Ao minuto: PS diz que cumprir Programa do Governo é "ato de fé". PSD acusa PS de ser "o arauto da desgraça"

[um-mu]

By Andy Puzder
November 10, 2020
The Media Should Not Have 'Called' This Election
(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Joe Biden has made it clear that he will do his best to “unify” the country following an election in which more than 71 million Americans – nearly half the electorate – voted for Donald Trump. It is an admirable goal. But any chance of that happening depends on the American people having confidence that the election outcome resulted from a fair and honest process. Though never perfect, our electoral system has generally instilled confidence for the past 231 years, which is why it has worked so well.

Under the contentious circumstances of this election, the traditional media’s decision to declare a victor before the official process had run its course has diminished the confidence of Trump voters in the announced result. Even if the declaration of a Biden victory is found to be accurate, the call was premature, and it will make the effort to unify our nation far more difficult.

Like millions of voters from both sides of the political aisle, I’m sensitive to the need for a definitive election outcome, untainted by irregularities or allegations of fraud. Even with razor-thin margins separating the two candidates in key states, we should be able to arrive at a final result that both sides can accept.

President Trump is contesting the reported results in those states where the race is close, and the conduct of election officials and the processes used appear suspicious. He is clearly within his rights to contest the results; his supporters generally want him to do so. Allowing the legal process to run its course is the only way to foster the unity Biden seeks.

Unity is much less likely, however, when the media simply declares a winner before the matter is resolved. In 2012, many Republicans felt disappointed when Mitt Romney lost to President Obama. Very few felt cheated. That will not be the case in 2020 if the current president’s supporters believe that the media preempted the official process so as to disparage or prevent a full investigation of the president’s claims.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/10/the_media_should_not_have_called_this_election_144624.html

In early 2001, in the wake of the closely contested 2000 presidential election, I wrote an Introduction to The Almanac of American Politics called “The 49 percent nation.” Not only was the popular vote for president 49% to 49%, but in each of the three preceding congressional elections, both parties had received either 48% or 49%, and Bill Clinton had won the preceding presidential election with 49%. We were pretty evenly divided.

As we are these days. In 2016, President Trump won his majority in the Electoral College by winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by a total of 77,000 votes out of 137 million cast. Joe Biden won his majority in the Electoral College by — and this is an approximation, subject to change and probably upward adjustment in the final count — by winning Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin (there it is again) by a total of 49,000 votes. Those narrow margins gave each of them their 306 electoral votes in their respective victories.

Yes, Biden is ahead in the popular vote by 50% to 48% as I write, just as Hillary Clinton was ahead 48% to 46% four years ago. But all of Biden’s majority and then some, like Clinton’s four years ago, comes from California. That’s because, for the first time in our history, the largest state in the Union — New York from 1820, California from 1964 — votes at one end of the political spectrum rather than near the center. That penalizes, but does not block from winning, the party whose votes are concentrated in a few electoral-vote sinks.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/were-still-living-in-a-49-percent-nation

[mais_um]

.nao e' a CNN que determina quem ganha ou perde nos Usa

Não te esqueças da Fox news, também declara o Biden como tendo ganho as eleições

[Flav]

Força algarve mas por acaso nestas eleições os processos de fiscalização e confereência não foram idênticos aos das eleições anteriores!!?? Qual o objetivo de inventar desculpas ou teorias da conspiração?? Realmente no geral o poder (e muitos tachos inerentes) custa a largar, mas quando se dá em pessoas com tiques ditatoriais a coisa ainda fica mais diicil. Obviamente se a sitaução fosse o inverso para o Trump e apaniguados tudo estaria bem. Não é o caso (para mim felizmente) e vão ter que deixar a mama. Os meios de comunicação dos USA e outras instituições não estão a dormir e não fazem as coisas por ser contra o Trump.

[MarcoAntonio]

o Trump pode ainda virar a eleiçao sim senhor..o problema seriam de tumultos em numerosas cidades democratas e as relaçoes com a europa e Canada completamente arrasadas...

O problema é que os Estados Unidos deixariam de ser uma democracia.

[forza algarve]

o Trump pode ainda virar a eleiçao sim senhor..o problema seriam de tumultos em numerosas cidades democratas e as relaçoes com a europa e Canada completamente arrasadas...

Mexico Brasil China Russia Turquia ainda aguardam e fazem bem..nao e' a CNN que determina quem ganha ou perde nos Usa

[Ulisses Pereira]

"Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
1 h
WE ARE MAKING BIG PROGRESS. RESULTS START TO COME IN NEXT WEEK. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Trump continua activo no seu Tweet.

[forza algarve]

esqueçamos um bocado a pensilvania etc...
mas depois de uma semana ainda nao estao os resultados definitivos no arizona nevada etc??
nao e' isso sim escandaloso??

