Who Will be Our Next President? [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : Who Will be Our Next President?

Pages : 1 2 [3]

Citizen Rules

11-07-20, 08:08 PM

Yoda

11-07-20, 08:10 PM

It's fair insofar as you genuinely believe it speaks to a mental condition that might affect his job. I just think it's really short-sighted for any Trump supporter, because his rambling nature really isn't any better on that front.

Dog Star Man

11-07-20, 08:19 PM

Dammit. Godwin’s Law rears it’s ugly head.

You'll find it happening wherever ignorance and laziness is abound... Which is basically everywhere you go. Procrastination of "getting the facts right" is so behovely.

HollowMan

11-07-20, 08:25 PM

This is absolutely incorrect. Hitler was handed the position of Chancellor but it was not without misgivings.
Your statement ignored a lot of the murders against rivals and how he even took power from Hindenburg to begin with.
See the Enabling Act and the Night of Long Knives.

I don't want to go anymore off topic but your claim that I'm absolutely incorrect must be addressed. The Night of the Long Knives was an internal dispute within the Nazi Party. The Enabling act was passed in the Reichstag with the open support of the Zentrum Party. Hitler's dictatorial powers were voted to him legally by the sovereign parliament of the German people.

Dog Star Man

11-07-20, 08:31 PM

I don't want to go anymore off topic but "I'm going to continue to go off topic..."

:rolleyes:

HollowMan

11-07-20, 08:37 PM

Or, "just a thought here," you could concede the pride in your point of view, and consider she has a point, and not say something so insensitive and short-sighted. Since when were these "hard and fast" rules you've so blindly established "been" established? She's still voting isn't she? She's still following basic guidelines and legal alternatives to how one votes. She is still being a model and upstanding citizen and contributing to this democracy. She is still putting in her say for herself, her community at large, and the nation. Back off.

There's nothing prideful about what I said, it's just a fact of life and President Bitch doesn't strike me as the sensitive type so I'm sure she can handle someone expressing an opposing view. It's sweet that you're getting so defensive on her behalf though.

Captain Steel

11-07-20, 08:42 PM

I've seen several Trump fans put down Biden because of stumbling while he talks. Making fun of the way someone talks is wrong. It's no different than making fun of someones weight or height or physical appearance.

I wouldn't make fun of him - I feel bad for him.
I watched my father gradually lose much of his ability to speak before he died.

But I think the reason it's an issue is Joe was once a fairly decent speaker, but age is taking it's toll and it's become noticeable in his speech some of the time - that's why it's a concern.

The first year of Joe's Presidency may be like the last years of Reagan's life.

Wyldesyde19

11-07-20, 08:43 PM

I don't want to go anymore off topic but your claim that I'm absolutely incorrect must be addressed. The Night of the Long Knives was an internal dispute within the Nazi Party. The Enabling act was passed in the Reichstag with the open support of the Zentrum Party. Hitler's dictatorial powers were voted to him legally by the sovereign parliament of the German people.
You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that The Night of Long Knives was to eradicate his enemies. It was his doing. No one made that decision for him.
The Enabling Act was made by Nazis to grant him control after other parties had been thrown out. After the Night of The along Knives, many feared to even speak out against him.
It wasn’t “freely” given. It was won through bloodshed and intimidation.

Dog Star Man

11-07-20, 08:47 PM

You guys, this dude just busted this story wiiiide open:

https://twitter.com/CemetryGates89/status/1324830812328644623

I've been voting since the W. Bush era and as I recall then there was a lot of "who dun' it?" and "speculation." (Anyone remember the Bush v. Gore election might I add?) This really doesn't surprise me here. Actually, I'm resigned to it and expect it. Eventually the "dust" will settle. A name will be called, and then onward to a new set of problems people can b*tch and moan about. Welcome to politics: The art of "me" a person completely inept at running his/her life. This "me" belongs to a society at large. This "me" thinks that "well I'm so brilliant at mismanaging my own life, I've got half a mind to tell others how to run theirs." That to me is politics at its most basic. Basic "Drama 101." Great to stir the sh*t pot once and awhile, but ultimately it's a pretty useless exercise and a large waste of time. (I had a lot of time to kill today, obviously.) Yes, I'm "glad" Biden won... but don't get me wrong, in my private life I have much distain for politics and I'm rather apolitical. I'm just happy Trump's gone now, (hopefully), been a whirlwind of a day! A doozie!

HollowMan

11-07-20, 09:03 PM

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that The Night of Long Knives was to eradicate his enemies. It was his doing. No one made that decision for him.
The Enabling Act was made by Nazis to grant him control after other parties had been thrown out. After the Night of The along Knives, many feared to even speak out against him.
It wasn’t “freely” given. It was won through bloodshed and intimidation.
I'm not denying that his methods of rule were brutal and violent but the constitutional powers he had were gained legally through the parliament. Hitler never dissolved the Reichstag because he knew it was useful in legitimizing his rule.

Wyldesyde19

11-07-20, 09:08 PM

I'm not denying that his methods of rule were brutal and violent but the constitutional powers he had were gained legally through the parliament. Hitler never dissolved the Reichstag because he knew it was useful in legitimizing his rule.
It’s not legitimate when any and all opposition were removed (murdered) and you have the only real party that pretty much had scared everyone into submission vote you in.

Dog Star Man

11-07-20, 09:10 PM

Wyldesyde19

11-07-20, 09:12 PM

HollowMan

11-07-20, 09:22 PM

It’s not legitimate when any and all opposition were removed (murdered) and you have the only real party that pretty much had scared everyone into submission vote you in.

The point I'm making is that he didn't gain power by overthrowing the government but by manipulating the Reichstag into granting him constitutional powers legally. Essentially the Reichstag voted away it's own existence.

Dog Star Man

11-07-20, 09:25 PM

The point I'm making is that he didn't gain power by overthrowing the government but by manipulating the Reichstag into granting him constitutional powers legally. Essentially the Reichstag voted away it's own existence.

And the winner is... *opens envelope* Well kiss my grits! YOU WIN! ALL OF IT! ALL OF THE INTERNET IS YOURS! CONGRATS!!!

Citizen Rules

11-07-20, 09:33 PM

68779

HollowMan

11-07-20, 09:34 PM

Wyldesyde19 let the dog have his chew toy. Don't bother. If a man can't concede that he is legally wrong and doesn't seem to think that standing up on someone else's behalf is good or virtuous... why, just why? I'm pretty much ignoring him at this point. Just throws the thread off more and more.
Jeez, all this hate and anger over one light hearted throwaway comment made to someone else...
I never said mail-in ballots were illegal. I just think in should be done in person at the polling station; old school style.

HollowMan

11-07-20, 09:36 PM

68779
This is why the internet was invented right? Well that and porn anyway...

Citizen Rules

11-07-20, 09:37 PM

This is why the internet was invented right? Well that and porn anyway...Good one:)

Dog Star Man

11-07-20, 09:47 PM

Jeez, all this hate and anger over one light hearted throwaway comment made to someone else...
I never said mail-in ballots were illegal. I just think in should be done in person at the polling station; old school style.

Who's hating? Who's angry? Did I swear or call you names? No I didn't. I simply stated your comment was insensitive, short-sighted, and out of line. Here another person tells you why she legitimately can't make your demands of making it to a polling station especially during a pandemic I might add... and you pop off with some smart-aleck remark? I'm sorry, you needed to be put in your place. And it wasn't just me who made the comment about your comment, it was also Yoda, (and I believe there were a few others too). You're out of line son, and I think you owe Miss Vicky and apology. You're in the wrong. And, as you get older, you get to a place where you accept you're not going to "hit it out of the park 100% of the time." That "sometimes" you're wrong. And *gasp* that's okay! But when you foul-ball, admit your wrong, brush yourself off, act like an adult, and play again. That's life! Oh the friggen "growing pains" here.

Wyldesyde19

11-07-20, 09:48 PM

This is why the internet was invented right? Well that and porn anyway...
Yeah...that was actually a good one.

cricket

11-07-20, 09:50 PM

I am listening to Biden's speech on the radio and I just heard him say he was going to try to get rid of systemic racism. Is he going to try to get rid of welfare and abortion?

Citizen Rules

11-07-20, 09:56 PM

I am listening to Biden's speech on the radio and I just heard him say he was going to try to get rid of systemic racism. Is he going to try to get rid of welfare and abortion?Sounds like somebodies fishing tonight:p Don't worry some small fry will bite on that.

cricket

11-07-20, 10:03 PM

Sounds like somebodies fishing tonight:p Don't worry some small fry will bite on that.

You think so huh? I would say take a look into it a little bit. We might be surprised at what you find.

neiba

11-08-20, 05:12 AM

WTF?? You guys are seriously putting Biden's sanity in question because of the way he speaks??? The man stutters which means he constantly has to be changing the words he's saying because some are more difficult to pronounce than others. And he does a tremendous job at this, btw, because it's incredibly difficult to do.

HollowMan

11-08-20, 08:27 AM

Who's hating? Who's angry? Did I swear or call you names? No I didn't. I simply stated your comment was insensitive, short-sighted, and out of line. Here another person tells you why she legitimately can't make your demands of making it to a polling station especially during a pandemic I might add... and you pop off with some smart-aleck remark? I'm sorry, you needed to be put in your place. And it wasn't just me who made the comment about your comment, it was also Yoda, (and I believe there were a few others too). You're out of line son, and I think you owe Miss Vicky and apology. You're in the wrong. And, as you get older, you get to a place where you accept you're not going to "hit it out of the park 100% of the time." That "sometimes" you're wrong. And *gasp* that's okay! But when you foul-ball, admit your wrong, brush yourself off, act like an adult, and play again. That's life! Oh the friggen "growing pains" here.

Your anger was obvious in the tone of your text. Calling somebody a "dog", telling them to "back off" and saying "you're out of line son." Where I'm from if a man talks to another man like that there's going to consequences.

It's fine though, I can take all the insults you want to throw at me. What I don't understand is where this is all coming from? I never attacked or insulted Miss Vicky personally, I just posted a couple of edgy comments and then you come out of nowhere gunning for me. The word triggered is definitely applicable here. Are you her husband or something? I could understand it then.

When I said people who are too lazy/scared to vote in person shouldn't be allowed to vote, that was a joke. I was using hyperbole for comedic effect. I would have thought that was obvious by the tone of my post where I referred to "pesky mail-in ballots." It wasn't directed at anyone. The fact that apparently people interpreted it as some deadly serious statement shows that it failed to be funny so in that sense I apologize.

I do think people should vote in person but if they chose to do it by mail that's perfectly legal. Can we put a pin in this or do you want to throw some more insults?

TheUsualSuspect

11-08-20, 09:28 AM

Dog Star Man

11-08-20, 09:42 AM

Can we put a pin in this...

Brilliant. Moving on.

TheUsualSuspect

11-08-20, 09:56 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-call-joe-biden-racist-during-democratic-debate-1536791

Dog Star Man

11-08-20, 10:07 AM

I happen to go to church, I am a Christian, and am friends with "Christians." ... It's amazing the narrative I hear from the "American Church." Especially the "Religious Right." I don't really know if you all are aware or not, but from what I hear down from the grapevine from these "Christians" is that apparently God is a Republican, and Biden/Harris' win yesterday is an indication of "The End Times," and that Trump's loss yesterday represented a loss to "Christian Values." ... yes, I am literally hearing this from people! I'm hearing not only these such absurd things from them, but other delusional-non-sensical ramblings... on and on, etc. etc. Point is, (it's actually been a long-time coming), but this "political climate" really divided me from my church... I don't go anymore... When a church starts "spinning a narrative" to make what is "spiritual" "political"... I'm done. I have a spirituality, I have a faith, and yes, I have had "encounters with God"... and guess what I've gathered from it? God isn't political, God isn't "spiritually tribal", and He/She speaks to all people! So I'm just done... done, done, done... in a way I'm kind of "glad" this election worked out the way it did, because it's kind of the final nail in my personal life when it comes to my "Oh-so 'Political-God' Church"... Now being more "led" to seek Him/Her on my own terms and develop a more "personal spirituality." Ecclesiastes 3: "There is a time and season for everything."

cricket

11-08-20, 10:17 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-call-joe-biden-racist-during-democratic-debate-1536791

For anyone who watched it, including democrats, her implication was quite clear. I refer to the issue she raised as Biden's racially questionable voting history, as I don't like to flat out call people a racist without evidence, something many others think is a perfectly decent thing to do. During the time alluded to by Harris, Biden did say he didn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle. You can decide for yourself how to interpret that statement. Watch the clip again and you will see that it was quite clear what she was doing.

Chypmunk

11-08-20, 10:18 AM

Ecclesiastes 3: "There is a time and season for everything."
No offence to any religious people intended and quite probably it's just me but this so sounds like it should be a promotional tagline for a fillum.

Hey, it's just an observation and this is a movie site after all.

cricket

11-08-20, 10:41 AM

I love how mail in ballots were never a hot issue until Republicans/Trump figured they'd lose the election (Dems are more likely to vote by mail) so they adjust the narrative to fraud and people eat it up.

The democrats went all across America to change state's voting laws before this election, and contrary to popular belief they started before corona. Trump has said from the beginning that they were trying to rig the election. The common Trump supporter looked at it as shady from the very beginning, but then as you watch it play out it starts to make you wonder even more. There's certainly a valid reason why it ended up being so many more democrats than republicans who voted by mail with how their parties supported it or were against it, but nobody knew that when it first started. So my question is why did the dems change the laws right before the election in the first place? It wasn't because of the virus, but obviously they saw some advantage for them doing it. You can't not be skeptical. Trump knew this from the beginning and it played out that way.

Russian interference is fine, but Americans voting by mail is wrong....got it.

The democrats have used a lot of dirty tricks to bring Trump down, and I am very comfortable calling some of their tactics downright evil.

I'm wondering if you just get your news from the main stream media? If that's true, be skeptical of everything you hear. The most true thing Donald Trump has ever said is "fake news".

cricket

11-08-20, 11:08 AM

I disagree with the idea that you should not condemn a group you have significant problems with because some of them might say some true/good things some of the time.

Not to bring this up again but I just saw this.

I'm just a little more hesitant to label. When looking at a group, the first 2 things I look at is their stated ideology and their body of work. The proud boys stated ideology would not qualify them as a hate group and their body of work seems to consist of them fighting with Antifa. They appear to be a nationalist group rather than a white nationalist group. As much as we all despise Antifa (I hope) I don't know if I would classify them as a hate group either. They are certainly something, and I am at least comfortable saying we could do without both of them.

I do think the very mention of the proud boys in a Trump/Biden thread is telling.

Anita has caused practically nonstop mayhem and destruction all across America. Leaders openly state that they use violence for political purposes.

The Proud Boys I would surmise is a group we'd be better off without, but whatever they've done it's not in the same ballpark as Antifa. Leaders openly state that they will use violence but only in self-defense.

Trump: condemns Antifa and the proud boys.

Biden and other democrats: condemns the Proud Boys but refuses to condemn Antifa, and claims they don't even exist, yet Biden and Harris helped fund bailouts of some of their members including some very violent criminals.

This thread: let's talk about the proud boys?

Of course we know exactly why the proud boys are brought up, because apparently they are Trump supporters, and any Trump hater would want to connect them.

doubledenim

11-08-20, 11:09 AM

cricket

11-08-20, 11:19 AM

Can somebody explain how the Democrats are responsible for all these voting changes? Why didn’t the Republicans stand up to them. Are the Republicans not complicit in this by their inaction.

Look, I listened to Alex Jones go on about Bohemian Grove and all sort of conspiracies. I’m open to seeing both sides.

What I can’t buy is the Dems running roughshod over this stuff when Republicans have been running the country. Just because liberals “seem” to be inclined to be maskers and therefore more inclined to vote by mail, they pulled this off under the Republican overlords?

NC was a swing state and went Red short of the governor. Why didn’t it work here?

There were a handful of democratic states prior to this election that used mail in voting. The data suggests that there was either no change, or not change enough to matter, in who voted by mail more. What I mean is that people keep saying that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, but before this election there was no evidence to support that. The dems suddenly started changing laws just before corona in swing states for this election (without a test run), and what we have to ask ourselves is why did they do it. Republicans fought it and there is at least some question as to if what the dems did is constitutionally legal.

Citizen Rules

11-08-20, 11:54 AM

We need a little equal time here...so I'll let these headline links speak for themselves:

Republicans’ only way to win is to stop people from voting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/28/republicans-only-way-win-is-stop-you-voting/)
from: washingtonpost.com

Republican Voter Suppression Efforts Are Targeting Minorities... (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-suppression-efforts-are-targeting-minorities-journalist-says)
from: npr.org

The five ways Republicans will crack down on voting rights in 2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/13/voter-suppression-2020-democracy-america)
from: theguardian.com

‘They Don’t Really Want Us to Vote’: How Republicans Made It Harder (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppression-elections.html)
from: NewYorkTimes
Restrictions on voting, virtually all imposed by Republicans, reflect rising partisanship, societal shifts producing a more diverse America, and the weakening of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Block the Vote: Voter Suppression in 2020 (https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/)
from: aclu.org
Across the country, one in 13 Black Americans cannot vote due to disenfranchisement laws. One-third of voters who have a disability report difficulty voting. Only 40 percent of polling places fully accommodate people with disabilities. Across the country, counties with larger minority populations have fewer polling sites and poll workers per voter.

cricket

11-08-20, 12:10 PM

We need a little equal time here...so I'll let these headline links speak for themselves:

Republicans’ only way to win is to stop people from voting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/28/republicans-only-way-win-is-stop-you-voting/)
from: washingtonpost.com

Republican Voter Suppression Efforts Are Targeting Minorities... (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-suppression-efforts-are-targeting-minorities-journalist-says)
from: npr.org

The five ways Republicans will crack down on voting rights in 2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/13/voter-suppression-2020-democracy-america)
from: theguardian.com

‘They Don’t Really Want Us to Vote’: How Republicans Made It Harder (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppression-elections.html)
from: NewYorkTimes

Is there some truth in any of this? Sure, but these are biased liberal publications and we know not to trust the media. Everything has a counter argument, and perhaps very valid points.

Block the Vote: Voter Suppression in 2020 (https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/)
from: aclu.org

Some valid questions, but a lot with valid counter arguments. Is having to show an ID to vote racist? I would say no. There's also more than one way to skin a cat, meaning there's not always just one solution for every problem.

cricket

11-08-20, 12:23 PM

If you look at the last link you may get an explanation as to why it may be more difficult for some black Americans to go out and vote. What you then do is take that explanation and ask yourself why that is happening. If you follow the trail and continue to ask why you may be surprised where it leads you.

cricket

11-08-20, 12:35 PM

Trump talked about how proud he was to be getting a lot of black people off of welfare. Some liberals shaped it as racist Trump is taking welfare from black people. He wasn't taking anything away, he was giving them something, a chance at self-reliance and prosperity.

https://youtu.be/nUVg1h2M85s

Wyldesyde19

11-08-20, 02:00 PM

Not to bring this up again but I just saw this.

I'm just a little more hesitant to label. When looking at a group, the first 2 things I look at is their stated ideology and their body of work. The proud boys stated ideology would not qualify them as a hate group and their body of work seems to consist of them fighting with Antifa. They appear to be a nationalist group rather than a white nationalist group. As much as we all despise Antifa (I hope) I don't know if I would classify them as a hate group either. They are certainly something, and I am at least comfortable saying we could do without both of them.

I do think the very mention of the proud boys in a Trump/Biden thread is telling.

Anita has caused practically nonstop mayhem and destruction all across America. Leaders openly state that they use violence for political purposes.

The Proud Boys I would surmise is a group we'd be better off without, but whatever they've done it's not in the same ballpark as Antifa. Leaders openly state that they will use violence but only in self-defense.

Trump: condemns Antifa and the proud boys.

Biden and other democrats: condemns the Proud Boys but refuses to condemn Antifa, and claims they don't even exist, yet Biden and Harris helped fund bailouts of some of their members including some very violent criminals.

This thread: let's talk about the proud boys?

Of course we know exactly why the proud boys are brought up, because apparently they are Trump supporters, and any Trump hater would want to connect them.
The issue here is what each group represents. *
The fact is that Antifa, as a whole isn’t an organization by any means. They have no leadership, and really no membership. It’s a collection of like minded individuals who oppose fascism. Fascism bad.
Have there been some violence perpetrated by individuals in the name of Antifa? Sure. I don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise.
But let’s not act like The Proud Boys have not been equally as violent, and in some cases more so.

cricket

11-08-20, 03:16 PM

The issue here is what each group represents. *
The fact is that Antifa, as a whole isn’t an organization by any means. They have no leadership, and really no membership. It’s a collection of like minded individuals who oppose fascism. Fascism bad.

They do have leaders and you can find that out in a second if you look, and while they claim to be against fascism, they are indeed fascists. You can find as many examples of this as you want. I find it to be incredible that you say these things.

Have there been some violence perpetrated by individuals in the name of Antifa? Sure. I don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise.
But let’s not act like The Proud Boys have not been equally as violent, and in some cases more so.

I don't know how you could think they are even in the same ballpark.

FromBeyond

11-08-20, 03:28 PM

Wyldesyde19

11-08-20, 03:36 PM

They do have leaders and you can find that out in a second if you look, and while they claim to be against fascism, they are indeed fascists. You can find as many examples of this as you want. I find it to be incredible that you say these things.

I don't know how you could think they are even in the same ballpark.
This is incorrect. Antifa has always been described as a autonomous group. You can find that out in a second if you look as well.
I too, find it incredible that you say that The Proud Boys and Antifa are in the same ball park. Afterall, there were many Proud Boy brandishing guns protesting the shutdown.* Don’t recall Antifa doing the same.
But such as it is, I’m uninterested in arguing the matter any further. I don’t see us ever coming to any agreement here. So what say we let it go? Agreed?

Tugg

11-08-20, 03:42 PM

regardless whether you wanted to leave or remain in the EU this is bad news for us now.
What do you think about UK free trade deal with the EU?

Daniel M

11-08-20, 03:47 PM

The more I'm learning about Biden the more I cannot stand him and realise I liked Trump, even with his big ego and odd mannerisms, I love the orange dude.

Anybody celebrating this in the UK like so many of our vapid celebrities, just know that Biden is a man who deeply opposed Brexit and when asked to do a quick interview on the campaign trail, his reply when told it was for the BBC was to smile and say "I'm Irish" before walking away, we had four years to settle a new trade deal with pro UK Trump and did nothing, regardless whether you wanted to leave or remain in the EU this is bad news for us now.

I'm British and don't agree with you at all. Trump's attitude was "America First" and his foreign trade policy was terrible and protectionist to the detriment of the USA and other countries.

Plus I don't think that a trade deal with the US will make much difference. What do people expect? Could someone outline a realistic best-case scenario? It's all well and good hoping for a "good deal" but no one has explained to me what this would mean and how realistically we can achieve a deal outside of the EU with the US that would drastically change the way we trade with them and benefits us.

Here's a report into how small a trade deal impact would be - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51706802

I think Biden overall is about cooperation rather than isolation and barriers, he doesn't seem to me like the type of man to make decisions out of spite or self-interest.

cricket

11-08-20, 03:50 PM

This is incorrect. Antifa has always been described as a autonomous group. You can find that out in a second if you look as well.

I already know that they're described that way, but that doesn't mean they're not funded, are organized, and have leaders.

I too, find it incredible that you say that The Proud Boys and Antifa are in the same ball park. Afterall, there were many Proud Boy brandishing guns protesting the shutdown.* Don’t recall Antifa doing the same.

Did they shoot anyone? Antifa certainly has, and they've done a hell of a lot more.

You remember the reporter being attacked just for being a conservative, that's fascism. There's countless other examples of this type of violence. That's what they do.

https://youtu.be/fLgKN1ij8eM

But such as it is, I’m uninterested in arguing the matter any further. I don’t see us ever coming to any agreement here. So what say we let it go? Agreed?

Whatever you do is up to you my friend.

FromBeyond

11-08-20, 03:56 PM

cricket

11-08-20, 03:59 PM

Hey anybody else been caught talking to themselves several times while participating in this thread the last few days?

Daniel M

11-08-20, 04:05 PM

I don't think he will be making many decision on his own pal. The fact remains Trump was pro Brexit and a leader and also spoke like he was willing to help us and this new centre or extreme left government and grinning puppet were not.

I cant explain to you what a Trump deal would have looked like because it didn't happen, we didn't get the chance

I'm not sure what Trump being pro-Brexit means or how that translates to meaning he would have wanted to give us a beneficial trade deal... I saw his "pro-Brexit" stance as being supportive of it because it was anti-establishment, anti-EU (who he also sees as a trade foe) and generally populist/disruptive. He had four years to make a deal with us and he didn't, in the BBC link in my last post it looks at the type of deal the government wanted to do with Trump and shows how the difference it would have made would have been virtually nothing.

I don't think Biden is extreme-left. I would say he is more economically right-wing and more of a "classic liberal" than the isolationist Trump. I'd say he's probably very close to this Conservative government on trade actually.

Yoda

11-08-20, 04:20 PM

The dems suddenly started changing laws just before corona in swing states for this election (without a test run), and what we have to ask ourselves is why did they do it. Republicans fought it and there is at least some question as to if what the dems did is constitutionally legal.
I'd be curious where you heard that. PA was the swingiest swing state, and we did have a "test run," for the primaries.

As for why, well, it's pretty obvious: the pandemic. It's a lot safer to vote by mail.

Tugg

11-08-20, 04:47 PM

Anybody celebrating this in the UK like so many of our vapid celebrities, just know that Biden is a man who deeply opposed Brexit
Most UK celebrities deeply opposed Brexit too.

FromBeyond

11-08-20, 04:52 PM

I'm not sure what Trump being pro-Brexit means or how that translates to meaning he would have wanted to give us a beneficial trade deal... I saw his "pro-Brexit" stance as being supportive of it because it was anti-establishment, anti-EU (who he also sees as a trade foe) and generally populist/disruptive. He had four years to make a deal with us and he didn't, in the BBC link in my last post it looks at the type of deal the government wanted to do with Trump and shows how the difference it would have made would have been virtually nothing.

I don't think Biden is extreme-left. I would say he is more economically right-wing and more of a "classic liberal" than the isolationist Trump. I'd say he's probably very close to this Conservative government on trade actually.

I read the report and its a one sided prediction, I wasn't not criticising our own government in my last post and in regards to his reason of his support for brexit, that to me says he would have liked to see the outcome be successful as why wouldnt he, if it were a failure he would be proved wrong.

cricket

11-08-20, 04:57 PM

I'd be curious where you heard that. PA was the swingiest swing state, and we did have a "test run," for the primaries.

As for why, well, it's pretty obvious: the pandemic. It's a lot safer to vote by mail.

I didn't realize about Pennsylvania, but the Dems put this all in motion before the U.S. got hit with the pandemic. I read an article talking about it from Feb 6. It was already happening.

cricket

11-08-20, 05:26 PM

This talk I'm hearing about Kamala being an inspiration to little girls for what they can do is making me a little nauseous. Are they supposed to all go find their Willie Brown?

mark f

11-08-20, 06:31 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjw0VPcodW8

ynwtf

11-08-20, 06:53 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjw0VPcodW8

"He never took 'no' for an answer." dude. lol.

cricket

11-08-20, 06:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjw0VPcodW8

That was hysterical who was that?

cricket

11-08-20, 07:06 PM

This one is good too

https://youtu.be/-SbYPdXLM2s

mark f

11-08-20, 07:08 PM

J-L Cauvin.

matt72582

11-08-20, 07:36 PM

I noticed posting a J-L Cauvin video on here 8 months ago.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=61170&highlight=trump+god

cricket

11-08-20, 10:59 PM

Ok I've been looking for this and in my mind it's pretty much everything going forward to confirm this election-

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-state-legislatures-rectify-election-fraud

https://youtu.be/dDzLMoerXYg

cricket

11-08-20, 11:12 PM

Captain Steel

11-08-20, 11:37 PM

I just watched the Mark Levin show where him and his guests had time to go through it with more detail. Of course these guys are Republicans who have a vested interest, but they know what they're talking about. In summary, much of the work the dems did over the last few months to change voting laws was unconstitutional. At least that is the argument and it seems to be a compelling one.

Just an aside: Levin may be a Republican, but was not always a Trump supporter. Before the 2016 election Levin opposed Trump's candidacy and instead vociferously supported Ted Cruz (I agreed with Levin).

Just for those who may think Levin is a Trump puppet or "Trumplican" - he's actually just a Republican who would be saying the same things if any other Republican held the Presidency, and, as a constitutional lawyer, might be saying the same things if election misconduct was accused or evident if a Democrat held the Presidency.

cricket

11-08-20, 11:50 PM

Just an aside: Levin may be a Republican, but was not always a Trump supporter. Before the 2016 election Levin opposed Trump's candidacy and instead vociferously supported Ted Cruz (I agreed with Levin).

Just for those who may think Levin is a Trump puppet or "Trumplican" - he's actually just a Republican who would be saying the same things if any other Republican held the Presidency, and, as a constitutional lawyer, might be saying the same things if election misconduct was accused or evident if a Democrat held the Presidency.

That's the impression I got as the constitution seems to be his passion. I didn't know a lot about him.

Captain Steel

11-09-20, 12:36 AM

That's the impression I got as the constitution seems to be his passion. I didn't know a lot about him.

Exactly. Not that I'm a fan, but I used to listen to the radio.. he'd be on in the late afternoon / early evening and I'd listen for a little while now and then. He disliked Trump for a lot of the same reasons Democrats dislike Trump and wasn't shy about saying so. Levin touted Ted Cruz on his radio show.

Of course, like with so many other Republicans (and many Independents), when all the other Republican candidates dropped out and it was narrowed down to Trump or Hillary... there wasn't much choice (for Republicans or conservatives and a lot of Independents like me). ;)

d_chatterley

11-09-20, 12:53 AM

You guys, this dude just busted this story wiiiide open:

https://twitter.com/CemetryGates89/status/1324830812328644623
You do realize the person tweeting just went on Google and pulled up Georgia as in the country of Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)) and not Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)), one of the US states which has about 10.6mil people?

Kinda disappointed in you. I don't expect a lot from a random Trump twitterer, but I really thought you would check for facts at least on a basic level for a post that sounds so far out there. Unless, of course, you already knew it was false and just wanted to start something and drive up traffic?

Wyldesyde19

11-09-20, 01:02 AM

cricket

11-09-20, 06:30 AM

A couple of segments from the show last night that were put on the Tube-

https://youtu.be/ubm3L5Hrris

https://youtu.be/MN6MLmFptkA

Ultraviolence

11-09-20, 07:20 AM

Congrats to everyone who voted for Biden. I believe you guys are happy!
I don't fill confortable to share all my views about USA politics cause I don't live there, but as I said, I was hopping for Trump. But anyway, wish you guys the best of luck with this new governament and let's keep Biden out of the Amazon. Cheers! :)

Chypmunk

11-09-20, 07:35 AM

Apparently some people didn't vote yet ..... I guess they are simply Biden their time.
Ha! I reckon ain't nobody gonna Trump that joke :p

(Leaves quietly - head down, eyes on the floor)

Yoda

11-09-20, 08:22 AM

You do realize the person tweeting just went on Google and pulled up Georgia as in the country of Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)) and not Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)), one of the US states which has about 10.6mil people?

Kinda disappointed in you. I don't expect a lot from a random Trump twitterer, but I really thought you would check for facts at least on a basic level for a post that sounds so far out there. Unless, of course, you already knew it was false and just wanted to start something and drive up traffic?
Yes, I posted it because the person in that tweet is so anxious to believe in this that they didn't notice the difference between the state and the country. I assume you hopped into the thread, saw only this, and didn't notice I'd spent the last dozen pages decrying glib accusations of voter fraud.

So I guess now it's my turn to be a little disappointed that you thought I'd do that? :confused:

Yoda

11-09-20, 08:51 AM

I didn't realize about Pennsylvania, but the Dems put this all in motion before the U.S. got hit with the pandemic. I read an article talking about it from Feb 6. It was already happening.
Right, but can you tell me where you heard this/provide the evidence? This is really vague. For all I know "already happening" refers to some tiny expansion of mail ballots. I can't tell from your posts, which are themselves rough summaries of whatever happened.

And really, I'd just love to get everyone out of the habit of doing that: relaying half-remembered things, rather than citing specific facts. We can see in that thread how much latitude that gives people to believe things.

neiba

11-09-20, 08:59 AM

I just realized americans are faster when choosing a president for other countries than for their own... Huh...

Yoda

11-09-20, 09:16 AM

Re: vote fraud:

https://twitter.com/walterolson/status/1325050436387278848
:indifferent:

Holden Pike

11-09-20, 10:31 AM

68785

TheUsualSuspect

11-09-20, 11:28 AM

For anyone who watched it, including democrats, her implication was quite clear. I refer to the issue she raised as Biden's racially questionable voting history, as I don't like to flat out call people a racist without evidence, something many others think is a perfectly decent thing to do. During the time alluded to by Harris, Biden did say he didn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle. You can decide for yourself how to interpret that statement. Watch the clip again and you will see that it was quite clear what she was doing.

I'm sorry Cricket....but I had to laugh at this. You talk about Trump not saying the things people claim he said, then you go and do the EXACT same thing here. You claim the implication....give me a break dude. Come on. The implications about what Trump says are CLEAR to everyone. Yet you choose to ignore that. I honestly feel like you pick and choose what to believe more so than what you claim you do.

In our arguments about race during the riots and "white privilege" I posted a few links to facts and you said something along the lines of "...I doubt those facts" Then claim the facts are the opposite. It just seems a little hypocritical to me.

cricket

11-09-20, 12:19 PM

I'm sorry Cricket....but I had to laugh at this. You talk about Trump not saying the things people claim he said, then you go and do the EXACT same thing here. You claim the implication....give me a break dude. Come on. The implications about what Trump says are CLEAR to everyone. Yet you choose to ignore that. I honestly feel like you pick and choose what to believe more so than what you claim you do.

Sounds like redirection to me since you won't comment on what you think her implication was. If you want to argue about something you think Trump said or implied, I'm ready. We need to judge these things on a case by case basis.

In our arguments about race during the riots and "white privilege" I posted a few links to facts and you said something along the lines of "...I doubt those facts" Then claim the facts are the opposite. It just seems a little hypocritical to me.

My recollection is that you posted links to theories. There are no facts about white privilege.

Yoda

11-09-20, 12:26 PM

I don't really follow your response to TUS. He's making a pretty simple point: with Trump, you sometimes call things a "lie" because he did not literally say them, but you're happy to read implications from Biden even if he did not literally say a thing. It's a fair point.

Obviously, you can just say "that's different" each time, by saying you believe there is an implication in one case but not another, but that means you can't just say "he didn't say that" and leave it at that, either. And in plenty of cases, Trump's implication is pretty hard to mistake, IMO.

This is known in rhetoric as "special pleading," by the way: finding some reason a posited rule doesn't apply in a specific case. Technically it's hard to disprove, but it's also not worth much, because we can always find some difference between one thing and another which allows us to make out that any rule is still being applied fairly.

cricket

11-09-20, 12:30 PM

Right, but can you tell me where you heard this/provide the evidence? This is really vague. For all I know "already happening" refers to some tiny expansion of mail ballots. I can't tell from your posts, which are themselves rough summaries of whatever happened.

No I can't because it was a tidbit I noticed rather than something I was specifically looking for. I you don't want to believe it, that's fine. We know that the dems had a bill for mail in voting turned down back in March, just one month later. We also know that the dems and reps have been fighting over voting issues for years. We also know that 5 states, that happen to be democrat strongholds, already had mail in voting. I would say the thought, which I'm not saying you have, that dems haven't wanted more expansive mail in voting for long before the pandemic is naive. More likely, corona became a thing, and they saw it as their opportunity to pounce. You also have to wonder about the general outlook of shutdowns between dems and reps. I think for the average citizen, the more shutdowns you're dealing with, the more mail in voting makes sense. It could be a coincidence but it makes me wonder.

And really, I'd just love to get everyone out of the habit of doing that: relaying half-remembered things, rather than citing specific facts. We can see in that thread how much latitude that gives people to believe things.

I remember having conversations back in the days before the internet. People had to rely on their thoughts rather than facts they could prove. It wasn't half bad.

cricket

11-09-20, 12:30 PM

cricket

11-09-20, 12:32 PM

And just remember, I didn't call Biden a racist. I said he had a racially questionable voting history.

cricket

11-09-20, 12:34 PM

I also called out Trump for claiming Biden called blacks super predators by saying he only called criminals predators. Don't act like I don't show fairness just because you don't like what you hear.

Yoda

11-09-20, 12:46 PM

No I can't because it was a tidbit I noticed rather than something I was specifically looking for. I you don't want to believe it, that's fine.
I'm troubled by the fact that you think my options are "trust a vague half-memory" or "don't want to believe it." My position is pretty clear: get evidence, form beliefs based on that evidence. It should be easy enough to find, yeah?

If I'm skeptical, it's because I know the "no test run" thing is false in my state, a swing state, so at minimum the remembered summary is a bit off. Doesn't mean it's totally wrong, just gives me a good reason to ask for evidence to see how true it is, is all.

I think for the average citizen, the more shutdowns you're dealing with, the more mail in voting makes sense. It could be a coincidence but it makes me wonder.
There are plenty of explanations that are neither sinister nor coincidence. Sometimes events make a position you already held a very smart and reasonable one. That seems to have been the case here: they liked mail voting before (obviously), mail voting makes a TON of sense this year, so it was expanded. It's not a coincidence any more than it was a coincidence when 9/11 gave people who favored a strong foreign policy an excuse to enact related policies.

I remember having conversations back in the days before the internet. People had to rely on their thoughts rather than facts they could prove. It wasn't half bad.
It might not have felt bad, but how it felt isn't the point. I'm sure it felt great to be able to say stuff without necessarily being called out on it, but was the debate better? Maybe it was less pedantic, but I'll bet it contained way more misinformation, too. The fact that people can't do that now may be annoying, but it sure ain't unfair.

God knows there are plenty of problems with the "fact check" style of debate. Everything has its downsides. But let's be clear, we're wayyyyyyy on the low end of that here. This is literally "they did X" or "they didn't do Y" and me saying: any evidence? Nobody's nitpicking details or demanding a full briefing or anything.

ynwtf

11-09-20, 12:47 PM

Sounds like a redirection to me.
Standards apply to everyone else I suppose. Back before the internet, I remember citing references in grade school. I guess we were doing it wrong?

ynwtf

11-09-20, 12:48 PM

*correlation is not causation.

cricket

11-09-20, 01:01 PM

I'm troubled by the fact that you think my options are "trust a vague half-memory" or "don't want to believe it." My position is pretty clear: get evidence, form beliefs based on that evidence. It should be easy enough to find, yeah?

You have to remember the date I gave you. Trump already restricted travel, and even though the pandemic was not raging in America yet, it was raging elsewhere in the world. Everyone already knew about the pandemic. What I'm trying to say is that I think you're worried about me being able to provide a link (evidence), but that article was not evidence of anything to begin with. It was just something to think about, and I would say we don't even need the article to do that given other things we know. You even acknowledge below that they obviously liked mail in voting before.

There are plenty of explanations that are neither sinister nor coincidence. Sometimes events make a position you already held a very smart and reasonable one. That seems to have been the case here: they liked mail voting before (obviously), mail voting makes a TON of sense this year, so it was expanded. It's not a coincidence any more than it was a coincidence when 9/11 gave people who favored a strong foreign policy an excuse to enact related policies.

It's all possible, but I'm wondering if people who live in states that have more restrictions, usually democrat, are more apt to look at mail in voting as something that makes sense. Fair to wonder?

It might not have felt bad, but how it felt isn't the point. I'm sure it felt great to be able to say stuff without necessarily being called out on it, but was the debate better? Maybe it was less pedantic, but I'll bet it contained way more misinformation, too. The fact that people can't do that now may be annoying, but it sure ain't unfair.

God knows there are plenty of problems with the "fact check" style of debate. Everything has its downsides. But let's be clear, we're wayyyyyyy on the low end of that here. This is literally "they did X" or "they didn't do Y" and me saying: any evidence? Nobody's nitpicking details or demanding a full briefing or anything.

I think it depends on the nature of the debate. If it's one in which a final answer is important, it's good to have the ability to find the facts. Otherwise I think it's healthy to rely more on thought.

cricket

11-09-20, 01:02 PM

Sounds like a redirection to me.
Standards apply to everyone else I suppose. Back before the internet, I remember citing references in grade school. I guess we were doing it wrong?

Tell me exactly what sounds like redirection to you and I'll be happy to address it.

ynwtf

11-09-20, 01:03 PM

Tell me exactly what sounds like redirection to you and I'll be happy to address it.

I'm not sure. Something I think I read somewhere.

cricket

11-09-20, 01:08 PM

I'm not sure. Something I think I read somewhere.

I know you're being facetious and that's cool but at the same time I didn't expect a serious answer.

ynwtf

11-09-20, 01:09 PM

I know you're being facetious and that's cool but at the same time I didn't expect a serious answer.

We're in agreement now.

cricket

11-09-20, 01:10 PM

I'm not sure. Something I think I read somewhere.

You have to realize that my whole point is that the Democrats wanted mail in voting before the pandemic. Yoda actually agrees with me on that. Yet you guys are more worried about where I heard it from. Who really gives a crap if we agree?

Yoda

11-09-20, 01:14 PM

You have to remember the date I gave you. Trump already restricted travel, and even though the pandemic was not raging in America yet, it was raging elsewhere in the world. Everyone already knew about the pandemic. What I'm trying to say is that I think you're worried about me being able to provide a link (evidence), but that article was not evidence of anything to begin with. It was just something to think about, and I would say we don't even need the article to do that given other things we know. You even acknowledge below that they obviously liked mail in voting before.
I'm not sure we're on the same page here. The thing I'm asking about are the claims that they suddenly rammed it through, didn't do a test run, it happened in swing states explicitly, etc. Seems like a reasonable request, and should take very little time (less than is being spent talking about not doing it) if it's true.

It's all possible, but I'm wondering if people who live in states that have more restrictions, usually democrat, are more apt to look at mail in voting as something that makes sense. Fair to wonder?
Fair to wonder, yeah.

I think it depends on the nature of the debate. If it's one in which a final answer is important, it's good to have the ability to find the facts. Otherwise I think it's healthy to rely more on thought.
I categorically reject that there's some kind of trade between "facts" and "thought." Thought without facts is just speculation. Thought about facts, now you're cookin'.

cricket

11-09-20, 01:27 PM

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. The thing I'm asking about are the claims that they suddenly rammed it through, didn't do a test run, it happened in swing states explicitly, etc. Seems like a reasonable request, and should take very little time (less than is being spent talking about not doing it) if it's true.

I can't prove it at the moment, but I feel like you're addressing different posts. I already said I didn't know about the test run in Pennsylvania and I left it at that, even if it doesn't say anything to the rest of the states. I don't recall anything about anybody ramming anything through. I know their mail in voting bill didn't go through in March. We know that the swing states are the most contested but what about them?

I categorically reject that there's some kind of trade between "facts" and "thought." Thought without facts is just speculation. Thought about facts, now you're cookin'.

I'm not saying that facts and thought can't be connected, that would be silly, and I would say there's nothing wrong with having a conversation based on speculation. It depends on one's preference.

Yoda

11-09-20, 01:54 PM

I can't prove it at the moment, but I feel like you're addressing different posts. I already said I didn't know about the test run in Pennsylvania and I left it at that, even if it doesn't say anything to the rest of the states. I don't recall anything about anybody ramming anything through. I know their mail in voting bill didn't go through in March. We know that the swing states are the most contested but what about them?
Yeah, let's reset. I've been responding to this:
The dems suddenly started changing laws just before corona in swing states for this election (without a test run), and what we have to ask ourselves is why did they do it.
I'm asking for corroboration on a) that they started changing laws just before, b) that it was targeted to swing states, and c) that there was no test run.

I'm not saying that facts and thought can't be connected, that would be silly, and I would say there's nothing wrong with having a conversation based on speculation. It depends on one's preference.
I agree...unless there are facts available and people would rather speculate without them. In that case, the natural conclusion is that they just want to believe something and facts would get in the way of it.

That's the thing I feel like I'm seeing more of: just leading with speculation for no reason, even though it would be relatively easy to get some information, then speculate only as necessary about things like motives or implications. That people will differ on subjective things is not new, or fixable, or really a problem. When they start differing on facts, or start to think of facts as incidental to their position rather than as its foundation, then the discourse breaks down.

ynwtf

11-09-20, 01:58 PM

There were a handful of democratic states prior to this election that used mail in voting. The data suggests that there was either no change, or not change enough to matter, in who voted by mail more. What I mean is that people keep saying that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, but before this election there was no evidence to support that. The dems suddenly started changing laws just before corona in swing states for this election (without a test run), and what we have to ask ourselves is why did they do it. Republicans fought it and there is at least some question as to if what the dems did is constitutionally legal.

To go back to this quote that Yoda already responded to, and why others are asking for sources, well first you imply these changes happened without a test run though Yoda noted that was not true, at least in one state. 1 for 1. Should we just take it for face value that anything else holds water when you conflate opinion with fact or at least is not exaggeration?

You claim "data" suggests that there was no change or not enough to matter before the election as to who voted by mail more. Sure. But you (or whatever your source is that may or may not be an editorial opinion piece) assumes that exists in a vacuum. For all of your investigative prowess, why not apply that curiosity evenly to ask what might be different during this election cycle? Could it be a novel virus pandemic? Could it be that (generally speaking) Republicans feel unaffected with a portion of that voting base believing it's an outright conspiracy run by corrupt fake media; or that (generally speaking) Democrats might actually think the pandemic is legit and would prefer to error on the side of caution by submitting mail in ballots this season?

Surely, that would potentially skew past vote-by-mail patterns, no? If parts of that statement can be explained when more context is provided, why omit/ignore that context? If some parts can be explained and then removed as an argument, then what other parts could also be explained and removed given the pattern that appears when one makes that effort? Why haven't you asked that? Why didn't your source ask that?

Have you looked to see what vote totals by state are relative to 2016 or previous election years? (edit) Totals for physical election day votes vs mail-in votes? Totals by political affiliation within election day totals vs mail-in? Are those totals and gain percentages in line? If they are, then have votes honestly been affected? ANY of these questions could be asked, but weren't. I assume the source also didn't ask those questions, but I will never know. My point is, there is risk of bias here. Knowing the source of information allows 1) you to verify what you claim that until verified can only be treated as opinion, and 2) provides others a path of deduction and decision-making processes that the author used to come to these conclusions that you seem to trust without question. Why others aren't allowed that same latitude is another matter, but hey! Reading the article may convince me or others. Until then, I just have to take your word for it which is already proven to slip into opinion guised as fact.

You may be right. But here's the thing of it all: I don't care if you're right or wrong or if I or anyone else is right or wrong. My issue, as it always has been in the faux debates, is the method of coming to conclusions and how you hold others to a higher bar to clear than you do yourself. It's frustrating, dude.

I do not at all mind if we have differences of opinion. I'm more concerned with how you came to your conclusions. Hell, I might learn something. you might. Not necessary, but cool when it happens. What I hope for when entering conversations with people I disagree with is to come to some mutual understanding and agreement on verifiable facts. We can still totally disagree on the value of those facts. How does one step lead to another, to another. If I can follow that path then I might better empathize with an opposing view point. However, when one side of the argument has to maintain some standard that the other side does not, or when topics shift from one point to another when an argument is made against the earlier point, there's nothing to be learned and it becomes a game. If it's a game, then why should I take it any more seriously? I always thought it was understood that if I want to make a claim, then it's on me to provide evidence of that claim and not your responsibility to prove me wrong after the fact. I mean, unicorns exist. Prove me wrong! Kinda wonky, ain't it?

cricket

11-09-20, 02:09 PM

I'm asking for corroboration on a) that they started changing laws just before, b) that it was targeted to swing states, and c) that there was no test run.

At this point I can't even tell you if I got this information from multiple sources or just one. I found this link that you can take a look at and make of it what you will-

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06/democrats-voting-rights-2020-111716

As far as the test run, I already conceded that I was wrong about Pennsylvania, and I didn't even ask you to prove it;)

I agree...unless there are facts available and people would rather speculate without them. In that case, the natural conclusion is that they just want to believe something and facts would get in the way of it.

That's the thing I feel like I'm seeing more of: just leading with speculation for no reason, even though it would be relatively easy to get some information, then speculate only as necessary about things like motives or implications. That people will differ on subjective things is not new, or fixable, or really a problem. When they start differing on facts, or start to think of facts as incidental to their position rather than as its foundation, then the discourse breaks down.

Sure that's all good but I'm saying before the Internet, unless you're sitting in a library or something like that, there's not a lot of facts that you have access to and conversation was excellent. I have my own personal preference and in fact don't even have a desire for people to provide a link here. If I question something somebody says, I like to look it up myself. There are also plenty of points that don't have facts or evidence either way and completely rely on speculation. Is there evidence of voter fraud? Not that I know of. Is there evidence that there was no voter fraud? Definitely not. That only matters in a court of law, not necessarily in a conversation.

cricket

11-09-20, 02:23 PM

You claim "data" suggests that there was no change or not enough to matter before the election as to who voted by mail more. Sure. But you (or whatever your source is that may or may not be an editorial opinion piece) assumes that exists in a vacuum. For all of your investigative prowess, why not apply that curiosity evenly to ask what might be different during this election cycle? Could it be a novel virus pandemic? Could it be that (generally speaking) Republicans feel unaffected with a portion of that voting base believing it's an outright conspiracy run by corrupt fake media; or that (generally speaking) Democrats might actually think the pandemic is legit and would prefer to error on the side of caution by submitting mail in ballots this season?

I know there's a lot of posts to look through but I've already said this and agree with it. My question is who knew it before the election came? It would seem that the dems knew for whatever reason and that's why they pushed for mail in. It would also seem that Trump thought it was going to hurt him. Why did he think it would hurt him? He could have pushed for reps to vote by mail as well but he didn't. Was he genuinely worried about fraud?

Have you looked to see what vote totals by state are relative to 2016 or previous election years? (edit) Totals for physical election day votes vs mail-in votes? Totals by political affiliation within election day totals vs mail-in? Are those totals and gain percentages in line? If they are, then have votes honestly been affected? ANY of these questions could be asked, but weren't. I assume the source also didn't ask those questions, but I will never know. My point is, there is risk of bias here. Knowing the source of information allows 1) you to verify what you claim that until verified can only be treated as opinion, and 2) provides others a path of deduction and decision-making processes that the author used to come to these conclusions that you seem to trust without question. Why others aren't allowed that same latitude is another matter, but hey! Reading the article may convince me or others. Until then, I just have to take your word for it which is already proven to slip into opinion guised as fact.

You have to remember that I've made no declaration of fraud, and I have said that if there is any, it could have just as easily come from the Republicans.

You may be right. But here's the thing of it all: I don't care if you're right or wrong or if I or anyone else is right or wrong. My issue, as it always has been in the faux debates, is the method of coming to conclusions and how you hold others to a higher bar to clear than you do yourself. It's frustrating, dude.

Have you seen me asking anybody for a link or any type of evidence?

cricket

11-09-20, 02:40 PM

If somebody says something that turns out to be factually incorrect, some of you guys take it like a personal insult. You could just say hey, actually that's not true maybe you should look that up some more. Instead I get, OMG HOW DARE YOU NOT REPORT THE FACTS!! Hunter is that you?

ynwtf

11-09-20, 02:52 PM

I know there's a lot of posts to look through but I've already said this and agree with it. My question is who knew it before the election came? It would seem that the dems knew for whatever reason and that's why they pushed for mail in.

Totally possible. It could also be that these pushes came 2 years ago to balance what they may have believed to be out of balance. I have no idea. I don't have the source. See argument post above.

It would also seem that Trump thought it was going to hurt him. Why did he think it would hurt him? He could have pushed for reps to vote by mail as well but he didn't. Was he genuinely worried about fraud?

He was genuinely worried about the numbers. Let me throw another perspective at you.

Assuming what I added in my reply earlier with the suggestion that Democratic votes would likely take advantage of mail-in options as opposed to standing in line on election day due to fears of C-19, then it would be reasonable to believe the majority of Democratic votes would not be made on election day, but rather earlier through mail-in votes. If that is true (let's assume so for argument's sake), then the more I scream fraud with mail-in votes, the more likely I am to get attention on that. The more attention I bring, the more likely I might get others to agree with me with the goal being to dismiss mail-in votes. Or to stop counting votes on election day knowing that mail-in counts are ongoing past election day.

There are a lot of states that aren't legally able to start counting until election day. Some before. Some not until polls close. This varies state to state (link for days (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/23/926258497/when-will-mail-in-ballots-be-counted-see-states-processing-timelines)and link for times (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx) ;) )

So if I'm expecting a large percentage of opposition votes coming in via mail, then why NOT claim fraud? The more votes I can have thrown out the better, especially considering that most of those votes will probably be Democrat votes (even if it means tossing military votes) because most of MY votes are going to land ON election day because my people ain't skeered.

That could be why he thought it would hurt him. Because most likely, it would if played out. And it did. If he pushed for Republicans to vote by mail he would have appeared weak and I don't think there's anyway ever that he would have considered doing so given his rhetoric on masks, arguing Fauci, etc., that would have been counter to most of his posturing to date. Personally, I think had he made that relatively small gesture---that people SHOULD vote by mail due to risk of C-19 infection---then he might have earned some respect from some voters seeing a more compassionate side in him and that could have given him an edge more than claiming fraud.

Just for argument's sake, of course.

cricket

11-09-20, 03:14 PM

Totally possible. It could also be that these pushes came 2 years ago to balance what they may have believed to be out of balance. I have no idea. I don't have the source. See argument post above.

And I've also argued this, basically to say that Corona was just an opportunity to put through what they already wanted.

He was genuinely worried about the numbers. Let me throw another perspective at you.

Assuming what I added in my reply earlier with the suggestion that Democratic votes would likely take advantage of mail-in options as opposed to standing in line on election day due to fears of C-19, then it would be reasonable to believe the majority of Democratic votes would not be made on election day, but rather earlier through mail-in votes. If that is true (let's assume so for argument's sake), then the more I scream fraud with mail-in votes, the more likely I am to get attention on that. The more attention I bring, the more likely I might get others to agree with me with the goal being to dismiss mail-in votes. Or to stop counting votes on election day knowing that mail-in counts are ongoing past election day.

There are a lot of states that aren't legally able to start counting until election day. Some before. Some not until polls close. This varies state to state (link for days (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/23/926258497/when-will-mail-in-ballots-be-counted-see-states-processing-timelines)and link for times (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx) ;) )

So if I'm expecting a large percentage of opposition votes coming in via mail, then why NOT claim fraud? The more votes I can have thrown out the better, especially considering that most of those votes will probably be Democrat votes (even if it means tossing military votes) because most of MY votes are going to land ON election day because my people ain't skeered.

That could be why he thought it would hurt him. Because most likely, it would if played out. And it did. If he pushed for Republicans to vote by mail he would have appeared weak and I don't think there's anyway ever that he would have considered doing so given his rhetoric on masks, arguing Fauci, etc., that would have been counter to most of his posturing to date. Personally, I think had he made that relatively small gesture---that people SHOULD vote by mail due to risk of C-19 infection---then he might have earned some respect from some voters seeing a more compassionate side in him and that could have given him an edge more than claiming fraud.

Just for argument's sake, of course.

All very reasonable, but I also feel quite confident that he didn't/doesn't trust the dems and I don't blame him. If I had to guess, I would say we are both right.

cricket

11-09-20, 03:23 PM

This is an article from before the election. Maybe it was cleared up? I don't know.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/in-the-news/1-8-mill-ghost-voters/

Miss Vicky

11-09-20, 04:43 PM

Yoda

11-09-20, 05:05 PM

Re: COVID timing. I mean, it was HERE in some force in mid-March, but to public health experts that was a foregone conclusion and had been for months. For a citizen, just looking at what Trump said, it might seem reasonable given what we knew, but it isn't given what he was being told repeatedly at the time. And even ignoring that, the insouciance even just a couple of months ago is totally inexplicable.

Love Trump or hate him, we all know he just insists something is great whether it is or not. To his apologists it's just normal salesmanship (I think it goes well beyond that, but whatever). But that doesn't work. The virus does not respond to salesmanship or "optimism" or bluster. It's pure reality, and that's why he was unprepared for it. It was something that could not be spun or framed. But that's all he knows, so he tried it anyway, with predictable results.

Equilibrium

11-09-20, 05:29 PM

The democrats went all across America to change state's voting laws before this election, and contrary to popular belief they started before corona. Trump has said from the beginning that they were trying to rig the election. The common Trump supporter looked at it as shady from the very beginning, but then as you watch it play out it starts to make you wonder even more. There's certainly a valid reason why it ended up being so many more democrats than republicans who voted by mail with how their parties supported it or were against it, but nobody knew that when it first started. So my question is why did the dems change the laws right before the election in the first place? It wasn't because of the virus, but obviously they saw some advantage for them doing it. You can't not be skeptical. Trump knew this from the beginning and it played out that way.

The democrats have used a lot of dirty tricks to bring Trump down, and I am very comfortable calling some of their tactics downright evil.

I'm wondering if you just get your news from the main stream media? If that's true, be skeptical of everything you hear. The most true thing Donald Trump has ever said is "fake news".

Pal, if democrats went around the country and changed state laws to allow MORE people to vote that is in no way a rigged election or shady.

Think about it in the negative: "Let's NOT change state laws to allow more voting, less democrats voting means we republicans have a better chance of winning."

So, by all means complain all you want but to paraphrase the current white house occupant "that's not called cheating, that's called being smart."

cricket

11-09-20, 05:29 PM

I’m really confused as to what people think the timeline of “the pandemic” is. The first known COVID case in the U.S. was reported in January, though it was someone who had been traveling recently. The first confirmed case of someone who caught it and had not been traveling occurred in February (at a hospital within walking distance of my house). U.S. state/local ordered “lockdowns” may not have occurred until March, but the pandemic had already begun and had been reported in at least 21 other countries by the time the U.S. reported its first case.

And a lot of that was my argument when I was discussing with Yoda about if Trump hiding what he knew cost lives. We knew about it but still waited until it was getting bad before any kind of restrictions started. Yoda had good points and we came to a decent mutual agreement so I'd rather not rehash it.

Re: COVID timing. I mean, it was HERE in some force in mid-March, but to public health experts that was a foregone conclusion and had been for months. For a citizen, just looking at what Trump said, it might seem reasonable given what we knew, but it isn't given what he was being told repeatedly at the time. And even ignoring that, the insouciance even just a couple of months ago is totally inexplicable.

Love Trump or hate him, we all know he just insists something is great whether it is or not. To his apologists it's just normal salesmanship (I think it goes well beyond that, but whatever). But that doesn't work. The virus does not respond to salesmanship or "optimism" or bluster. It's pure reality, and that's why he was unprepared for it. It was something that could not be spun or framed. But that's all he knows, so he tried it anyway, with predictable results.

You should really set up a Trump emoji, it would be tremendously tremendous:leo:

cricket

11-09-20, 05:33 PM

Pal, if democrats went around the country and changed state laws to allow MORE people to vote that is in no way a rigged election or shady.

Think about it in the negative: "Let's NOT change state laws to allow more voting, less democrats voting means we republicans have a better chance of winning."

So, by all means complain all you want but to paraphrase the current white house occupant "that's not called cheating, that's called being smart."

I'm not complaining about it and haven't alleged fraud, and I even said if there were fraud it could have come from either side. I think there's a lot to this that has a bad look and I don't think that's unreasonable.

Equilibrium

11-09-20, 05:37 PM

I'm not complaining about it and haven't alleged fraud, and I even said if there were fraud it could have come from either side. I think there's a lot to this that has a bad look and I don't think that's unreasonable.

I don't see how anyone can look at an election where 74 million votes went to democrats and 71 million votes went to republicans as a bad look. A lot of people participated. And the bigger congrats probably goes to republicans on the ground who somehow got republicans to show up in force in a physical manner. But the mail in voting... Just as legitimate and impressive my friend.

cricket

11-09-20, 05:44 PM

I don't see how anyone can look at an election where 74 million votes went to democrats and 71 million votes went to republicans as a bad look. A lot of people participated. And the bigger congrats probably goes to republicans on the ground who somehow got republicans to show up in force in a physical manner. But the mail in voting... Just as legitimate and impressive my friend.

It's not really the results about who won or lost that I'm concerned with. I'm more concerned with the voting process. I'm not claiming anything, but my guess would be that there are too many votes, more than usual, that were either counted or dismissed when they shouldn't have been. That could have given an edge to either side or it could have evened out in the end. I don't think there's anything controversial about thinking that.

Miss Vicky

11-09-20, 05:45 PM

And a lot of that was my argument when I was discussing with Yoda about if Trump hiding what he knew cost lives. We knew about it but still waited until it was getting bad before any kind of restrictions started. Yoda had good points and we came to a decent mutual agreement so I'd rather not rehash it.

I'm not talking about what Trump did or didn't do (and I'm not going to keep responding to you about this for reasons I've already stated), but for clarification I was referring to the statement that Democrats were pushing for mail in ballots before the pandemic and that some article dated in February proves that.

cricket

11-09-20, 05:55 PM

I'm not talking about what Trump did or didn't do (and I'm not going to keep responding to you about this for reasons I've already stated), but for clarification I was referring to the statement that Democrats were pushing for mail in ballots before the pandemic and that some article dated in February proves that.

That's fine, but it's fair to say that the dems wanted mail in ballots prior to the pandemic.

cricket

11-10-20, 07:47 AM

Please read

It's not about forcing my viewpoint on to you, it's about understanding. I don't need reaction, I just want you to think about it.

I have a ton to say about this but I'm going to keep it as short as I can.

Contrary to popular belief, I have not been in this thread to argue. I have read a lot of things here that I disagree with, and can even prove inaccurate, but I left most of it alone because I don't care. I care about the important stuff.

This is much bigger than me, anyone who reads this, this election, or the candidates involved.

Some of this will be rehashing things I've said before, but I want to piece it together.

It's 2016 and I don't have much to say in the Trump thread. I've never followed politics closely and I don't even know the difference between republican and democrat, or liberal and conservative. Based on minimal info and how candidates came off to me during debates in the past, I voted for Obama, Bush, and Clinton. I follow 2016 more closely because Trump being in it makes it more fascinating than usual. I'm a free agent and with having no leaning towards either side, unbiased. I didn't trust Hilary because of some things I learned about her and I didn't find her likable, so I didn't vote for her. I didn't vote for Trump because I didn't have enough confidence in his ability to do the job and he didn't do enough to earn my vote. I wondered why these candidates were the best we could do. I forget the details, but my understanding was that if one of the independents got 5% of the vote, it would shake things up. So that's how I voted.

This is when I really started to get interested in things, and I don't remember for sure if it was before or after the 2016 election, but it doesn't matter. I watched one of Trump's conferences or whatever you'd call it. If it was before the election it didn't do anything to sway me to him, and if it was after the election I just didn't think much of it. What did get my complete attention was the reaction to the conference. I remember very specifically watching CNN, and hearing what I thought were journalists admonishing Trump for calling Mexicans rapists. I remember thinking, wait, I watched the conference and I did not hear him say that. I watched it again to make sure that I didn't miss something, and sure enough he said nothing of the sort. I knew what he was talking about the entire time and he in no way implied it either. "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best." He's talking about the Mexican government sending in mostly bad people that they don't want to deal with, not the good people coming on their own looking for a better life. This is something he talked of more than once, and he talked about the border patrol who told him about it. Granted, with the odd way he often talks, sometimes you need to read between the lines. If you go back a few years, and feel free to look it up, Hilary Clinton talked about this exact same thing. Read this to understand- http://www.newstandardpress.com/trump-mexicans-and-the-media/

Above is the first big lie so now let's get to the wall. I posted a video earlier of a few democrats including Hilary, Obama, and Schumer talking about the need for a wall or some type of a physical barrier. There have been plenty of other democrats over the years who have supported this. They were never called racist and why would they be? It's not a controversial thing. On the other hand, people believe Trump called Mexicans rapists so they see it as a hateful and racist undertaking. This is where a lie becomes a false narrative.

There are many things that Trump has been falsely accused of but I'm just going to go into detail on one more big one, and that's the aftermath of Charlottesville. This big lie, which I still hear all the time, is that he called white supremacists "very fine people". This is so incredibly ridiculous because he was very specific in excluding them. Go back and watch the full video or read the transcript if you don't believe me. This is also a situation he talked about more than once and went in to some detail about. He talked about other people who were there who were completely peaceful, who for a variety of reasons opposed the taking down of statues. There are many people of all colors who have this opinion. When he says "very fine people on both sides", he's acting as a mediator. This is what people say who are looking to bring people together! Look- https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

Those two lies are the big ones that I still here on a regular basis. There are other accusations against him of racism that can be taken apart for a variety of reasons. My wife voted for Hilary but by this time she's completely disgusted with what the man is being accused of.

For the last 4 years I have followed politics much more closely and I've learned a lot about past history. In fact, I've learned much more in 4 years than I knew in total prior. Fast forward to the 2020 election after 4 years of observing, learning, and coming to my own conclusions. My vote went to Donald Trump, and 1 of the reasons was for what I thought was best for the black community. If the only issue I was voting on was the black community, my vote would have still been Trump. I have a lot of thoughts and reasons for this. I'm not going to make this post any longer than necessary because my thoughts and reasons are not important. What's important is that I believe in them, even if I'm wrong about some things.

By comparison, I believe that Joe Biden has a more questionable history when it comes to race than Donald Trump. Much more questionable to be blunt. Kamala Harris called out Joe Biden during the democratic primary for his past voting record. The issue was busing, and at the time Joe Biden said this, "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point." He's said a lot more than that over the years, and if he happened to be somebody as despised as Trump, I'd be willing to bet that people would consider things that he has said worse than anything Trump has ever said. I'm actually not trying to attack Biden and I would not call him a racist. I do not know the man, I don't know what he was thinking, and I don't know what's in his heart. What I am trying to do is point out the hypocrisy from the voters, the democrat party, and the media.

Being called a racist is one of the worst things you can be called. Before calling someone a racist, you ought to make damn sure you have evidence. There's plenty of reasons to criticize Trump, but just because you're a whore that doesn't mean you deserve to get raped. Donald Trump just got a higher percentage of non white votes than any republican candidate since 1960. I don't think they voted that way because they are stupid, and I would say they did it because they are smart. That doesn't mean the ones who didn't vote for him are stupid. They either believed the narrative or they had a different point of view. I am very comfortable with saying that Donald Trump is not a racist, and I have a lot of reasons why I believe that. That doesn't mean he definitely isn't because anybody could be. I just believe that decent people should give others the benefit of the doubt unless there's convincing evidence to the contrary. I have looked long and hard and I can't find any. You know how Trump sometimes says, "I am the least racist person there is"? It's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Some people like to say that it means he's really racist, but that's an equally ridiculous thing to say. The thing is, when he says that, he actually believes it. Do a quick experiment. Close your eyes, and pick whatever you think Trump said or did that was racist, and imagine that it was Obama who was saying or doing it. If you can do it in good faith, I believe you could see a difference. I'm not picking Obama because he's black btw, I'm picking him because his personality inspires trust and confidence. Color should not matter.

I've given you a reason as to why you shouldn't call Trump a racist. Now I'm going to give you the biggest reason which is the crux of my post and why this has been a big deal for me. You shouldn't call him a racist because he is the president of the United States and he just happens to have millions of mostly good supporters. I've explained my thoughts on the matter, and I'm far from the only person who feels that way. Donald Trump is blamed for dividing the country and it's all because of his supposed racism. Some of it stems from police violence but even that is amplified by the idea that we have a racist president. I've given you the two most commonly used examples of his racism, and hopefully you agree that just maybe they were not racist remarks after all. If he didn't actually say those things, then he is not the person who has actually divided the country, but rather it's the democrats, media, and citizens who have perpetrated these lies. Now I don't blame the people because I think it's human nature to believe something when you hear it enough, especially when it's regarding a person you already don't like. However, the media and politicians do know what they are doing and it is downright evil. Seriously, how many times have you heard these lies repeated? They have divided the country and many people have been hurt. Do people with Trump hats deserve to be called Nazis and get attacked? Think about what you have seen. Families have been split up and friendships destroyed all for political purpose. People have been hurt and killed. Trump will stand their claiming he did this and that and he could be full of it, but it's not hurting anyone. While campaigning, Biden and Harris are telling people Trump called Mexicans rapists and white supremacists very fine people. Think of the ramifications for your friends and neighbors who just have a different political view than you. Now they want unity? The race game is nothing new for the democrats. They used it before Trump and they'll use it after. Call Trump a racist, create division, blame Trump, and take back the White House. Now it's getting worse. Look at what Michelle Obama said, "Tens of millions voted for lies, hate, chaos". Does that sound like somebody for unity? How about division? I'll go with #2. AOC said "Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future?” There are people who have a voice who are talking about Trump supporters like they should be hunted down like murderous Nazis. Think of the far reaching consequences of calling this guy a racist. This is stuff that should scare the crap out of all of us. People are calling him a racist, a horrible human being, and a piece of crap. You don't know that and nothing positive can come from it, but plenty of bad does. Wouldn't it be enough to say you don't like him, or you don't trust him, and simply vote for someone else? We need to start being more thoughtful and most of all we need to stick together.
◦

honeykid

11-10-20, 10:22 AM

That's a very thoughtful post, cricket. Thank you for taking the time to put your thoughts out there as succinctly as possible.

I think a lot of the racist accusations can be placed at the feet of Dog Whistle Politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)) which allows either side to argue the way they see it and both be correct, IMO.

I'd guess that Trump is racist because when it suits him he's happy to use it. However, I'm sure he's used DWP to whip up people he knows will vote for him. The part you mention about 'Mexico not sending their best people' is a classic example of DWP. You've not 'heard' it because it's not aimed at you and you're happy to accept the context/excuse/reason.

I think a lot of your anger and suspicion is natural. Especially in a country which has big partisan newsbroadcasters which have turned journalism into ratings grabbing entertainment and it, along with social media, have allowed people to hear nothing but what they want. But I also wonder if it comes from naivety? You said yourself that 4 years ago you didn't even know the basics, such as what was a Dem or a Rep and hadn't paid attention to previous political campaigns. Trump caught your attention because he was entertaining and, maybe, it was the right time in your life to want to know? So you go into it thinking everyone is treated the same and all news is true (OK, maybe not quite that naive, but I've read much of what you've written in this thread and that's how it's come across to me). Those of us who've seen this show before know that isn't the case and so we sort what we instantly know/suspect to be bollocks from that which might not be. Through our own prejudices and experiences, of course. Through that we find what we 'believe' and give it a value. Some are unquestionable. Others we are willing to move on if shown reason to. Again, this depends on where we sit on the political spectrum or our beliefs and experiences. For example, I don't think anyone would/could ever convince me that social healthcare shouldn't exist or that the bad of it (because nothing is perfect) outweighs the good. My belief in it is strong because I've lived in a country where it's the norm my entire life. It's cared for me and those I love throughout that time and I'd certainly be dead without it, as would other family members. It's more than just logic or ideology. It's emotional and that's why it's so strong.

This is where Trump (and all Populists and/or Nationalists) live and why their supporters are so devoted to them. In a nation where patriotism is so strong and a part of everyday life, everyone weaponises it (and has done for decades/centuries) for their own purposes. An attack on Trump (or whoever uses it) is a personal attack and an attack on the country. It's an attack on a friend and most of us don't like to hear bad things about our friends and we're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and, in some cases, more than happy to excuse things we wouldn't like in others or ourselves.

I've seen you 'defend' some things which Trump has said or done, (the Mexican example you used) whereas you've thought badly of someone else (Harris' comments on Biden and race) who also never said what they're accused of, but you've decided to interpret those things in 'Trump's' favour because it suits your argument. That's how you've 'heard' it. I'm not having a go at you, everyone does it at times, the thing is whether or not you can admit it and return to a neutral position when it's pointed out.

I'd also agree that Trump didn't split the nation. If anything, I'd say the split in the nation is what's allowed Trump to prosper and become President. The reason it was funny in The Simpson's when they showed Trump as a future President was because it was a ridiculous idea at the time to practically anyone who wasn't Donald Trump.

I've said for years that the US was becoming too polarised to govern properly. The last part of that can be argued against, but I don't think the first part can be. The number of undecided/floating voters seems to have gotten smaller and smaller as the decades pass as the politics became more tribal and cross-party co-operation seemed to be well thought of but not something most would/could risk doing because they look weak or disloyal to the Party. That's if they even believed it was a good thing to do.

cricket

11-10-20, 12:51 PM

That's a very thoughtful post, cricket. Thank you for taking the time to put your thoughts out there as succinctly as possible.

Thank you for reading.

I think a lot of the racist accusations can be placed at the feet of Dog Whistle Politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)) which allows either side to argue the way they see it and both be correct, IMO.

I'd guess that Trump is racist because when it suits him he's happy to use it. However, I'm sure he's used DWP to whip up people he knows will vote for him. The part you mention about 'Mexico not sending their best people' is a classic example of DWP. You've not 'heard' it because it's not aimed at you and you're happy to accept the context/excuse/reason.

Identifying the use of dog whistles often takes a certain amount of guesswork. I watched what he said live and thought it was clear what he was saying. I took what he said at face value, not only because is it a real issue, but because he's not the first politician to bring it up. I think someone believing they can see into his brain and detect hidden messages and motivations requires a certain level of delusion. Obama deported a record number of people. I'm not criticizing him; I'm just saying that's what it is and it's not a pleasant thing. Trump was trying to nip it in the bud before it came to that, not a bad thing. There has been many times when he said we want them to come in, we just want them to come in legally. Oh but he thinks they're rapists? Is this some kind of reverse dog whistle? Sometimes people want to overthink things.

I think a lot of your anger and suspicion is natural. Especially in a country which has big partisan newsbroadcasters which have turned journalism into ratings grabbing entertainment and it, along with social media, have allowed people to hear nothing but what they want. But I also wonder if it comes from naivety? You said yourself that 4 years ago you didn't even know the basics, such as what was a Dem or a Rep and hadn't paid attention to previous political campaigns. Trump caught your attention because he was entertaining and, maybe, it was the right time in your life to want to know? So you go into it thinking everyone is treated the same and all news is true (OK, maybe not quite that naive, but I've read much of what you've written in this thread and that's how it's come across to me). Those of us who've seen this show before know that isn't the case and so we sort what we instantly know/suspect to be bollocks from that which might not be. Through our own prejudices and experiences, of course. Through that we find what we 'believe' and give it a value. Some are unquestionable. Others we are willing to move on if shown reason to. Again, this depends on where we sit on the political spectrum or our beliefs and experiences. For example, I don't think anyone would/could ever convince me that social healthcare shouldn't exist or that the bad of it (because nothing is perfect) outweighs the good. My belief in it is strong because I've lived in a country where it's the norm my entire life. It's cared for me and those I love throughout that time and I'd certainly be dead without it, as would other family members. It's more than just logic or ideology. It's emotional and that's why it's so strong.

I was certainly naive about it yet still have every right to be angry about it. You must not forget that I had no favoritism towards Trump. The proof of that is the fact that I did not vote for him despite my dislike for his opponent. I was a blank canvas forming my opinion in real time based on what I was actually seeing. On the other hand, you didn't like him even before he ran for president, and I know this from a prior conversation we had. That's fine, but then you must realize that you have an already formed opinion of the man which could very easily affect how you judge him going forward.

This is where Trump (and all Populists and/or Nationalists) live and why their supporters are so devoted to them. In a nation where patriotism is so strong and a part of everyday life, everyone weaponises it (and has done for decades/centuries) for their own purposes. An attack on Trump (or whoever uses it) is a personal attack and an attack on the country. It's an attack on a friend and most of us don't like to hear bad things about our friends and we're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and, in some cases, more than happy to excuse things we wouldn't like in others or ourselves.

Start with Clinton's deplorables quote and end with Michelle Obama's quote, and look at everything in between. They are demonizing 70 million people. The lies I posted are a big part of that puzzle. Doesn't anybody else have a problem with this?

I've seen you 'defend' some things which Trump has said or done, (the Mexican example you used) whereas you've thought badly of someone else (Harris' comments on Biden and race) who also never said what they're accused of, but you've decided to interpret those things in 'Trump's' favour because it suits your argument. That's how you've 'heard' it. I'm not having a go at you, everyone does it at times, the thing is whether or not you can admit it and return to a neutral position when it's pointed out.

I think this is ridiculous and it's not the first time I've been accused of being hypocritical while pointing out hypocrisy. I would say it's where your bias is showing through. I'm not calling anybody a racist. I'm just pointing out, without judgement, that Harris attacked Biden's questionable voting history during one of the debates. During the time Harris pointed out, Biden used the "racial jungle" quote. I was very specific in saying that I wouldn't call Biden a racist because I don't know what he was thinking or what's in his heart. I have often criticized Trump and I have even defended Biden, including defending him from an attack by Trump. I'm pointing out incidents and saying, you make of that what you will. There's a lot of people who feign outrage over things Trump has said, only to ignore someone else who has said things just as bad or worse.

I'd also agree that Trump didn't split the nation. If anything, I'd say the split in the nation is what's allowed Trump to prosper and become President. The reason it was funny in The Simpson's when they showed Trump as a future President was because it was a ridiculous idea at the time to practically anyone who wasn't Donald Trump.

Very interesting, but demonizing 70 million people. 70 million. What does that do to a nation's unity?

I've said for years that the US was becoming too polarised to govern properly. The last part of that can be argued against, but I don't think the first part can be. The number of undecided/floating voters seems to have gotten smaller and smaller as the decades pass as the politics became more tribal and cross-party co-operation seemed to be well thought of but not something most would/could risk doing because they look weak or disloyal to the Party. That's if they even believed it was a good thing to do.

As much as I can't stand what the Democrats have been doing the last four years, I will remain a floating voter. I think people who identify as dem or rep are placing themselves in a box. They lose their ability to be fair and I am seeing a lot of that right now. You are not seeing that from me.

Yoda

11-10-20, 12:54 PM

This is an article from before the election. Maybe it was cleared up? I don't know.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/in-the-news/1-8-mill-ghost-voters/
Explanation here (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ghost-voters-in-29-states/). Short version: Judicial Watch was not actually looking at the number of eligible voters, they're taking a random sample and just extrapolating from it, which doesn't really work. It's also out of date: they're taking a five-year average that ends in 2018.

Took me about a minute to find this explanation, FWIW.

cricket

11-10-20, 01:02 PM

Explanation here (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ghost-voters-in-29-states/). Short version: Judicial Watch was not actually looking at the number of eligible voters, they're taking a random sample and just extrapolating from it, which doesn't really work. It's also out of date: they're taking a five-year average that ends in 2018.

Took me about a minute to find this explanation, FWIW.

Thanks, I figured there was probably some reasonable explanation. I should have looked it up myself but I've already been spending more time than I should.

Miss Vicky

11-10-20, 01:12 PM

Putting partisan stuff aside (though, again, I am not and never have been a Democrat), as a
Californian I have to say that no matter what I had thought of Trump in 2016, I would hate him now and would have voted for Biden regardless. Trump has time and again treated my state as his enemy. He threatened to cut federal disaster relief for wildfires despite the fact that much of what has burned has been on federal land.

68819

Then he had the nerve to visit what was left of Paradise - a town the burned to that ground in a fire that killed 86 people - and couldn't even have the decency to get the town's ****ing name right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SORz8mjULsg

And now he says we're going to hell.

68820

These are just a few examples and California isn't alone. He views blue states as his enemies. Anyone who is not with him is against him and is to be shunned and mocked. This is not how the leader of The United States of America should act. This is the behavior of a petulant man child.

January 20th cannot come soon enough.

Ultraviolence

11-10-20, 01:27 PM

CNN Brasil said that Biden "already won" for president. In addition, they put Trump as a DEMON from the start. I would be very confused if it weren't for independent journalism. https://conexaopolitica.com.br/artigo/opiniao/saiba-como-joe-biden-presidente-seria-pessimo-para-o-brasil-e-os-eua/ Through this article, I was able to find this: https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2020/9/14/biden-2020-analysis You know, I don't understand why anyone would vote for Biden, he doesn't even know how to speak. He reminds me of Dilma Rousself, and that makes me very apprehensive. Dilma is probably the worst president our country has ever had (as well as Lula, a damn thief); reading this topic, I found a good answer to that question. But sometimes I think people are more anxious to see Trump lose than to see Biden win.

Citizen Rules

11-10-20, 01:28 PM

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=68820

Holy crap! I didn't know he had said that. What a child-man Trump was

Sir Toose

11-10-20, 01:31 PM

Tucker makes some relevant points.

https://youtu.be/R5ki6S-WsKU

John McClane

11-10-20, 01:34 PM

You know, I don't understand why anyone would vote for Biden, he doesn't even know how to speak.As opposed to the guy whose use of adjectives can be counted with one hand? ;)

Ultraviolence

11-10-20, 01:35 PM

As opposed to the guy whose use of adjectives can be counted with one hand? ;)
ha-ha
Well said.

Yoda

11-10-20, 01:53 PM

Thanks, I figured there was probably some reasonable explanation. I should have looked it up myself but I've already been spending more time than I should.
Yeah, I wasn't saying that last thing to take a shot at you, just to be clear. Just for others, so everyone understands that they don't usually have to invest a ton of time in sorting this stuff out. 90% of the time it takes a minute or two.

Yoda

11-10-20, 01:59 PM

You know, I don't understand why anyone would vote for Biden
I think this should be a big red flag, personally. You should usually be able to put yourself in the other side's shoes enough to at least sort of understand how they could do it. I think the same thing about people who can't fathom anyone voting for Trump. 70+ million people voted for BOTH, so it won't do to pretend either group is just stupid or brainwashed or something. If it seems unthinkable, that means we're missing something about the other side.

he doesn't even know how to speak.
This simply isn't true. As I noted earlier in the thread, if you just follow conservatives on Twitter or FB or whatever, you'll see every time he stutters or stumbles and nothing else, and it seems like he's senile. But Google his acceptance speech, or even speeches on the same day as some of those viral clips, and you'll see him speaking fine, at length. The impression you get is going to be based on which selection of things you expose yourself to.

That, and there's a weird thing going on where people think stumbling over words or using the wrong words is somehow more damning than rambling forever and changing the topic out of nowhere, as Trump obviously does all the time. It may sound better because it's energetic, but I'm not sure it's any better from a mental acuity standpoint.

But sometimes I think people are more anxious to see Trump lose than to see Biden win.
Yes, this is certainly true. A lot of people aren't trying to hide it, either. But that's how it works sometimes. We have been lax, as an electorate, which means we get crappy candidates and end up voting for the Least Bad option sometimes.

Ultraviolence

11-10-20, 02:26 PM

I think this should be a big red flag, personally. You should usually be able to put yourself in the other side's shoes enough to at least sort of understand how they could do it. I think the same thing about people who can't fathom anyone voting for Trump. 70+ million people voted for BOTH, so it won't do to pretend either group is just stupid or brainwashed or something. If it seems unthinkable, that means we're missing something about the other side.

This simply isn't true. As I noted earlier in the thread, if you just follow conservatives on Twitter or FB or whatever, you'll see every time he stutters or stumbles and nothing else, and it seems like he's senile. But Google his acceptance speech, or even speeches on the same day as some of those viral clips, and you'll see him speaking fine, at length. The impression you get is going to be based on which selection of things you expose yourself to.

That, and there's a weird thing going on where people think stumbling over words or using the wrong words is somehow more damning than rambling forever and changing the topic out of nowhere, as Trump obviously does all the time. It may sound better because it's energetic, but I'm not sure it's any better from a mental acuity standpoint.

Yes, this is certainly true. A lot of people aren't trying to hide it, either. But that's how it works sometimes. We have been lax, as an electorate, which means we get crappy candidates and end up voting for the Least Bad option sometimes.

Oh, I understand that. Brazil went through this for many years.
Thank you for answering, Yoda :). This thread is beeing very revealing for an outsider like me to actually take a look at US politics - I try to look to both sides with bright eyes, even if I don't like Biden, (not a big fan of Trump too, I just liked how american government approached to Brazil during his time) but I don't even know Biden's history, my opinion on him is mostly based on economy articles and, the major issue: how he'll approaches to Brazil? To be more specific: Whats his interest in AMAZON? Most of brazilian doesn't like how Macron acts like if he's responsible for what happens here (also, don't trust everything DiCaprio said on his Instagram, he make a lot and a lot of mistakes, including fake news, unfortunately). Amazon is ours! Macron doesn't even take care of a small country like French Guiana and wants to take care of a big and complex country like Brazil.

Yoda

11-10-20, 02:38 PM

Yeah yeah, no worries man. I appreciate you responding this way. Hope I didn't come off as scolding or anything. Just trying to explain. I think it's very tough these days, because we ultimately kind of control what we do or don't see, and we don't even realize it, which shows how people can come to such different conclusions sometimes. It's challenging.

Ultraviolence

11-10-20, 02:42 PM

:D I understand.

Citizen Rules

11-10-20, 02:49 PM

What specifically has Biden said about the Amazon region?

cricket

11-10-20, 02:55 PM

Putting partisan stuff aside (though, again, I am not and never have been a Democrat), as a
Californian I have to say that no matter what I had thought of Trump in 2016, I would hate him now and would have voted for Biden regardless. Trump has time and again treated my state as his enemy. He threatened to cut federal disaster relief for wildfires despite the fact that much of what has burned has been on federal land.

68819

He is right that better forest management is needed but that's the only thing he's right about in this case.

Then he had the nerve to visit what was left of Paradise - a town the burned to that ground in a fire that killed 86 people - and couldn't even have the decency to get the town's ****ing name right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SORz8mjULsg

Omg Pleasure lololol

And now he says we're going to hell.

68820

I've heard a lot of this from people probably because of what makes the news. It's important to remember the good as well. He shouldn't have said that.

These are just a few examples and California isn't alone. He views blue states as his enemies. Anyone who is not with him is against him and is to be shunned and mocked. This is not how the leader of The United States of America should act. This is the behavior of a petulant man child.

I'm pretty sure he just means the Democrat politicians. Either way your criticisms are fair. I also think of him as a big kid.

cricket

11-10-20, 02:59 PM

Tucker makes some relevant points.

https://youtu.be/R5ki6S-WsKU

I love his show.

Do democrats/liberals watch it? He's obviously biased but would anyone say he says a lot that's wrong? Just wondering because I normally think he makes a lot of sense.

Ultraviolence

11-10-20, 03:03 PM

Hi Citizen. He said that Brazil should suffer “significant economic consequences” if devastation of the Amazon rainforest continues. But I ask: What devastation? The fire? He probably never hear about Chico Mendes, a man that tried to talk about the fire... in the 80's... What I mean is that the burnings in Amazon happens for a long, long time. It's a complex theme. It's not just some dude that doesn't like the trees.

Biden: “I would be gathering up and making sure we had the countries of the world coming up with $20 billion, and say, ‘Here’s $20 billion, stop tearing down the forest. And if you don’t then you’re gonna have significant economic consequences.’” Come on...

Citizen Rules

11-10-20, 03:32 PM

Ultraviolence

11-10-20, 04:00 PM

I'll commit on that, but first do you have a link to his entire speech on the subject?

https://youtu.be/0NNv9xi-m2A?t=346 (https://youtu.be/0NNv9xi-m2A?t=349)

Citizen Rules

11-10-20, 04:27 PM

Thanks for that video link. I didn't watch it, I don't have the time right now, I'm on a short work break. So I will address your earlier quote of Bidens:

He said that Brazil should suffer “significant economic consequences” if devastation of the Amazon rainforest continues....I would be gathering up and making sure we had the countries of the world coming up with $20 billion, and say, ‘Here’s $20 billion, stop tearing down the forest. And if you don’t then you’re gonna have significant economic consequences.’” I 100% agree with Biden on that. If Brazil doesn't start protecting the Amazon from slash and burn destruction farming, and if Brazil won't accept 20 billion in exchange for preserving parts of the Amazon, then I fully support harsh economic sanctions on Brazil.

I'm no hypocrite, so if the USA doesn't rejoin the Paris Accord Agreement and start doing our part in lowering carbon emissions, I would then support other countries placing harsh economic sanctions on the USA. Earth is more important than any one country.

Yoda

11-10-20, 07:19 PM

https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/1326289047933816836
Turns out people are a little more careful about serious accusations when there are actual consequences for it.

cricket

11-10-20, 07:42 PM

Yoda

11-10-20, 07:44 PM

Yeah, probably not.

Sadly, there are tons of people in their wrong mind, and a lot of them are posting "reports" on Twitter.

Captain Steel

11-10-20, 09:04 PM

Uh, can I get a response (like maybe a mea culpa) on the very specific stuff I said about same-day registration? And the one on primary sources?

Because without either of those you're basically just saying you're going to pick and choose which rumors to believe, and I can tell ya' right now, without spoiler tags, that if you do that you're somehow always going to end up listening to the ones that fit whatever you believed before you heard 'em.

Hi Yoda,
Since you're pressing me on this - yes, I was not aware of the refutations of claims that I had mentioned.

Thank you for referencing them.

I've listened to people like former candidate and Senator Ted Cruz who made comments (and I don't have them verbatim, but remember the gist of what he said on TV)... that ballots were showing up after polls closed that were all somehow for Biden and being counted after hours without oversight. Cruz has also been accused of spreading misinformation by not providing verification for his claims.

Since the time we had this discussion, a new news cycle has rolled around and there are developments coming in faster than can be followed - such as poll observers signing affidavits to their claims of voter fraud.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-challengers-sign-affidavits-swearing-ballot-fraud-witnessed-in-detroit/

Reports of computer software that changed votes from Trump to Biden,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/software-glitch-in-michigan-sent-6-000-trump-votes-to-biden/ar-BB1aMk7c

Reports of deceased individuals still registered to vote and votes for Biden by the deceased continue to be found among other irregularities that might render votes ineligible.
https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/watchdog-finds-21000-dead-registrants-on-pa-voter-rolls-in-final-weeks-of-election/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-breaking-news-georgia-132000-ballots-fulton-county-georgia-identified-likely-ineligible/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lindsey-graham-possible-ballot-harvesting-in-pennsylvania-involving-25-000-nursing-home-residents

The Supreme Court getting involved & ordering PA to segregate post-election mail-in ballots.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/6/supreme-court-orders-pennsylvania-segregate-late-b/

P.S. I'm just posting links SIMPLY to show that these stories are out there and being reported - as to the veracity of each one, I don't have the time to do in-depth Internet investigations on every claim that is reported by alleged news sites. As we know, the Trump administration has filed suit on some of these issues and they are currently in litigation. The sites are ones that came up in searches - I neither endorse the sites nor know anything about their affiliations if any.

Yoda

11-10-20, 09:45 PM

Hi Yoda,
Since you're pressing me on this - yes, I was not aware of the refutations of claims that I had mentioned.
Thanks for responding, and saying this. I see no reason to have been cagey, since if it were otherwise anyone would have simply said "yes, I knew that." I hope it's obvious by now I don't care to do the Internet dunking thing of "if you didn't know that thing your opinion is invalid," so admissions like this only serve to move the conversation along. I have no intention of using them to end it, or try to invalidate anyone's position. I pressed the issue only because it suggests a related problem:

I think it's fine to not know these things, but I don't think it's fine to even entertain the accusations--much less repeat them, sans qualifiers initially!--without making any attempt to learn them, either. You must see the problem here, yeah? Simple facts exist, that you can find in literally seconds, but no attempt to learn them is made. I think any reasonable person has to be a little self-reflective here, because it's clearly a case of not wanting to hear any contradictions.

Unless you have another explanation I'm unaware of. Or another definition of dishonesty that doesn't accompany a total disregard for easily available facts. Maybe you can quibble with "lie," but it sure isn't honest. And neither is the hyperbole about "5,000 eyewitness accounts" in response to a simple request for any hard evidence at all.

P.S. I'm just posting links SIMPLY to show that these stories are out there and being reported - as to the veracity of each one, I don't have the time to do in-depth Internet investigations on every claim that is reported by alleged news sites. As we know, the Trump administration has filed suit on some of these issues and they are currently in litigation. The sites are ones that came up in searches - I neither endorse the sites nor know anything about their affiliations if any.
That's fine as a disclaimer, but I'm curious as to how many of these you plan to follow up on? I'm sure it's very easy, in a giant messy election with 150+ million votes, to find plenty of run-of-the-mill typos and irregularities, most of which get explained or sorted out afterwards, and none of which suggest deliberate fraud or have the potential to change the outcome.

Think of how easy it is to notice and pass along all of these...and then never think of them again. Very easy to do that and go on believing the election was fraudulent, even creating that impression in the minds of anyone who read the things you shared, only to conveniently avoid spending a few seconds trying to invalidate them, or checking a bit later to see if any really withstood scrutiny. And if you don't do that, then what value are the reports, since they get passed along with they conform with existing beliefs, and never even get seen if they don't?

What use are facts if we never allow them to change our minds?

Captain Steel

11-10-20, 09:47 PM

I love his show.

Do democrats/liberals watch it? He's obviously biased but would anyone say he says a lot that's wrong? Just wondering because I normally think he makes a lot of sense.

Tucker often plays the same games as those he accuses his competition of playing - he engages in inflammatory rhetoric, personal innuendos, plays "connect the dots," and presents completely speculative conclusions (then says things like "I'll leave it up to you to decide") - and I call him out for it when I see it, especially when it seems too far off-base.

But we have to remember (and this goes for his competition as well) that it is an editorial opinion show and not a newscast. He's very good at pointing out the hypocrisy of the other side (which, I must admit, is not hard to do).

Captain Steel

11-10-20, 09:57 PM

That's fine as a disclaimer, but I'm curious as to how many of these you plan to follow up on? I'm sure it's very easy, in a giant messy election with 150+ million votes, to find plenty of run-of-the-mill typos and irregularities, most of which get explained or sorted out afterwards, and none of which suggest deliberate fraud or have the potential to change the outcome.

Think of how easy it is to notice and pass along all of these...and then never think of them again. Very easy to do that and go on believing the election was fraudulent, even creating that impression in the minds of anyone who read the things you shared, only to conveniently avoid spending a few seconds trying to invalidate them, or checking a bit later to see if any really withstood scrutiny. And if you don't do that, then what value are the reports, since they get passed along with they conform with existing beliefs, and never even get seen if they don't?

What use are facts if we never allow them to change our minds?

I would like to respond to this point - it's not always easy to follow up on things - even with general stories, like local crimes and such - they often have no follow up and are gone from being reported on in the next news cycle (this has always bugged me about the "news" in general).

Another thing that I touched upon in a former post is the reports that Big Tech is suppressing information that aids Trump or Republicans or is derogatory for Democrats. This has been a repeated story on FOX and conservative talk radio for weeks now... and speaking of FOX...

I noticed that FOX News had almost a whole evening of election fraud reports yesterday that were allegedly major news stories which would be (or maybe should be) covered by a variety of sources on the Internet - even if the purpose is to refute them, yet when doing Google searches, I can't even find mention of most of them.

So, it may be difficult to follow, follow up on or try to confirm certain claims when information is being taken off or excluded from the Net for reasons of bias... IF that is occurring.

Yoda

11-10-20, 10:12 PM

Captain Steel

11-10-20, 10:19 PM

It is effectively impossible to actually remove those sorts of things from the Internet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Internet companies can and do influence debate (like whether a given rumor is questioned more or less depending on whether Twitter flags it or not, for example), but it's really just not plausible to suppress it in the way you're talking about, in a way that would simply vanish proof from the Internet, magically absolving anyone who believes it's there of having to produce it. You'll have to agree that's...well, let's say "convenient." Anyone can start a site.

No follow-up is also, I should note, exactly what you'd expect if something was just a ridiculous rumor, too, if the outlets in question have their own sympathies and are thus disinclined to post debunkings.

Well, I use the LV massacre as kind of an example - it seemed like after a number of months the news coverage went dead. Which would not be surprising if a concise conclusion had been reached, but it was a case with so many outstanding and unanswered questions. It seemed like so many leads were just dropped at one specific point in time.

Sure people could start web sites about it, but it seemed that the news media and government was done with it, and according to a lot of early claims, they were shutting down people with pertinent information about it.

cricket

11-10-20, 10:29 PM

It is effectively impossible to actually remove those sorts of things from the Internet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Internet companies can and do influence debate (like whether a given rumor is questioned more or less depending on whether Twitter flags it or not, for example), but it's really just not plausible to suppress it in the way you're talking about, in a way that would simply vanish proof from the Internet, magically absolving anyone who believes it's there of having to produce it. You'll have to agree that's...well, let's say "convenient." Anyone can start a site.

No follow-up is also, I should note, exactly what you'd expect if something was just a ridiculous rumor, too, if the outlets in question have their own sympathies and are thus disinclined to post debunkings.

In my experience even if you remove an ad off of a site, it will still show on google for a period of time. Can google remove content themselves, or is that more like a conspiracy theory? Even so, there's still other search engines.

cricket

11-10-20, 10:32 PM

Why wouldn't the democrats investigate as well? If they could find some issues that went against them I would think it would weaken the republican's case.

Ultraviolence

11-11-20, 08:45 AM

Thanks for that video link. I didn't watch it, I don't have the time right now, I'm on a short work break. So I will address your earlier quote of Bidens:
I 100% agree with Biden on that. If Brazil doesn't start protecting the Amazon from slash and burn destruction farming, and if Brazil won't accept 20 billion in exchange for preserving parts of the Amazon, then I fully support harsh economic sanctions on Brazil.

I'm no hypocrite, so if the USA doesn't rejoin the Paris Accord Agreement and start doing our part in lowering carbon emissions, I would then support other countries placing harsh economic sanctions on the USA. Earth is more important than any one country.

I disagre. That's how war starts.
Our governament takes care of Amazon (even the last one, which I dislike, used to take care) - Yes, there are burning seasons in the rainforest, but before we talk about harsh economic sanctions, we need to understand the problem. As I said before, what's going on there, is a complex problem. There's no group of people in the middle of the jungle setting fire just to see how it burns. Also, most of the destruction of our forests (not only in Brazil) are the products we buy at the supermarket and at butchery, but no one wants to talk about that...

I'm against any kind of interferance like this. Armenia vs Azerbaijan - Ukrain vs Russia - WAR! All about territory. If other countries start trying appropriating Amazon, war will be inevitable in that region.

"I would then support other countries placing harsh economic sanctions on the USA"
With all due respect, Citizen, this is easy to say when you live in a well-developed country. My reality is tougher. Crime and poverty are huge here! Economic sanctions will increase not only poverty, but also crime.

cricket

11-11-20, 08:53 AM

https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/1326289047933816836
Turns out people are a little more careful about serious accusations when there are actual consequences for it.

When you posted this I wanted to say that it wouldn't surprise me if somebody got to him, but I didn't want to post something like that just based on a thought. This is starting to get interesting.

cricket

11-11-20, 08:59 AM

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/10/richard-hopkins-erie-pennsylvania-postal-worker-de/

Yoda

11-11-20, 09:03 AM

Yup, came in here to post just that. What a mess. Guess we'll let the legal process sort it out.

My standard for "got to him" is fairly high, since that makes it sound like he was threatened with murder or something. What usually happens is people are fast and loose with an accusation, but then they're in a situation where they're gonna go to jail if they lie, so suddenly they're not so sure.

Yoda

11-11-20, 09:04 AM

And yes, there are caches and archives and stuff for various sites, as well. It's just not plausible to scrub the Internet, full stop. That will never plausibly be why someone cannot find evidence of this stuff, if it exists.

Example:

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1326383583691476994

cricket

11-11-20, 09:08 AM

Yoda

11-11-20, 10:17 AM

Good op-ed from a Republican lawyer in Nevada about the claims of voter fraud:

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1326301207942451201

Yoda

11-11-20, 10:24 AM

Related:

https://twitter.com/SWGoldman/status/1326525233835159552
This is particularly pertinent, since Trump is saying things about election observers not being presented that his lawyers are admitting isn't true. It's pretty wild.

Chypmunk

11-11-20, 10:27 AM

Fake fakery!

honeykid

11-11-20, 11:20 AM

Identifying the use of dog whistles often takes a certain amount of guesswork. I watched what he said live and thought it was clear what he was saying. I took what he said at face value, not only because is it a real issue, but because he's not the first politician to bring it up. I think someone believing they can see into his brain and detect hidden messages and motivations requires a certain level of delusion. Obama deported a record number of people. I'm not criticizing him; I'm just saying that's what it is and it's not a pleasant thing. Trump was trying to nip it in the bud before it came to that, not a bad thing. There has been many times when he said we want them to come in, we just want them to come in legally. Oh but he thinks they're rapists? Is this some kind of reverse dog whistle? Sometimes people want to overthink things.
I don't think I explained myself very well. I wasn't trying to be negative about Trump. I was merely trying to explain why some people were talking about him being racist because you didn't appear to know/understand why. If that's not the case, that's fine. Things can definitely be overthought and, as I said later on, everything is filtered through our own prejudices.

I was certainly naive about it yet still have every right to be angry about it. You must not forget that I had no favoritism towards Trump. The proof of that is the fact that I did not vote for him despite my dislike for his opponent. I was a blank canvas forming my opinion in real time based on what I was actually seeing. On the other hand, you didn't like him even before he ran for president, and I know this from a prior conversation we had. That's fine, but then you must realize that you have an already formed opinion of the man which could very easily affect how you judge him going forward.
I thought I did say you had the right to be angry? Again, it appears I've not explained myself very well. Your opinion and thoughts are every bit as relevant as everyone else's and I extend that to the 140+ million who voted, regardless of which way they voted and any who spoilt their ballots as a protest. As much as I didn't want Trump to win (never hidden that) I was delighted to hear so many people voted. Regardless of the winner, the more people that vote the better IMO. It might not give the result which I'd want (as happened here with the Brexit vote) but it tells you where you are as a nation and helps reveal the issues a nation has. If people listen, these can then be addressed and, maybe, something can be done about it to make people happier.

Start with Clinton's deplorables quote and end with Michelle Obama's quote, and look at everything in between. They are demonizing 70 million people. The lies I posted are a big part of that puzzle. Doesn't anybody else have a problem with this?
Sorry, I'm not really seeing the connection or point here.

But to address what you said. What was the Michelle Obama quote? Clinton made a huge mistake saying that, IMO. It's not a great thing to think, but to say it publically when you're trying to win an election is remarkably stupid. You may think it and your voters might think it, but it doesn't make you look good and there's a good chance your calling someone they like/love deplorable. Even if they still voted for them, it would probably make you think less of them. A former PM here made a similar mistake about the party/issue which has reset the political faultlines in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph3UUMW7pCE

I think this is where a lot of the talk of racism comes from (in the UK at least.) A lot of people who voted to Leave (Brexit) feel (quite rightly in many cases) that they've been labelled as racist simply for voting Leave because many/most/all racists voted Leave. They're 'guilty' by association and that's not fair, but it's how it's gone.

I think this is ridiculous and it's not the first time I've been accused of being hypocritical while pointing out hypocrisy
Then maybe it's something to take another look at?

I would say it's where your bias is showing through.

I'm definitely bias and, again, maybe I've not really represented well what my intent was. I wasn't holding myself up as a paragon of neutrality. I was seeing you as someone who was recently interested (4 years) in presidential politics and was frustrated/confused as to why things were as they were. Similar to what I saw from you in the White Privilege thread (where I didn't interject and wished I had). I was trying to answer these questions in the hope it'd help. If that's not who you are or how you see it, that's OK. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I learned long ago that while the internet might help someone make up their mind, it'll almost never change it.

I'm not calling anybody a racist. I'm just pointing out, without judgement, that Harris attacked Biden's questionable voting history during one of the debates. During the time Harris pointed out, Biden used the "racial jungle" quote. I was very specific in saying that I wouldn't call Biden a racist because I don't know what he was thinking or what's in his heart.
In the long post you didn't say you knew what she meant, it was a reply to someone else earlier in the thread.

For anyone who watched it, including democrats, her implication was quite clear. I refer to the issue she raised as Biden's racially questionable voting history, as I don't like to flat out call people a racist without evidence, something many others think is a perfectly decent thing to do. During the time alluded to by Harris, Biden did say he didn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle. You can decide for yourself how to interpret that statement. Watch the clip again and you will see that it was quite clear what she was doing.

cricket

11-11-20, 11:57 AM

Hey HK I'll get back to you later but you're not going to believe what I just said to someone without thinking. As a lot of you know I deliver alcohol. We have invoices the customer signs, we keep the top white copy and they keep the bottom yellow copy. So I just delivered to an Asian restaurant. The woman (Asian) signs the invoice and holds the two copies with 2 different hands in order to ask, which do I keep. I said, I'm white and you're yellow:facepalm:

Yoda

11-11-20, 12:00 PM

Oh man. :laugh: That's unfortunate.

Yoda

11-11-20, 12:01 PM

cricket

11-11-20, 12:16 PM

To expound a little on vote margins and recounts and all that, here's the numbers that would need to flip:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1326553311269457932
Insofar as someone is just interested in electoral integrity, fair enough. We all should be. But we really need to nip the stolen election narrative--which a lot of people, even some elected officials, are baselessly floating--right in the bud. It's just wildly implausible, even if you wanna believe there's a lot of sus stuff going on.

Totally agree with what you're saying here. What I'm wondering is, in the event that they could prove that there was systemic fraud across multiple states, yet it didn't affect enough votes to change the outcome, what happens? I'm not talking about votes from people who are deceased in every state. I'm talking about proof of an actual scheme.

Yoda

11-11-20, 12:27 PM

If that happens, then they should (and would) prosecute the people involved and institute expanded fraud protections and oversight.

In the case of mail ballots (which seem to be the focus of the accusations), that's hard to fathom, given some of the stuff I mentioned earlier about bar codes, but yeah, that would definitely necessitate a major reevaluation.

Mail voting, BTW, has been used for decades in some states (a friend of mine in Washington has been using it as long as he's been voting). I think the issue is that COVID meant a lot of places, like my state, had to ramp things up quicker, whereas places like Washington have had a lot of time to get good at it. So this is probably as messy as it's ever gonna be. It's definitely not ideal, but it's also the kind of logistical problem that gets better and more robust the more you do it.

cricket

11-11-20, 12:42 PM

I don't think I explained myself very well. I wasn't trying to be negative about Trump. I was merely trying to explain why some people were talking about him being racist because you didn't appear to know/understand why. If that's not the case, that's fine. Things can definitely be overthought and, as I said later on, everything is filtered through our own prejudices.

I understand why but the dishonesty about it is unacceptable.

I thought I did say you had the right to be angry? Again, it appears I've not explained myself very well. Your opinion and thoughts are every bit as relevant as everyone else's and I extend that to the 140+ million who voted, regardless of which way they voted and any who spoilt their ballots as a protest. As much as I didn't want Trump to win (never hidden that) I was delighted to hear so many people voted. Regardless of the winner, the more people that vote the better IMO. It might not give the result which I'd want (as happened here with the Brexit vote) but it tells you where you are as a nation and helps reveal the issues a nation has. If people listen, these can then be addressed and, maybe, something can be done about it to make people happier.

100%

Sorry, I'm not really seeing the connection or point here.

But to address what you said. What was the Michelle Obama quote? Clinton made a huge mistake saying that, IMO. It's not a great thing to think, but to say it publically when you're trying to win an election is remarkably stupid. You may think it and your voters might think it, but it doesn't make you look good and there's a good chance your calling someone they like/love deplorable.

"Tens of millions voted for lies, hate, chaos".

Then maybe it's something to take another look at?

Ok I'll look. I've criticized both, yet refrained from labeling either. I've defended both, including from attacks by the other side.

Good or no?

My guess is that anybody who defends Trump on anything, right or wrong, will get criticized when they are surrounded by people who don't like Trump.

I'm definitely bias and, again, maybe I've not really represented well what my intent was. I wasn't holding myself up as a paragon of neutrality. I was seeing you as someone who was recently interested (4 years) in presidential politics and was frustrated/confused as to why things were as they were. Similar to what I saw from you in the White Privilege thread (where I didn't interject and wished I had). I was trying to answer these questions in the hope it'd help. If that's not who you are or how you see it, that's OK. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I learned long ago that while the internet might help someone make up their mind, it'll almost never change it.

I'm just not the biggest fan of lying to begin with, and when that lying extends to race I'm even less of a fan. Judging, labeling, generalizing, including, or excluding somebody based on race is something I've always believed was wrong, yet now it seems acceptable to do so if your agenda is seen as righteous to some.

In the long post you didn't say you knew what she meant, it was a reply to someone else earlier in the thread.

Well, anybody who thinks this wasn't about race didn't watch it-

https://youtu.be/6vG1Tnuvo78

Of course, she doesn't mention the "racial jungle" quote of his made during the time of the incident she's describing. How charitable of her.

Yoda

11-11-20, 12:45 PM

cricket

11-11-20, 12:55 PM

Harris definitely changed her tune on Joe, but this is standard politics. Not saying it's okay (most of the "normal" things about politics aren't), but it's extremely normal for people to savage each other in the primaries and then unify after. Happened with Reagan and Bush I, too.

It's sad that we're down to comparing normal bad things to exceptional ones, but that's the kind of corner America has boxed itself into by always choosing the lesser of two evils.

Totally agree, and I would never compare this normal bad thing to the exceptional bad lies that have been told about Trump. More than this instance, which I understand why she did it, I'm curious about her previous stance that she believes Biden's accuser. I think I know why she said it, but I would think it should be a story all by itself. Nobody talks about it and that's strange to me.

Yoda

11-11-20, 01:01 PM

John McClane

11-11-20, 01:20 PM

It was very disappointing when Colbert asked her about this and she just said "it was a debate!" I know what she means, but it was very weird to hear someone just sort of admit it, it's the kind of thing everyone knows but usually maintains some kind of deniability about.

But yes, there's a lot of dissonance here from progressives about allegations of assault in general, and their willingness to believe the accused when there's power hanging in the balance.You left out the worst part of that interview: "it was a debate!" *insert evil maniacal laugh*

So like, not only did she call him out for reprehensible behavior, but then when she has something to gain the behavior becomes a joke for her to laugh at? I've said it before but I'll say it again: prosecutors make awful politicians.

Yoda

11-11-20, 01:22 PM

Yeah, the worst part was definitely after she said it. Not really the laugh itself, but how derisive it was. She was basically saying "are you dumb? This is how it works. It was a debate, duh." I'm always glad to see the veil drop a little, but it's still jarring. Politics has always been theater but now it's literally like theater, where politicians can safely admit they're playing a role and everyone's fine with it.

John McClane

11-11-20, 01:24 PM

Eh, I wasn't surprised. Didn't seem jarring to me at all. Just reinforced that she is not to be trusted and a poor role model. I mean, Vice President isn't a very involved position most of the time but she's definitely not Vice President material.

And I do think the laugh was the worst part. Like...you can deliever that line and get your point across without laughing like she did. It's clear that this whole thing has been a game for her.

Yoda

11-11-20, 01:26 PM

John McClane

11-11-20, 01:30 PM

I guess what worries me is that I'm not sure it's a her thing, but really just a canary in the coal mine about how much people accept politics as theater, and will going forward. There's a willful disbelief thing that kinda mirrors reality TV, where we simultaneously know it isn't real, but are happy to act like it is, because without the facade of it being real it would be totally unremarkable.It's not a her thing, yes, but she is a poster child for what public service has become, but when one takes her record into consideration it drives home the fact that she is not the type of person who is interested in equitable treatment of citizens. And this concerns me as she is constantly cited as a "role model" by the youth.

Just another reason politicians should not be trusted to fix problems. When they laugh at their own problems that they have created/contributed to I do not believe they are deserving of support. At all.

Yoda

11-11-20, 02:21 PM

https://twitter.com/normative/status/1326589056755654656

Stirchley

11-11-20, 02:39 PM

... Vice President isn't a very involved position most of the time but she's definitely not Vice President material.

LOL. Not like Pence, eh?

John McClane

11-11-20, 05:14 PM

When I see/hear people talking about possible student loan debt forgiveness under Biden/Harris I just :facepalm: and pray those people don’t make the error of thinking that’ll ever pass.

Stirchley

11-11-20, 06:06 PM

⬆️ You never know. Maybe Vice President-Elect Harris will surprise you. :)

Citizen Rules

11-11-20, 06:17 PM

When I see/hear people talking about possible student loan debt forgiveness under Biden/Harris I just :facepalm: and pray those people don’t make the error of thinking that’ll ever pass.I sure don't want student loan debt forgiveness. Hell I'd like to charge parents to send their kids to school, cause I'm tired of paying for school taxes when I don't have kids and don't have much money.

cricket

11-11-20, 06:31 PM

⬆️ You never know. Maybe Vice President-Elect Harris will surprise you. :)

I've been following her since well before it was rumored she'd run for President. Putting it nicely, I like her less than anyone else I'm familiar with in politics and it's not close.

John McClane

11-11-20, 07:56 PM

The government is underwriting most of today’s Stafford loans, and they guarantee just about every current existing Stanford loan. The problem is not with the lending side of things but rather the cost of education itself. It’s just too much money for the government to say they don’t want some of it back.

I’m going the long route that is already setup with 10 years of public service. If they forgive my debt there goes my ten year plan and I’ll be mad. It’ll mess everything up. I’m already 3 years along so no time for adjustments. :D

cricket

11-11-20, 09:39 PM

Remember I said I saw in an article dated Feb 6 that the dems were already trying for mail in voting before Covid? Maybe it was Feb 6, 2019?

https://trackbill.com/bill/us-congress-senate-bill-26-vote-by-mail-act-of-2019/1617425/

Citizen Rules

11-11-20, 10:47 PM

This is relevant to the current discussion here about 'claims' of alleged voter fraud.

Fox News pulls plug on Trump spokeswoman making baseless claims of fraud (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-news-pulls-plug-on-trump-spokeswoman-making-baseless-claims-of-fraud/ar-BB1aQYgV)

Fox News pulls plug on Trump spokeswoman making baseless claims of fraud

Moments into a Trump campaign press conference on Monday afternoon at which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany charged that Democrats were “welcoming fraud” and “illegal voting,” Fox News host Neil Cavuto had heard enough.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa, I just think we have to be very clear. She’s charging the other side is welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting,” Cavuto said, interrupting the video feed of the briefing, which McEnany said she was conducting in her “personal capacity” rather than in her official White House role. “Unless she has more details to back that up I can’t in good countenance continue showing you this. I want to make sure that maybe they do have something to back that up, but that’s an explosive charge to make — that the other side is effectively rigging and cheating.”

Wyldesyde19

11-11-20, 11:07 PM

Strange days indeed when Fox News suddenly grows a ethical conscience.

Miss Vicky

11-11-20, 11:49 PM

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/10/richard-hopkins-erie-pennsylvania-postal-worker-de/

Yup, came in here to post just that. What a mess. Guess we'll let the legal process sort it out.

So from what little I know about this allegation (which admittedly is whatever Philip Defranco has covered of it (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9W0kMT_5LBI), so take that how you will), the postal worker is claiming that workers were backdating mail in ballots that arrived after November 6th. Pennsylvania law states that mail in ballots must by postmarked by November 3rd, but as long as they arrive by November 6th they are legal and must be counted. Regardless of whether or not the allegation of backdating is true (and if it is true, then the offenders need to be prosecuted), PA is reporting that they only received approximately 10,000 ballots after 11/3, which even if every single one of them was backdated and therefore invalid, still leaves Biden in the lead by approximately 43,000 votes.

TheUsualSuspect

11-12-20, 12:13 AM

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/civil-war-brewing-inside-proud-boys-as-top-leader-says-hes-done-pretending-he-isnt-a-nazi/

Who didn't see that coming?

doubledenim

11-12-20, 02:03 AM

Alright, alright (allllwrite). This has gone on long enough, time to get this thread back on topic. Harumph.

Is it Ms. Vicky vs. Cricket in a repeat of the last election cycle?

I strongly urge against voting by pm this year. Or raven. I would also like a clarification on each party’s campaign manager and the special interest groups that support them.

rauldc14

11-12-20, 08:33 AM

Why are we electing people like Stacey Abrams and Ilhan Omar

Yoda

11-12-20, 08:40 AM

Well, I use the LV massacre as kind of an example - it seemed like after a number of months the news coverage went dead. Which would not be surprising if a concise conclusion had been reached, but it was a case with so many outstanding and unanswered questions. It seemed like so many leads were just dropped at one specific point in time.
It's interesting to me how being open to any one conspiracy tends to lead to people believing in others. Suffice to say, there's no real connection.

Sure people could start web sites about it, but it seemed that the news media and government was done with it, and according to a lot of early claims, they were shutting down people with pertinent information about it.
See the other posts since: it's not plausible. YouTube isn't removing stuff at all, and the mere fact that there are "early claims" about them shutting it down proves the point, too, since otherwise you wouldn't even know about it. Nevermind, of course, how often these disagreements end up coming down to non-specific phrases like "early claims" and "reports."

Yoda

11-12-20, 08:41 AM

Why are we electing people like Stacey Abrams and Ilhan Omar
Alright, I'm convinced at this point this thread will never stay on topic, and as predicted such threads will always devolve into catch-all political threads, so I'm closing it.