The Impeachment Thread

#43,828
#43,828
Mick said:
DC actually believes it. He even posted his source.
Click to expand...

I asked Luther to do the math once and he passed.

Here’s the equation:

([% exonerated] + [% convicted]) * 100 = 1

Assign the term [% convicted] and solve for the term [% exonerated]. Let me know what you come up with. I’ll be happy to check your math.
 
#43,830
#43,830
DC_Vol said:
I asked Luther to do the math once and he passed.

Here’s the equation:

([% exonerated] + [% convicted]) * 100 = 1

Assign the term [% convicted] and solve for the term [% exonerated]. Let me know what you come up with. I’ll be happy to check your math.
Click to expand...
52% exonerated + 48% convicted * 100 = 1 (by senate vote)
12% exonerated + 88% convicted * 100 = 1 (by senate's belief)
30% exonerated + 70% convicted * 100 = 1 (the hearts and minds of the public at large)
 
#43,831
#43,831
luthervol said:
52% exonerated + 48% convicted * 100 = 1 (by senate vote)
12% exonerated + 88% convicted * 100 = 1 (by senate's belief)
30% exonerated + 70% convicted * 100 = 1 (the hearts and minds of the public at large)
Click to expand...

I couldn’t wait to see what kind of liberties you’d take with the equation. It’s why I left the terms open.

I would say you should stick to social work, Luth. 😜
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#43,832
#43,832
DC_Vol said:
I asked Luther to do the math once and he passed.

Here’s the equation:

([% exonerated] + [% convicted]) * 100 = 1

Assign the term [% convicted] and solve for the term [% exonerated]. Let me know what you come up with. I’ll be happy to check your math.
Click to expand...
I never passed - I guess I never say the question.
I'll do the Mueller report now.
0% exonerated + 0% convicted * 100 = 0 (Mueller report)
0% exonerated + 100% convicted * 100 = 1 (Mueller's personal assessment of the findings)
34% exonerated + 66% convicted * 100 = 1 (the hearts and minds of the public at large)
 
#43,833
#43,833
DC_Vol said:
I couldn’t wait to see what kind of liberties you’d take with the equation. It’s why I left the terms open.

I would say you should stick to social work, Luth. 😜
Click to expand...
Here's one for you.
OJ

([% exonerated] + [% convicted]) * 100 = 1
 
#43,834
#43,834
DC_Vol said:
I asked Luther to do the math once and he passed.

Here’s the equation:

([% exonerated] + [% convicted]) * 100 = 1

Assign the term [% convicted] and solve for the term [% exonerated]. Let me know what you come up with. I’ll be happy to check your math.
Click to expand...

% exonerated + % convicted = 1/100
if %convicted = 0
then % exonerated = 1/100
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol
#43,838
#43,838
DC_Vol said:
Solved it.
0% convicted
100% exonerated
Click to expand...
According to OJ's jury.
Trump's jury was 52/48 - significant difference there.
Then you have the whole hearts and minds of the general public dynamic, 90% of whom rightfully disagree with your solution.
 
#43,840
#43,840
luthervol said:
According to OJ's jury.
Trump's jury was 52/48 - significant difference there.
Then you have the whole hearts and minds of the general public dynamic, 90% of whom rightfully disagree with your solution.
Click to expand...
90% of people think Trump was convicted? CNN's ratings must have gone up considerably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, AM64 and BigOrangeD
#43,842
#43,842
Orange_Crush said:
90% of people think Trump was convicted? CNN's ratings must have gone up considerably.
Click to expand...
That was in reference to OJ. (granted, there are multiple similarities)
90% believe him convictable (guilty) of the charges.
Only about 70% believe Trump was convictable (guilty) of the charges.
 
#43,843
#43,843
luthervol said:
According to OJ's jury.
Trump's jury was 52/48 - significant difference there.
Then you have the whole hearts and minds of the general public dynamic, 90% of whom rightfully disagree with your solution.
Click to expand...

The way it works is your either found guilty or not guilty. There’s not partial guilty. There is no finding of guilt after a judge declares one not guilty but shares his personal feelings so we can claim said individual guilty.

And Mueller’s report laid out no crime. He could have made his case and then said he didn’t have the ability to prosecute. Furthermore, he charged no person in the US related to Russian collusion. You may not like it, but there is nothing in that document that lays out any charges against Trump.

1581607175003.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, AM64 and BigOrangeD
#43,844
#43,844
luthervol said:
We are first hand witnesses to one of those brief periods in human history when a large enough segment of society inexplicably succumbs to group think insanity that a person or idea is supported that future generations view as so reprehensible that no sane society could have ever supported. And they will be right. I've learned that those past periods are only explainable by temporary societal insanity.
Click to expand...

Like with FDR and LBJ? The 2 bafoons who turned this country into a lazy country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, SpaceCoastVol and AM64
#43,845
#43,845
luthervol said:
That was in reference to OJ. (granted, there are multiple similarities)
90% believe him convictable (guilty) of the charges.
Only about 70% believe Trump was convictable (guilty) of the charges.
Click to expand...

The two polls that matters said he was not guilty.
53%
52%
 
#43,847
#43,847
DC_Vol said:
I couldn’t wait to see what kind of liberties you’d take with the equation. It’s why I left the terms open.

I would say you should stick to social work, Luth. 😜
Click to expand...

Notice how lefties operate on the left side of an equation to make it work. In this case you left them a fill in the blank option that didn't require any diddling on the other side, but they have a way of ignoring that general rule about whatever you do to one side you do to the other ... it's how they justify insane proposals.
 
#43,849
#43,849
luthervol said:
Here's one for you.
OJ

([% exonerated] + [% convicted]) * 100 = 1
Click to expand...

I always thought OJ's criminal trial was an insult to the intelligence of all who do real testing and analysis. Sometime after OJ was forced to give a blood sample so they "could determine his blood type", his blood spatter miraculously missed earlier kept coming up all over. Seems like there was blood (not OJ's) that went straight through clean socks (somehow unobstructed by a foot) ... and despite play in loose dirt, the socks were otherwise clean. I've always thought it is a damn good thing that cops aren't the ones analyzing problems with aircraft, nuclear plants, and other things that can harm you ... deciding the answer and setting out to prove it is a dangerous business. However, that's precisely what congress tried to do by allowing certain people to present "damning" "fact" while not allowing others involved to refute that assumption of fact.
 
#43,850
#43,850
AM64 said:
I always thought OJ's criminal trial was an insult to the intelligence of all who do real testing and analysis. Sometime after OJ was forced to give a blood sample so they "could determine his blood type", his blood spatter miraculously missed earlier kept coming up all over. Seems like there was blood (not OJ's) that went straight through clean socks (somehow unobstructed by a foot) ... and despite play in loose dirt, the socks were otherwise clean. I've always thought it is a damn good thing that cops aren't the ones analyzing problems with aircraft, nuclear plants, and other things that can harm you ... deciding the answer and setting out to prove it is a dangerous business. However, that's precisely what congress tried to do by allowing certain people to present "damning" "fact" while not allowing others involved to refute that assumption of fact.
Click to expand...
OJ was still most assuredly guilty (at least in the minds of the vast majority).
Who was not allowed to testify that would have refuted factual evidence?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top