[mais_um]

This was the case with the 2000 election, when the Supreme Court ruled that vote cards from Florida that didn’t have clean hole punches were NOT valid, which gave the state to George W. Bush and resulted in Al Gore conceding the election on December 13th.

A frase acima demonstra a isenção da analise apresentada.... Já Goebbels dizia, uma mentira repetida 1000 vezes torna-se verdade.

Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... 8/case.pdf

Entre a recontagem ter sido suspensa porque não permitia ser concluída antes da data para certificar o novo presidente e considerar os votos mal contados por não terem os buracos bem abertos invalidos vai uma grande distancia.... eu diria a suficiente para tentar arranjar argumentos para reverter o resultado das actuais eleições.

[MarcoAntonio]

Provavelmente, no entanto, esta é a realidade, seja qual for o resultado.

Consegues arranjar aí o link?

Chamar presidente eleito nesta altura é uma tradição (uma tradição que extravaza os média) e nesta altura já estão sempre a ser implementados mecanismos de transição (antes de serem certificadas as votações ou de se reunir o colégio eleitoral). Isto não impede / não é impeditivo de disputas legais. O Trump nunca teve intenção de aceitar a derrota, mesmo uma derrota perfeitamente clara como esta.

Mas que ele era um autocrata instável, já sabíamos.

[GaioAzul]

Tenho a certeza que eles disseram a mesma coisa quando Trump ganhou por menos, muito menos. Certo?

Provavelmente, no entanto, esta é a realidade, seja qual for o resultado.

[MarcoAntonio]

Tenho a certeza que eles disseram a mesma coisa quando Trump ganhou por menos, muito menos. Certo?

[GaioAzul]

https://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines ... right-now/

"The country was already deeply divided before this election. And unfortunately, it’s only going to get worse. The fact is that Joe Biden HASN’T actually won this election yet.
That is not a typo. The media has done the U.S. a great disservice by claiming that Biden is the winner this early in the game.
Everyone needs to take a step back and understand how the actual election process occurs based on federal law, not media reporting.
1) The election occurs in early November.
2) Votes are tallied while officials from both parties (Democrat and GOP) are present.
3) Provided officials from both parties are present during the vote tallies and there are:
No credible accusations of fraud.
No software glitches.
Then the vote tallies are ratified.
4) If the vote margin between winner and loser is 0.5% or smaller, an automatic recount is required.
5) If the margin between the winner and loser is larger than 0.5%, but either candidate (or a 3rd candidate for that matter) wants to dispute the results, he or she can pay to have a recount performed. The cost if roughly $3 million per state.
6) Once the recount is completed, or if a recount is not necessary, the individual states formally declare the winner on December 14th when they officially cast their electoral college votes for him or her.
7) Then, in early January of the next year, the new congress meets to count the electoral college votes and formally declare the winner.
8) The new President is sworn into office on January 20th.
This is how Presidential elections work in the U.S. under normal circumstances.
The media cannot decide who wins. The media can simply project who they think will win based on vote totals at a given time. And unless the loser formally concedes prior to December 14th, the election remains in play.
So where are we in terms of the 2020 Presidential election?
For starters, the races in multiple states (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona) are close enough to require mandatory recounts (within a margin of 0.5%).
On top of this, the Trump administration will be filing lawsuits in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona alleging fraud, illegitimate votes being counted, and GOP officials being barred from witnessing the ballots being tallied.
Whether or not the Trump administration is right about this remains to be seen.
However, the fact lawsuits are being filed means the election will move into the courts. If the courts decide that the evidence the Trump administration presents is compelling, they can require a formal vote audit.
If, during the vote audit, actual fraud is discovered, the court can rule that those votes are no longer valid, the formal vote counts can change, and it is possible that a given state ends up declaring a different winner.
Even if fraud is not discovered by the audits, but there is a particular problem with vote cards (the wrong type of ink was used, the hole punch didn’t go all the way through the ballot as was the case in Florida in 2000, etc.), the courts can deem those problematic votes as illegitimate.
This again can mean the formal vote counts can change, and it is possible that a given state ends up declaring a different winner.
Mind you, that’s if the courts resolve the issue to everyone’s liking on the first go round.
If either party or candidate is dissatisfied with a lower court’s ruling, they can appeal the ruling, which can result in the lawsuit moving up to a higher court, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, which serves as the ultimate arbiter of election law in the U.S.
This was the case with the 2000 election, when the Supreme Court ruled that vote cards from Florida that didn’t have clean hole punches were NOT valid, which gave the state to George W. Bush and resulted in Al Gore conceding the election on December 13th.
None of the above items are conspiracy theory or wishful thinking. These are the actual facts of how Presidential elections are decided in the U.S.
The media doesn’t decide elections. And technically, Joe Biden is NOT the President elect, no matter how much certain people might want him to be.
Remember, he wouldn’t be formally declared the President Elect until December 14th 2020, and that’s under normal circumstances.
And as I mentioned already, this election is anything but normal.
I mention all of this to help you keep a clear head during what is going to be an extremely stressful and psychologically draining four-week period between now and that date.
Again, this election WILL not be decided before December 14th. And it’s possible things run even longer than that.

