US Presidential Election 2020

VinLieger · 23-10-2020 10:35am

stefanovich wrote: »

What?

You want intimidation then take a look at this

https://donaldtrump.watch/

Are you capable of actually discussing any of trumps actions without using whataboutery?

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:38am

pixelburp wrote: »

equivocating over an online portal leveraging public data

They cross reference two databases and present the data on a map. You can look at a map of your area, identify grassroots voters and then what? Exclude them from your children's birthday party?

No, it's an antifa hitlist.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:39am

VinLieger wrote: »

Are you capable of actually discussing any of trumps actions without using whataboutery?

A voting rights group says that caravans of flag-waving President Donald Trump supporters appeared to obstruct and intimidate voters at two polling location in predominantly ethnic-minority neighborhoods last weekend in the Albuquerque area.

Focus on the words in bold. That's to avoid lawsuits because none of it is substantiated.

Christy42 · 23-10-2020 10:41am

stefanovich wrote: »

They cross reference two databases and present the data on a map. You can look at a map of your area, identify grassroots voters and then what? Exclude them from your children's birthday party?

No, it's an antifa hitlist.

How many of them have been hit? Or are generally terrified of antifa at all times. Can you provide proof it is an antifa hitlist? You point out a lack of complete proof for one side but have no issue with a lack of proof on the other.

duploelabs · 23-10-2020 10:42am

stefanovich wrote: »

What?

You want intimidation then take a look at this

https://donaldtrump.watch/

That's just a list of public trump donors that can be found through a simple Google search.

But you've been shot down on posting this link before as a defence haven't you?

Completely different to armed trump supporters showing up at polling stations in various locations to intimidate voters

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:45am

duploelabs wrote: »

That's just a list of public trump donors that can be found through a simple Google search.

But you've been shot down on posting this link before as a defence haven't you?

Completely different to armed trump supporters showing up at polling stations in various locations to intimidate voters

Yes, it is publicly available but requires a lot of time and effort.

You need to find name and zipcode on one database, then fine the actual address on another. Then display it using google api.

A lot of money was put into doing this.

Antifa have already attacked private homes.

Stop defending the indefensible.

It's likely a violation of federal law.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 10:46am

duploelabs wrote: »

But you've been shot down on posting this link before as a defence haven't you?

Shot down?

You've all defended the indefensible before alright.

Christy42 · 23-10-2020 10:50am

stefanovich wrote: »

Yes, it is publicly available but requires a lot of time and effort.

You need to find name and zipcode on one database, then fine the actual address on another. Then display it using google api.

A lot of money was put into doing this.

Antifa have already attacked private homes.

Stop defending the indefensible.

It's likely a violation of federal law.

If publicly available data is a violation of federal law they should possibly be a little more careful with public data.

Man you are defending armed men at polling stations standing around for wholly unofficial reasons. Why do you think they are there? Those guns aren't for self defense. No one is expecting an attack.

pixelburp · 23-10-2020 10:53am

stefanovich wrote: »

They cross reference two databases and present the data on a map. You can look at a map of your area, identify grassroots voters and then what? Exclude them from your children's birthday party?

No, it's an antifa hitlist.

Feel free to back up this prickling of your thumbs with incidents relating to this ANTIFA "hit list". Shouldn't be hard. I know they're a triggering organisation but again. You're drawing moral equivalence between known attempts to interfere with the democratic basics and your personal spitballing over a personal distaste for a cultural boogeyman. It's literal whataboutery.

That website is crude and divisive and who knows who made it, doubtful it was done out of generosity of spirit. Doesn't change the reality of purpose.

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 11:12am

pixelburp wrote: »

Feel free to back up this prickling of your thumbs with incidents relating to this ANTIFA "hit list". Shouldn't be hard. I know they're a triggering organisation but again. You're drawing moral equivalence between known attempts to interfere with the democratic basics and your personal spitballing over a personal distaste for a cultural boogeyman. It's literal whataboutery.

That website is crude and divisive and who knows who made it, doubtful it was done out of generosity of spirit. Doesn't change the reality of purpose.

The article posted quoted someone else, used words like "appeared".

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 11:13am

pixelburp wrote: »

cultural boogeyman

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

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 1:10pm

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 1:14pm

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 1:38pm

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 2:07pm

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 2:13pm

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 2:15pm

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 2:30pm

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 2:33pm

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 2:36pm

Some number crunching, comparing Biden to Clinton 4 years ago

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

stefanovich · 23-10-2020 3:09pm

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 3:11pm

stefanovich wrote: »

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

Found the problem

VinLieger · 23-10-2020 3:18pm

stefanovich wrote: »

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

Do you even know what defunded means?

Midlife · 23-10-2020 3:25pm

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 3:44pm

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 3:57pm

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 4:44pm

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 4:56pm

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?

Quin_Dub · 23-10-2020 5:06pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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

Stick to the focus of this thread and that issue should not arise.

droidus · 23-10-2020 5:09pm

Water John wrote: »

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

Im beginning to think he might take Texas.

Water John · 23-10-2020 5:13pm

It's hard to predict when numbers are fairly close as it totally depends on turnout on each side. Looks like Dems will have a high turnout if the trend keeps going. Will the GOP do their usual and get all their vote out?
Dems would win most elections if they consistently could get their vote out.

TomOnBoard · 23-10-2020 5:27pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Stick to the focus of this thread and that issue should not arise.

I'm not sure you're getting my point.

I am threadbanned there. I am not allowed to post. If I do post there, I get a 2-week forum ban. So, how is this supposed to work? If I post here, entirely in accordance with the rules that existed yesterday, any post that is deemed to belong there is moved from here, automatically leaving me open to incurring a total Politics ban.

I dont have an issue with the change. It makes sense. However, as there are threadbans in place in the other thread, it seems strange.

Quin_Dub · 23-10-2020 6:02pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm not sure you're getting my point.

I am threadbanned there. I am not allowed to post. If I do post there, I get a 2-week forum ban. So, how is this supposed to work? If I post here, entirely in accordance with the rules that existed yesterday, any post that is deemed to belong there is moved from here, automatically leaving me open to incurring a total Politics ban.

I dont have an issue with the change. It makes sense. However, as there are threadbans in place in the other thread, it seems strange.

Understood and covered

TomOnBoard · 23-10-2020 6:16pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Understood and covered

I don't know what 'covered' means. Are current threadbans in the other thread still alive or are they dead?

BonnieSituation · 23-10-2020 6:25pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm not sure you're getting my point.

I am threadbanned there. I am not allowed to post. If I do post there, I get a 2-week forum ban. So, how is this supposed to work? If I post here, entirely in accordance with the rules that existed yesterday, any post that is deemed to belong there is moved from here, automatically leaving me open to incurring a total Politics ban.

I dont have an issue with the change. It makes sense. However, as there are threadbans in place in the other thread, it seems strange.

I had wondered what had happened to posts from last night. Just saw they were moved over to the DT thread. Weird.

Quin_Dub · 23-10-2020 6:34pm

To clarify , yes Thread bans still apply , however I have now removed any posts that might cause a problem and also no one is going to get a ban for a post that got moved by a mod.

Any other queries , drop me a PM.

Water John · 23-10-2020 8:31pm

Biden has given a good speech outlining his plan for Covid 19, quite impressive.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments