Utopia Talk / Politics / Get rid of the ballots!!

Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Wed Sep 23 23:47:20 Well that's the only way he can win. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR8oIitE6mI
Sam Adams Member	Wed Sep 23 23:52:43 Atlantic story abput trump. Such trustworthy outfits.
Dukhat Member	Thu Sep 24 00:10:31 Versus your facebook feed you incel fuck?
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Thu Sep 24 00:42:22 WTF you talking about Sam?!?! OP is an unedited clip of Trump being asked about a peaceful transfer of power and Trump saying "Get rid of ballots and there won't be a transfer of power. Get rid of the ballots."
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Sep 24 01:12:35 Is this one of those stories where we're supposed to ignore the context and just pretend that Trump was saying that he doesn't want there to be ballots at all in the entire election? Is this the next round of misinformed memes we'll have to see from the social media cesspools (sponsored by a misleading CNBC headline)? We'll just ignore that he was saying "a continuation" meaning "[if he's relected]"? We'll just pretend that "get rid of the ballots" didn't specifically mean the fraudulent ballots that he's been talking about for months? Cool. Cool. Cool, cool, cool. Misinformation and misrepresentation — that'll help things. That won't turn away voters at all.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Sep 24 02:15:04 the headlines will be on not committing to a peaceful transfer of power, a pretty simple answer he could've given he's been objecting to mail-in ballots (that he mass labels fraudulent) & those -will- be counted so definitely a problem brewing w/ him not accepting results as there's no way he could given his position
kargen Member	Thu Sep 24 03:33:46 I believe his premise is there will be no transfer of power because he is going to win. He does insist on throwing in the caveat, unless they cheat, and I think he should stop doing that. That is what it sounds like when you hear all his remarks.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Sep 24 03:43:15 "the headlines will be on not committing to a peaceful transfer of power, a pretty simple answer he could've given" That headline ("President Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election") was a manipulation of his meaning, though. It suggests that he would attempt to hold onto the power despite a loss, which was not his intent; his intent was that an election without fraud would be peaceful. This was the reporter's question: "Will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?" That narrative is to get Trump to presume that he will lose the election — that was how the question was formed. It did not say, "If", like the headline did, it presumed an inevitable transfer (i.e., "[You will have to transfer power, so will you do it peacefully?]"). If Trump says, "[Yes, I'll peacefully transfer power,]" then the headline becomes, "[President Trump admits that he will lose the election]" or "[President Trump will peacefully transfer power to Biden]". That means that Trump has to dismiss the loaded part of the question before he can even answer it, saying, "We're gonna have to see what happens ... We want to get rid of the ballots and we'll have a very trans— we'll have a very peaceful t— there won't be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation." You can see President Trump trying to answer the (loaded) question without being dragged into the asker's narrative (the transfer), so he has to find a word that means that he will win ("continuation") while also assuring peace. I don't like Trump, but that's clearly the strategy in effect. It's not even that "4D chess" nonsense, it's just an avoidance of letting others dictate terms. Reporters set up loaded question traps like this for headlines, which necessitates dismantling their built-in assumptions. And it has a clear mechanism: if Trump admits the possibility of a loss (the transfer), then the reporter has successfully eroded voter confidence in Trump's chances, which means lower GOP voter turnout. If Trump evades that trap, then a backup trap is to make him look like a tyrant who refuses to hand over power without violence. Either way, the news gets a win from the layered deception. Looking at the comments, lots of people on YouTube bought the headline.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 04:02:39 CC Trump clearly mismanaged the question. If he is not up to the challenge of responding to a journalist, then he is not up to the job he currently holds. It was actually framed for a clear cut law and order message. "I am going to win, but under no circumstances will I allow illegal violence to disrupt the continuance of government" So easy. He failed. Leaving people to think (truly or not) that the US is just another banana republic.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Sep 24 06:23:28 [jergul]: "Trump clearly mismanaged the question." Agreed. He definitely could have answered in such a way that the reporter's traps did not function. That being said, from his response we understand his actual meaning: an election without fraud would be peaceful. *We* understand his meaning (or should), so does the media who propagated the lie understand? If they did *not* understand, did their educations fail them? Possibly, in which case they may really be just as dumb as their headlines. If they *did* understand, then we see the trend of malicious misrepresentation still persists in the media — here, by CNBC. In either case, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany will likely have to correct this new misinformation sound bite tomorrow, but the trap may have cost a few misinformed voters in the meantime.
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 06:38:20 I seen the question on TV. He was clearly referring to fraudelent ballots as he mentions there are problems with them.
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 06:53:58 if you check out the links on my end goes to court to ban the green party it sheds more light on why the ballots are shit. The DNC has effectivley banned the green party from the ballot in several states by using BS technicalities that don't evenbreak the rules. The VP for the greens moved within the same city she lives in, Followed all appropriate PPW stating so but since some of the support signatures she got for her candidacy were when she lived at her prior address they threw them out and banned them from the ballot. That's blatant voter suppression. In another one they said that a fax wasn't good enough that the candidate needa to deliver the original copy, however they didnt tell them until AFTER it was able to be changed and used that to ban them from the Ballot. So yeah, the ballots are BS. This clearly reeks of HRC who blamed 3rd parties for why she lost.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 24 07:08:35 It was an inartful response to a loaded question. The "reporter" essentially asked him "when you lose in November, will you commit to a peaceful transition of power?" We all know what Trump was trying to say. The fact that the press willingly went with the sensational "zomg Trump hates democracy!" take just shows what scumbags they are.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 24 09:02:26 Trumps been undermining the legitimacy of the election for months with comments about ballot fraud that are completely unevidenced. The question is clearly inviting him to commit to respect the result. And he will not have been particularly unhappy with the opportunity to imply that he will dispute the result if he loses because he expects to win and only ballot corruption would explain otherwise. He's been setting expectations for months so that he can declare victory before the ballots are counted, or dispute a narrow biden victory without provoking an immediate backlash as everyone is expecting it.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 24 09:03:43 He didn't inarticulately answer the question, he answered perfectly in a way that allows inferences to be drawn, dampen an immediate backlash, without providing a tangible thread to pull on.
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 09:25:00 "Trumps been undermining the legitimacy of the election for months with comments about ballot fraud that are completely unevidenced." Well, the ballots have already effectivley shutout the green party through DNC backed voter suppression. "The question is clearly inviting him to commit to respect the result. And he will not have been particularly unhappy with the opportunity to imply that he will dispute the result if he loses because he expects to win and only ballot corruption would explain otherwise." The Democrats have already said they plan to not concede and to fight with lawyers if the result is a Trump win on election night. This is the real worry for the Dems if Trump gets a SC justice in before the election. http://youtu.be/44AbGEHhzg4 She has stated in several interviews , and has for a while that Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstances and should amass a massive legal fight if he loses. So its not as though Trump is alone in casting doubt on the election.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 09:42:37 Habebe And Biden can call a press conference to dispute the outcome. Trump can call the 9th Airborne. (as some pundit said).
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 09:59:10 Jergul, Well that's a retarded statement. It was the democrats like Am Gore who claimed the military should be used to transition if Trumpnwouldnt leave. The military has come out to state that they are non partisan and non political, this is to be done by the courts, not the military.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Sep 24 10:01:55 "they are non partisan and non political" then they be perfect! unlike the courts which are partisan and political!
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 10:08:13 Milley said, “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. Military.” Milley said, “I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military.” it was actually Biden himself who suggested he use military force to remove Trump if he wouldnt leave. http://www...ction-or-disputed-results/amp/
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 10:15:49 "On December 8, 2018, President Donald Trump announced that he would nominate Milley to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although the Secretary of Defense at that time James Mattis and the incumbent Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph Dunford favored Air Force Chief of Staff General David L. Goldfein to be the next Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff.[18][19][20][21][22] With Senate confirmation (89–1) on July 25[23][24] he was sworn in on September 30, 2019.[25][26][27][28] After Milley was nominated, he headed a commission with other American military officials that were responsible for designing a report on the country's impending near-term impacts from climate change. The report, which was released in August 2019, stated that the country and its military would experience a total collapse within the next two decades due to collapses in the country's aging power grid and food supply, as well as the increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks globally. The report also mentions the likelihood of increasing water scarcity in developing countries, which would result in an increase of civil and military conflicts due to a failure in the global food system.[29][30] After attending 75th anniversary commemorations of the Battle of the Bulge in Belgium and Luxembourg on December 16, 2019, Milley met with the Russian military chief of staff Valery Gerasimov in Bern, Switzerland, on December 18. This continued a series of regular meetings between the American and Russian military chiefs reestablished by Milley's predecessor Joseph Dunford in 2017 to ensure open communication and avoid conflict, especially in Syria.[31] The face-to-face meeting was arranged with the assistance of the incoming Swiss Chief of the Armed Forces Korpskommandant (Lieutenant General) Thomas Süssli.[32] On June 1, 2020, during protests in Washington, D.C., in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, Milley joined National Guardsmen and various police forces assembling in Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House.[33] Minutes later, the troops and police used tear gas and other riot control tactics to disperse peaceable protestors so Trump could stage a photo-op at nearby St. John's Episcopal Church. About half an hour after that, Milley, in combat uniform, walked alongside the president from the White House to the church, drawing sharp criticism from former military officers and others.[34][35][36][37][38][39] Milley subsequently refused to testify in front of Congress regarding the military's role in the response to the protests.[40] He reportedly considered resigning over the incident[41], but chose instead to address it in a video recorded as his commencement address to the National Defense University. In that speech, streamed on June 11, Milley said he should not have been at the event because his presence created a perception of military involvement in domestic politics.[42]" ================ Who is then going to remove Trump if he refuses to leave habebe? The military swears to uphold the constitution btw. It seems pretty obvious it is constitutionally obliged to make sure the oval office is clear by January 20th.
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 10:22:49 Your assuming Trump loses.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 10:30:14 So are you. You think he is going to try to legate his way to a 2nd term. So does Trump incidentally.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 24 10:32:13 So does Biden, incidentally.
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 10:34:30 I think that regardless of the outcome, it looks like this will go to court as both sides seem to indicate and both sides have already gad a slew of legal challenges. I think Trump will win the electoral college similar to last round and that Biden will fight the outcome in court. 538 has this outcome at like 5-10% IIRC but I think it's more likley than that.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Sep 24 10:54:03 Fucking Retard's shithole implosion may be well underway.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Sep 24 11:54:43 http://twitter.com/dyoBmaS/status/1308823804886482947
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Sep 24 12:06:40 http://pbs...XcAADkUg?format=jpg&name=small
patom Member	Thu Sep 24 12:18:58 Maybe if I had some spare money, I would be investing in hearing aids and eye care companies. Trump says something that should mean what it says but, nope. A whole bunch of people come out and claim he never said or acted that way. Claim you are imagining things if you don't agree with them.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 24 12:19:27 Habebe: "The Democrats have already said they plan to not concede and to fight with lawyers if the result is a Trump win on election night." Yes, because of the relative importance of mail ballots and the fact that Trump has been seeking to delegitimise mail ballots for months, obstruct mail ballots etc. It is clear what his plan is: try to declare victory on the night before mail ballots are counted, having delayed them, and them and insinuated they are fraudulent.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 24 12:25:03 There should be no declaration of victory until either all ballots are counted or it is clear that mail ballots would no longer change the outcome. The question the journalist was asking isn't "will you concede on the night", he was asking "will you concede if you lose" Trumps answer was to again assert that the election is so at risk from fraud (no evidence from this at all) that he might not concede. He's rolling the pitch to argue the election result is invalid, that the mail ballots (and who knows what others) should be discounted and he should get to continue irrespective of what ballots say. What real evidence is there that there is fraud?
habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 12:31:50 Seb, My point is that both sides have already committed to legal means deciding the election. And not just one thing.There is plenty of blame to go around.
renzo marQuez Member	Thu Sep 24 13:31:40 #BREAKING: FBI finds mail-in ballots discarded in Pennsylvania. All of them were cast for President Trump. http://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1309190623707246595 Getting rid of the ballots is the only way Biden can win. That's why the pedoelite have already jumped into action.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 13:48:05 HARRISBURG – On Monday, September 21, 2020, at the request of Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis, the Office of the United States Attorney along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Scranton Resident Office, began an inquiry into reports of potential issues with a small number of mail-in ballots at the Luzerne County Board of Elections. Since Monday, FBI personnel working together with the Pennsylvania State Police have conducted numerous interviews and recovered and reviewed certain physical evidence. Election officials in Luzerne County have been cooperative. At this point we can confirm that a small number of military ballots were discarded. Investigators have recovered nine ballots at this time. Some of those ballots can be attributed to specific voters and some cannot. All nine ballots were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump. Our inquiry remains ongoing and we expect later today to share our up to date findings with officials in Luzerne County. It is the vital duty of government to ensure that every properly cast vote is counted.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 24 13:48:26 Forget about the election and figuring out who the winner is, we should be happy if we are alive when the nuclear dust settles.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 14:01:15 Far worse leaders than Trump managed to dismember the USSR without nukes flying. Don't worry, be happy.
Habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 14:35:35 I feel like US politics is the world's reality show.... Your welcome.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Sep 24 14:43:49 snarky kayleigh fails to clean it up http://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1309203917163630598 apparently it being the Playboy reporter who asked the question makes a difference somehow after stupidity, she lands on just "The president will accept the results of a free and fair election." fantastic... except for the 0.0% chance Trump will ever call it a fair election, even when he won he claimed 3-5 million fraud votes he has claimed massive fraud in every election & primary
hood Member	Thu Sep 24 14:44:10 So 9 Trumpers were trying to vote fraudulently?
Seb Member	Thu Sep 24 15:46:03 Habebe: My point is that we can easily distinguish between the two situations. Trump starts actively undermining the legitimacy of the election so he can try and claim victory while discarding ballots. The democrats respond by saying that they will not concede on the night, before all ballots have been counted, and will sue if he tries to do that. That is the sequence of events. Arguing that both are equivalent is idiotic.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 24 15:49:01 There is not "plenty of blame to go around". It is quite simple, your sitting president is directly and deliberately seeking to undermine the integrity of the election by delaying the postal ballots, and then will use that as evidence that the postal ballots are tainted; at the same time as calling into question the legitimacy of the election; so that he can seek to ignore the result and rely on a court decision, which will go to a court he has stuffed with a stolen judicial appointment; because he knows he will lose. To paraphrase George W, the problem with American English is that it has no word for "coup".
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Sep 24 16:12:35 habebe sees equivalence everywhere sorta equivalent: -both sides mention legal action -D's knocking down green party, R's propping up a 2nd mentally-ill candidate (Kanye) none of that addresses Trump's constant drumbeat of fraud & his misinformation about ballots, for which no equivalence at all & will be hugely problematic
Habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 16:44:49 Yes... Because the poor democrats are just victims of Trump.....ok. This is a.common theme amongst the modern left. Nothing they do is wrong and if it is its only because the right made the do it. Explain to me why what Trump is doing is any worse than -Bloomberg bribing voters in Florida. - Repeated banning of the green party off ballots especially in close races. In some cases people have already voted and the DNC had the courts throw them out. - Make.it so any signature even if it's wrong will qualify as a valid vote. All together it shows a pattern. Tje difference between the left and the right is, the right knows our leaders are slime, the left is eituer ignorant or deluded that there politiciams are angels.
Habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 16:46:27 For fucks sake they impeached the man *knowing they lacked the votes* to do anything. A pointless witch hunt.
Habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 16:48:46 The Green Party submitted more than enough valid signatures to be on the ballot in Wisconsin. The Commission’s staff said the petition had 3,623 valid signatures, well over the minimum 2,000 signatures required. But the Commissioners divided along partisan lines over counting 1,834 signatures that were signed on petitions with Angela Walker’s former address. Walker moved within Florence, South Carolina during the petition drive and the initial signatures were collected under her old address. Walker’s address was correct the petitions were signed, but the Democratic Party members of the Commission refused to accept those signatures. The Wisconsin Elections Commission will only count 4,000 signatures so even though the Hawkins/Walker campaign has an additional 2,000 signatures, they were not considered by the Commission. -Cited in my dnc goes to court to ban the green party thread.
Habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 16:51:17 And the court said, fax is not good enough,” said Larry Otter, the lawyer handling the case for the Green Party. “They need an original.” ... Because the placeholder candidate didn’t properly submit the affidavit, Hawkins’ affidavit is nullified, the majority opinion said." So they got the document on time, but it was a fax instead of an original, they did not notify the Green Party of the discrepancy (Green Party did not find out until it was too late), and they will likely not accept the original as proof of earlier validity, so voters won't see Green Party on the ballot, and they've started a rush to print ballots so that the prestigious "no-tag-backsies" rule will be in effect if there's an attempt to reverse the decision. This sounds like some Hitchhiker's Guide Vogon/bureaucrat logic.
Habebe Member	Thu Sep 24 16:53:10 So basically they realize.its going to be a tight race in several states so they get the green party kicked off as often as possible even while throwing out legitimate votes already cast because they feel they deserve the votes the greens would otherwise get. These are no saints.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Sep 24 16:57:17 "Seb Member Thu Sep 24 15:49:01 There is not "plenty of blame to go around"." In early 1775 your opinion on this topic might have mattered. Hush.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 17:28:41 It may be that you should vote in a way that assures that Trump loses in an overwhelming way. The alternative can be pretty messy. I don't see how an unwillingness to conceed can be incredibly distructive otherwise. Ohio just flipped to democrat on polls. http://pro...m/2020-election-forecast/ohio/
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Sep 24 17:31:53 "Bloomberg bribing voters in Florida" he's enabling them to vote (as the Floridians voted to happen & R's took away), he's not telling them to vote or who to vote for ---------- "Make.it so any signature even if it's wrong will qualify as a valid vote. " there will be so many bullshit challenges given signatures aren't carbon copies ---------- "they impeached the man *knowing they lacked the votes* to do anything. A pointless witch hunt. " they successfully impeached, & got 1 R to vote to remove, + multiple other R's agreeing what Trump did was wrong... what's shocking is you'd call it a 'witch hunt', or that almost R's found it acceptable, or that the fucking moron is -still- calling the call 'perfect' (& pretending that was the only issue)
jergul large member	Thu Sep 24 17:40:30 Impeachment is just legislative censure without a conviction. Trump was censured by the legislature. "US Attorney David Freed said the inquiry found that nine "military ballots were discarded" and, in an unusual disclosure, said that "all nine ballots were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump." But several hours later, the press release was taken down and then re-posted to correct that, in fact, only seven of the nine ballots had been cast for Trump. The other two were unknown." Freed is a Trump appointee. Hence the unsusual candor in disclosure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Freed_(attorney)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Sep 24 21:54:56 could've been corrupt AG Barr... he has repeatedly released misinformation to benefit Trump
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Sep 25 00:21:02 the bullshit expands... those 9 ballots were primary ballots i'm sure all the Trump news outlets will let everyone know... it had NOTHING to do w/ corruptly screwing Trump
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Sep 25 00:42:23 being primary ballots is what the PA AG said anyway... he could be mistaken if correct, that piece of shit US Attorney should be removed immediately - announcing they were Trump ballots was inappropriate - claiming they were ALL Trump ballots when not known is inexcusable - not noting they were primary ballots (if true) is -totally corrupt-... of course, they'd be for Trump & w/ absolutely no corrupt motive to discard them improperly & absolutely no reason for the potential piece of shit to put that in the release other to gin up a fake outrage story
Seb Member	Fri Sep 25 01:52:08 Habebe: They impeached a man who was very obviously guilty, as is their duty, and the republican senate decided to view on party lines, and it's the reps fault for not just going along with the senates obviously cynical and morally bankrupt acquittal?
Dukhat Member	Fri Sep 25 01:53:08 Republicans determine right and wrong the same way the jurors did in "To Kill a Mockingbird." In fact, it's the exact same demographic that makes up their base.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Sep 25 02:08:55 "Democrats are Rigging our 2020 Election!" ~ Trump's (fucking moron's) pinned tweet which R senator is agreeing w/ that? they all just pretend this is normal & fine
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Sep 25 02:46:25 [Seb]: "The question the journalist was asking isn't "will you concede on the night", he was asking "will you concede if you lose"" That is not the question that he actually posed. He posed a loaded question. Pay attention. .. [Jon Karl]: "If he loses this election, can you assure us that there be a peaceful transfer of power?" [WH Press Secretary]: "The president will accept the results of a free and fair election." [tw]: "fantastic... except for the 0.0% chance Trump will ever call it a fair election, even when he won he claimed 3-5 million fraud votes" That's where the argument should be: is voter fraud a real and significant issue? Likely it's not. But at least we're past the misinformation of Seb-types who still circulate the memes about Trump wanting to have an election with no ballots at all of any type so that Trump can simply have a continuance of power (e.g., http://imgur.com/gallery/qx6S6X4 ). The press secretary even called out that yesterday's question was a loaded question (a win cannot be a "transfer"), and she avoided the same headline-manipulation that another reporter re-attempted in that Twitter video. (Notice that a reporter wanted specifically to know what would happen if Trump *loses*, even though the question was effectively already answered — that's headline-baiting.) .. [Seb]: "It is quite simple, your sitting president is directly and deliberately seeking to undermine the integrity of the election by delaying the postal ballots, and then will use that as evidence that the postal ballots are tainted; at the same time as calling into question the legitimacy of the election; so that he can seek to ignore the result and rely on a court decision, which will go to a court he has stuffed with a stolen judicial appointment; because he knows he will lose." Firstly, it's too late to delay ballots; the U.S. is past that. Ballots go out in a couple of weeks, printing has begun in most places, and courts have extended deadlines due to USPS delays. That point held water when I made it two months ago but not any more. And another problem with that narrative: President Trump has insisted that voters go to the polls in person if their state/city sends out particularly untrustworthy mail-in ballots. Another problem: Trump doesn't "[know] he will lose". This is expected to be an election with historically high voter turnout, and some extreme party polarization has been occurring. It's even more of a coin toss than 2016 at this point (putting aside future issues going into November). Another problem: High voter turnout is not expected to be a factor to either party's advantage (NYT, 2019; http://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upshot/2020-election-turnout-analysis.html ; and FiveThirtyEight, 2020; http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/increased-voter-turnout-could-benefit-republicans-or-democrats-in-2020/ ). Another problem: supposedly mail-in ballots do not favor either party more than another. The same can be said of in-person voting: it does not favor either party. Recent studies have shown that GOP voters favor in-person voting and DNC voters favor mail-in (YouGov, July 2020; http://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/17/voting-candidate-preference-poll ), but it's difficult to separate that information from recent politics (i.e., does that favoritism exist because of each party's recent narratives on voting? Is it because of how seriously those voters take COVID-19? Is it because of how well mail-in voting is ranked in their respective states?). Older studies (pre-Trump) do not reveal any such distinction, they mostly just focus on early vs. late voting (early voters tended to vote GOP). So if mail-in/in-person votes do not favor either party, then why would Trump want people voting in person? Does it undermine the election to have people vote in person? By any significant statistical marker: no. Another issue: states with poor preparation for mail-in voting tend to vote GOP anyways (Brookings, September 2020; See "State Rankings of Vote-by-Mail Pandemic Preparedness" section; http://www.brookings.edu/research/voting-by-mail-in-a-pandemic-a-state-by-state-scorecard/ ). Most of the states with C–F ranks for mail-in preparedness voted Trump in 2016. DNC-2016 Exceptions (Voted DNC but have low mail-in preparedness; 6 states): New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine GOP-2016 Exceptions (Voted GOP but have high mail-in preparedness; 13 states): Utah, North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Maryland So Trump's call for in-person voting in states that cannot trust mail-in voting actually makes sense for voters. I.e., why vote by mail if those states have low scores for mail-in voting preparedness? And calling for in-person voting in states with high mail-in preparedness also *undermines* the narrative that he wants to suppress those 13 states because doing so would cost him the election (he puts those GOP-2016 states at risk). So at best we're talking about Trump being needlessly paranoid about election security, and based on his solutions (in-person voting and a call to fix mail-in ballots in states with low preparedness), this doesn't hurt voters themselves. If anything, it hurts *him* because people will just read the CNBC headlines and vote against him because of some inarticulate comparison to Venezuelan elections. Like kargen mentioned, for Trump's own sake, he should stop bringing up the issue of fraud for that reason. It's enough to say, "[Vote in person]", or "[Drop off your mail-in ballot at an official drop box or polling location instead of a mail box.]" .. [Seb]: "a court decision, which will go to a court he has stuffed with a stolen judicial appointment" lol Is Seb really just River of Blood? This sounds like a conspiracy theory. Seb takes this as a given truth, so either he thinks that RBG was given cancer in 1999 by Trump specifically so that she would die 21 years later while Trump was in office, or he thinks that a president's constitutional right to appoint an associate justice means that any legal appointment would be a "stolen" appointment. Because surely Seb isn't so dishonest as to think that a president should yield that power due to some non-constitutional reasoning? Like, for instance, the dying wish of an invalid?
jergul large member	Fri Sep 25 03:05:03 The way out of this mess is to give Biden a landslide victory like I said earlier. I know some of you are thinking about voting for Trump. You should not do that. The sanctity of process is more important. Give Biden a landslide victory. http://edi...ng-democracy-ghitis/index.html
kargen Member	Fri Sep 25 03:17:41 Fuck giving either of them anything. They want to win they need to earn it. The Green Party thing could come back to bite the Democrats in the ass. I'm guessing anybody that had planned on voting green will know the shenanigans the Democrats are pulling and will decide either not to vote or to cast that ever popular spite vote like some Bernie Bros did in 2016.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Sep 25 03:21:09 lol I love that CNN devoted an entire article to the false premise of the reporter's question. The author even admitted that she wouldn't bother trying to understand Trump's actual meaning in his response ("I'll resist the temptation to clean up Trump's syntax in search of a cogent answer.") And a landslide for peace? "Give Rome back to the mob" logic. Fantastic. 150 days of games to follow. CNN will conjure more magic for them, and they'll be distracted. Rome is not the marble of the senate (which CNN wants to dis-empower in the vein of Augustus), it's the sand and fire of burning U.S. cities. CNN will bring them death, and they will love CNN for it.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 25 03:30:09 CC You don't get it. Trump will not conceed under any circumstance. This will toss your system of government into chaos unless Biden wins a landslide. Ohio flipped to Biden yesterday on polls. Trump is not going to win. You are betting on him winning by court manipulation. Is that really the person you are?
Dukhat Member	Fri Sep 25 03:53:44 Biden's voters are Americans with brains. These voters are voting by mail because they want to avoid COVID. Hence Trump wanting to make sure their votes get ignored. Not that difficult. Trump is a simpleton after all.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 25 04:52:12 CC: Your quote does not reflect the video, which was a press conference and answered directly by the President. The question was "Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power".
Seb Member	Fri Sep 25 04:54:30 Note, arguably a legally disputed election is a peaceful transfer of power. Failure to commit to even that is to conflate legal dispute with refusal to accept any process. He knows what he's doing: turf rolling and psychologically preparing his stooges.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 25 04:57:39 Dukhat: Indeed. It's not 11 dimensional chess. He trails everything well in advance but vaguely so there's no shock factor when he does it, and his supporters have developed their various, disparate and conflicting rationalisations for it. Many other authoritarians did the same. I doubt he's doing it by accident either, but if so he's perfectly adapted to the swamp America has let its politics become.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 25 04:58:45 CC is a great example of someone putting their full on intellect to work for Trump. Quite mad.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 25 05:10:07 "full" means drunk in Norwegian. That statement makes absolute sense after synergizing the languages :D.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 25 05:13:03 I wonder when the credit rating agencies will start paying attention to the mayhem.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 25 05:51:23 It looks like quite a number of GOP States will not allow international observers to monitor the election process.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Sep 25 06:48:35 It is assumed that if Trump loses the popular vote and wins the electoral votes (which is the most likely scenario if he wins), the losers will accept another 4 years of Trump. Remember that the legitimacy of the college vote system was already put into question last time. This time there is already a low intensity incipient insurgency going on. Yet all that the kids are talking about is what if Trump doesn't accept a loss. What if he wins? "Last night my wife and I were lying in bed. Then one of us said, “What if we lose?” I don’t even remember which of us it was, that’s how totally panic immediately overwhelmed both of us." http://nym...hat-happens-if-trump-wins.html Surely, a sign of great things to come.
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 25 07:23:38 ^ another histrionic spoiled millenial who can't eve-... "And as a 69-year-old progressive I always" Holy shit. How do you go seven decades in life and still be that much of an overdramatic crybaby?
habebe Member	Fri Sep 25 07:34:10 "Democrats are Rigging our 2020 Election!" ~ Trump's (fucking moron's) pinned tweet which R senator is agreeing w/ that? they all just pretend this is normal & fine" Well, considering how they blocked the green party, that is an accurate statement.
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 25 07:35:15 Anyway, I'm really happy to see Seb (the surveillance state-loving wannabe technocrat) and jergul (the USSR fluffer) opining on the state of US politics. I woke up this morning and thought, "you know, I just really need to know what those two European fuckwits think about our election!" And here we are. Goody. Fuck off already, neither of you know shit about this country.
habebe Member	Fri Sep 25 07:39:00 Seb, Here is the thing. He technically broke no law. That is agreed upon. Now what they impeached him on was acting unbefitting the office pretty much. A subjective "crime". They knew it wouldn't pass, they hoped it would piss off America people, who mostly thought he acted poorly but not to the level of getting the boot.So it was a stunt, nothing more.
habebe Member	Fri Sep 25 07:58:04 Seb, I noticed you seem to want to no parts on the DNC blocking out the greens I would think you agree thats BS. But you may* argue whether or not it rises to the level of Trumps shit.
jergul large member	Fri Sep 25 08:38:06 Ruggy Well, for as long as the State Department opines on things abroad... Anyway. Don't vote Trump. He has set things up in a way that invites chaos unless Biden wins in a landslide. I already had my 12.5 by 2020, so have few principles involved in the outcome. But you should be wary of pissing away the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed. It is based purely on things that are unlikely to remain if you decend into chaos.
habebe Member	Fri Sep 25 08:47:54 Hey were getting the first debate Tuesday...yay.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Sep 25 08:49:02 Giant Meteor 2020 will render these problems moot.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 25 11:33:12 habebe: I don't know the details, and I don't care. I don't view this through the lens of one side vs the other side. I'm specifically pointing out that the current incumbent is angling for abandoning democracy and you are engaging in whataboutery.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 25 11:36:59 Rugian: Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night voting for a guy that's already joking-not-joking talking about a third term; is clearly sabotaging the ballot systems; stuffing the courts; while armed milita groups in khaki uniforms march around in his support. Yeah, nothing wrong with this picture at all. All the supporters of autocrats think they are part of a national liberation movement to. Many think it even after the autocrat has been strung up. Trump's behaviour ought to have raised all the red flags. Perhaps he will stop short. Perhaps he will go full Orban. Perhaps he will go further. But anyone with any sense would have pulled the plug on this now, rather than leave it to trust.
Habebe Member	Fri Sep 25 11:48:12 "I don't know the details, and I don't care. I don't view this through the lens of one side vs the other side. " See where I take issue is that you claim there is not blame to go around but when confronted with DNC voter suppression you say " well Im not looking at this as a one side vs the other. If you has just said " Trump is doing some shady shit" that's one thing but you daid his acts are worse than his opposition. Its not merely whataboutery, these are concrete actions peoviding evidence that both the RNC and the DNC are actively imvolved in the same grimeyy behaviour in order to win, you just only see what Trump has done as wrong without regard to the facts that they are both wrong.
Habebe Member	Fri Sep 25 11:50:09 "stuffing the courts; while armed milita groups in khaki uniforms march around in his support." Trump never mentioned packing the courts, a few Democratic pundits and Senator ( Kennedey) have mentioned packing the court. Also Biden is the only one suggesting using the military to take over the white house.