Graham Summers
Chief Market Strategist
Phoenix Capital Research

[Sacanitajose]

Neste vídeo de 27 de Outubro ele diz basicamente a mesma coisa e fala dos resultados que estamos agora a ouvir/ler nas notícias e que na altura eram esperados para "very soon" (ele falava em Novembro). Menciona especificamente a Pfizer e a Moderna.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5q2Weg ... University

Ele dizia, inclusivamente, que estava cautelosamente optimista de que pelo fim do ano já se pudesse começar a distribuir uma vacina.

Podes confirmar a partir do minuto 6 se não tiveres interesse no resto da informação.

yes by on the rumor and sail in the new ! Queria dizer " comprar, no rumor e vender na , notícia " ! fi~lo com a PFyzEr

[Àlvaro]

Todas essas queixas constituem o estrebuchar do morto. Por muito que esperneie Trump é o "já foste".

[djovarius]

Já agora, a queixa da campanha de Trump contra a Pensilvânia já deu entrada e pode ser lida:

https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-fil ... -filed.pdf

Abraço

dj

[MarcoAntonio]

Já sabíamos que havia essa possibilidade. Agora estamos um passo mais perto dado que os dados preliminares não afastam essa hipótese.

Não havia boa informação, o que havia é expectativas como as que vinham sendo manifestadas pelo Dr. Anthony Fauci em diversas entrevistas.


Já agora, de acordo com a press release e com o protocolo (ver link abaixo) imagino que os dados preliminares que foram agora divulgados só tenham sido sabidos bastante recentemente (ver ponto 6.3 sobre randomization e blinding). Mas já eram esperados por esta altura (ver entrevistas acima, por exemplo).

https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazon ... ov2020.pdf

[djovarius]

Boas,

Nos comícios Trump, ele repetia, lido no prompter: J&J, Pfizer, Moderna & others!!

Isto quer dizer que havia boa informação sobre estas vacinas.
É de crer que não estava errado, só o "timing" era arrojado, não dava para vacinar em Outubro ou Novembro, agora sabemos que poderá ser em Dezembro e depois.

Abraço

dj

[MarcoAntonio]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/fauci-says-pfizer-vaccine-candidates-efficacy-extraordinary

Agora sim, percebe-se o contexto. São comentários coerentes com as expectativas públicas dele de há várias semanas em que ele acrescenta observações sobre os resultados (concretos) agora conhecidos.

[jotas007]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavir ... raordinary

[MarcoAntonio]

Neste vídeo de 27 de Outubro ele diz basicamente a mesma coisa e fala dos resultados que estamos agora a ouvir/ler nas notícias e que na altura eram esperados para "very soon" (ele falava em Novembro). Menciona especificamente a Pfizer e a Moderna.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5q2Weg ... University

Ele dizia, inclusivamente, que estava cautelosamente optimista de que pelo fim do ano já se pudesse começar a distribuir uma vacina.

Podes confirmar a partir do minuto 6 se não tiveres interesse no resto da informação.

[MarcoAntonio]

O melhor que encontrei foi isto:

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-car ... treatments

Trata-se de uma entrevista do dia 7 passado, em que ele mencionava que a Pfizzer e Moderna estão em estágios avançados e que há 5 candidatas em fase 3 (o tipo de coisa que ele já anda a dizer há uma série de semanas).


Video da entrevista completa no link e excertos no texto.

[MarcoAntonio]

Entretanto:
"FAUCI SAYS MODERNA MAY HAVE SIMILAR RESULTS AS PFIZER VACCINE"


Esta malta nem disfarça


Segue o jogo...

Podes elaborar? E já agora, tens uma boa fonte para isto para percebermos melhor o contexto (se é que é real sequer)?

[jotas007]

Foi preciso o Biden ganhar para surgir as boas noticias!!
(Pois agora já não era preciso o correio!)

Entretanto:
"FAUCI SAYS MODERNA MAY HAVE SIMILAR RESULTS AS PFIZER VACCINE"


Esta malta nem disfarça


Segue o jogo...

[um-mu]

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/11/04/a-history-of-contested-presidential-elections-from-samuel-tilden-to-al-gore/

[MarcoAntonio]

Duas compilações dos processos com que a equipa do Trump e afins estão a avançar, expectavelmente vão actualizando:

https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... laying-out