• 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.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Again, Drunky said two different things: one that counting votes coming in after the election day would result in people losing faith in the outcome; two then he said the courts shouldn't overrule any state voting laws.

Pretty much shot down his own stupid rationale.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Kavanaugh is proving to have a poor legal mind.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
"It is written" in a court opinion on another state case.

I just had an epiphany. Trump's lawyers have quit the case and Trumpy moved Giuliani into the job. It is possible Giuliani is feeding Trump these ideas.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Trump is ignorant and can't look past his own ego. Giuliani wants to be relevant and he's nuttier than Trump these days. He's pompous and really has lost it. I've seen attorneys I respect say that at one time Rudy was a good lawyer, but not any more.

Giuliani was and is so much like Trump it's tragic. Both always have been above everything, publicity hounds. But these days, Giuliani is a poor lawyer. He has the legal mind of a failing first year law student.
 
Sunday update: Margin increases

President Elect Joe Biden: 78,765,697

Donald "Twitter Twit" Trump. 73,159,025

Margin for America: 5,606,298
 
Craig4 said:
Let me guess, he'll file the case in two weeks. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

slyjoe said:
In fact he said it to the Washington Examiner.
Whatever the case, Trump is forging ahead. When I asked him how quickly he might turn things around, he said, "I don't know. It's probably two weeks, three weeks."
Click to expand...

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-sees-electoral-turnaround-probably-two-weeks-n1247770
Click to expand...

Please Trump, file the case in 3 weeks. That would be after almost every state has certified the election.
 
Last edited:
I heard a right wing yapper (Larry Elder this time) talking about why President Trump's lack of concession today. He brought up Hillary Clinton's frequently quoted phrase from a speech (or was it just comments to a media source?) saying that Joe Biden should never concede.

I have seen this comment cited several times as a justification for Donald Trump not conceding right now. I've even heard it cited as proof of some sort of conspiracy to illegally install Joe Biden as President. Somehow, Larry Elder seemed to be buying into both versions, but I confess I didn't get all of his reasoning, because I got to the grocery store before he finished. The show was a taped show, so I don't know when he said this, either, but it was definitely recently.

Of course the idea that it was some sort of illegal conspiracy reference is ridiculous. As for the idea that Trump shouldn't concede as retaliation since Biden was told not to concede, I suppose I could understand a sort of logic that would say that it serves the Democrats right. Personally, I would like to think a candidate for President of the United States would decide whether or not to concede based on the reality of the election situation, and what's good for the country. However, expecting that from Trump would be completely unrealistic, so he'll go on Trumping and maybe never concede. As long as he doesn't break the law, I suppose that's ok. It's not the right thing to do, but the primary reason I, and many others, didn't vote for him in the first place is because that's the sort of thing he would do.

That's not what I'm wondering about, though. Does anyone understand why she said it in the first place? If the election results were different, and if Trump had ended up with 306 electoral votes and no chance of changing that in the post-election phase, I would assume that a candidate, including Biden, would concede. Not that it matters. The winner is the winner whether or not the loser concedes. I'm just wondering why Hillary said it in the first place. I only hear right wingers yapping about it as something important, so I suspect I'm not getting the right context of her remarks. I've read a little about them, though, and I can't make sense of the comment.
 
Gore 2000.

Arguably, he could have won if he had used way more lawyers in way more counties instead of letting the Bushs narrow him down to just one place.
But then, of course, the SC was going to help Dubya any way it could no matter what.



But that is irrelevant here, since Biden isn't President.
 
Last edited:
Almost every time I check Biden's lead grows. About 1700 votes larger

President Elect Joe Biden: 78,768,891

Donald Trump. 73,160,506

Margin for America: 5,608,385
 
Meadmaker said:
I heard a right wing yapper (Larry Elder this time) talking about why President Trump's lack of concession today. He brought up Hillary Clinton's frequently quoted phrase from a speech (or was it just comments to a media source?) saying that Joe Biden should never concede.

I have seen this comment cited several times as a justification for Donald Trump not conceding right now. I've even heard it cited as proof of some sort of conspiracy to illegally install Joe Biden as President. Somehow, Larry Elder seemed to be buying into both versions, but I confess I didn't get all of his reasoning, because I got to the grocery store before he finished. The show was a taped show, so I don't know when he said this, either, but it was definitely recently.

