• 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.
acbytesla said:
I can understand that.

But it depends on what you mean by "official". The States don't officially "declare" the winner until they certify the election. That said "officials" will say what the count is and who won when it is obvious.
It's only after certification when the results are for the most part final.

Also when the AP officially declare a winner, it is more a colloquial term. The results they are publishing from official tabulations.
Click to expand...

In a way, it's no more significant than the misuse of the word "literally".

But it is a misuse of the word, and I think it contributes a little bit to some misunderstandings.
 
Trump tweets

Georgia won’t let us look at the all important signature match. Without that the recount is MEANINGLESS. Open up unconstitutional Consent Decree, NOW! @BrianKempGA

They will PACK THE COURTS. We won’t let that happen!

The Radical Left Democrats, working with their partner, the Fake News Media, are trying to STEAL this Election. We won’t let them!
 
JoeMorgue said:
If one side says it is raining and one side says that it isn't, it isn't the press's job to report that there is controversy about whether or not it is raining. It's the press's job to open a window and check and if they don't do that they are remiss in their duties to society.

They can't do that if when the open the window and check to see if it's raining and then report on which side is correct we complain about them not being the official authority on rain.

The Press has been calling races for decades and nobody had a problem with it, ever. The fact that Trump is denying reality this one time changes nothing.
Click to expand...

I think it's different: The press is calling things, based on other authorities, or whatever is their source. But it does not decide things. The press calls out Biden as a winner of the election, based on information available to us all, but that does not make Biden president. Authoritative channels are going to do that (hopefully despite obstruction from Trump).

Of course, the press should ideally try to be reliable, but let's not kid ourselves: That will mainly be to avoid egg on their face and loss of ratings.

Hans
 
Just curious, but at this point is it even possible to signature match?

I don't think that, right now, it is possible to tie a specific ballot to a specific voter. If you could, it wouldn't be a secret ballot.

But I've never run an election, so maybe they do things differently with absentee ballots.


Either way, Trump's whining about signature matching means he knows he can't win Georgia unless he gets votes thrown away somehow.
 
Dave Rogers said:
The whole conversation with the Republicans seems rather like talking to a five-year-old.
"Donnie, you shouldn't have called the fire brigade this morning."
"But Dad called them last year."
"Yes, but the house was on fire."
"Well, the central heating boiler was on this morning, and that's got a fire in it."
"But that's supposed to have a fire in it."
"Doesn't matter, the fire brigade's there to put fires out and there was one, so I'm perfectly within my rights to call them."

The problem here is that nobody's in a position to send the President to bed without any supper. In fact, I rather suspect that the real problem is that nobody ever did.

Dave
Click to expand...

True, but they are in a position to quit and walk out, if they have integrity.

Hans
 
Bob001 said:
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...
Making people vote against their best interest is art that Rethuglicans polished to perfection.
 
Meadmaker said:
Just curious, but at this point is it even possible to signature match?

I don't think that, right now, it is possible to tie a specific ballot to a specific voter. If you could, it wouldn't be a secret ballot.
Click to expand...
Exactly, People sign the envelope they came in, not the ballots. Because our votes are secret the ballots are separated from the envelope.
Meadmaker said:
But I've never run an election, so maybe they do things differently with absentee ballots.
Click to expand...
I never ran an election, but I worked as a poll worker during college processing absentee ballots. Total menial temp job. Some things I'm sure has changed.
Meadmaker said:
Either way, Trump's whining about signature matching means he knows he can't win Georgia unless he gets votes thrown away somehow.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. They are not going to throw out any votes unless they illegible.
 
Every time I check, Biden's lead grows.

Must be FRAUD! ;)

President Elect Joe Biden: 78,779,255

Donald Trump. 73,167,998

Margin for America: 5,611,257[
 
acbytesla said:
Exactly, People sign the envelope they came in, not the ballots. Because our votes are secret the ballots are separated from the envelope.
I never ran an election, but I worked as a poll worker during college processing absentee ballots. Total menial temp job. Some things I'm sure has changed.


Pretty much. They are not going to throw out any votes unless they illegible.
Click to expand...

Please, stop trying the make sense of what Trump says. There isn't any.

Hans
 
acbytesla said:
What official opinion?
Click to expand...

Here you go:

Kavanaugh’s opinion is the most notable of the bunch because he is the new median justice and the opinion is frankly terrifying. In one passage, Kavanaugh attempted to defend the Wisconsin law disqualifying ballots received after Election Day. He pointed out that “most States” share this policy, explaining:

Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Note that the links I've tried to follow to the SCOTUS site on the case have been 404. I'm trying very hard not to see a conspiracy in that.
 
slyjoe said:
"Hillary" and/or "Clinton" are trigger words for Republicans.
Click to expand...
Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary

Clinton.
 
Meadmaker said:
...

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...
Do we know that she actually said it?
 
Firestone said:
What she said was a little clumsy, but absolutely correct:

(bolding mine)

Instead of "under any circumstance", she should have said "under these circumstances".
Click to expand...
OK, I get it. She was telling Biden not to go along with Trump wanting the count stopped when he was ahead.

An unforced error. She should have said the count isn't in.
 
We're way overthinking this.

The fact that Hillary (arguably) shouldn't have conceded as quick as she did has... *clears throat* none, zero, zilch, nadda, not at all, no, bearing on Trump not conceding. Because the scenarios are not comparable.

It's not a double standard when one side is right/sane/correct and the other side is wrong/crazy/incorrect.

This is like explaining to the kid who wets the bed why he has to wear diapers and the kid who doesn't wet the bed doesn't to and he won't stop whining about why it isn't fair.

Because you're the one who wets the bed! This ain't complicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom