US Presidential Election 2020

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh I'm aware of the liberal narrative that the GOP/RNC suppress the vote, just looking for proof of it is all. Of which, of course, there is none and requests to back up the oft trotted out claim usually just lead to liberals doing what they always do and playing the racism card. The following Op Ed from a minority addresses that wrongheaded rhetoric:




Not sure why liberals struggle with the notion that Republicans efforts to stop illegals voting is not an effort to stop minorities voting, but yet somehow they appear to. Truth is of course that there is a very good reason they don't want it more difficult for illegals to vote and that's what it's really about. Voter ID advocates are labelled racists by the left because they know non-citizen votes will largely go their way.



Yes, and if they had their way that message would be “Get yo non-citizen booty to the poll”.

Oh and the implication that the GOP/RNC aren't also telling people to get out and vote also is false too by the way:


https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1314658902118748160
https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1314589090378022912

Did you actually watch he video I posted? Contained within are examples of Republicans openly saying a high turn out is bad for them.

They tweet to their own supporters to get out and vote. They’d be stupid not to. Then they make it extremely hard for people in urban areas to vote, like in Texas. Purges of voter rolls, limiting the number of polling places in cities, Trump calling on supporters to be “poll watchers” and so on. None of that is in any way related to illegal immigrants voting.

I’m not evening mentioning voter ID laws by the way.

gizmo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, and if they had their way that message would be “Get yo non-citizen booty to the poll”.

Given the articles linked, I have a quick question on this point if you don't mind...

Today, about one in fourteen people in the US are noncitizen immigrants (lawful permanent residents, unauthorized immigrants, or legal residents on temporary visas). They live in virtually every state, city, suburb, and town. They’re teachers and students, physicians and nurses, musicians and construction workers. They pay taxes, raise their families, send their kids to schools, and make countless social and cultural contributions every day.

Do you believe any of the three groups listed above should be eligible to vote for any level of governance in the US?

An Ciarraioch

Speaking of turnout, this would appear to suggest that Texas could flip blue:

https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1317828580651487237

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

Did you actually watch he video I posted?

Yes, hence my posting an article which addressed what Oliver stated about how minorities were unduly hindered in voting.

As for the rest of the video, it was the usual misrepresentation of current happenings from the smug git (the man who begged Trump to run in 2016). This time around he's shiteing on about how Trump "mightn't even leave" if he loses. Yeah, he's just gonna chain himself to a radiator I suppose. Liberals like that clown have ruined American late night.

Contained within are examples of Republicans openly saying a high turn out is bad for them.

Oh yes, the grainy out of context footage of a strategist, please.

Then they make it extremely hard for people in urban areas to vote, like in Texas. Purges of voter rolls, limiting the number of polling places in cities, Trump calling on supporters to be “poll watchers” and so on. None of that is in any way related to illegal immigrants voting.

Some of it is, yes - and if people are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear. That's how neighbourhood watch programmes operate. You can call it trying to suppress the vote as much as you like but it won't make it so. They're just trying to keep people honest and given how tight the election was in 2000, for example, that's smart.

They tweet to their own supporters to get out and vote. They’d be stupid not to.

The campaign is not just aimed at their own supporters:

Republicans Are Spending $60 Million on a Digital Get-Out-the-Vote Campaign

The $60 million investment is a marked jump for the party’s digital get-out-the-vote program, which it invested just $2.9 million in for the 2016 cycle.

“It’s a new priority from the G.O.P. because typically this is not the type of money they would invest in that type of campaign,” said Filippo Trevisan, a professor of public communication at American University. “They’ve had get-out-the-vote efforts in the past but never to the level that we’re seeing.”

The campaign will utilize nearly every social media platform, including Facebook and Snapchat, as well as ad space on YouTube.

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly. How they portrayed Trump was how anti-Trumpers "suspect" he is or, to be more accurate, wish him to be seen by the masses. It was propaganda from start to finish. All it did was satisfy your average CNN/BBC/MSNBC viewer who believes the crap they have spewed and despise the man as a result of it, which is of course what the objective of making it was to begin with.

Based on A Higher Loyalty, which is of course just narcissistic trash from a man trying to excuse himself for going "rogue" (as Sally puts it) but that's being nice. Comey is scum who misused his power as FBI Director so he could impress his boss and other liberal elitists who felt they were above the law and that rules didn't apply to them as a result of that. A trait common with such folk.

The following about sums the show up:


https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1312135403944599559



The GOP are trying to see that blue votes won't be counted?? Care to unpack that a little.

It's interesting that you focus so heavily on inaccuracies and Liberal bias in the media.

I mean given they guy in the job is fairly incapable of going a minute in front of a microphone lying (and this is true), then where would you suggest people look for reality.

Trump is completely open to interpretation because he's just so dishonest. Nobody knows for sure what he's really like. He lies way too much.

Additionally it's been a full on carcrash of an administration. The rate at which he burns. Falls out with, 'fires' people is shocking. Of course people will. Wonder what's really going on.

VinLieger

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh yes, the grainy out of context footage of a strategist, please.

And yet Trump is on record as admitting if more people voted the republicans would never win another election.


https://twitter.com/LisPower1/status/1244606910462136321

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Some of it is, yes - and if people are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear. That's how neighbourhood watch programmes operate. You can call it trying to suppress the vote as much as you like but it won't make it so. They're just trying to keep people honest and given how tight the election was in 2000, for example, that's smart.

Keeping the honest in what context? The 2016 election was close but what benefit will these vigilante groups add to the voting process except for intimidating those who may disagree with them?

Outlaw Pete

VinLieger wrote: »

And yet Trump is on record as admitting if more people voted the republicans would never win another election.

Context: If more people voted under the rules which the democrats wanted greenlit before they would agree to coronavirus relief legislation, not just generally. Oh, and only the democrats would use a pandemic which was killing Americans in their tens of thousands to try and pull off a power grab, before, of course, then going before the cameras crying crocodile tears about the dead. Shameless.

Keeping the honest in what context? The 2016 election was close but what benefit will these vigilante groups add to the voting process except for intimidating those who may disagree with them?

Well, it might prevent voter fraud for a start. Not buying the bullshit scaremongering Oliver was shoveling on it anyway.

VinLieger

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Context: If more people voted under the rules which the democrats wanted greenlit before they would agree to coronavirus relief legislation, not just generally. Oh, and only the democrats would use a pandemic which was killing Americans in their tens of thousands to try and pull off a power grab, before, of course, then going before the cameras crying crocodile tears about the dead. Shameless.



Well, it might prevent voter fraud for a start. Not buying the bullshit scaremongering Oliver was shoveling on it anyway.

Sigh i forgot who i was dealing with.



No it was generally and you know it, republicans have admitted in various forums for a long while that the more people that vote the less they will win, literally ignoring that fact like you are trying to do doesn't change that its a fact.



Also voter fraud doesn't exist in the numbers required to steal any election, it barely exists as a statistic due to how little of it there is.

Outlaw Pete

VinLieger wrote: »

Sigh i forgot who i was dealing with.

Yeah, difficult when someone doesn't just agree with your view.

No it was generally and you know it, republicans have admitted in various forums for a long while that the more people that vote the less they will win, literally ignoring that fact like you are trying to do doesn't change that its a fact.

You're (again) removing the context.

Also voter fraud doesn't exist in the numbers required to steal any election, it barely exists as a statistic due to how little of it there is.

You can't honestly believe that. Sure Hillary won NH by 3000 votes and some researchers have estimated that she may have received 800,000 votes from non-citizens. I'm aware of the rebuttals to that research, but even so, you'd want to be very naive to think that the precise number was an insignificant one.

rossie1977

Investigation in NH found no wrongdoing https://www.nhpr.org/post/after-exhaustive-investigations-nh-officials-find-no-widespread-fraud-recent-elections#stream/0

Voter fraud is miniscule in the US, voter suppression is widespread though

Trump counsel admitting Republicans have been at it for years

Outlaw Pete

He was (clearly) saying the oft repeated accusation was traditional.

TomOnBoard

rossie1977 wrote: »

Investigation in NH found no wrongdoing https://www.nhpr.org/post/after-exhaustive-investigations-nh-officials-find-no-widespread-fraud-recent-elections#stream/0

Voter fraud is miniscule in the US, voter suppression is widespread though

Trump counsel admitting Republicans have been at it for years

All these voter fraud tropes are used by dictators' propagandists for the purposes of creating more and more hoops for voters to jump through. The supposed objective of prevention of illegal non-citizen voters (for which there is ZERO evidence) is used to support ever- shadier voter suppression measures.

The propagandists point to BS like the 800,000 mentioned above as though it is some kind of fact. It's a lie! Simple as! Remember, even Trump had to disband an official investigation/ committee into voter fraud, as it could find NO evidence of its existence. But, instead of recognising these facts, the propagandists re-package the old BS again and again and throw it back into the debating ring. Its lazy, and silly and sentient humans are sooo over that auld ****e at this point!

The GOP is engaged in a torrent of voter suppression activities right now, and those activities are aimed squarely at prevention of Democrat voters.

Outlaw Pete

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The propagandists point to BS like the 800,000 mentioned above as though it is some kind of fact. It's a lie!

Nobody pointed to that number as a "fact" - not sure what you're on about.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

..and some researchers have estimated that she may have received 800,000 votes from non-citizens. I'm aware of the rebuttals to that research, but even so, you'd want to be very naive to think that the precise number was an insignificant one.

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, difficult when someone doesn't just agree with your view.



You're (again) removing the context.



You can't honestly believe that. Sure Hillary won NH by 3000 votes and some researchers have estimated that she may have received 800,000 votes from non-citizens. I'm aware of the rebuttals to that research, but even so, you'd want to be very naive to think that the precise number was an insignificant one.

So do you believe that research or not?

Or are you doing that stupid trump thing where you just say 'there are questions, that's all I'm saying, there are questions'.

Does research on literally any topic, like if I produce a professor somewhere, mean that believing the consunsus is naive?

Like that's what you're saying. 'here's a guy who's academic work has been **** all over, but hey you'd be naive not to believe him a bit'

Silly stuff tbh.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nobody pointed to that number as a "fact" - not sure what you're on about.

So the only reason to bring it up was a deflection?

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

So the only reason to bring it up was a deflection?

It's quite clear why I brought it up - very weird that you'd suggest it was deflection when I directly rebuted a point that was made: that fraud doesn't exist in the numbers required to steal any election. Again, HRC won a State by 3000 votes.

Overheal

Brian? wrote: »

So the only reason to bring it up was a deflection?

To be traditional?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He was (clearly) saying the oft repeated accusation was traditional.

Spreading election disinformation... as is tradition. This is a glorious day for Canada, and therefore, the world.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's quite clear why I brought it up - very weird that you'd suggest it was deflection when I directly rebuted a point that was made: that fraud doesn't exist in the numbers required to steal any election. Again, HRC won a State by 3000 votes.

You brought it up to refute a point and then said it wasn’t fact. If it isn’t a fact, it can’t rebut anything.

There is no evidence that 800,000 people voted illegally in 2016. None.

Outlaw Pete

Midlife wrote: »

So do you believe that research or not?

Or are you doing that stupid trump thing where you just say 'there are questions, that's all I'm saying, there are questions'.

Does research on literally any topic, like if I produce a professor somewhere, mean that believing the consunsus is naive?

Like that's what you're saying. 'here's a guy who's academic work has been **** all over, but hey you'd be naive not to believe him a bit'

Silly stuff tbh.

Well of course it was "**** all over" given the toes he stepped upon but it's common sense in a country with millions of illegals that a certain percentage of them would, given they have a huge incentive to vote for a candidate that proposes being lenient on them (if for no other reason than to prevent someone getting into power who would like to round them all up and send them back home), vote illegally. Thinking that no such voter fraud exists to any great degree within that demographic is the real "silly stuff" but democrats know that, which is why they have always courted that vote.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

You brought it up to refute a point and then said it wasn’t fact. If it isn’t a fact, it can’t rebut anything.

That's some tag team twisting there :pac:

I cited the figure and pointed out it was an "estimate" and another user said I presented it as a fact. I then pointed out I did not and yes (as part of an estimate) it absolutely can be used to rebut the point that was made given that even at the very lower end of the scale, if that number was the true figure, that would still be a significant enough number to swing a State. At the very least.

There is no evidence that 800,000 people voted illegally in 2016. None.

Which is why I never claimed it as a fact.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Which is why I never claimed it as a fact.

Why mention it at all, then, when they've even tried investigating the claim and come up short?

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Why mention it at all, then, when they've even tried investigating the claim and come up short?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I cited the figure and pointed out it was an "estimate" and another user said I presented it as a fact. I then pointed out I did not and yes (as part of an estimate) it absolutely can be used to rebut the point that was made given that even at the very lower end of the scale, if that number was the true figure, that would still be a significant enough number to swing a State. At the very least.

FrostyJack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly. How they portrayed Trump was how anti-Trumpers "suspect" he is or, to be more accurate, wish him to be seen by the masses. It was propaganda from start to finish. All it did was satisfy your average CNN/BBC/MSNBC viewer who believes the crap they have spewed and despise the man as a result of it, which is of course what the objective of making it was to begin with.

Or more accurate how people who dealt with him have described, like in every book from his inner circle, Cohen, The Mooch, Tillerson, Mattis, Kelly, literally anyone who isn't in his family or drank the coolaid. Every major point that was in the series was backed up in the Mueller report, like the fact the Russians hacked the GOP servers but did not release any of the data, just the Democrat stuff.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Based on A Higher Loyalty, which is of course just narcissistic trash from a man trying to excuse himself for going "rogue" (as Sally puts it) but that's being nice. Comey is scum who misused his power as FBI Director so he could impress his boss and other liberal elitists who felt they were above the law and that rules didn't apply to them as a result of that. A trait common with such folk.

He is a life long Republican, like the others surrounding him at the FBI, if he was out to impress his "liberal masters" why the hell would he release the investigation of Clinton and not Trump's campaign days before the election day? He is a villain because he helped Trump get elected not for anything he did against Trump and his campaign.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's some tag team twisting there :pac:

I cited the figure and pointed out it was an "estimate" and another user said I presented it as a fact. I then pointed out I did not and yes (as part of an estimate) it absolutely can be used to rebut the point that was made given that even at the very lower end of the scale, if that number was the true figure, that would still be a significant enough number to swing a State. At the very least.



Which is why I never claimed it as a fact.

It’s impossible to argue with you when you just make stuff up. I’ll give you credit, it’s a winning strategy to just ignore facts and throw out “estimates” that support your point, even when you have no idea how accurate they are.

weisses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Which is why I never claimed it as a fact.

An estimate is based on information, can you post a link to the information you used to reach your estimate ?

TomOnBoard

Brian? wrote: »

It’s impossible to argue with you when you just make stuff up. I’ll give you credit, it’s a winning strategy to just ignore facts and through out “estimates” that support your point, even when you have no idea how accurate they are.

Its all about creating rabbit holes and sending discussion down them, thereby deflecting attention away from stuff Trumpland doesn't want people talking about...

Like:

220,000 Covid deaths...

36% increase in National Debt in less than 4 years...

25,000 + lies...

1+ Billion indebtedness of POTUS (at least 400 million personally guaranteed)...

$0 - $ 750 paid in annual Federal Income Taxes by a supposed multi-billionaire POTUS...

26 + separate sexual assault claims by girls/women against POTUS...

Etc...

ancapailldorcha

Please do not dump links here. Post deleted.

stefanovich

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Its all about creating rabbit holes and sending discussion down them, thereby deflecting attention away from stuff Trumpland doesn't want people talking about...

Like:

220,000 Covid deaths...

36% increase in National Debt in less than 4 years...

25,000 + lies...

1+ Billion indebtedness of POTUS (at least 400 million personally guaranteed)...

$0 - $ 750 paid in annual Federal Income Taxes by a supposed multi-billionaire POTUS...

26 + separate sexual assault claims by girls/women against POTUS...

Etc...

What should Trump have done differently to reduce deaths? A lot of responsibility must be also laid on individual states. Other countries are also struggling. Right now Europe is looking very bad.

People take on debt for a variety of very legitimate reasons. It's tax efficient. To avoid realizing profit etc etc. His net worth is 2 Billion according to Forbes.

Property developers write off losses to reduce their tax bill. The law allows for this. You are upset that Trump did not donate extra tax above and beyond what he is legally obliged to do?

Sexual assault claims are just that, claims. Come back when there is a prosecution.

Timberrrrrrrr

stefanovich wrote: »

What should Trump have done differently to reduce deaths? A lot of responsibility must be also laid on individual states. Other countries are also struggling. Right now Europe is looking very bad.

People take on debt for a variety of very legitimate reasons. It's tax efficient. To avoid realizing profit etc etc. His net worth is 2 Billion according to Forbes.

Property developers write off losses to reduce their tax bill. The law allows for this. You are upset that Trump did not donate extra tax above and beyond what he is legally obliged to do?

Sexual assault claims are just that, claims. Come back when there is a prosecution.

If you were accused of rape you would do everything in your power to prove your innocence right? If you were asked for a DNA sample to prove your innocence you would gladly provide it right?

Not Donny though, he has fought tooth and nail against providing a DNA sample even though he proclaims innocence.

Akrasia

Brian? wrote: »

It’s impossible to argue with you when you just make stuff up. I’ll give you credit, it’s a winning strategy to just ignore facts and throw out “estimates” that support your point, even when you have no idea how accurate they are.

I estimate that 96.4% of all the statistics used by Trump supporters are pulled out of their ass

No need for me to back that claim up with any evidence because it's just an estimate