• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
We see here the successful divisionism of the Trump regime. Most here are anti-trump, but are bickering amongst themselves. As Julius Caesar said: Divide and concur.

Hans
 
Emily's Cat said:
Clinton conceded, yes. As an individual. Because even though I dislike her as a person, she's a lot smarter than Trump and a hell of a lot less of a blowhard. But also because the margins in key states were larger than they are in this election.

But there were multiple protests and marches from democrats opposed to Trump taking office.
Click to expand...

Meadmaker said:
There's the error. They aren't.

Things seem closer this year because it took so much longer to count, and because the lead changed hands in several swing states. In fact, they aren't even done counting the first time, but in fact the margins are larger this time.


(Now I have to go look that up to be sure I'm right.....)
Click to expand...

You're right. I went over that yesterday. The magins are bigger in

Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Michigan

Not to mention

Washington
Oregon
California

And that's when I stopped checking. EC's argument has ZERO merit. It is TOTALLY FALSE.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:rolleyes: And I'm sure that if Trump had won the EC vote, all of the democrats in the country would have just gone quietly without protests of any sort, right?

Different actors, same play.

But that's okay, I'm well aware of your deep partisanship.
Click to expand...
And this false equivalence tops them all.

First, had Trump won, the Democrats would not have a POTUS in the office for two more months.

Second, Biden, should he have lost, is not a pathological narcissist.
Trump is incapable of admitting he lost. And I do mean literally.No one can tell him he's lost. It's going to take an intervention to get him to walk away mumbling under his breath.
He's already replacing the heads of all the military agencies that might escort him from the office.
There are other darker possibilities he might have for this move.​

None of this is what the Democrats would do had Trump won. We already know what the Democrats did when Trump won in 2016: they marched all over the world in protest.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Bah, the Mueller report concluded that the campaign wasn't smart enough to actually coordinate with the Russians, no matter how much they wanted to.

I have no problem believing that.

Of course, it doesn't mean the Russians weren't involved on their own.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear here, people at the top level of Trump's campaign did indeed coordinate with Russia. And it's highly unlikely Trump didn't know this was going on. Then there was Trump's publicly asking Russia to find Clinton's emails. While that might not have been direct coordination with Russia, it made it clear his campaign was free to interact.

But that's all hashed out in another thread.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Clinton conceded, yes. As an individual. Because even though I dislike her as a person, she's a lot smarter than Trump and a hell of a lot less of a blowhard. But also because the margins in key states were larger than they are in this election. But there were multiple protests and marches from democrats opposed to Trump taking office.
Click to expand...
The entire Dem establishment conceded. You distort the facts with every sentence you write.

I assume you're now aware this is false.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't understand. The margins in 2016 were smaller than the margins this year, and Democrats didn't challenge the votes then.

I'm not sure what you are giving odds on.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the margins in key states were not as close, and in aggregate not enough to have altered the electoral outcome?

I was giving "odds" that if the margins were close enough in enough states to have altered the outcome of the election in 2016, Clinton would likely have challenged those state counts. It would have been reasonable to do so.

Not that Trump is reasonable. Just that it's not exactly a shock nor is it irrational to challenge the vote counts when there is the appearance of a potentially different outcome.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I was under the impression that the margins in key states were not as close, and in aggregate not enough to have altered the electoral outcome?
Click to expand...

Now would be a good time to admit your mistake and apologize for spreading falsehoods.
 
Meadmaker said:
There's the error. They aren't.

Things seem closer this year because it took so much longer to count, and because the lead changed hands in several swing states. In fact, they aren't even done counting the first time, but in fact the margins are larger this time.


(Now I have to go look that up to be sure I'm right.....)
Click to expand...

I'll have to go play with the numbers. Some of it might very well be timing and the flipping of states throwing me off. But I also thought that the aggregate electoral votes from close states wouldn't have been enough for Clinton to win it.

And like I said, Clinton is more sensible than Trump. I think the insane woodpecker that keeps trying to drill through the metal top on my chimney is more sensible than Trump, to be honest.
 
This Election ISN'T CLOSE. The counting continues and Biden's margin of victory keeps growing.

JOE BIDEN: 77,383,920

D TRUMP: 72,274,587

MARGIN OF VICTORY 5,109,333
 
Emily's Cat said:
I was under the impression that the margins in key states were not as close, and in aggregate not enough to have altered the electoral outcome?
Click to expand...

No, that's not the case. The margins in 2016 were smaller than this year's margins.

As I said, it seems smaller this year because we had to wait so long for them, and because the lead switched hands. We didn't know who would end up on top for a long time. We still don't in Arizona.

But Michigan in 2016 was closer than Georgia in 2020. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were comparable, but Biden's margins were larger than Trump's. And that leave Nevada and Arizona that are still counting.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I was on board with the same logic: Let him have his temper tantrum, Biden can get everything lined up with or without Trump's assistance. That's why we hired the adult this time.

Then I saw a talking head reference the 9/11 Commission and I was a bit unsettled. I can't find the talking head I was watching, but here is a CNN article that makes the same reference:

That is the sort of thing that makes me less comfortable with letting the temper tantrum linger.
Click to expand...
No. When Bush came to power he tossed out all the Clinton admin information and work that included info on Bin Laden like Trump's action but on a much smaller scale. Bush refused to listen to Richard Clarke who had served for 30 years under both Democratic and Republican administrations ending as the head of counter-terrorism.

Clarke is the one who disclosed the PDB "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" that was received before 9-11.

Blaming any of that on a delayed start to taking office is rewriting history.

Bush threw out everything Clinton the way Trump threw out everything Obama.

This has been discussed ad nauseum in prior threads.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
For those (like me) who are paranoid about Trump stealing the election, here is some comfort that has some substance behind it, scroll to 2:55 when Jake Tapper mentions that he's been talking with Republicans:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1326295478175211521
Click to expand...
My impression: one faction of GOP legislators is enabling Trump and one faction believes they are 'gently' getting Trump to recognize reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom