nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Quin_Dub

Continuation thread from here

All existing rules still stand.

Everyone will want to be active in this thread over the next few days , but there will be zero tolerance for Forum rule breaches.

Keep it Sensible , Civil and Polite please.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Igotadose

What's interesting in the Texas AG suit, is the AG in question is under investigation by the FBI. Seems like he's angling for a pardon based on his raising the suit.

dogbert27

Igotadose wrote: »

What's interesting in the Texas AG suit, is the AG in question is under investigation by the FBI. Seems like he's angling for a pardon based on his raising the suit.

Without a doubt that's his angle.

Trump already tweeted that he was a patriot. Pardon is on the way,

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did I say I would? Are you presuming which way I would have voted had I been in the state last time around? Do you mean to suggest that I will always vote for a Republican and not make an informed decision on the merits of the individual candidates?

Always nice to answer a question with a question

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

Always nice to answer a question with a question

Your question ignores previous context, and is without merit. I strongly suspect you are letting your biases get in the way of rational discourse.

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your question ignores previous context, and is without merit. I strongly suspect you are letting your biases get in the way of rational discourse.

Based on current event, would you, if you had a vote, give him your tick?

Midlife

duploelabs wrote: »

So that's a no then?

Sad indictment that you'd freely vote these types of loons in just because they have an R beside their name

With due respect that's quite unfair on the poster.

He is a Republician I believe who didn't/wouldn't vote for Trump so exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

I don't mean to offend, I respect your opinion and postings. I just think it's too easy in these conversations to telling someone what they believe/do and disagree with our own assumption without ever listening to them.

It's the great problem of our times in terms of political discourse.

Manic Moran

duploelabs wrote: »

Based on current event, would you, if you had a vote, give him your tick?

Depends on the competition.

If you're expecting the perfect candidate you'd be waiting for ever. If one of the other candidates are better overall, no. If not, yes. Why, how do you select who to vote for?

He is a Republician I believe who didn't/wouldn't vote for Trump

Close. I'm an independent who didn't vote for Trump. (And have stated such in the past). However, the fact that I will take some Republican-held positions against Democrat ones seems to be taken by some posters here as being equivalent to a Republican so I might as well be labeled as one.

secondrowgal

This is a really interesting thread on vote flipping and discrepancies in Kentucky - home of #MoscowMitch

https://twitter.com/GrassrootsSpeak/status/1336713647050153984

MJohnston

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Carfacemandog

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

It's an interesting read, but you have to have faith in the electoral process. There's nothing here like georginin 2018 on face value at least.

Cant wait to see this trotted out as "both sides" though, while those doing so entirely ignore the fact that no nationally elected democrats (never even mind 17 states under their control) will support this.

secondrowgal

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Fair enough, but if you didn't go past the first tweet, how do you know it's a conspiracy theory or that it's ****ty logical reasoning? :cool: I haven't gone into myself in depth yet either, btw, because it's quite long. I just thought that it was interesting because she has actual sources and figures on voters, etc. (haven't checked those thoroughly either btw. Will do so when I have some time)

It was shared by someone that I haven't ever seen pander to conspiracy theories, which gives me the initial confidence. But of course, I should check it all out carefully too.

paul.duka

I feel that both sides (rep and demo) have very similar fears from each other... probably is not a conspiracy theory, but is true that from the last years, the untrust one each other has increased dramatically and is taking us to a very dangerous situation... each side will always exist, and we have to calm down and learn how to accept and live together with the other part

MJohnston

secondrowgal wrote: »

Fair enough, but if you didn't go past the first tweet, how do you know it's a conspiracy theory or that it's ****ty logical reasoning? :cool: I haven't gone into myself in depth yet either, btw, because it's quite long. I just thought that it was interesting because she has actual sources and figures on voters, etc. (haven't checked those thoroughly either btw. Will do so when I have some time)

It was shared by someone that I haven't ever seen pander to conspiracy theories, which gives me the initial confidence. But of course, I should check it all out carefully too.

Empirically, I do think the Republican party are far more likely to cheat their way to victory. I mean, that's not even a supposition, the way they gerrymander and suppress voting is well-documented and is 'cheating' in my mind.

Honestly, the way the Trump campaign is reacting, combined with the projection Trump usually indulges in, it almost seems to me like they tried to commit voter fraud but it didn't work out (though the way they leak, I doubt it).

However, I just haven't the time to go fact-checking that lady's tweet thread, and her using a very misleading stat in the first tweet really puts me off continuing!

ChikiChiki

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet, because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.

I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Yep - Twitter is a cesspit of mistruths. While it serves a purpose, it is a place where too many are allowed shout unsubstantiated nonsense.

Brussels Sprout

secondrowgal wrote: »

This is a really interesting thread on vote flipping and discrepancies in Kentucky - home of #MoscowMitch

https://twitter.com/GrassrootsSpeak/status/1336713647050153984

He didn't win by 57%. He won with 57%. That's a critical distinction.

He got 57% of the vote. Trump got 62% so McConnell trailed him but he still got enough support to beat McGrath by 19.6% despite some split ticket Trump/McGrath voting.

The logical fallacy at play here is that people think just because McConnell is unpopular with Kentuckians that he should have lost. That didn't happen because his opponent was even more unpopular.

TomOnBoard

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not going past the first tweet,<b> because Mitch McConnell hasn't had an 18% approval rating in a LONG time.
</b>
I know it's tempting to combat the insane conspiracies of the Republican party and their supporters with opposing conspiracy theories, but it serves nobody to start blindly trusting ****ty logical reasoning like that.

Is an 18% Approval Rating estimate too low or too high?

MJohnston

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Is an 18% Approval Rating estimate too low or too high?

Too low. He had a 39% approval rating just before the election. https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/10/31/polls-mcconnell

I think the 18% is from one poll back in 2017. I don’t even know if it was a Kentucky-only poll either!

But even then, a Senate candidates approval rating doesn’t really matter as much on its own. What was McGraths, for example?

And it’s a R+25 state, or something like that. Which means McConnell could have been a whole 25 points less popular than his opponent and *probably still win*

In short - the numbers are wrong and she’s ignoring all the context of the state to make her argument.

McConnell is unpopular even in KY, but McGrath was less popular, and that’s all that matters.

I’ve discussed ideas of “registered R” and “registered D” elsewhere but in short - it’s a very flawed, lagging measure. You become registered to a party when you register to vote (or when you choose to change it in order to vote in primaries). You only need to do that after moving house or turning 18 (or being purged by Republicans from voter rolls). The number of people who haven’t moved house in decades is extremely high, and thus the party registration stats are sometimes decades out of date.

josip

How hard do you have to try, to find someone less appealing than Mitch McConnell?

Water John

josip wrote: »

How hard do you have to try, to find someone less appealing than Mitch McConnell?

I'll up you and give you, Ted Cruz. Just don't understand how anyone votes for them. You have Mitch wanting peoples unemployment benefit cut in return for the next Covid relief cheque.

TomOnBoard

josip wrote: »

How hard do you have to try, to find someone less appealing than Mitch McConnell?

A lad from Michigan said to me before 2018 mid-terms: "Mc Connell is a pig.. But like all pigs, when he goes back to Kentucky, he brings home the bacon". And that's Mc Connell in a nutshell- he wont win beauty contests, nor is he particularly charismatic/popular, but he is very effective...

Itssoeasy

josip wrote: »

How hard do you have to try, to find someone less appealing than Mitch McConnell?

What deal with whatever higher being did the great state of Kentucky do to have McConnell and rand Paul. McConnell it seems at least in the past before trump wasn’t a complete eijit, but rand Paul has no such excuse.

jamule

The only thing they hate more than Mitch is the Dems

MJohnston

josip wrote: »

How hard do you have to try, to find someone less appealing than Mitch McConnell?

The only senator with consistently worse approval ratings is safely re-elected Susan Collins! Approval ratings are weird!

Rjd2

MJohnston wrote: »

The only senator with consistently worse approval ratings is safely re-elected Susan Collins! Approval ratings are weird!

Their bull**** tbh.

Mc Connell is awful, but he is clearly popular in Kentucky or he wouldn't win so comfortably all the time. Mc Grath was an awful candidate, the "left" version of Nikki Haley but even still she had a massive war chest and corporate media support and got walloped.

A lot of money was set on fire trying to defeat McConnell and Graham which could have been spent elsewhere.

Tell me how

Time Person of the Year jointly awarded to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Wouldn't have been my choice, Medical Staff and Dr Fauci were also on the short list.

Interesting element will be Trump having been beaten by Biden again. No doubt he'll be congratulatory when he refers to it.
Hell, given the influence he has had on the year, I would actually have given it to him ahead of the winners as it is not a popularity contest but rather who was the most influential person throughout the year.

BonnieSituation

Tell me how wrote: »

Time Person of the Year jointly awarded to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Wouldn't have been my choice, Medical Staff and Dr Fauci were also on the short list.

Interesting element will be Trump having been beaten by Biden again. No doubt he'll be congratulatory when he refers to it.
Hell, given the influence he has had on the year, I would actually have given it to him ahead of the winners as it is not a popularity contest but rather who was the most influential person throughout the year.

Biden/Harris have succeeded, before even taking office in changing the narrative and even the perception of the US in a few short weeks.

If anything they've been more influential than the Dumpster fire that preceded them.

Tell me how

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Biden/Harris have succeeded, before even taking office in changing the narrative and even the perception of the US in a few short weeks.

If anything they've been more influential than the Dumpster fire that preceded them.

If you were meeting a friend for a socially distant drink on New Years eve, and you were talking about the people who would attracted most attention this year, you'd spend 70% of the conversation talking about Trump.

Again, that doesn't mean that you'd be praising him but he attracted so much attention for 3 very distinct things; his Covid performance, his reaction to BLM protests and his campaign, defeat and subsequent post election behavior.

BonnieSituation

Tell me how wrote: »

If you were meeting a friend for a socially distant drink on New Years eve, and you were talking about the people who would attracted most attention this year, you'd spend 70% of the conversation talking about Trump.

Again, that doesn't mean that you'd be praising him but he attracted so much attention for 3 very distinct things; his Covid performance, his reaction to BLM protests and his campaign, defeat and subsequent post election behavior.

In the sense of grabbing attention you are correct, but the Persons' of the Year have in a matter of weeks neutralised him and changed the narrative. It took no time to quell the bully and as such I doubt he will be a topic of conversation at all. I know I haven't brought him up for weeks, bar the odd minor foray into his thread.

For that their influence on this year has been magnified and magnificent and the award sensible and deserved.

dogbert27

Tell me how wrote: »

If you were meeting a friend for a socially distant drink on New Years eve, and you were talking about the people who would attracted most attention this year, you'd spend 70% of the conversation talking about Trump.

Again, that doesn't mean that you'd be praising him but he attracted so much attention for 3 very distinct things; his Covid performance, his reaction to BLM protests and his campaign, defeat and subsequent post election behavior.

If you tell a narcissist they are person of the year, even for the wrong reasons, they will only see it as a positive for them.

Times Magazine was right to not feed the bad behaviour.

paul.duka

dogbert27 wrote: »

If you tell a narcissist they are person of the year, even for the wrong reasons, they will only see it as a positive for them.

Times Magazine was right to not feed the bad behaviour.

I totally agree with you, giving visibility to a narcissistic person is the worse you can do, as that is exactly what they are looking for. The strongest punishment for that kind of person is ignorance... 0 visibility... then first they get crazy, then they start feeling very weak because attacks its huge ego (no body likes me?)