Of course the idea that it was some sort of illegal conspiracy reference is ridiculous. As for the idea that Trump shouldn't concede as retaliation since Biden was told not to concede, I suppose I could understand a sort of logic that would say that it serves the Democrats right. Personally, I would like to think a candidate for President of the United States would decide whether or not to concede based on the reality of the election situation, and what's good for the country. However, expecting that from Trump would be completely unrealistic, so he'll go on Trumping and maybe never concede. As long as he doesn't break the law, I suppose that's ok. It's not the right thing to do, but the primary reason I, and many others, didn't vote for him in the first place is because that's the sort of thing he would do.

That's not what I'm wondering about, though. Does anyone understand why she said it in the first place? If the election results were different, and if Trump had ended up with 306 electoral votes and no chance of changing that in the post-election phase, I would assume that a candidate, including Biden, would concede. Not that it matters. The winner is the winner whether or not the loser concedes. I'm just wondering why Hillary said it in the first place. I only hear right wingers yapping about it as something important, so I suspect I'm not getting the right context of her remarks. I've read a little about them, though, and I can't make sense of the comment.
Click to expand...

What she said was a little clumsy, but absolutely correct:

She [Hillary Clinton] said this year’s election day results might point to Trump having a narrow advantage. But in that case, Clinton said, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out.”

...

“Eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN25L2FJ
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

Instead of "under any circumstance", she should have said "under these circumstances".
 
acbytesla said:
Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....
- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president
- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.
Click to expand...
1. As much as they might believe that I don't think any SCOTUS Judge believes that Trump is right wing.
Click to expand...
Trump may not follow many of the traditional conservative ideals (such as free trade), but he's still far more right-leaning than Biden. And he does favor tax cuts over social spending, deregulation, and military spending increases (all right-wing concepts).
2. Their power diminishes even more if they give into Trump. Trump has been ignoring court orders. You think he's going to heel during a second term?
Click to expand...
I am talking about how an individual judge might feel, and the threat to their power, rather than how it affects the court as a whole.

Yes, Trump might ignore various court orders. But its possible that someone like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife won't care, because they probably thought the court should have ruled in favor of Trump anyways.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Again, Drunky said two different things: one that counting votes coming in after the election day would result in people losing faith in the outcome; two then he said the courts shouldn't overrule any state voting laws.

Pretty much shot down his own stupid rationale.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty telling the best rationale he could come up with is basically “some people wouldn’t like it”
 
Meadmaker said:
I heard a right wing yapper (Larry Elder this time) talking about why President Trump's lack of concession today. He brought up Hillary Clinton's frequently quoted phrase from a speech (or was it just comments to a media source?) saying that Joe Biden should never concede.

I have seen this comment cited several times as a justification for Donald Trump not conceding right now. I've even heard it cited as proof of some sort of conspiracy to illegally install Joe Biden as President. Somehow, Larry Elder seemed to be buying into both versions, but I confess I didn't get all of his reasoning, because I got to the grocery store before he finished. The show was a taped show, so I don't know when he said this, either, but it was definitely recently.

Of course the idea that it was some sort of illegal conspiracy reference is ridiculous. As for the idea that Trump shouldn't concede as retaliation since Biden was told not to concede, I suppose I could understand a sort of logic that would say that it serves the Democrats right. Personally, I would like to think a candidate for President of the United States would decide whether or not to concede based on the reality of the election situation, and what's good for the country. However, expecting that from Trump would be completely unrealistic, so he'll go on Trumping and maybe never concede. As long as he doesn't break the law, I suppose that's ok. It's not the right thing to do, but the primary reason I, and many others, didn't vote for him in the first place is because that's the sort of thing he would do.

That's not what I'm wondering about, though. Does anyone understand why she said it in the first place? If the election results were different, and if Trump had ended up with 306 electoral votes and no chance of changing that in the post-election phase, I would assume that a candidate, including Biden, would concede. Not that it matters. The winner is the winner whether or not the loser concedes. I'm just wondering why Hillary said it in the first place. I only hear right wingers yapping about it as something important, so I suspect I'm not getting the right context of her remarks. I've read a little about them, though, and I can't make sense of the comment.
Click to expand...

