US Presidential Election 2024

[Kai]

It's unbelievable but there seems to be another shitstorm brewing this evening around Greenwood's replacement signing Antony. His ex-wife is filing a police report for domestic violence.

What's that got to do with the US Presidental Election 2024?

Nothing but I could throw a curveball in your presidential discussions if you want, could be a betting edge there

Did you guys know that every single president in U.S. history is related to one of your kings? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8epsI5-3HRo

[Derek27]

Can't really comment as I haven't seen it, but when you see overwhelming evidence with your own eyes you can call someone guilty, as with Trump and the buffoon.

Well there is plenty of evidence in this forum to enable me to say you, Derek, are guilty of excessively biased interpretation of events based on just one side of a position.

These are the sort of questions a ten-year-old would ask!

You're confusing raw evidence with your interpretation of the evidence. If you accuse me of being biased because I prefer the Mona Liza over one of your paintings you'll just make an arse of yourself.

It's normal for attorneys to interpret the law in their favour, but when one tries to stretch the law beyond breaking point, it actually makes sense for the other to take the middle ground and expose the other side's dishonesty. I know that from experience when I used to appeal a DWP decision at the First Tier Tribunal. (It was the DWP that stretched the law, not me).

When the buffoon claims an all night pissup was a work event and necessary you couldn't be biased if you tried, he effectively declared his guilt but is too stupid to realise it.

BTW if you say to a partner "I need you to find another £10,000 to enable me to buy that house" should you be charged with incitement to commit robbery (and therefore be guilty)?

There is a obvious difference. You can find £10K through legal means, such as a loan. You can't "find" 11,700 votes through legal means. If there were 11,700 lost votes, they should go to whoever the voter voted for, not Trump!

As you keep saying, I'm always right so I hope that's answered your questions.

[Derek27]

Can't really comment as I haven't seen it, but when you see overwhelming evidence with your own eyes you can call someone guilty, as with Trump and the buffoon.

So in those circumstances there is no need for a trial and no need to hear what the defence will say?

The word "you" in the above quote refers to the reader, who doesn't have the legal power to incarcerate anyone, so a trial will still take place.

[Derek27]

Did you guys know that every single president in U.S. history is related to one of your kings? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8epsI5-3HRo

Did you know that every white European has decended from Afred the Great?

I heard that from Steven Fry on QI, with 2^40 grandparents it's a near mathematical certainty, so quite a lot would have decended from King John as well.

[firlandsfarm]

These are the sort of questions a ten-year-old would ask!

You're confusing raw evidence with your interpretation of the evidence. If you accuse me of being biased because I prefer the Mona Liza over one of your paintings you'll just make an arse of yourself.

It's normal for attorneys to interpret the law in their favour, but when one tries to stretch the law beyond breaking point, it actually makes sense for the other to take the middle ground and expose the other side's dishonesty. I know that from experience when I used to appeal a DWP decision at the First Tier Tribunal. (It was the DWP that stretched the law, not me).

When the buffoon claims an all night pissup was a work event and necessary you couldn't be biased if you tried, he effectively declared his guilt but is too stupid to realise it.

BTW if you say to a partner "I need you to find another £10,000 to enable me to buy that house" should you be charged with incitement to commit robbery (and therefore be guilty)?

There is a obvious difference. You can find £10K through legal means, such as a loan. You can't "find" 11,700 votes through legal means. If there were 11,700 lost votes, they should go to whoever the voter voted for, not Trump!

As you keep saying, I'm always right so I hope that's answered your questions.

Well knowing you are always right Derek there is no point in me responding other than to thank you for pointing out where and why you are right and helping me to see things through your biased glasses. Why don't you put your rules of evidence to the Justice Ministry and save this country the cost of all those trials that are not needed. Oh, BTW, while at it you might also suggest to them that for cases where even the Derek Rules of Evidence are not sufficient to find someone guilty then they should apply the Derek Rules of Interpretation which will find the most guilty related interpretation of a comment enabling the accused to be decreed undeniably guilty. Just think how much your approach to justice could save the country.

[firlandsfarm]

Duplicate of above post (no 'delete' option offered).

[firlandsfarm]

The word "you" in the above quote refers to the reader, who doesn't have the legal power to incarcerate anyone, so a trial will still take place.

Yes but if you take "you", multiply it by 12 and there will be no need for a jury to hear the full evidence and therefore no need for a trial ... as your Rules of Evidence suggest.

[Kai]

Well knowing you are always right Derek there is no point in me responding

Pro tip from a long-retired keyboard warrior, if you can't win an argument you need to start correcting their grammar

[Kai]

Did you guys know that every single president in U.S. history is related to one of your kings? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8epsI5-3HRo

Did you know that every white European has decended from Afred the Great?

This sentence cannot possibly be correct because it is riddled with grammatical errors.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, as you spelled 'descended*' and 'Alfred*' completely wrong!

I refuse to engage in meaningful discussion with illiterate buffoons. Therefore, you leave me no choice but to deem your argument void and forfeit!

[Archangel]

Well knowing you are always right Derek there is no point in me responding

Pro tip from a long-retired keyboard warrior, if you can't win an argument you need to start correcting their grammar

Yes I agrees and anyone who cannot gets they're grammer correct is likley to be wrong about everythink!

[Derek27]

These are the sort of questions a ten-year-old would ask!

You're confusing raw evidence with your interpretation of the evidence. If you accuse me of being biased because I prefer the Mona Liza over one of your paintings you'll just make an arse of yourself.

It's normal for attorneys to interpret the law in their favour, but when one tries to stretch the law beyond breaking point, it actually makes sense for the other to take the middle ground and expose the other side's dishonesty. I know that from experience when I used to appeal a DWP decision at the First Tier Tribunal. (It was the DWP that stretched the law, not me).

When the buffoon claims an all night pissup was a work event and necessary you couldn't be biased if you tried, he effectively declared his guilt but is too stupid to realise it.

BTW if you say to a partner "I need you to find another £10,000 to enable me to buy that house" should you be charged with incitement to commit robbery (and therefore be guilty)?

There is a obvious difference. You can find £10K through legal means, such as a loan. You can't "find" 11,700 votes through legal means. If there were 11,700 lost votes, they should go to whoever the voter voted for, not Trump!

As you keep saying, I'm always right so I hope that's answered your questions.

Well knowing you are always right Derek there is no point in me responding other than to thank you for pointing out where and why you are right and helping me to see things through your biased glasses. Why don't you put your rules of evidence to the Justice Ministry and save this country the cost of all those trials that are not needed. Oh, BTW, while at it you might also suggest to them that for cases where even the Derek Rules of Evidence are not sufficient to find someone guilty then they should apply the Derek Rules of Interpretation which will find the most guilty related interpretation of a comment enabling the accused to be decreed undeniably guilty. Just think how much your approach to justice could save the country.

The Derek27 rules of justice are already implimented in law. I think you'll find it's not illegal to consider borrowing £10K from a bank. It is illegal to conspire to steal £10K though.

[Derek27]

The word "you" in the above quote refers to the reader, who doesn't have the legal power to incarcerate anyone, so a trial will still take place.

Yes but if you take "you", multiply it by 12 and there will be no need for a jury to hear the full evidence and therefore no need for a trial ... as your Rules of Evidence suggest.

When 12 jurors are selected they either pick 12 people with no knowledge of the case or they'll expect each juror to dismiss any knowledge they have of the case/defendent (if it's a celebrity, for example) and only consider evidence presented in court.

If you every have or get selected for jury service, you'll find you're not send down the pub to deliberate and reach a verdict. I don't know why you keep making comparisons between the two.

[Derek27]

Did you guys know that every single president in U.S. history is related to one of your kings? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8epsI5-3HRo

Did you know that every white European has decended from Afred the Great?

This sentence cannot possibly be correct because it is riddled with grammatical errors.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, as you spelled 'descended*' and 'Alfred*' completely wrong!

I refuse to engage in meaningful discussion with illiterate buffoons. Therefore, you leave me no choice but to deem your argument void and forfeit!

I've switched off Microsoft Editor because for some reason, the add to dictionary function isn't working and it's not accessing my custom dictionary.

[firlandsfarm]

Well knowing you are always right Derek there is no point in me responding

Pro tip from a long-retired keyboard warrior, if you can't win an argument you need to start correcting their grammar

Did you know that every white European has decended from Afred the Great?

This sentence cannot possibly be correct because it is riddled with grammatical errors.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, as you spelled 'descended*' and 'Alfred*' completely wrong!

I refuse to engage in meaningful discussion with illiterate buffoons. Therefore, you leave me no choice but to deem your argument void and forfeit!

[firlandsfarm]

The Derek27 rules of justice are already implimented in law. I think you'll find it's not illegal to consider borrowing £10K from a bank. It is illegal to conspire to steal £10K though.

I fully agree what you said above is 100% correct as a statement but I cannot see your point ... I never said it was illegal to borrow from a bank not did I say it wasn't illegal to conspire to steal from a bank. I congratulate you on your attempt to misinform by making a correct statement!