US Presidential Election 2020

listermint

everlast75 wrote: »

Deleted.

I ****ing hate fake stories like this.

There is enough *actual* nasty stuff that 45 does without making stuff up

Who benefits from this fake stuff masquerading as real.


The white House.

2 fold. It strings along their supporters who believe it. Great.

When it's proven fake they can say look at what they are saying we would do. Which strings along the folks that are republican but give the white House the benefit of doubt.


It's a win win in the fake stakes from the white House perspective. Attack on all sides.

Professor Moriarty

looksee wrote: »

It seems as though this is a scam, there is apparently no record of it coming from the Whitehouse. What is worrying is that most people would at least initially accept that it is exactly the sort of thing that the Trump administration might come up with.

Who cares? The end justifies the means. They go low, you go lower. Get that dangerous clown out and behind bars.

MJohnston

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Significant narrowing of the 'early voting advantage' gap between Democrats and Republicans in the last few days according to the data.

Biden campaign worried about Black and Latino turnout too, although the campaign is using this to try and combat the complacency element which has set in.

It’s worth noting that early vote estimates are largely separated by Party Registration rather than Party Identification. Party reg is a lagging indicator that doesn’t particularly indicate which way someone will have voted (as a tweet I posted before showed, many more registered Rs are voting for Biden than reg-D voting for Trump).

Party ID is much more accurate, but it’s still no guarantee of who people will have voted for. We’ve all seen plenty of self-identified Rs openly expressing their support for Biden. I’m sure there are a few in the other direction too.

In regards to the Black/Latino vote, word is from those communities that they tend to be in-person Election Day voters.

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Who cares? The end justifies the means. They go low, you go lower. Get that dangerous clown out and behind bars.

It does not. They will feel justified in lying about their next opponent then. You need to be sure this can turn around and be more honest as soon as Trump is gone. Going lower just means thry will stay low even after Trump is gone.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

It does not. They will feel justified in lying about their next opponent then. You need to be sure this can turn around and be more honest as soon as Trump is gone. Going lower just means thry will stay low even after Trump is gone.

The Dems can take the high moral ground if/when they get rid of Trump. In actual fact, it would be immoral not to use all means possible to get rid of this administration such is the danger it poses to the US, the world and the planet.

Brussels Sprout

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Who cares? The end justifies the means. They go low, you go lower. Get that dangerous clown out and behind bars.

The problem with that is that in the end everyone ends up in the gutter together and it makes "Both-sides" arguments more reasonable.

Graham

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Dems can take the high moral ground if/when they get rid of Trump. In actual fact, it would be immoral not to use all means possible to get rid of this administration such is the danger it poses to the US, the world and the planet.

Indications so far suggest that level of stooping will not be necessary to remove the incumbent.

Professor Moriarty

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The problem with that is that in the end everyone ends up in the gutter together and it makes "Both-sides" arguments more reasonable.

The "When they go low, we go high" philosophy didn't work last time out. People can go back to proper political debate once the election is won. It is not an exaggeration to say that, for the sake of humanity, Trump must go. It's that important.

Professor Moriarty

Graham wrote: »

Indications so far suggest that level of stooping will not be necessary to remove the incumbent.

What would seal the deal this weekend would be a few personal attacks on Trump accusing him of further illegal and outrageous behaviour. They would need to be credible. If they were true, that would be even better.

astrofool

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Who cares? The end justifies the means. They go low, you go lower. Get that dangerous clown out and behind bars.

The current administration is already looking at how they can grant themselves presidential pardons for stuff they haven't been convicted of yet, do expect a rush to get cases heard before January hits, if the Dems are smart they'll call for adjournments everywhere (and watch the howling as the GOP claims they don't want to pursue justice).

Quin_Dub

astrofool wrote: »

The current administration is already looking at how they can grant themselves presidential pardons for stuff they haven't been convicted of yet, do expect a rush to get cases heard before January hits, if the Dems are smart they'll call for adjournments everywhere (and watch the howling as the GOP claims they don't want to pursue justice).

The big risk with Trump handing out pardons like confetti is the removal of 5th Amendment protection.

People can end up in jail if they don't talk - It's a key reason I believe behind why he gave Stone a commutation and not a full pardon.

If he'd pardoned Stone they'd have been down on him like a tonne of bricks to get him to talk.

But unless people have been convicted he only has pardons to give.

Itssoeasy

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The problem with that is that in the end everyone ends up in the gutter together and it makes "Both-sides" arguments more reasonable.

Normally I’d agree with this but the trump administration have been acting like a mutant version of the late 1980s Detroit pistons. The Biden campaign need to be Larry bird ****ing the ball at bill laimbeer in that game in Detroit in the playoffs.

Water John

I think the DA is instructing that any ballots in that PO in Miami Dade be delivered. The Dems are holding a protest rally outside it at 12 noon today.

Manic Moran

Actually, after sleeping on it a while, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that 'pre-filled ballot' story.

The government was able to look at a particular ballot, identify the voter who cast it (and thus knows how he voted), and was then able to reach out to the voter, outside of the jurisdiction, to ask about the ballot within a few hours.

That doesn't strike anyone as being a little contrary to the concept of secret balloting in modern representative jurisdictions?

BonnieSituation

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, after sleeping on it a while, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that 'pre-filled ballot' story.

The government was able to look at a particular ballot, identify the voter who cast it (and thus knows how he voted), and was then able to reach out to the voter, outside of the jurisdiction, to ask about the ballot within a few hours.

That doesn't strike anyone as being a little contrary to the concept of secret balloting in modern representative jurisdictions?

Almost everything about the American voting system is off tbf Manic.

The "checking signatures" thing always gets me.

I'm glad you find something, finally, to be perturbed about.

Water John

Surely a mock ballot paper should have, Sample, written as a watermark through it?

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, after sleeping on it a while, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that 'pre-filled ballot' story.

The government was able to look at a particular ballot, identify the voter who cast it (and thus knows how he voted), and was then able to reach out to the voter, outside of the jurisdiction, to ask about the ballot within a few hours.

That doesn't strike anyone as being a little contrary to the concept of secret balloting in modern representative jurisdictions?

I guess to an extent you give up a little (or a lot of) anonymity with Mail-in balloting.

I'm guessing that for fraud prevention purposes each mail-in ballot would have to have a reference number on it linked to a record that says "Manic Moran got his ballot" or whatever.

And given that those ballots have to be checked for signatures and so on on receipt I guess privacy goes out the window and that end too potentially.

Although I'd hope that the exposure is limited in that the "signature checker" and the "vote counter" are two different people and that the two pieces of data don't ever come together under normal circumstances.

Clearly this particular example isn't "normal circumstances" though.

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I guess to an extent you give up a little (or a lot of) anonymity with Mail-in balloting.

I'm guessing that for fraud prevention purposes each mail-in ballot would have to have a reference number on it linked to a record that says "Manic Moran got his ballot" or whatever.

And given that those ballots have to be checked for signatures and so on on receipt I guess privacy goes out the window and that end too potentially.

Although I'd hope that the exposure is limited in that the "signature checker" and the "vote counter" are two different people and that the two pieces of data don't ever come together under normal circumstances.

Clearly this particular example isn't "normal circumstances" though.

Exigent circumstances*

Outlaw Pete

paul71 wrote: »

Like saying doctors get paid more when people die of Covid.

He didn't make that up. Might be currently wrong or overstated but he didn't make it up.

Indeed, USA Today fact checked it as "True".

Professor Moriarty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He didn't make that up. Might be currently wrong or overstated but he didn't make it up.

Indeed, USA Today fact checked it as "True".

Let's assume it's true. What exactly is Trump implying in announcing this at a rally?

moon2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's assume it's true. What exactly is Trump implying in announcing this at a rally?

Let's assume that the payments do increase as the cost of treatment increased. Let's also assume that some hospitals are gaming the system to claim more money.

What Trump said was: "Our doctors get more money if someone dies from Covid".

Based on what's been posted in this thread this statement is indisputably false or misleading. Firstly the payments are not based on mortality. They're based on treatment. Secondly, doctors aren't paid *more* of their patient dies.

The clear inference is that doctors are letting people die so they can earn more money. That's a horrific thing to claim when there's no evidence of this.

He didn't make that up. Might be currently wrong or overstated but he didn't make it up.

Indeed, USA Today fact checked it as "True".

Nope - they fact checked a different claim as true! It is superficially similar in thst it involves money and hospitals. You might notice that the fact checked claim isn't about mortality. Trump's claim is. There's also a difference about who receives the money.

Brussels Sprout

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The "When they go low, we go high" philosophy didn't work last time out. People can go back to proper political debate once the election is won. It is not an exaggeration to say that, for the sake of humanity, Trump must go. It's that important.

...and that can be done without fabricating fake stories. There is a line and that crosses it.

An Ciarraioch

Looking at the swing states, it seems Biden's lead remains consistent at 5-7% in Pennsylvania, and while the most recent Florida poll shows a tie, it over-sampled GOP voters by a significant margin:

https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1322547776564113410

https://twitter.com/2ezTruthSeeker/status/1322551442801102850

droidus

I mentioned earlier that Ralston had more or less called Nevada. He's doubled down now.

So how dire is it looking for Trump with one day of data coming and much more mail before Election Day?

Pretty dire.

And it may be worse than it looks.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-3

What's interesting is that Nevada is at about +5.5 to +6 in polling average, almost identical to Pennsylvania, so this may be a positive indicator for PA.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He didn't make that up. Might be currently wrong or overstated but he didn't make it up.

Indeed, USA Today fact checked it as "True".

No comment on your “voter fraud” turning out to be nonsense?

Brussels Sprout

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Looking at the swing states, it seems Biden's lead remains consistent at 5-7% in Pennsylvania, and while the most recent Florida poll shows a tie, it over-sampled GOP voters by a significant margin:

Man, I just don't trust Florida. I remember both in 2016 and 2018 watching the counts live and the same thing happened both times. Polls showed a dead heat or the Democrats slightly ahead, then early vote counting looked promising and finally, the counting in the Panhandle (different time zone, later poll closing time) kicked in an hour later and put Trump/Scott/DeSantis over the top.

Brian?

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Man, I just don't trust Florida. I remember both in 2016 and 2018 watching the counts live and the same thing happened both times. Polls showed a dead heat or the Democrats slightly ahead, then early vote counting looked promising and finally, the counting in the Panhandle (different time zone, later poll closing time) kicked in an hour later and put Trump/Scott/DeSantis over the top.

Forget Florida. It doesn’t matter. Don’t even look at it. It’s all about PA.

Brussels Sprout

Brian? wrote: »

Forget Florida. It doesn’t matter. Don’t even look at it. It’s all about PA.

Absolutely. Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa and especially, Texas are all bonus territory.

StringerBell

Florida matters, Florida always matters. Always such a close election and if it goes blue that's goodnight Irene. if it goes red it's still not over but for me it's quite a worrying bell weather.

He has no path available to reelection without Florida is the bottom line and that makes it important, Biden can still win without Florida but the Donald absolutely can not.

Christy42

I see a proud boy has been arrested for threatening to blow up a polling station in North Dakota. I would have thought that would have been a pretty pointless action but I guess brains was not key to the operation.

This is a worrying trend with multiple kidnapping threats on elected officials as well happening recently. They are not the best at this but eventually some idiot might succeed.