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 25 11:59:22 Seb The Democrats have literally taken to calling themselves "the resistance," have promised to destroy the destruction of the judiciary and to restructure the government in order to favor themselves, have tolerated and even encouraged anti-Trump street violence and anarchy, and have made it so that merely being an open conservative in this country can potentially result in your social ostracism. Dont talk to me about who is the danger to this country. Trump says a lot of stupid and uninformed shit, but that's all it is, talk. Democrats on the other hand are fully aware of what they're proposing.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Sep 25 16:27:57 Don 'cokehead' Jr again saying the almost definite 'blue shift' means D's stealing election http://twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/status/1309469164009029634 Trump has done that already too for that matter ----------- "Trump never mentioned packing the courts" McConnell already -has- packed the courts by holding up seats (including one on SC)
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 25 16:36:22 The Senate has always had the right to approve or disprove of judicial nominees; that's not court-packing. Blowing up the filibuster so that Obama could get more of his judges in office was much more of an "institution-damaging" act.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Sep 25 16:42:34 so Obama could get -any- judges, you mean
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Sep 25 17:40:20 article related to ^ http://www...d-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/ McConnell packed by leaving openings, no different than expanding # of openings (though i don't support that for SC, only in courts where needed to speed shit way up)
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 26 02:57:23 [jergul]: "You don't get it. Trump will not conceed under any circumstance. This will toss your system of government into chaos unless Biden wins a landslide." Yes, it wouldn't make sense to concede if he wins. The president in "Homeland" did that, but that was a weird fiction. And yes, I am aware of that particular conspiracy theory. Part of the basis of the conspiracy theory is an agreement that it is acceptable for the DNC to strategically hold the U.S. hostage by threatening a continued violence unless they are elected; their message has been that they will support and not speak out against violent rioting until they have secured power at the executive level. That is, the "chaos" in this conspiracy theory equation is only the chaos that the DNC has promised. When the mafia does it, they call it racketeering/extortion. At any rate, it does not make sense to deny votes just because a losing party has threatened to do terrible things if they do not win. And it's also worth mentioning that many of the anti-Trump celebrities who said they would move to Canada still take up residence in California, so their promises may be empty. It's also worth mentioning that regardless of who wins, the effects of COVID-19 will begin to taper off next year due to increasing treatment options and vaccine trial timelines, meaning that most rioters will have to find work and may not have time for chaos. Whoever gains the presidency gets to take credit for that. .. [jergul]: "Ohio flipped to Biden yesterday on polls. Trump is not going to win. You are betting on him winning by court manipulation." Are you really going to trust early polls? Do you like repeating mistakes? "New Ohio poll puts Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump by 9 points after news of Trump's vulgar talk" [Oct 12, 2016] http://www...hio_poll_puts_hillary_cli.html .. [Seb, 04:52:12]: "Your quote does not reflect the video, which was a press conference and answered directly by the President. [/] The question was "Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power" [Seb, 04:54:30]: "Note, arguably a legally disputed election is a peaceful transfer of power." I like that you caught the error in your logic and quickly tried to fix it ad hoc with another comment. But can you transfer power to yourself? No. It's yours already. The question was logically invalid, designed as a trap to produce a headline. You yourself realized it, so now you're not here for the facts, you just don't want to lose an argument, and you'll manipulate the meaning of "transfer" to do it. .. [Seb]: "CC is a great example of someone putting their full on intellect to work for Trump." This comment of yours really spells out the bigger problem that I'm working against. It's a fallacy of composition. Many people believe that because they think they're doing the right thing that everything they say must be correct and anyone who works against them and their narrative must be incorrect. A common example is people who think that the DNC cornered the market on intelligence. This logic usually goes, "[All the smart people are voting for the DNC. I'm voting DNC, so I must be smart too. That means that all of the GOP must be stupid. All DNC arguments must therefore be correct, and anyone who makes a counter argument must be incorrect." This is, of course, false from the ground up. Because of that, it produces even more fallacies to support itself, like how people assume that anyone intelligent in the GOP must be really be from the DNC (no true Scotsman fallacy). In the lowest of low discourse, you see this on meme pages when people just assume that anyone voting for the GOP must be an idiot. This produces a number of problems: people living a fallacy of composition find themselves in echo chambers where they do not see the opposition arguments. The result is that they do not know how to convince their opposition to join their party, and they shut down opposing discourse with tiny thoughts (e.g., name-calling). They cannot even accept truths which contradict their narrative, even when those truths come from people within their own party. This leaves the party unwilling to speak the truth for fear of being ousted from all discourse. Outside of that cancerous logic, people with intellectual honesty can see whether an argument holds water on its own. They do not base the correctness of the argument on the party who said it. As it happens, the DNC has been intellectually dishonest on these topics. I will not simply say, "Oh, whatever. It's a complete lie, but it's against Trump, and I don't like Trump, so feel free to lie." No. I dislike Trump, *and* I dislike misinformation. The DNC lately has granted itself free license to lie and spread misinformation because their own echo chamber has become too timid to challenge them on anything. This has emboldened them to plan detrimental policy decisions which now have a real negative implication for even their core voters. .. [Seb@habebe]: "I'm specifically pointing out that the current incumbent is angling for abandoning democracy and you are engaging in whataboutery." It's probably not whataboutery that the DNC is the one accusing Trump of abandoning democracy (wrongly and through misinformation and misinterpretation) when, like Rugian pointed out, the DNC itself has announced concrete steps to dismantle democracy in the same fashion as Augustus Caesar.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 26 03:17:36 CC Your response proves you still do not get it. Sad. Well, lets look at the big picture. We can unwind global imbalances for a better, more equal world. It will go a long way towards adressing global warming. Just look at how the USSRs climate gas emissions imploded when that economy fell apart. And it had actual industry. It was not driven by debt financed consumption. http://new...-from-7-billion-tonnes-of-co2/
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 26 03:36:22 [jergul]: "Your response proves you still do not get it. Sad." ..and your evidence is.. global warming? And let me not put words in your mouth. The link you posted showed that the collapse of the USSR meant a 19-year reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (1992–2011). So, which part of that do you think was good?
Seb Member	Sat Sep 26 03:43:53 CC: Like I said, the genius - intended or not - in Trumps statements is by vaguely wording things, useful idiots will create a myriad of alternative interpretations and bend over backwards to convince themselves everything's fine. The frog gets into the pot willingly, convincing itself it is a hot tub. The question was not a gotcha asking him to commit to stand down if he won. A direct response "Yes" would not be a commitment to step down in any circumstances. It wouldn't be even be a commitment not to legislate. It's simply a commitment to the process. This idea there's some crack here around transfer Vs continuation in the event he won is pure self deception to avoid looking at the ugly reality. The question was directly addressing his repeated claims the election is rigged before it has even begun. If he thinks the election is rigged, will he accept the results? Will he accept judicial rulings on the results? When he talks about 3 terms to compensate, is he serious? Those are legitimate - crucial, indeed - questions.
Dukhat Member	Sat Sep 26 04:44:27 Cherub Cow looks like a conservative that may not like Trump but still can't tell truth from fiction and believes his facebook news feedback. He doesn't realize that these bizarre and brazen claims about Dems being worse are meant to help Trump and have no basis in reality whatsoever. Celebrities leaving the country is as bad as actually ignoring the election results? Dumb claim after dumb claim. Save us female voters! The men are fucking retards.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 26 05:28:47 CC No. You did not get that either. I am saying that the inevitable conscequences of weakened democracy has its upsides when we look at the big picture. You are all spending way beyond your means and a global readjustment of income will help limit climate emissions. The silver lining so to speak.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 26 05:46:45 [jergul]: "I am saying that the inevitable conscequences of weakened democracy has its upsides when we look at the big picture." That's a very strange assertion to bother making, jergul, partly because it's nihilism but especially because it has no bearing on my supposed not getting of "it", since you have now changed what "it" is three times. But like you said, "it" at least minimizes your previous "chaos" claim, since chaos would have the nihilistic "silver lining" of reduced greenhouse gases. .. [Seb]: "useful idiots will create a myriad of alternative interpretations" Mine do not represent "alternative interpretations" — these were interpretations of the words as they actually were spoken. I did not read a headline and then say, "Yeah, totally. That must be correct" (the true actions of a useful idiot). No. I went to the words themselves and provided textual evidence that I made plain to see for others. What the words themselves said was the basis of my interpretation. My interpretation of textual evidence was — just as I predicted — backed up by the White House Press Secretary the following day. The "alternative interpretations" of "useful idiots" were those of memes, CNBC, and the media outlets that ran with the sensational and textually unsupported claims. E.g., the (false) claim that Trump "won't commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election". If you dispute any of my interpretations, do not indirectly or passive aggressively call me a useful idiot. Go to the textual evidence and try to support your "alternative [interpretation]". .. [Seb]: "A direct response "Yes" would not be a commitment to step down in any circumstances." It's not about committing to the statement, it's about the partisan media's use of the 24-hour shock cycle to manipulate the election outcome. This was the question: "Will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?" Direct Response: "Yes! Absolutely!" Results of direct response: CNN/CNBC/MSNBC Headlines: "[Trump admits that he will lose the election]" "[Trump will peacefully transfer power to Biden]" "[Trump will "absolutely" transfer powers to Biden]" "[Trump "absolutely" commits to transferring power to Biden]" Notice the manipulation? The *best* possible scenario for the press is to get an affirmative answer. Why? Imagine a GOP voter coming across those headlines. If they don't read closely, then they now think that Trump expects to lose and that Biden has been assured the presidency. There goes GOP voter turnout, which was the goal of the first trap of the question. I hope you at least understand the games that reporters play for headlines. This represents established tactics that preceded Trump's presidency. .. [Dukhat]: "doesn't realize that these bizarre and brazen claims about Dems being worse are meant to help Trump and have no basis in reality whatsoever." When did I say that the DNC was worse? Here's a hint: I didn't. In fact, my usual refrain has been that we should not cite a false equivalency only to create a fallacy of relative privation; one side being worse does not excuse us of being critical of all sides. And specifically which claims have "no basis in reality whatsoever"? .. [Dukhat]: "Celebrities leaving the country is as bad as actually ignoring the election results? Dumb claim after dumb claim." I made that statement about celebrities threatening to leave for Canada within a specific context which drew no such "as bad as" comparisons to election results. You disingenuously put it into another context to create a straw man fallacy.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 26 05:53:55 CC: The question and context are clear. Your rationalisations are loopy and smell of desperation. The fact they need 8 paragraphs to explain says it all. They also hinge on the idea that if Trump confirms a commitment to peaceful transfer of power it would somehow undermine him. He could equally say "If I lose, sure." Instead he used the opportunity to continue to suggest ballots were being rigged in some unspecified way. The reason he repeats ballots is to turn ballot into a trigger word associated with fraud, so as soon as pundits start talking about mail ballots on election night, it's associated with fraud. Propoganda 101. He knows what he's doing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 26 06:29:14 Seb You have been over this (and CC agreed) yes Trump could have answered the question better, but Trump is Trump. Nevertheless, only desperate and loopy people would construe his Trumpy answer as anything other than what CC and the WH press secretary have explained. The only rival to Trump sycophants, are the Trump deranged.
Seb Member	Sat Sep 26 10:51:04 Nim: Aaah. Bless. I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Sep 26 10:58:46 I would never buy anything from someone who is desperate for a sale :)
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 26 11:09:12 TRUMP 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044
	show deleted posts