Who Will be Our Next President?

The US doesn't 'police' the world out of some sense of kindness and justice. It's not even policing. It's strategic transfer of power into the hands of dictators that would help the US earn profit or creating chaos that would help the US earn profit.

While I have always seen genuine kindness from its citizens towards people suffering injustice in other countries, the ones acting ie.the politicians and CIA have none. They are only in it for profits.


They aren't the only ones. France did it in Africa, Russia in some places and currently Chinese are the best at it.


It's a shame that the UN is an incredibly impotent entity, but anybody that should police the world it should be an organisation like UN. And even there, the goal should be to help the country with problems to stand on its own feet and be governed by its OWN people. Not through stooges and definitely not through proxy wars or bombs.

No.

__________________

CNN Brazil only talks about the american election. LoL - Here hoping Trump wins. Not sure how that "College... something" works. It's a bit different from Brazil. Will read about later.

You mean the Electoral College?

The electoral college is that beautiful system that makes sure every piece of land gets heard. Cuz ya know them mountains are quite conservative.

As flawed as it is I don't see it disappearing in favor of the popular vote. There are too many politicians on both sides that benefit from it.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

AAGAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHA


Imagine believing this

This is false. Many places allow same-day registration, which means comparisons between pre-election registration totals and vote counts aren't sufficient.

This is a perfect example of the kind of thing people repeat because it fits their preferred narrative, but which they could easily debunk if they bothered to try.

I saw exactly one such report, and it was immediately switched back and attributed to a typo. If there are verifiable reports, let's see them.

I think that's a pretty good rule, in fact: if you're going to suggest such an important process is illegitimate, you should provide a primary source. If you can't or won't do that, then don't post the accusation.

I know it depends on what stations you listen to, but if you listen to WABC radio in New York, it's been day after day of reports that there is something very obviously wrong with the voting system this year based on various & blatant discrepancies that could only occur via manipulation - which was predicted by Republicans, Independents and non-politicos due to the over-insistence of Democrats on a nationwide mail-in voting plan.

There have been reports that Republican observers have been forcibly blocked from observing. Reports that "illegal" ballots have been counted: ballots from the deceased, ballots from people who are not residents, ballots that were mis-delivered or stolen, etc.

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.

What's this based on? The President tweeted it, but his own legal team admitted, in court, that they did have observers there. I'm going to assume you didn't know that, because you didn't check.

It sure sounds like you're just hearing something, from literally anywhere, and repeating it. You should try investigating these things before believing them, let alone going onto a public forum and proclaiming them as true.

I can't confirm or deny anything as these stories are currently coming in faster than anyone can keep track of (kind of like the ballots that outnumber registered voters themselves).

There is even some surmising that same-day registrations may account for some people voting at the poles after sending in a mail-in ballot: the collators & cross-referencers are overwhelmed in some places.

It certainly is a cluster - which was the basis for all the warnings against a nationwide mail-in voting scheme in the first place. If any group wanted to commit voter fraud - this was certainly the opening (and perhaps the intended vehicle) for it.

The pandemic was used as an excuse - (keep in mind, shutdowns were to keep the hospitals from becoming overwhelmed - everyone understood this at the time it was announced and everyone SEEMED onboard with it at that time.)

Keeping the hospitals from becoming overwhelmed was achieved, yet Democrats across the nation implemented programs and enacted regulations to extend the shutdowns indefinitely - then claimed that since the nation was shutdown, that there must be nationwide mail-in voting.

Yet most people go stand in line, wearing their masks to buy groceries - no reason most people (who haven't filed for absentee ballots) could not have gone and stood in a socially-distanced line, wearing masks to vote.

You can't confirm it, but you both believe it anyway, and are telling people it's true anyway? That's incredibly irresponsible. Especially since you didn't volunteer this "can't confirm" thing until I questioned it. Where I come from, this is morally identical to lying.

Can you confirm that you were unaware of the same-day registration thing? Can you then perhaps explain why you didn't spend a few seconds looking around, at which point you would have definitely heard it and entertained it as a potential explanation (or at least mentioned it as a potential explanation when you made unverified claims)?

What is the argument here, exactly? Be specific. They're overwhelmed so...what? They're just counting them without the cross-referencing? Seems to me that this process is exactly why it's taking some places days to finish: a fact which, I assume, you may also use to allege fraud even though it's mutually exclusive with the current claim.

You can actually look up the status of your mail-in ballot, by the way. This actually happened with my wife: she requested a ballot, but it never arrived, and when she went in to vote they were able to look it up and confirm that it had not been delivered, so she was allowed to vote normally. I dunno if you knew any of that, either.

More empty claims. Every mail ballot has a unique bar code, dude. It has more tracking on it than a normal vote would, given that you don't even need to present your IDs, so this is actually kinda backwards. To people who bother to inform themselves a little, at least.

You seem to be under the impression that, if you can't provide one piece of evidence, you can just substitute three or four baseless claims. That's not how truth works.

Also, what do you mean you "can't confirm" because they're coming in too fast? Are you obligated to monitor all rumors (nevermind accept them) and just keep reading new ones rather than stop and verify any of them? Why? That doesn't make sense.

It's a combination:

• I'm alerting you to stories that are curently appearing in the media - whether they are true or not remains to be proved or disproved. Most of them are new and ongoing. (When Jussie Smollet's story came out it was believed, vehemently by some, to be true - it took weeks for it to be disproved - yet we were still able to repeat his claims, talk about discrepancies in them, and discuss the story.)
• I'm giving some speculation based on the stories, patterns, past incidents, apparent discrepancies, etc.
• And I'm giving my opinion that I agree with some who are observing that it looks like there is some kind of voter fraud, or at least some kind of problem in some places of counting, collating, discerning legitimate from illegitimate ballots, or cross-referencing the votes accurately, in this year's election.

Bottom line, I'm limited in what I know by whatever the media is reporting - and we've heard much of late how the media itself (such as Big Tech) cannot be trusted because it is owned, manipulated and employed by various interests that are willing to skew the news to their own advantage. Even if a claim is true, the evidence to support it may be blocked by those in control of the Internet if it doesn't fit with their political narrative or agenda.

You're talking right past every relevant thing I'm saying. Here, since you're so busy absorbing rumors uncritically, I'll streamline it for you:

1. Did you know about same-day registration?
2. Was the "observer" claim based on the President's tweet?
3. Did you know the President's legal team admitted it was false? If not, why not?
4. Why didn't you look into either claim before accepting it?
5. Why did you completely fail to mention this was "speculation" until it was questioned? How is that materially different from willfully misleading people, IE: lying?

I have more questions, of course, but since I'm still waiting on answers to even the first blush questions, I'll hold off.

Well... that's because I'm not debating you.

Second - candidates & elected officials can get up in front of a podium and publicly state all kinds of things (and they're not even on a public discussion forum) - some of which is pure speculation, some is opinions, and a lot of which is just bold-faced lies. So why can't I speculate on a forum?

The stated topic of this thread is to speculate.

As said, the claims I mentioned are in the news. Are they true? I don't know, but they are being made. Just like with other claims, we may not know if they are true or not - we may never know - but their being made is part of the news.

The fact that they are being made is apparently based on something (the people making them say they are based on the discrepancies) as opposed to being purely baseless and made up out of the imagination. Might the assumptions be erroneous? Sure. Only time will tell.

"I'm not debating," the standard response for someone who wants to say things but not be accountable for them.

Since you refuse to answer such fair, simple questions it's obvious the answer to each "Did you know?" question is No. And I strongly suspect the answer to each "Why didn't you?" question is simply: because you wanted to believe it. Why fact check the things you want to be true?

And it's blatantly dishonest to pretend, now, that you're just passing along information/speculating. That's not how you presented it initially:

After it was questioned, suddenly it was "I can't confirm or deny," "I'm giving my opinion" and "I'm giving some speculation."

Sorry, Lois: he does lie.

Well done US you've voted for a man who can barely put one sentence together without mis pronouncing a word

It seems that speaking is a struggle for him.

I get that your vote for shaky Joe was a vote against Trump and little else

the guy makes Bush seem like a talented orator

gutted for you Trump America, hope and pray it can turn around for you now

even if it doesnt, Trump has got the largest turnout for any presidential loser in history and each one of those red hearts has so much more legitimacy than a blue one. It wont be over.

Bad news for us in UK too, shaky Joe staunchly opposed Brexit and looks to london and see a mini Trump

His first phone call will be to Merkel most probably [sigh]

__________________
Do you know what a roller pigeon is, Barney? They climb high and fast, then roll over and fall just as fast toward the earth. There are shallow rollers and deep rollers. You can’t breed two deep rollers, or their young will roll all the way down, hit, and die. Officer Starling is a deep roller, Barney. We should hope one of her parents was not.

I think she might be a bit sadistic (look at her record as D.A.). Not always a bad thing, mind you, but in that seat it's not a quality I'd hope to see.

The most noticeable thing Trump did, besides the job numbers, is to free the US from dependence on foreign oil.

Anyway, the right/left thing is academic (minus a few exceptions like Trump). No matter what they say they all do the same things.

Going to be interesting to see how Biden wiggles out of supporting far left ideologies. His statements over the past few days have become far more centrist. I personally feel sorry for him - he's going to get eaten alive.