2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Kaitzilla]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2020-us-election-part-two.656015/page-346#post-15915109

Chaos is brewing in Pennsylvania. (The main swing state)
All mail-in ballots must be inside TWO envelopes or they will be thrown into the trash!

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/e...lots-supreme-court-philadelphia-20200921.html

Joe Biden will probably get more mail-in ballots than Trump, so hopefully his voters read the instructions and use 2 envelopes.

Naked Ballots might be the Hanging Chads of 2020.

Clearly this issue did not end up costing Biden the election.

I'm curious, how many naked ballots got thrown out in Pennsylvania?

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess Trump can "prove" all his votes in 2016 were legit too.

Biden failing to secure the EC doesn't mean Trump gets to stay. At that point, the Senate votes among the contenders.

 

[Gorbles]

Let us start at the beginning shall we, how long ago was it that that security guard left Portugal to settle in Canada?

Intensely ironic considering your participation in a US election thread

 

[AmazonQueen]

Another Trump campaign lawsuit over Pennsylvania chucked out.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...ection-fraud-appeal/ar-BB1bqfBm?ocid=msedgdhp

This time the judge was a Trump appointee.

 

[Patine]

Too much drama.
That said, it is highly likely that Biden (or his handlers) will get involved in an invasion, like previous US administrations since the birth of the US.

Yes, originally it was solely of Native American nations, save the completely failed invasion of the Canadas in the War of 1812 and the much more successful invasion of Mexico and crushing of a militant rebellion and attempt at separation within the first more then century of existence - but there were a LOT of invasions of sovereign Native American lands, definitely...

 

[Patine]

And, I'm still waiting (it's been several days) for @El_Machinae to give even the courtesy of any sort of response to my answer in full, good faith to his question on populism...

 

[innonimatu]

And regardless of how correct you are or aren't, you're the one suggesting he be fired. Like I alluded to earlier, that's grossly hypocritical and not worth me bothering with further. It undermines anything you've ever said about worker protections, and that's all I need to know.

I'm suggesting a a specific person that this specific person not hire him. An idiomatic term that is well known. You pretend I'm asking that "he be fired", as if I had (somehow miraculously) identified the "security guard" and contacted his employer to fire him, or (again miraculously) identified a specific person and called publicly to fire that specific person.

In other words, you're stawmanning. Shamelessly and repeatedly. Well one more for the list. I'm not going to call for having you fired, don't twist you knickers over it, I'm just not bothering to listen to you ever again.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm suggesting a a specific person that this specific person not hire him. An idiomatic term that is well known. You pretend I'm asking that "he be fired", as if I had (somehow miraculously) identified the "security guard" and contacted his employer to fire him, or (again miraculously) identified a specific person and called publicly to fire that specific person.

In other words, you're stawmanning. Shamelessly and repeatedly. Well one more for the list. I'm not going to call for having you fired, don't twist you knickers over it, I'm just not bothering to listen to you ever again.

Playing semantics, of course. You said the person wasn't fit to be a security guard. Your intent was clear nomatter how you try any absolve yourself of blame. Someone disagrees with your opinion on Portugese politics, and they're not fit for their job.

I never said you tried to get him fired. I said you suggested it, which is what saying someone who isn't for fit for their described job is. You, inno of the working class and their exploitation through their weakened bargaining power due to the ability to fall back on immigrants. Splitting hairs over "fired" vs. "shouldn't be employed". You want to talk about strawmen and here you are relying on them.

It would be so much easier to admit you made a mistake, right? But you doubled down. This is you now tripling down. I think you're mad someone called you on it.

Certainly, it reads like you don't regret what you said about this man (who you'll never know at all). You "just" don't think he should be employed. You're still here trying to justify it. Peace be upon you with that

 

[Estebonrober]

Can the relentless and constant partisan bias in every damned statement, will you, please. Life is hard, period, these days. And everyone wearing partisan blinders and endlessly doing partisan scapegoating, and demand everyone not interested in such crap must play along or have their party affiliation decided for them, falsely and disingenuously, is not helping ANYONE at all and only drives things FURTHER down the tubes and killing what remains of any credibility in the proceedings.

Um no the whole entire premise of massive voter fraud is partisan. Its also complete bollocks so. . . There is no compromising with altered states of reality. Sorry. No massive voter fraud took place, nor has it in the modern era in the US. Nor is there a cabal of libs out there drinking children's blood to stay young forever, or a sex trafficking ring, nor is anyone back door taking guns away from Americans or turning their children into queer nightmares with chemicals and subversive messaging. All of this stuff is passing as fact on social media and there is no way to stop it other then calling it horribly stupid. How do I compromise with "you are a representation of Satan on Earth"? It is sad. I agree, but it has been the reality this summer, so we have to deal with it.

 

[El_Machinae]

"vote rigging" will always have a partisan bent. Just looking through old Diebold threads here, you'll see smart people freaking out. And that freakout will be predictable based on politics.

 

[Patine]

Um no the whole entire premise of massive voter fraud is partisan.

So Robert Mugabe and Nicolas Maduro are Conservatives, are they? And the Democratic Party of the United States has not played an equal hand to the Republican Party of the United States in the institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates, eh? Voter fraud has absolutely nothing to do with specific political parties or ideologies at all - it has to with the integrity (or lack thereof) of specific politicians and those with power and influence over the electoral process at any given time. Your partisan view of the world and every single matter within is a tiresome and inane cliché, and one that you cannot hold any credibility in any other matter you speak on while carrying on about. There is far more to the world, and viewing and judging what's within, than political parties and ideologies, and the growing tendency that EVERYTHING must be seen as strictly and absolutely partisan is becoming reprehensible and downright stomach-churning as a trend, and shows a strong detachment from reality.

 

[Patine]

"vote rigging" will always have a partisan bent. Just looking through old Diebold threads here, you'll see smart people freaking out. And that freakout will be predictable based on politics.

Are you going to address, or even acknowledge the existence, of the answer I made to your pivotal question a few days ago?

 

[Berzerker]

In late February, inappropriate panic would have done more damage than the virus.

It's like you weren't living it in real time. Do you remember when the zeitgeist realized that masks were going to help prevent asymptomatic people from spreading the disease faster? That's when the comments about masks changed. And there's a decided partisan predictor about whether people even understood.

I bought handmade masks early May. I don't remember the zeitgeist, specifically, but clearly I was responding.

In Trump calendar, this was the "hydroxychloroquine" era

Lying did more damage. The government could have locked down the PPE supply and ramped up production without telling us masks weren't needed. People would have made their own or adapted other ways sooner if not for the lie.

Okay, Pelosi sucks. Fauci sucks. Biden sucks. Trump sucks. And I mean that as of February-March timeframe. I understand why Fauci would have wanted to avoid mass-hoarding of masks at that particular time, however. But while Fauci, Biden, and Pelosi have each clarified their support of the sorts of policies and behaviors that will squash the pandemic since March, and displayed those behaviors themselves, Trump has doubled down on his suckage. I expect my leaders to lead by example, and Trump has done the precise opposite. Sure there were BLM demonstrations, and occasionally riots, where there was insufficient social distancing and wearing of masks, but it's one thing to support free speech while lamenting the spreading of a disease in circumstances that you can't readily control, and quite another to hold rallies where you explicitly control everyone's behavior in it, and at the rallies and everyone else (except that one time where he toured Walter Reed) fail to demonstrate the behaviors, or even via tweets and verbal comments discourage the behaviors. Even Senator McConnell noted that he wasn't visiting the White House because he was not satisfied with the pandemic precautions in the White House itself and I think it's safe to say he's not saying that in order to attack Trump.

So no, I'm not giving anyone a pass on their actions during this pandemic, but if you pretend that Trump has been no worse than anyone else in dealing with it, I'm pretty much going to assume that you're deluded, or favoring partisanship over reality, or trolling everyone, or some mix of all three.

If you're not giving others a pass does that mean Trump shares blame with them? I dont have to pretend, I can see what others did. Biden attacked travel restrictions and Cuomo sent sick people into nursing homes. I'm not arguing about how blame is divvied up, just that it was bipartisan.

Democrats are the party of censorship, not free speech. So free speech for BLM/Antifa protesters but not Trump's campaign events? Even when those protests occasionally become riots? Somehow I just cant see Democrats raising a stink if Biden actually attracted a big audience. BLM has control, they organize and attend protests knowing they spread the bug... and arson, vandalism, theft and assault.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Winning

Biden netted 132 extra votes after Milwaukee County recount
https://www.tmj4.com/news/election-2020/biden-netted-132-extra-votes-after-milwaukee-county-recount

 

[FriendlyFire]

Democrats are the party of censorship, not free speech. So free speech for BLM/Antifa protesters but not Trump's campaign events? Even when those protests occasionally become riots? Somehow I just cant see Democrats raising a stink if Biden actually attracted a big audience. BLM has control, they organize and attend protests knowing they spread the bug... and arson, vandalism, theft and assault.

Republican are for Tiki torch marches chanting Jews will not replace us, Nazi flags, which lead to mass shooting of mexicans americans, kidnapping and murders
But Kneeling at an NFL game is Not allowed, and anyone doing so should be fired, boycott them immediately

Also Business should be allowed to refuse the GAYS
But twitter posting warning on fake information that is going to KILL thousands of Americans should be allowed because thats discrimination

Wearing a mask should be a Choice
Even if people are going to die from that its Republicans are pro-choice. All lives matter.

 

[Patine]

Republican are for Tiki torch marches chanting Jews will not replace us, Nazi flags, which lead to mass shooting of mexicans americans, kidnapping and murders
But Kneeling at an NFL game is Not allowed, and anyone doing so should be fired, boycott them immediately

Also Business should be allowed to refuse the GAYS
But twitter posting warning on fake information that is going to KILL thousands of Americans should be allowed because thats discrimination

Actually, the Republicans are for raw greed. Discriminatory laws against minorities in their case, unlike the historic National Socialist German Workers' Party, South African National Party, Rhodesian Front, and old Southern Democrats, is not doctrinaire or ideological at heart - it's based on the fact that respecting the rights of minorities, treating immigrant workers with dignity or anything but the backhanded rhetoric, "you're not welcome here, but we want to exploit you in the workplace here, but not admit it," and catering to cultural sensitive views of markets of environmentally sound policies cuts into the huge, undeserved profit margins of ultra-wealthy plutocrats, as is shutdowns and other precautions around COVID-19. Even American Evangelical "Christianity," is just a Cult of Mammon blasphemously (mis)using Christian labels, rituals, symbols, and scriptures. The hate is just a biproduct of the greed, not the core problem in and itself. The Republican Party has almost been the Party of Big Business...

 

[El_Machinae]

The government could have locked down the PPE supply and ramped up production without telling us masks weren't needed.

Interesting theory. Legislatively, might have been impossible. Governments restricting what people can buy can be done with a stroke of the pen, sure, but it's not legally easy.

I know you think 'lying caused more damage'. But I don't think you've unpacked the history. Originally people were buying PPE for self-protection, which wasn't going to be very useful (for many well-articulated reasons). When the story changes to stopping asymptomatic spread (where homemade masks are useful), the zeitgeist changed.

But, ehn, you'll think what you want. Like I keep saying, I was following the masks discussion at a different level.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think it is realistic for anyone to expect the election result to change. There just are way too many states that would have to swing for that to be possible.

Also, mass election fraud usually needs either the country head or the state officials to run it, and afaik in most of the contested states the local government is republican anyway (?).

That said, it is a bit surprising that the Gop did so well in the other two races, but not in the presidential one.

 

[mitsho]

Interesting theory. Legislatively, might have been impossible. Governments restricting what people can buy can be done with a stroke of the pen, sure, but it's not legally easy.

I know you think 'lying caused more damage'. But I don't think you've unpacked the history. Originally people were buying PPE for self-protection, which wasn't going to be very useful (for many well-articulated reasons). When the story changes to stopping asymptomatic spread (where homemade masks are useful), the zeitgeist changed.

But, ehn, you'll think what you want. Like I keep saying, I was following the masks discussion at a different level.

Also, doing that would have increased the attraction of the black market for medical supplies massively. You really don‘t want to do that as it‘s really hard to get out of that hole. Admitting you were not telling the whole truth is ugly, but you keep everything under control, and that‘s what it is about in the end.

Again, all over the world people like Fauci (medical advisors to the governments) were standing before the same question. Some made that decision, some went the other way. It‘s interesting to take a look at who went where, but for each and everyone, it was a question of their professional background and maybe political strategy. Nowhere it was taken out of partisan beliefs. Not even in the USA.

 

[IglooDame]

If you're not giving others a pass does that mean Trump shares blame with them? I dont have to pretend, I can see what others did. Biden attacked travel restrictions and Cuomo sent sick people into nursing homes. I'm not arguing about how blame is divvied up, just that it was bipartisan

It's not bipartisan, it's universal. No one was any kind of beacon of truth and light, especially at first. But there's a big difference between saying "blame is bipartisan" and "in the end, Trump's failures have been massively more negatively impactful than that of any other public figure".

Democrats are the party of censorship, not free speech. So free speech for BLM/Antifa protesters but not Trump's campaign events? Even when those protests occasionally become riots? Somehow I just cant see Democrats raising a stink if Biden actually attracted a big audience. BLM has control, they organize and attend protests knowing they spread the bug... and arson, vandalism, theft and assault.

(bolding mine)
Democrats and Republicans both prefer censorship of some kinds of speech. Everyone supports "free speech", as long as they get to define "speech". What's your definition?