• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Nobody wants to report that Pennsylvania and Michigan didn’t allow our Poll Watchers and/or Vote Observers to Watch or Observe. This is responsible for hundreds of thousands of votes that should not be allowed to count. Therefore, I easily win both states. Report the News!
Click to expand...

Well, that might be because it ain't true (Forbes article):

Lawyers for Trump’s campaign also filed a federal motion on Thursday evening to stop the vote count in Philadelphia, alleging that all Republican observers were illegally blocked from watching the process.

However, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond (a President George W. Bush appointee) denied the request after Trump’s lawyers admitted that observers had been admitted to the facility.
Click to expand...

Isn't Trump talking to the lawyers representing him? Or (this seems more likely) just not listening to them?
 
He has been repeating the same claims but wording them differently since election day.
He isn't listening to anybody it seems.
 
Armitage72 said:
In related news:

Nobody wants to report that Brazil has been invaded by an army of unicorns.
Nobody wants to report that it is currently raining pickle relish in Peoria.
Nobody wants to report that the Crab Nebula has applied for US citizenship.
Click to expand...

We're building a wall, and the Andromeda galaxy is going to pay for it.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I see where you're getting that, but that's not quite where I was going.

I am not sold on the "stealing" aspect of it, which implies that he's trying to do something illegal and to cheat. I'm quite sure he's trying to be a pain the backside. And he might very well believe that there are fraudulent votes or other shenanigans, I don't know. I'm not a mind reader. It's partly because I'm not a mind reader that I'm objecting to the insinuation of malice.

I don't think the Democrats would have pursued the same ends using the same means though. Clinton, had she been in a position where the EC votes in borderline states could have changed the outcome, could very reasonably (imo) challenged those votes and demanded a recount - it would have been in her best interests (and the interest of the party) to do so.
Click to expand...

Using legitimate means to ensure that a close vote was counted correctly is perfectly reasonable. It is even reasonable if you only advocate for your own side and ignore potential issues not in your favor. Were Trump interested only in doing that, I shouldn't criticize him and his enablers.

That's not what's happening here. Trump has no hope of finding serious fraud that would turn over the tens of thousands of votes necessary to change the results. He simply doesn't want to admit he lost, and the GOP (the party of "**** your feelings!") finds it expedient to coddle him regardless of the harm it has caused our democracy.

There is simply no equivalence here at all.
 
acbytesla said:
That was my plan.

I think it is absolutely essential that we all understand that the GOP and the nutters are attempting to invalidate 5 million people.
Click to expand...

Your math is off. They are attempting to invalidate the votes of over 77 million people.
 
acbytesla said:
:thumbsup:

I stand corrected.

77,502,507 and climbing to be precise.
Click to expand...

Well, viewed differently, they're trying to invalidate the minimal number necessary to change the EC results. That's the only votes that need to be ignored.

Thus, since I'm in a deep blue state, my vote is utterly safe (and was utterly pointless). No one will challenge my vote, even though I'm dead. (Shh!)

Of course, if they pursue the argument that mail-in ballots are unconstitutional, they will be overturning rather more votes. Again, not
mine, because I voted in person on Oct. 31. At midnight.
 
Georgia is performing a manual recount. Georgia law apparently mandates scanned recounts.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/hand-r...ia-election-rules/A6TZPKBIMRCCTKBUZASTLLO4SE/

According to Fair Vote, the average change in the statewide vote count from a recount since 2000 is 0.024%. For a recount to give the Georgia victory to Trump would require a change almost 12 times the average, and more than 2.5 times larger than the largest change.
 
phiwum said:
Yes, there were protests. I don't recall allegations that the election was fraudulent. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...



None that were taken seriously.

I have seen social media allegations that the Russians actually rigged the vote in favor of Trump.
 
phiwum said:
Well, viewed differently, they're trying to invalidate the minimal number necessary to change the EC results. That's the only votes that need to be ignored.

Thus, since I'm in a deep blue state, my vote is utterly safe (and was utterly pointless). No one will challenge my vote, even though I'm dead. (Shh!)

Of course, if they pursue the argument that mail-in ballots are unconstitutional, they will be overturning rather more votes. Again, not
mine, because I voted in person on Oct. 31. At midnight.
Click to expand...

I do understand all that. I'm a believer that the Electoral College and the United States Senate are undemocratic institutions. Why should a vote in blue states like your state or mine be utterly pointless?

And this is why I rail against these pointless edifices of a long past racist era. This is why we shouldn't just ignore the voice of the popular vote.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Many people are still firmly convinced that Trump had direct coordinated activity with Russia in order to steal the 2016 election, and that the pee tapes are real.

People believe whatever they need to believe in order to assuage their emotional distress. And at this point, politics in the US is not at all about logic or reason, it's almost entirely about emotions. It's not identity politics anymore, it's political identity.
Click to expand...

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...

To add to that in a non-comprehensive manner, it was also established that 1) Manafort was passing the Trump campaign's data to the Russians and that there's a good chance that Russia was acting upon that data, given the oddity of their actions in Minnesota. 2) Trump tried to get dirt on Hillary from Russia in multiple ways - and yes, the trying itself matters, regardless of success. 3) The Trump campaign refused to report many Russian attempts to infiltrate, even after having been warned that the Russians were trying to do so - and obstructed investigation. 4) Trump Tower Moscow. Enough said there.

There might not have been *active and direct* coordination, but what did happen was very, very problematic. Either way, that Emily's Cat is working to create false equivalences and false narratives, yet again, is noted.

phiwum said:
I do think that Emily's Cat seems to be quite careful in parsing claims about Trump but quite footloose when describing the actions of Democrats. It does not result in a fair comparison and weakens her claim that both sides are driven by partisanship to similar degree.
Click to expand...

Given body of work, not just Trump. Right wing forces, in general, get a huge bias in their favor, when it comes to her assessments. Naturally, that doesn't mean that Emily's Cat is a "supporter" of Trump/the right-wing, directly. It just means that her assessments are heavily biased in their favor - which could also easily be the case if she's trying to convince herself that both sides are equally bad.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Not exactly. It requires that when one is presented with whitewashed interpretations of one of the parties, one make an effort to evaluate a more nefarious possible interpretation than is being shown. And if one is presented with a malicious interpretation of one of the parties, one make an effort to evaluate a more benign possible interpretation than is being shown.

The challenge here is that ISF is generally left-leaning, which is fine overall. But the claim to skepticism seems to get pocketed when it comes to politics. Democrats' are consistently presented by the vast bulk of posters in a whitewashed light, and Republicans in a malicious light.

This tendency has been present for as long as I've been a member here, and probably long before that. But it has become significantly stronger since 2016.
Click to expand...

You are admitting to creating a false equivalency. You assume that anything bad you hear about one side simply must be a "malicious interpretation" and so create/evaluate a more benign interpretation, and that anything good you hear about the other side must be whitewashing and so create a more nefarious interpretation.

This is not skepticism, and is certainly not going to give you an accurate view of the politicians or of the members here discussing those politicians.
 
The Don said:
IMO it depends on the process that gets you there.

If the election result is ratified and Joe Biden is declared President but President Trump and his administration fail to vacate the White House, then I don't see that being effective.

OTOH if there are actions like SCOTUS ruling, faithless electors overturning the election result or Republican representatives refusing to ratify the election result then that could be effective because there would be a (quasi) legal basis for a second term. :(
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Moreover, every day that goes by, Biden morphs more into the actual presidential role. At some point, he becomes de facto president. I have no idea what that point is. I'd guess that if nothing material changes by Dec 1, then there will be no turning back, no matter what.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I see where you're getting that, but that's not quite where I was going.

I am not sold on the "stealing" aspect of it, which implies that he's trying to do something illegal and to cheat. I'm quite sure he's trying to be a pain the backside. And he might very well believe that there are fraudulent votes or other shenanigans, I don't know. I'm not a mind reader. It's partly because I'm not a mind reader that I'm objecting to the insinuation of malice.

I don't think the Democrats would have pursued the same ends using the same means though. Clinton, had she been in a position where the EC votes in borderline states could have changed the outcome, could very reasonably (imo) challenged those votes and demanded a recount - it would have been in her best interests (and the interest of the party) to do so.
Click to expand...
Now where have I heard something like that before? Oh yeah:

 
trustbutverify said:
Which presidential election does he not believe is/was a fraud?

He doesn't believe anything. He simply will do or say anything to try and get his way. He's a congenital liar without a shred of integrity or character. He'd beat his own mother to death with a softball bat if there was enough money on the line.
Click to expand...

Joffrey in "Game of Thrones" comes to mind...
 
acbytesla said:
I do understand all that. I'm a believer that the Electoral College and the United States Senate are undemocratic institutions. Why should a vote in blue states like your state or mine be utterly pointless?

And this is why I rail against these pointless edifices of a long past racist era. This is why we shouldn't just ignore the voice of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Oh, I take your point, but I don't reckon that the EC is going anywhere. Thus, I don't see a good reason to analyze the election as if the EC wasn't the law of the land.

The same bias towards states in the EC is in the requirements to amend the Constitution. Those same states that benefit from the EC can easily prevent an Amendment. It's a non-starter.
 
Biden adds 80K to his lead

JOE BIDEN: 77,628,665

D TRUMP: 72,371,262

MARGIN OF VICTORY 5,257,403
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom