2020 Election results

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yoo hoo! Darren

[ex-khobar Andy]

Can I have some of that action, Darren? Put me down for $500 worth, please. I swear that I posted this before the formal announcement but it was delayed in the mail. It should still count.

[Big RR]

Andy--I wish to object to the counting of your bet; it was posted against the rules and should not be counted. I have several other posters joining with me and have provided the objection in writing, but no one from upper house of this board has signed on, despite their previous promises.

[BoSoxGal]

Hey don’t I have some winnings coming?

[Econoline]

I know I bet Darren $100 on Biden to win the Presidency (which will be payable to the American Civil Liberties Union) and later another $100 on Biden to win the Pennsylvania Electoral vote (which will be payable to Planned Parenthood).

Right now should be when he admits defeat and pays out the money, but if he's still reluctant to accept reality at this late date (in spite of there still being no conceivable way to prevent a Biden Presidency) I'm willing to be patient until Joe takes his hand off the Bible after solemnly swearing to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[Joe Guy]

Maybe we should start making bets on whether or not we will ever see an admission by Darren that Trump lost. My bet is that he will claim that since the election was stolen, he owes people nothing.

[dales]

Have to agree with ya, Joe.

Darrin is just an old piker.

[BoSoxGal]

Darren says

[Bicycle Bill]

Yoo hoo! Darren

Yeah, Darren ... it's definitely time to man up —

Trump finally admits defeat: 'A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20'

Two months after the 2020 presidential election, less than a day after Congress certified the Electoral College results, and facing increasing pressure to resign, Donald Trump finally admitted on Thursday that he had lost and would not serve a second term.

“Now Congress has certified the results.  A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th,” Trump said in a two-minute video posted to his Twitter feed.  “My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-finally-admits-defeat-a-new-administration-will-be-inaugurated-on-january-20-011501284.html

and just an observation — with a line like that, he must be planning on adding "stand-up comic" to his list of other failures.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

This is brilliant

[Joe Guy]

Have you seen this video yet?.....

[Scooter]

Got what she deserved. And those around her who were trying to break down those doors should all be charged with felony murder for her death.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I ask myself if anyone here is guilty of double-speak. As a conservative, I don't mind if violent "protestors" are shot once or twice as a salutary street-clearing device and suitable comeuppance.

But I do seem to recall outrage from some (can't remember which) when suggestions were made that rioters out toward the left coast should have been shot to stop their fire-setting, vandalism and assaults on Federal property. In fact, a chorus of fie upon your house arose when marshals seemed to get a bit pushy and patrolling a bit too far from their protection area.

The situation changes does it when the mob is Retrumplicans? Now it's OK to blaze away? I agree but . . . is there a whiff of hypocrisy above that of black powder?*

*my time period

[Bicycle Bill]

Apparently someone with the Capitol Police decided to "Stand Their Ground."   So according to any number of people including the NRA, various other Second Amendment support groups, and those courts at all levels across the land that have upheld so-called "castle doctrine", she got what she had coming to her.

Move along; nothing to see here.

-"BB"-

[Gob]

I ask myself if anyone here is guilty of double-speak. As a conservative, I don't mind if violent "protestors" are shot once or twice as a salutary street-

The situation changes does it when the mob is Retrumplicans? Now it's OK to blaze away? I agree but . . . is there a whiff of hypocrisy above that of black powder?*

It's only bad when THEY do it.

[Scooter]

I'm not sure who "they" are. By their actions (beating an officer to death with a fire extinguisher, crushing an officer in a door, carrying zip ties obviously intended to be used to take hostages, etc.) these particular terrorists proved themselves to pose an imminent and ongoing threat to the lives of police and those they were attempting to protect. If you can point to an analogous situation where I have criticized the use of deadly force by police, then by all means point it out. I certainly saw nothing remotely comparable during all of the the BLM related protests through the spring and summer, for example, that would have justified the use of potentially deadly force.

[Gob]

"beating an officer to death with a fire extinguisher" That's funny, your link says he "collapsed when he returned to his division office Wednesday and was taken to the hospital, where he died Thursday,", not that he was "beaten to death".

" crushing an officer in a door"? Odd, your link says he was "crushed between a riot shield and a metal door", when "Masses of police officers clash with rioters in the video. They spray pepper spray and attempt to beat back the Trump supporters with batons" many of the rioters using riot shields there, many of them have tear gas on them?

"carrying zip ties obviously intended to be used to take hostages", of course, if the "bad guys"™ have zip ties, they must be intending to take hostages, you cannot use them for securing doors etc

"If you can point to an analogous situation where I have criticized the use of deadly force by police, then by all means point it out."

I don't know about other times, but you're surely advocating summary execution of these people. I don't think you'd be calling for that if they were black or gay protestors , would you?..

[Scooter]

He was beaten in the head with a fire extinguisher, and later died from his injuries. How does that make what I said incorrect?

He was crushed between a door and a shield, yes. Again, how does that make what I said incorrect?

Look at the zip ties they are holding, they are clearly of the type intended to be slipped around hands/feet in order to bind someone.

If a gay or black protestors were engaged in that sort of behavior, I would certainly expect officers to respond with deadly force. I certainly never saw any similar examples in the protests that occurred over the spring/summer, but if you can point any out to me, I will be happy to comment.

And I'm not in the mood to indulge your Mickey the Dunce routine about this any further.

[Gob]

He was beaten in the head with a fire extinguisher, and later died from his injuries. How does that make what I said incorrect?

He was "hit on the head", there's not even evidence it was deliberate, or by a protestor. You added hyperbole to exaggerate.

He was crushed between a door and a shield, yes. Again, how does that make what I said incorrect?

Takes two parities to crush, who's to say the actions of his fellow officers didn't cause his crushing?

Look at the zip ties they are holding, they are clearly of the type intended to be slipped around hands/feet in order to bind someone.

Zip ties "commonly used as a means of fastening electrical wiring, cable ties are a versatile essential of every tradesperson's toolbox"

If a gay or black protestors were engaged in that sort of behavior, I would certainly expect officers to respond with deadly force.

Now there you've shocked me, genuinely. I thought you were Canadian, not Southern American. You'd "expect them" shoot dead gay or black people for their protest actions, but would you support them doing so? I'd bet a pound to a piece of shit you'd be the first raging against the police brutality and lack of justice.

And I'm not in the mood to indulge your Mickey the Dunce routine about this any further.

Oh come on, I'm indulging your conversion to a rabid rightwinger!
.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But I do seem to recall outrage from some (can't remember which) when suggestions were made that rioters out toward the left coast should have been shot to stop their fire-setting, vandalism and assaults on Federal property.

The shot woman was moving through a broken window. She was not assaulting an officer with a fire extinguisher. I don't mind that she got shot - it's a pity any human life was lost but them's the breaks when you attack property.

For once, I'm not the hypocrite here. Those who earlier squawked that it was evil to SUGGEST that violent leftist arsonists and vandals should be shot to stop the burning of buildings and assaults on Federal property - them's the hypocrites who now are only too happy to commend the shooting of a woman whose crime seems to be a form of defenestration.