Midterm Elections

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

So not really moving because you're fed up . Though I wouldn't particularly blame you. The congestion and sprawl in CA is obnoxious. Some wonderful scenery, brethtaking even. But not a fan of the rest of it.

Essentially what you're saying is that there are many different reasons, but it seems to me that CA is still a kind of gold rush state. Peopple rush in to make the gold and then get out when the endless commutes and urban sprawl becomes too much and there's enough gold to move somewhere else. And they've been doing it for decades.

I am, actually. When the office shut down in April I was a little unique in that I was retained as a remote employee. Most were forced to leave or relocate by 01 April. I am under no compulsion from my employer to move to Texas or anywhere else. You'll note I'm moving to a different city than my office moved to.

The move was more a target of opportunity. Since my work no longer required me to be in California, I could move anywhere, including simply somewhere cheaper in California. With the wife, we sat down and looked at the options, and it turned out that San Antonio, TX simply proved to be the best option for us due to a combination of weather, tax structure, job opportunities, cost, atmosphere, and so on.

hill16bhoy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why do people think that the Democrats are innocent when it comes to gerrymandering or other dark arts when it comes to electioneering?

It's a fine example of the 'Democrat good, Republican bad' stereotype that you get in this country.

Did it ever dawn on people why Democrats are so interested in getting more and more immigrants in the US.

It's simple really, it increases their voter base.

They don't care that much for their welfare, just get them.in, get them citizenship and you have a vote for life.

The HRC election campaign in 2016 just showed how corrupt a party they are.

And that's some classic "both sidesism" that you get from an apologist for the indefensible.

It take a special kind of apologist to say the Democrats "showed they were corrupt" in 2016, while completely airbrushing the exponentially greater corruption and Russian-style disregard for truth of their opponents out of history.

A very special kind.

Dyr

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And that's some classic "both sidesism" that you get from an apologist for the indefensible.

It take a special kind of apologist to say the Democrats "showed they were corrupt" in 2016, while completely airbrushing the exponentially greater corruption and Russian-style disregard for truth of their opponents out of history.

A very special kind.

There's an irony in making a whataboutery argument while complaining about whataboutery. It might be a bit subtle to pick up for someone who wants to crush a a huge chunk of the US electorate into the dust

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And that's some classic "both sidesism" that you get from an apologist for the indefensible.

It take a special kind of apologist to say the Democrats "showed they were corrupt" in 2016, while completely airbrushing the exponentially greater corruption and Russian-style disregard for truth of their opponents out of history.

A very special kind.

Everyone knows the Democrats ran a campaign to get Hillary as their candidate. No one else had a hope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.fdfd1294d29e

https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/926189366426431488


Elizabeth Warren says 2016 DNC was rigged. Is one of the leading candidates for the Democrats telling lies?

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone knows the Democrats ran a campaign to get Hillary as their candidate. No one else had a hope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.fdfd1294d29e

https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/926189366426431488


Elizabeth Warren says 2016 DNC was rigged. Is one of the leading candidates for the Democrats telling lies?

How was the primary rigged?

The superdelegate system does not amount to a "rigging". It was a poor system, but the DNC was quite up front about it and it had been in use for years. Everybody knew the rules of the game.

Neither does telling Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance amount to "a rigging".

Neither does the DNC having a preferred candidate amount to "a rigging", otherwise you'll have to say that every primary campaign for both parties in history was "rigged".

The fact is Clinton won the primaries fair and square, comfortably winning the popular vote, and that's coming from somebody who would have preferred to see Sanders as the candidate.

Clinton also won the popular vote in 2008 and lost the nomination.

Of course, all this nonsense about so called "rigging" is utterly hilarious coming from supporters of the most corrupt presidential candidate and campaign in history, something which you all seem only too willing to completely airbrush out of history.

But sure when you're a Trump supporter, you can convince yourself of anything you want to believe.

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

How was the primary rigged?

The superdelegate system does not amount to a "rigging". It was a poor system, but the DNC was quite up front about it and it had been in use for years. Everybody knew the rules of the game.

Neither does telling Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance amount to "a rigging".

Neither does the DNC having a preferred candidate amount to "a rigging", otherwise you'll have to say that every primary campaign for both parties in history was "rigged".

The fact is Clinton won the primaries fair and square, comfortably winning the popular vote, and that's coming from somebody who would have preferred to see Sanders as the candidate.

Clinton also won the popular vote in 2008 and lost the nomination.

Of course, all this nonsense about so called "rigging" is utterly hilarious coming from supporters of the most corrupt presidential candidate and campaign in history, something which you all seem only too willing to completely airbrush out of history.

But sure when you're a Trump supporter, you can convince yourself of anything you want to believe.

It is easier if one just accepts there is no good and bad, and neither party has a halo...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html

PHILADELPHIA —Democrats arrived at their nominating convention on Sunday under a cloud of discord as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, abruptly said she was resigning after a trove of leaked emails showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

the party was effectively an arm of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The messages showed members of the committee’s communications team musing about pushing the narrative that the Sanders campaign was inept and trying to raise questions publicly about whether he was an atheist.

Mr. Sanders said the situation was an “outrage” on Sunday before the resignation was announced, and called for Ms. Wasserman Schultz to step down. Afterward, he said it was the right decision.

“The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race,”

A corrupt campaign was run by the DNC to make Sanders look bad and to get Hillary as their candidate. As Elizabeth Warren said, it was rigged.

Mr. Sanders’s supporters were elated by Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s decision, which they said had been long overdue.

“Thank God for WikiLeaks,” said Dan O’Neal, a delegate from Arizona who was wearing a “Bernie for President” T-shirt. “The party was stacked from the beginning with Debbie in charge.”

This is why Debbie Wassermann Schultz, the chairperson of the DNC had to resign, she was involved in a campaign inside the DNC against Bernie Sanders.

It is time to stop believing one party is good and another is bad, both parties have good people, and then not so good...
It is naive to see any party as good and not being involved in things one would consider not good.

I am not a Trump supporter, I said he was a better option than Hillary given her record for supporting every war going, and she pushed Obama into the Libya mess. I believe Trump has done some good but also a lot of things I would regard as wrong.
I am not married to any position, I take things as I see it.

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

It is easier if one just accepts there is no good and bad, and neither party has a halo...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html

A corrupt campaign was run by the DNC to make Sanders look bad and to get Hillary as their candidate. As Elizabeth Warren said, it was rigged.



This is why Debbie Wassermann Schultz, the chairperson of the DNC had to resign, she was involved in a campaign inside the DNC against Bernie Sanders.

It is time to stop believing one party is good and another is bad, both parties have good people, and then not so good...
It is naive to see any party as good and not being involved in things one would consider not good.

I am not a Trump supporter, I said he was a better option than Hillary given her record for supporting every war going, and she pushed Obama into the Libya mess. I believe Trump has done some good but also a lot of things I would regard as wrong.
I am not married to any position, I take things as I see it.

I asked you how the primary was rigged.

You haven't provided a satisfactory answer.

I quite clearly said there were issues. There were. That does not equal a rigged primary.

I don't think you or any other Trump supporters understand what a rigged primary or election is, given your curious silence about gerrymandering, voter suppression and so called "technical glitches" which benefit Republicans.

Elizabeth Warren withdrew her comments, by the way.

Also, please stop mendaciously putting words into my mouth and claiming I have beliefs which I do not have - especially when you can't even own your own demonstrable beliefs - precisely nobody believes you when you say you aren't a Trump supporter - your posting history demonstrably proves otherwise.

And again, it's absolutely hilarious that you claim to be concerned about corruption or anything else underhand, when you are so plainly not, given your consistent defence of Trump.

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I asked you how the primary was rigged.

You haven't provided a satisfactory answer.

I quite clearly said there were issues. There were. That does not equal a rigged primary.

I don't think you understand what a rigged primary is.

Elizabeth Warren withdrew her comments.

Also, please stop mendaciously putting words into my mouth and claiming I have beliefs which I do not have - especially when you can't even own your own demonstrable beliefs - precisely nobody believes you when you say you aren't a Trump supporter - your posting history demonstrably proves otherwise.

And again, it's absolutely hilarious that you claim to be concerned about corruption or anything else underhand, when you are so plainly not, given your consistent defence of Trump.

Not one comment on Debbie Wassermann Schultz's resignation I see and the reason for it.

I have seen your posts over the past 24 hours, you talk about wanting the US to end up with a one party state as you want the only opposition to the Democrats which are the Republicans to be wiped into dust.

Trump got it wrong on Iran, excessive drones strikes, Climate change agreement, his trade war, the lack of tact on illegal immigration, the over vilifying of the press, on the EU when he called it a 'foe', his disgraceful performance in Helsinki, Charlottesville, the apprentice like nature of the white house with the 'you're fired', his attitude towards Saudi Arabia and Israel, his naivety towards Kim Jong Un as if he is a good person, no doubt I forgot stuff...
But I am a Trump supporter says you. Seeing one candidate as being less dangerous than another and wanting them to win because of that doesn't mean I support them overall. I think he was a lesser evil, at least he did say the wars the US have been involved in have been stupid and a waste of money. I agree with that, on the other hand the alternative was a person who voted for all these wars and got involved and pushed for war in previous roles. That is was why I wanted Hillary to lose, I will say I am concerned about Trump's rhetoric towards Iran and how Netanyahu seems to control him.
Not everything is black and white.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on how you look at it. If the House is the Body of the People, the Senate is the Body of the States. Fifty States, each of which has two votes. That makes it very democratic.

I disagree. But it's a subjective matter of course. To me, the basic principal of any democracy is that every person's vote has exactly the same value. The key being person and not state. In the Senate one Alaskan's vote is worth about 200 Californian's vote (the maths might be wrong, but the point stands).

I know this is how the system was designed, but i can't see how that's democratic.

Podge_irl

Why shouldn't the DNC have preferred Clinton? Sanders isn't even a democrat.

The DNC "rigged" it for Trump to be the Republican candidate, but everyone forgets that. That non-stop media coverage didn't come from nowhere.

Pity they couldn't put the cat back in the bag.

Podge_irl

Brian? wrote: »

I disagree. But it's a subjective matter of course. To me, the basic principal of any democracy is that every person's vote has exactly the same value. The key being person and not state. In the Senate one Alaskan's vote is worth about 200 Californian's vote (the maths might be wrong, but the point stands).

I know this is how the system was designed, but i can't see how that's democratic.

Not everyone's vote has the same value anywhere there are sub-national vote counts due to vagaries in turnout and electoral size. It is less egregious sure but I think it is too simplistic to say anything that doesn't give every vote equal weighting is "not democracy".

It is not a million miles away from the concept of, for example, requiring unanimity in EU decision making. Many in the US would still view it as independent states that came together as equals to form a federal group. I'm not a big fan of the Senate but I wouldn't call it undemocratic.

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Not one comment on Debbie Wassermann Schultz's resignation I see and the reason for it.

I have seen your posts over the past 24 hours, you talk about wanting the US to end up with a one party state as you want the only opposition to the Democrats which are the Republicans to be wiped into dust.

Trump got it wrong on Iran, excessive drones strikes, Climate change agreement, his trade war, the lack of tact on illegal immigration, the over vilifying of the press, on the EU when he called it a 'foe', his disgraceful performance in Helsinki, Charlottesville, the apprentice like nature of the white house with the 'you're fired', his attitude towards Saudi Arabia and Israel, his naivety towards Kim Jong Un as if he is a good person, no doubt I forgot stuff...
But I am a Trump supporter says you. Seeing one candidate as being less dangerous than another and wanting them to win because of that doesn't mean I support them overall. I think he was a lesser evil, at least he did say the wars the US have been involved in have been stupid and a waste of money. I agree with that, on the other hand the alternative was a person who voted for all these wars and got involved and pushed for war in previous roles. That is was why I wanted Hillary to lose, I will say I am concerned about Trump's rhetoric towards Iran and how Netanyahu seems to control him.
Not everything is black and white.

Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigned. So what?

How does that equal "the primary was rigged"?

You're the one making the assertion.

Back it up. So far, you haven't.

So far, your entire basis for this claim is "everybody knows". Thanks for that.

Read this and tell me the primary was "rigged".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

The reality is that what went on in the Democratic primary was no different from any primary campaign in history.

Party establishments have a favoured candidate. In other news, tomorrow is Friday.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your post - reasonable people have already long made up their own minds about what you think of Trump.

B0jangles

Hey, don't let Robert deflect the conversation back to the democratic primaries for an election which took place in 2016!

That's comfy home territory for him, far far away from the undeniable chaos and corruption of the Trump presidency.

Eric Cartman

Podge_irl wrote: »

Why shouldn't the DNC have preferred Clinton? Sanders isn't even a democrat.

Well it showed them up didnt it. Hopefully they stand up to her now and don't give her the opportunity to go again. If you want trump re-elected then root for clinton to get the nomination again

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigned. So what?

How does that equal "the primary was rigged"?

You're the one making the assertion.

Back it up. So far, you haven't.

So far, your entire basis for this claim is "everybody knows". Thanks for that.

Read this and tell me the primary was "rigged".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

The reality is that what went on in the Democratic primary was no different from any primary campaign in history.

Party establishments have a favoured candidate. In other news, tomorrow is Friday.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your post - reasonable people have already long made up their own minds about what you think of Trump.

B0jangles wrote: »

Hey, don't let Robert deflect the conversation back to the democratic primaries for an election which took place in 2016!

That's comfy home territory for him, far far away from the undeniable chaos and corruption of the Trump presidency.

Maybe Bojangles if you bothered to read my previous reply you would see plenty of criticism of Trump.
I am not like some people who sees all that one side does as good and the other or bad, or vice versa, I take a far more nuanced look and can say that is good or that is bad and that I agree or disagree.
I see people here who only see one side as good and the other as bad and no middle ground, to me that is an extremely simplistic way of looking at things, and it allows bad judgement due to being blinded by a dislike or hate of the other side.

I can see why my friend whom I spoke of earlier in this thread can go to the polls and vote for each party in different elections. He doesn't marry himself to a party, but to whom he thinks is best, it isn't always the Democrat or Republican.
It is blind politics to just vote for someone based on the party. Manchin can get elected in West Virginia because he did something Trump voters there wanted and voted for Kavanaugh. This is Manchin being both practicable in doing what his voters want and what he needed to be re-elected, but also not being married to a party stance, a more independent minded thinking politician, too many politicians are sheep in a flock.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe Bojangles if you bothered to read my previous reply you would see plenty of criticism of Trump.
I am not like some people who sees all that one side does as good and the other or bad, or vice versa, I take a far more nuanced look and can say that is good or that is bad and that I agree or disagree.
I see people here who only see one side as good and the other as bad and no middle ground, to me that is an extremely simplistic way of looking at things, and it allows bad judgement due to being blinded by a dislike or hate of the other side.

I can see why my friend whom I spoke of earlier in this thread can go to the polls and vote for each party in different elections. He doesn't marry himself to a party, but to whom he thinks is best, it isn't always the Democrat or Republican.
It is blind politics to just vote for someone based on the party. Manchin can get elected in West Virginia because he did something Trump voters there wanted and voted for Kavanaugh. This is Manchin being both practicable in doing what his voters want and what he needed to be re-elected, but also not being married to a party stance, a more independent minded thinking politician, too many politicians are sheep in a flock.

Robert, I've seen plenty of your posts on a range of political topics, including your occasional faint criticisms of Trump when he does something extraordinarily, exceptionally corrupt, but you switch back around to claiming Clinton is all but the devil incarnate at the first opportunity. Clinton, who is and was a middle-of-the-road career administrator, not some crazed warmongering firebrand as you seem to believe.



Are you not essentially a one issue voter yourself? I've always gathered that the one issue you really care about is banning abortion; that you supported Trump and loathed Clinton because a republican presidency held out the usual carrot of repealing Roe vs. Wade.

Podge_irl

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well it showed them up didnt it. Hopefully they stand up to her now and don't give her the opportunity to go again. If you want trump re-elected then root for clinton to get the nomination again

Showed them up for what? Supporting someone who is actually a member of their party?

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Robert, I've seen plenty of your posts on a range of political topics, including your occasional faint criticisms of Trump when he does something extraordinarily, exceptionally corrupt, but you switch back around to claiming Clinton is all but the devil incarnate at the first opportunity. Clinton, who is and was a middle-of-the-road career administrator, not some crazed warmongering firebrand as you seem to believe.



Are you not essentially a one issue voter yourself? I've always gathered that the one issue you really care about is banning abortion; that you supported Trump and loathed Clinton because a republican presidency held out the usual carrot of repealing Roe vs. Wade.

I have seen plenty of your posts and others to see the very simplistic look at politics where side is good and the other is bad.
The basic cover up of how unfit both candidates were for the presidency. A lot didn't care about the chaos of the Obama presidency in foreign affairs spearheaded by secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Remember this is the party that had Obama laugh at Romney in 2012 when Romney said Russia was the number 1 geopolitical issue. Four years later the Democrats were singing to Romney's tune.
Obama was against the attack/invasion of Libya. Hillary, Susan Rice and the idiots of the UK and France pushed for it, Obama was said to be disappointed with both the UK and France that they pushed for it with Hillary willing, and then they left it to decent into what Obama described as 'sh1t show'.


btw I do find it rather strange, the obsession some have with me for not sharing what some have here believes, I say some, if this offends then maybe one thinks it is them because they know it is the case.
Yesterday when I was right about people from blue cities/states moving to the suburbs of Texan cities and it was treated as being untrue by a lot of people, backed up with thanks to show the group mindset.
No one who disagreed had to the decency to say I was right, because people see it as being on sides. Then people talk about division and blame the other side for the divisions when basically most people on both sides are responsible but it is always the other side causing the divide.
If I challenge opinion it isn't an excuse to dismiss just because I believed Trump was the lesser evil due to the record in politics of Clinton.
I was in the US two weeks before the presidential elections, some Americans asked me what I thought, I told them they had really bad choices. There was never going to be a good outcome, Trump is a narcissist, rough, pursuing some really bad policies and Hillary wanted more war with her Syria plan which was a dangerous plan given Russia's involvement. There was never going to be a good president from the 2016 election.

Captain Obvious

I don't think it's a case that one side is good and one is bad. One is definitely bad though. There is nothing redeemable from a humanitarian, social or environmental perspective in Republicans at this time. They are typical bad guys. If you can pick a good guy among them I'd be impressed. Now that doesn't automatically make the democrats the good guys. They most certainly have their flaws in some individuals and policies. They are most certainly the lesser of two evils though.

gmisk

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't think it's a case that one side is good and one is bad. One is definitely bad though. There is nothing redeemable from a humanitarian, social or environmental perspective in Republicans at this time. They are typical bad guys. If you can pick a good guy among them I'd be impressed. Now that doesn't automatically make the democrats the good guys. They most certainly have their flaws in some individuals and policies. They are most certainly the lesser of two evils though.

Susan Collins?...she did eventually vote to confirm Kavanaughs appointment bit I think she would be considered fairly liberal and seems in general to be well liked. She is pro LGBT, pro affordable health care and pro choice, and has voted for tighter gun control.

hill16bhoy

It's the racism, stoopid.

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/

Bernie Sanders
45 mins ·
Let me be absolutely clear: Donald Trump, Brian Kemp and Ron DeSantis ran racist campaigns. One ad the Republicans put out was even rejected by Fox television because of its racist content. They used racist rhetoric to divide people and advance agendas that would harm the majority of Americans.

In Florida, Andrew Gillum, whom I was proud to stand with even during the primaries, faced week after week of racism from his opponent and allied forces. That's just a fact. And in the end, I believe those craven attacks founded in "fear of the other" had an impact on the outcome. Stacey Abrams faced similar attacks, in addition to unprecedented voter suppression. That's a reality that has to change.

It is our job now to continue to offer an alternative to the hate-filled agenda of Trump and Republican operatives. We need to offer a vision that all people, regardless of their race or country of origin, are part of a shared destiny as one people. We have to fight for the soul of our country at this critical moment. Part of that effort is to be honest about what our divisive opponents are trying to accomplish and how it is tearing at the very fabric of our democracy and our common humanity. We've got to continue doing everything that we can to fight all forms of racism.

feargale

Trump now warns the House that if they investigate him he will investigate them.
This shows more than anything Trump's utter lack of a shred of morality.
If he has stuff on others, or believes there is such, they should be investigated and prosecuted if the evidence warrants it. That decision should not depend on whether they refuse to play ball with him.
Where did we hear this before? Oh yes, Hilary Clinton was to be prosecuted. When is it going to happen? Bring it on. Another lie!
But as in Germany once upon a time there are always people who will lie, and others who will not face inconvenient truths, and mugs who will believe anything out of some mouths. As Adolf said, tell the big lie often enough and enough people will believe it.

2 Scoops

About time, they're being hit by multiple lawsuits

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/scottvsnipes.pdf

Arizona too

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/08/court-hears-republican-lawsuit-over-ballots-senate-seat-line/1931668002/

https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1060654446370344960

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1060596874577657856

prawnsambo

2 Scoops wrote: »

About time, they're being hit by multiple lawsuits

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/scottvsnipes.pdf

Arizona too

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/08/court-hears-republican-lawsuit-over-ballots-senate-seat-line/1931668002/

https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1060654446370344960

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1060596874577657856

There are multiple issues in Broward. But the main one I'm seeing is that there's a massive discrepancy between the votes for Governer and Senator. Totalling around 25k votes. That's extraordinary.

But surely there has to be an automatic recount in Florida anyway? So what are the GOP getting their knickers in a twist about?

2 Scoops

prawnsambo wrote: »

But surely there has to be an automatic recount in Florida anyway? So what are the GOP getting their knickers in a twist about?

History or corruption, read Marco Rubio's twitter link there. Click the twitter thing and scroll down. