US Presidential Election 2020

pixelburp · 23-10-2020 11:35AM

stefanovich wrote: »

This boogeyman sure does like burning down buildings and assaulting people.

What is even your point here? ANTIFA aren't running for president yet it's the current president who is whipping his base into "poll watching", something you'd see in Zimbabwe not America; while Trump dissembles on whether he'd even accept a losing result. But but ANTIFA! They might leverage a website that, while clearly immoral, is not, regrettably, illegal either. What about what about.

You're just name dropping ANTIFA in some Bad Faith attempt at moral equivalence or performative "both sides"ism. If you have a point then make it instead of these attempted intellectual mic-drops aimed at argumentative superiority. ANTIFA are just another internal security issue - the president encouraging poll intimidation is an unprecedented move. That's clear enough and there's no moral equivalence despite your insistence.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 11:38AM

pixelburp wrote: »

the president encouraging poll intimidation

Do you have evidence of this?

pixelburp · 23-10-2020 11:48AM

stefanovich wrote: »

Do you have evidence of this?

Ah. Another mic drop attempt. Well, if you feel entitled to extrapolate, then why not me? Trump is encouraging "poll watching" as part of a continued narrative that the election would be stolen; see his constant attempt to undermine the validity of postal voting of the last few months. Or refusal to firmly say he'd accept a losing result. His appeals for poll watching have been made off the back of this. Wood for trees stuff. For very good reasons party affiliates aren't allowed in polling stations yet nothing stopping "concerned citizens" congregating around locations. This is a potential recipe for disaster so hopefully local law enforcement are prepared for any wannabe heroes to democracy.

But this isn't why we're engaged. The president is trying to talk his base into believing a losing result would be a stolen election. This may yet reveal itself in a vulgar repeat of 2000.

You still havent explained why you believe ANTIFA maybe using a website is morally equivalent to the President's repeated attempts to undermine the elections validity. At least Roger Stone's machinations were kept under the covers, not blathered on stage.

duploelabs · 23-10-2020 11:52AM

stefanovich wrote: »

Do you have evidence of this?

"At last week’s presidential debate, the moderator, Chris Wallace, asked Trump, “Will you urge your supporters to stay calm during this extended period, not to engage in any civil unrest?” President Trump refused to say “yes.” “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully … I am urging them to do it,” he said. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/trumps-version-poll-watching-sounds-like-thuggery/616637/

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 11:55AM

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah. Another mic drop attempt. Well, if you feel entitled to extrapolate, then why not me? Trump is encouraging "poll watching" as part of a continued narrative that the election would be stolen; see his constant attempt to undermine the validity of postal voting of the last few months. Or refusal to firmly say he'd accept a losing result. His appeals for poll watching have been made off the back of this. Wood for trees stuff. For very good reasons party affiliates aren't allowed in polling stations yet nothing stopping "concerned citizens" congregating around stations. This is a potential recipe for disaster so hopefully local law enforcement are prepared.

But this isn't why we're engaged. The president is trying to talk his base into believing a losing result would be a stolen election. This may yet reveal itself in a vulgar repeat of 2000.

You still havent explained why you believe ANTIFA maybe using a website is morally equivalent to the President's repeated attempts to undermine the elections validity. At least Roger Stone's machinations were kept under the covers, not blathered on stage.

Do you have a quote from Trump or are you paraphrasing CNN?

He questioned the security of postal voting. Systems which have already been proven to be insecure. Iran and Russia exploiting them has proven this to be true without a doubt.

The whole "accepting a loss" thing was again manufactured by the media. He failed to engage with a leading question and was then heavily misrepresented across the media and elsewhere.

Didn't the democrats spend the last 3 years focused on trying to get him out of office? Did they not suggest Russian collusion when in fact there was none?

Very dishonest to apply one set of rules to the DNC and another set to the Republicans.

pixelburp · 23-10-2020 12:14PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Do you have a quote from Trump or are you paraphrasing CNN?

Duplolabs already posted the quote from the debate where Trump appealed folks to "watch" the polls.

stefanovich wrote: »

Didn't the democrats spend the last 3 years focused on trying to get him out of office? Did they not suggest Russian collusion when in fact there was none?

Very dishonest to apply one set of rules to the DNC and another set to the Republicans.

Make up your mind. Are you BothSiding with ANTIFA or the Democrats? Pick a lane. I can't debate with you if you can't even decide your chosen totem and move the goal posts to score points. We were talking ANTIFA throughout this entire exchange. Very dishonest yourself really

duploelabs · 23-10-2020 12:17PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Do you have a quote from Trump or are you paraphrasing CNN?

He questioned the security of postal voting. Systems which have already been proven to be insecure. Iran and Russia exploiting them has proven this to be true without a doubt.

The whole "accepting a loss" thing was again manufactured by the media. He failed to engage with a leading question and was then heavily misrepresented across the media and elsewhere.

Didn't the democrats spend the last 3 years focused on trying to get him out of office? Did they not suggest Russian collusion when in fact there was none?

Very dishonest to apply one set of rules to the DNC and another set to the Republicans.

He say it in the first debate, the direct quote is listed above

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 12:18PM

duploelabs wrote: »

He say it in the first debate, the direct quote is listed above

He asked his voters to engage in intimidation? Or did he ask them to ensure there were no shenanigans in the polling stations?

duploelabs · 23-10-2020 12:21PM

stefanovich wrote: »

He asked his voters to engage in intimidation? Or did he ask them to ensure there were no shenanigans in the polling stations?

You're being either naive or directly obtuse as to what trump directly said

everlast75 · 23-10-2020 12:34PM

stefanovich wrote: »

He asked his voters to engage in intimidation? Or did he ask them to ensure there were no shenanigans in the polling stations?

So what you are saying is Trump is being ambiguous.

I thought people voted for him because he is a straight shooter and "says it like it is"?

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 12:36PM

everlast75 wrote: »

So what you are saying is Trump is being ambiguous.

I thought people voted for him because he is a straight shooter and "says it like it is"?

He's just not giving time to leading questions.

pixelburp · 23-10-2020 12:48PM

Maybe if he stopped retweeting questionable sources like white supremacist and conspiracy theory content, the questions wouldn't be so leading. This level isn't political chess we're talking about. Don't show association, however tenuous, to white supremacy or "wingnut" outlets. Otherwise people ask "hey, do you support white supremacy?". It's pretty basic stuff even deep red state politicians understand

Christy42 · 23-10-2020 12:53PM

stefanovich wrote: »

He's just not giving time to leading questions.

Or indeed tough questions. He runs away from those literally.

This is all down to Trump. There is a reason they are asking about intimidation at the polls and that is many do feel they should do it for him. And he has shown zero interest in dissuading them.

If he paid attention to what he was retweeting and saying he wouldn't have this issue. If he explained more than "Liberate" we might have a few less kidnapping attempts.
He didn't, he can't or won't communicate what you feel he saying and as such will get the blame till he either learns English or stops dog whistling.

He is either an idiot or violent. How else do you explain the only good democrat is a dead democrat. Either he didn't look at the message he put out and is an idiot or is encouraging violent tendencies.

Of course the above is all assuming that he has good intentions which he has shown no evidence of in the slightest.

Timberrrrrrrr · 23-10-2020 01:10PM

stefanovich wrote: »

He asked his voters to engage in intimidation? Or did he ask them to ensure there were no shenanigans in the polling stations?

They're not allowed in the polling stations, so you will have people (possibly armed) standing outside intimidating people who are trying to vote.

duploelabs · 23-10-2020 01:14PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Deleted post.

So trump directly telling his supporters to go to observe and stand at polling stations in a national televised _isn't_ trump saying for his supporters to go to observe and stand at polling stations because left wing corporate control of their lives

droidus · 23-10-2020 01:38PM

All of this will soon be irrelevant.

Over 50 million people have voted now. The debate was Trump's last chance to radically shift the polls and he failed. Barring natural disasters or some other unpredictable event, its finished.

That was the last Trump debate anyone will ever have to watch.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 02:07PM

duploelabs wrote: »

So trump directly telling his supporters to go to observe and stand at polling stations in a national televised _isn't_ trump saying for his supporters to go to observe and stand at polling stations because left wing corporate control of their lives

Is that intimidation though? I suppose any acts of intimidation would need to be addressed harshly. I didn't hear Trump encourage intimidation.

everlast75 · 23-10-2020 02:13PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Is that intimidation though? I suppose any acts of intimidation would need to be addressed harshly. I didn't hear Trump encourage intimidation.

Of course - he would never do something like tweet that Michigan should be liberated, leading to scenes like these...

Igotadose · 23-10-2020 02:15PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Is that intimidation though? I suppose any acts of intimidation would need to be addressed harshly. I didn't hear Trump encourage intimidation.

Hmm.

Person goes to voting location to wait in line.

People stroll by carrying high-capacity firearms, wearing MAGA hats, speaking loudly, glaring around. Yelling.

Better still: historically minority district has a bunch of non-minority MAGA types show up. Carrying firearms. Being aggressive.

Sound intimidating to you?

Christy42 · 23-10-2020 02:30PM

This is like someone defending a mob boss for telling subordinates to take of a snitch. Sure the mob boss obviously meant they should buy them groceries and a nice house. He said to take care of them, never said kill them.

There is absolutely no reason for random people to be stalking around a polling station except intimidation. Literally none. They have no authority to do anything, they have no idea what illegal activities they should be looking out for and what it might look like (20 bucks most will hone in on minorities as that is what they think illegal voting looks like) . There is no benefit to them being there except intimidation.

Can we stop pretending like Trump thinks there is a legitimate benefit to them being at the polling stations?

Igotadose · 23-10-2020 02:33PM

everlast75 wrote: »

Of course - he would never do something like tweet that Michigan should be liberated, leading to scenes like these...

As I recall, the screamer in that picture was from Southern California, too.

everlast75 · 23-10-2020 02:36PM

Some number crunching, comparing Biden to Clinton 4 years ago

https://twitter.com/NoTeamsIndy/status/1319629948815069185?s=19

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 03:09PM

everlast75 wrote: »

Of course - he would never do something like tweet that Michigan should be liberated, leading to scenes like these...

People shouting at the police? Seriously? Your side want them defunded.

23-10-2020 03:11PM

stefanovich wrote: »

People shouting at the police? Seriously? Your side want them defunded.

Found the problem

VinLieger · 23-10-2020 03:18PM

stefanovich wrote: »

People shouting at the police? Seriously? Your side want them defunded.

Do you even know what defunded means?

Midlife · 23-10-2020 03:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Found the problem

Yeah, it's really hard to debate or discuss things smrationally with someone operation on pure emotion. It's like sports fans.

No point in dealing with logic - it's not about logic.

I think this is the case with many discussion with trump fans. Supporting him for people is about feelings, not rationality.

everlast75 · 23-10-2020 03:44PM

stefanovich wrote: »

People shouting at the police? Seriously? Your side want them defunded.

You denied Trump incited violence.

I provided you with an example to show he has done that.

You start talking about Dems wanting to defund the police.

Nice distraction attempt.

Quin_Dub · 23-10-2020 03:57PM

Several posts shifted over to the main Trump Presidency thread.

This thread is for discussion about the Electoral process and issues relating to it.

Polling , Legal challenges , Turn-out etc.

General discussions about the candidates and the Presidency should be in the other thread.

Water John · 23-10-2020 04:44PM

Similar to Everlast's post, this snapshot of 538 shows so much in play;
Arizona: Biden +3.5
Florida: Biden +3.3
Georgia: Biden +0.9
Iowa: Biden +1.0
Michigan: Biden +7.5
Nevada: Biden +6.6
North Carolina: Biden +2.9
Ohio: Trump +1.0
Pennsylvania: Biden +6.2
Texas: Trump +0.5
Wisconsin: Biden +6.6

TomOnBoard · 23-10-2020 04:56PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Several posts shifted over to the main Trump Presidency thread.

This thread is for discussion about the Electoral process and issues relating to it.

Polling , Legal challenges , Turn-out etc.

General discussions about the candidates and the Presidency should be in the other thread.

How is that supposed to work when a poster is threadbanned there?

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments