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

prawnsambo · 04-12-2020 11:01pm

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Why is it that anyone on this thread who criticises Biden is declared a Trumpster or a Trump fan ??

They usually declare themselves. Generally up front, but often with fact free posts.

looksee · 05-12-2020 12:18am

There may well be reason to criticise Biden in the future, when, and if, he has had chance to do something and failed. However he is, for the moment a breath of sanity, honesty and integrity, and even if this proves to be relative, it is so welcome at the moment that there is no point or need to criticise him.

Windmill100000 · 05-12-2020 8:25am

looksee wrote: »

There may well be reason to criticise Biden in the future, when, and if, he has had chance to do something and failed. However he is, for the moment a breath of sanity, honesty and integrity, and even if this proves to be relative, it is so welcome at the moment that there is no point or need to criticise him.

Amen. And you know, when he does well, Trump supporters will not acknowledge it. I'm sure he can live with that. I personally am delighted for Amerca that they have an intelligent leader at the helm.

Midlife · 05-12-2020 8:33am

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Why is it that anyone on this thread who criticises Biden is declared a Trumpster or a Trump fan ??

I'm fairness, you're actively giving out about CNN, those on the left, BLM, Biden.

You can understand why people would assume you're a Trump fan.

Maybe you can show us all the posts where you gave about his administration, those on the right, fox news and his pretty much all-white appointments.

eire4 · 07-12-2020 1:47am

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Trump has set the bar so low that a roomful of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters acting as hilarious random number generator connected to a yes/no light for any executive/presidential decision would do a better job of running the US.

Not only is Trump a terrible president he was willfully so. Sort of how premeditated murder is a worse offence than manslaughter

Funny post gave me a good laugh but sadly so very true as well. There was a time when I used to think of the US as a country to look up to and admire. Now I just shake my head and think what a disaster and that is being generous.

Igotadose · 07-12-2020 11:00am

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

One thing missed in all the noise is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood with 53% vote

So we now could endup with 52 states (+DC as well)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/12/06/washington_must_grant_puerto_rico_statehood_finally_144793.html

This is a real big deal, would've been top news in a normal election.

Now, the gaming of the process begins; Congress already approved DC.

That Georgia election has become hypercritical. F*ck the voters of Maine who didn't boot Susan Collins.

Francie Barrett · 07-12-2020 2:41pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

One thing missed in all the noise is that Puerto Rico voted for statehood with 53% vote

So we now could endup with 52 states (+DC as well)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/12/06/washington_must_grant_puerto_rico_statehood_finally_144793.html

That vote was a non-binding plebiscite. There is no obligation for the United States to accept it.

prawnsambo · 07-12-2020 2:46pm

Francie Barrett wrote: »

That vote was a non-binding plebiscite. There is no obligation for the United States to accept it.

It definitely should happen for Puerto Rico if only to give them some status within the USA. Very much treated as a second-class citizen as are the PRs themselves. Not sure of the process, is it like the one for Constitutional amendments?

Quin_Dub · 07-12-2020 2:56pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

It definitely should happen for Puerto Rico if only to give them some status within the USA. Very much treated as a second-class citizen as are the PRs themselves. Not sure of the process, is it like the one for Constitutional amendments?

As far as I can see , it's just an act of congress - So a Vote passed in each House and it's done.

MJohnston · 07-12-2020 3:18pm

The Republicans actually had support for Puerto Rico statehood in their 2016 platform (this part of which they didn't modify for 2020). There are probably enough Republican votes in the Senate for it to happen. The problem is, as ever, Mitch McConnell, who won't bring it to a vote.

dogbert27 · 07-12-2020 3:24pm

Francie Barrett wrote: »

That vote was a non-binding plebiscite. There is no obligation for the United States to accept it.

You mean like when the UK government didn't have to act on the Brexit Referendum!

07-12-2020 4:34pm

Once they're part of the states I wouldn't expect Puerto Rico to be completely Blue. Would have 5 or 6 seats in congress, could well have 2 of them be GOP. Senate might be both Blue at the the start.
GOP have little interest in allowing DC in though.

Brussels Sprout · 08-12-2020 2:58pm

49/50 states have now certified their results. Missouri is the final one. I cannot think why - it wasn't particularly close. Georgia managed 2 recounts in the same time.

MJohnston · 08-12-2020 3:22pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

49/50 states have now certified their results. Missouri is the final one. I cannot think why - it wasn't particularly close. Georgia managed 2 recounts in the same time.

In general, the less close a state is, the slower it counted. They put less resources into counting because there is less uncertainty about the outcome.

It's why most of the 'safe' red or blue states were called essentially as soon as voting closed, regardless of whether counting had begun or not.

dogbert27 · 08-12-2020 11:45pm

Supreme court rejects Republican demands to overturn Pennsylvania

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9032445/Supreme-Court-REJECTS-Republican-demand-overturn-Joe-Bidens-victory-Pennsylvania.html

I wonder if Ken Paxton is fishing for a pardon!!

dogbert27 · 08-12-2020 11:46pm

Supreme court rejects Republican demands to overturn Pennsylvania

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9032445/Supreme-Court-REJECTS-Republican-demand-overturn-Joe-Bidens-victory-Pennsylvania.html

I wonder if Ken Paxton is fishing for a pardon!!

BonnieSituation · 09-12-2020 1:53am

It just never ends:

The Irish Times wrote:

The state of Texas, aiming to help US president Donald Trump upend the results of the election, said on Tuesday it has sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin at the supreme court, calling changes those states made to election procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic unlawful.

The long-shot lawsuit, announced by the Republican attorney general of Texas Ken Paxton, was being filed directly with the supreme court rather than with a lower court, as is permitted for certain litigation between states. The supreme court has a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices appointed by Mr Trump.

The legal action represents the latest effort intended to reverse the Republican president’s loss to Democratic president-elect Joe Biden in the November 3rd election. Those efforts have so far failed and experts said the Texas suit is also unlikely to succeed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/texas-asks-us-supreme-court-to-help-trump-upend-election-1.4431137

---

The futility of all of this just beggars belief.

When does it end?

MJohnston · 09-12-2020 10:47am

Well yesterday was the "Safe Harbor Deadline", which is a bit of a legal deadline in terms of challenging the results in state courts, although pending lawsuits can continue.

Monday December 14th is when the Electoral College will vote. There shouldn't be any hiccups here because all the states have certified, and the states Biden won will send Democrat electors.

January 6th is when Congress counts the electoral votes, more of a ceremonial process than anything. Congresspeople can challenge the count, but both the House and Senate would have to vote to uphold any challenge, and that won't happen.

Igotadose · 09-12-2020 10:51am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It just never ends:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/texas-asks-us-supreme-court-to-help-trump-upend-election-1.4431137

---

The futility of all of this just beggars belief.

When does it end?

With the recent USSC ruling the message is clear - stop wasting the court's time.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/trump-election-fraud-claims-supreme-court-rebuke/index.html

Great quote from that article: "The only questions now are how many more times President Donald Trump wants to lose the election to President-elect Joe Biden "

Quin_Dub · 09-12-2020 11:47am

Igotadose wrote: »

With the recent USSC ruling the message is clear - stop wasting the court's time.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/trump-election-fraud-claims-supreme-court-rebuke/index.html

Great quote from that article: "The only questions now are how many more times President Donald Trump wants to lose the election to President-elect Joe Biden "

Hopefully they'll bounce the rubbish from Texas/Paxton very shortly as well.

Carfacemandog · 09-12-2020 1:19pm

So Texas is suing multi other states in an effort to subvert their democratic systems.

And here I was thinking "states rights" was just a lie Republicans use to try and get away with racist and disciminatory practices...

Quin_Dub · 09-12-2020 2:23pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

So Texas is suing multi other states in an effort to subvert their democratic systems.

And here I was thinking "states rights" was just a lie Republicans use to try and get away with racist and disciminatory practices...

Oddly though , Texas are suing the swing states for doing things that they did in Texas - Like extended the dates for mail-in voting , expanding early voting dates etc.

They aren't suing themselves though.. Is that because Trump won in Texas??

Carfacemandog · 09-12-2020 2:53pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Oddly though , Texas are suing the swing states for doing things that they did in Texas - Like extended the dates for mail-in voting , expanding early voting dates etc.
They aren't suing themselves though.. Is that because Trump won in Texas??

They are not suing any states that Trump won.

We're really at a tipping point as to whether the GOP should be considered a criminal enterprise at this point, particularly after the last month. And at this stage, any claims of ignorance their supporters could previously try to hide behind are completely and utterly gone. They know what they are, and they support it anyway, while happily lying about the reasons why daily - "states rights" is today's one. There will be another tomorrow.

serfboard · 09-12-2020 3:52pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

They are not suing any states that Trump won.

There was a funny piece on one of Seth Myers' "Closer Look" segments lately where they juxtaposed Trump supporters demonstratiing outside count centres in two states - in the state where Trump was ahead they were chanting "Stop the count", and in the state where he was behind they were chanting "Count the votes". Myers reckoned that both sets of Republicans should be put into a room together where they could roar at each other.

Manic Moran · 09-12-2020 4:27pm

I must admit to being displeased that my tax dollars are going on that Texas thing.

Puerto Rican politics are a strange bag. If anything, they're a "swing" state. For example, their current representative in congress caucuses with Republicans, her predecessor hung out with the Democrats. Their current governor swapped from being Democrat to Republican last year (PR politicians tend to be members of two parties, the internal party based on statehood, and the external party for relations with the rest of the US, which is basically a "closest alignment"). The question of statehood dominates the larger PR political landscape, and feelings are very strong. I honestly would not expect an application to the Union from PR unless the margin of victory in favour of statehood, without boycotts or other silliness like recent votes had, is akin to 60-65%.

Republicans may be dead set against statehood for DC for both practical (read: Senate) and historical reasons, but I don't see them denying PR should the latter actually submit a formal request. But until sentiment in PR moves much more towards statehood, I don't see it happening.

duploelabs · 09-12-2020 4:47pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I must admit to being displeased that my tax dollars are going on that Texas thing.

Puerto Rican politics are a strange bag. If anything, they're a "swing" state. For example, their current representative in congress caucuses with Republicans, her predecessor hung out with the Democrats. Their current governor swapped from being Democrat to Republican last year (PR politicians tend to be members of two parties, the internal party based on statehood, and the external party for relations with the rest of the US, which is basically a "closest alignment"). The question of statehood dominates the larger PR political landscape, and feelings are very strong. I honestly would not expect an application to the Union from PR unless the margin of victory in favour of statehood, without boycotts or other silliness like recent votes had, is akin to 60-65%.

Republicans may be dead set against statehood for DC for both practical (read: Senate) and historical reasons, but I don't see them denying PR should the latter actually submit a formal request. But until sentiment in PR moves much more towards statehood, I don't see it happening.

Bad enough to change your vote?

Manic Moran · 09-12-2020 5:37pm

duploelabs wrote: »

Bad enough to change your vote?

Given I have not been in Texas long enough to vote for either TX Governor nor AG, I have no vote to change.

Tell me how · 09-12-2020 8:28pm

serfboard wrote: »

There was a funny piece on one of Seth Myers' "Closer Look" segments lately where they juxtaposed Trump supporters demonstratiing outside count centres in two states - in the state where Trump was ahead they were chanting "Stop the count", and in the state where he was behind they were chanting "Count the votes". Myers reckoned that both sets of Republicans should be put into a room together where they could roar at each other.

No. You and Seth Myers just don't get it.

They should have stopped the counting in Michigan while simultaneously continuing to count in Nevada, but, they should have only counted the in person ballots.

It's not complicated, why can't people understand this?

Spanish Eyes · 09-12-2020 8:41pm

I think the Electoral College decides tomorrow. If it’s Biden, which most expect it to be, will that silence the law suits and all the Rep shenanigans I wonder..

duploelabs · 09-12-2020 8:51pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given I have not been in Texas long enough to vote for either TX Governor nor AG, I have no vote to change.

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

First Up · 09-12-2020 8:54pm

Tell me how wrote:

They should have stopped the counting in Michigan while simultaneously continuing to count in Nevada, but, they should have only counted the in person ballots.

Why?

Jizique · 09-12-2020 8:54pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think the Electoral College decides tomorrow. If it’s Biden, which most expect it to be, will that silence the law suits and all the Rep shenanigans I wonder..

Monday Dec 14 I think

Water John · 09-12-2020 9:08pm

Yeah Monday, we'll see how many GOP then acknowledge Biden as President Elect?

Manic Moran · 09-12-2020 9:36pm

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

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?

Igotadose · 09-12-2020 9:39pm

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 · 09-12-2020 9:49pm

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 · 09-12-2020 10:00pm

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 · 09-12-2020 10:26pm

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 · 09-12-2020 10:47pm

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 · 09-12-2020 10:56pm

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 · 10-12-2020 1:49am

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 · 10-12-2020 1:27pm

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

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

MJohnston · 10-12-2020 2:36pm

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 · 10-12-2020 2:40pm

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 · 10-12-2020 4:52pm

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 · 10-12-2020 4:55pm

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 · 10-12-2020 6:01pm

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 · 10-12-2020 6:40pm

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 · 10-12-2020 6:45pm

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 · 10-12-2020 6:59pm

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?

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

Comments