4 years later, lying about crowd sizes and complaints about Hillary lol
 
Another explanation of how we got here:
The parts of America that have seen strong job, population and economic growth in the past four years voted for Joe Biden, economic researchers found. In contrast, President Trump garnered his highest vote shares in counties that had some of the most sluggish job, population and economic growth during his term.
......
In 2020, Biden won 477 counties that account for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, while Trump won 2,497 counties amounting to just shy of 30 percent of the economy, according to an analysis by Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, and his team. (A handful of counties are still awaiting final election results.) For Democrats, it was a notable increase from 2016, when Hillary Clinton won counties amounting to 64 percent of the U.S. economy.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/15/biden-trump-economy/

It seems downright bizarre that the people who are suffering the most didn't blame the person who's been in charge for the last four years.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, Trump might ignore various court orders. But its possible that someone like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife won't care, because they probably thought the court should have ruled in favor of Trump anyways.
Click to expand...

Alternately, I wouldn't put a simple party over country decision past them, if they thought they could get away with it or actions that they think will benefit the Republican Party's corporate masters who are much of the reason why they're there in the first place.
 
dirtywick said:
4 years later, lying about crowd sizes and complaints about Hillary lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, it turns out that Killary has been living in their heads all this time. And better yet, she's been living there "rent-free"!!!! Bwahahahahahahahahahha!!!
 
alfaniner said:
Dipping my toe into the conspiracy theory pool...

I have to wonder if, even a little bit, the networks are promoting conflict so they have lots of ridiculous things to report, and keep the stories going with legs. Why? It's November, also known in the US as one of the four very important Neilsen Ratings periods. It's why we get all the "very special" episodes, guest stars, and major events on TV.

This is probably the last time the news networks will be able to garner these kinds of ratings. Other sweeps months are February, May, and July, but with Biden firmly established (and pretty boring) in the position there won't be much of interest to report, or outrage to generate.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the networks are betting on trump being the gift that keeps on giving. Be it his own new media network, legal matters relating to him and his associates, standard rally bombast, teasing a 2024 run or maga cultists doing illegal things... there will be news.
 
Bob001 said:
Another explanation of how we got here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/15/biden-trump-economy/

It seems downright bizarre that the people who are suffering the most didn't blame the person who's been in charge for the last four years.
Click to expand...

Poor people in general vote more for the Democrats than rich people. That's true both in Red counties as in Blue counties.
The answer is that though the richest counties and states tend to go for Democrats, within those places, the rich are still more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats. It’s just that the places with lots of Democrats tend to be richer.

Take Kentucky and New York: the former is a Republican stronghold and the latter is reliably Democratic. In both states, the rich are more likely to support Republicans than are the poor. But, overall, Kentucky voters tilt toward Republicans and New York voters tilt toward Democrats—poor Kentuckians were less likely to vote for Trump than rich New Yorkers (*). Since New York is richer than Kentucky, it makes it seem like Democrats are the party of the rich.

...

The main reason Democratic states tend to be richer, even though Democratic voters are not, is that the Democrats have become the party of cities. All of the densest counties in the US vote for Democrats, most of them overwhelmingly so, and, on average, city dwellers tend to have higher incomes than rural Americans.

...

It is not the rich in the richest places that make them so Democratic, but the middle class. Working-class teachers, bus drivers, and carpenters are very likely to be Democratic in urban counties, and they make more money than the middle class in rural areas. They are the reason Democrats win in rich places without winning the rich: Democrats are the party of, among other groups, the urban middle class.

...

All of this suggests that to understand American politics you have to start with both urbanization and race. The US economy is powered by incredibly productive cities and its politics are increasingly oriented around a divide between those who live in them and those who don’t. Few divisions in America are large enough to supersede that one, and the exception is the country’s long and shameful history of racial discrimination.

Why Joe Biden will win rich places but not rich people
Click to expand...
(*) I'm not sure that specific statement, "poor Kentuckians were less likely to vote for Trump than rich New Yorkers" is actually correct based on the CNN exit polls they link to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom