Who Will be Our Next President?

Tools    





cricket's Avatar
Registered User
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 and link for times )

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.



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.



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.



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's Avatar
Registered User
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



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
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.



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's Avatar
Registered User
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.



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's Avatar
Registered User
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's Avatar
Registered User
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/trum...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/ar...of_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.



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 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.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
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 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.



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

https://www.judicialwatch.org/in-the...-ghost-voters/
Explanation here. 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's Avatar
Registered User
Explanation here. 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.



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.



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:



And now he says we're going to hell.



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.



Missăo dada é missăo cumprida!
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/artig...asil-e-os-eua/ Through this article, I was able to find this: https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...-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.
__________________
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum