you know what's going on then. FYI, the testimony being given is probably more trustworthy than the 2nd and 3rd hand accounts you're being fed.

 

[The Commish]

The electorate has taken a major shift in the last 50 years. It's depressing if you think about it.

Eh, I look two significant and probably foreseeable factors that have caused this:

1. Elected officials, due to improved technology and ease of transportation, don't have directly work with and basically live with elected officials from across the isle.
2. If one is very smart and successful, what the incentive to run? It's likely a significant pay cut and, with the advancement of technology and communication mechanisms, one gets his or her entire life dissected during his or her respective campaigns and one's privacy goes out the window.

Presently, being upper management at some fortune 500 company >>>>>> elected official.

I'm talking about the electorate, not elected officials.

 

[Snotbubbles]

To be honest, I'm not sure how much of the evidence being presented in the hearings would even be allowed in a court of law. Chain of possession, authentication, hearsay, etc. Trump's attorneys would tear a lot of this stuff to shreds. I'm sure the Democrats don't want this to go into a courtroom either because right now, the evidence is being presented in a light most favorable to their position. You think a Republican representative like Liz Cheney is going to ask tough questions, hell no, she's nothing more than a rubber stamp. That all changes when a defense team gets to sift through evidence, question witnesses, and present their own evidence.

How much of the hearings have you actually watched for yourself?

Didn't watch one second of the televised hearings.

OK, glad you know what's going on then. FYI, the testimony being given is probably more trustworthy than the 2nd and 3rd hand accounts you're being fed.

What are you basing that statement on?

Congressional Committees don't follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. The evidence being presented has not gone under any type of scrutiny. Therefore, it is unreliable at best, regardless of how compelling you may think it is.

 

[Amused to Death]

To be honest, I'm not sure how much of the evidence being presented in the hearings would even be allowed in a court of law. Chain of possession, authentication, hearsay, etc. Trump's attorneys would tear a lot of this stuff to shreds. I'm sure the Democrats don't want this to go into a courtroom either because right now, the evidence is being presented in a light most favorable to their position. You think a Republican representative like Liz Cheney is going to ask tough questions, hell no, she's nothing more than a rubber stamp. That all changes when a defense team gets to sift through evidence, question witnesses, and present their own evidence.

How much of the hearings have you actually watched for yourself?

Didn't watch one second of the televised hearings.

OK, glad you know what's going on then. FYI, the testimony being given is probably more trustworthy than the 2nd and 3rd hand accounts you're being fed.

What are you basing that statement on?

Congressional Committees don't follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. The evidence being presented has not gone under any type of scrutiny. Therefore, it is unreliable at best, regardless of how compelling you may think it is.

There's an entire thread for discussing this if you want to take it there.

None of this is relevant to the thread topic and my apologies for perpetuating it.

 

[Zow]

The electorate has taken a major shift in the last 50 years. It's depressing if you think about it.

Eh, I look two significant and probably foreseeable factors that have caused this:

1. Elected officials, due to improved technology and ease of transportation, don't have directly work with and basically live with elected officials from across the isle.
2. If one is very smart and successful, what the incentive to run? It's likely a significant pay cut and, with the advancement of technology and communication mechanisms, one gets his or her entire life dissected during his or her respective campaigns and one's privacy goes out the window.

Presently, being upper management at some fortune 500 company >>>>>> elected official.

I'm talking about the electorate, not elected officials.

Oh, yeah, that’s what that word means.

 

[The Commish]

Oh, yeah, that’s what that word means.

That said....what YOU said about our elected officials is correct and also a direct reflection of just how much the electorate has changed.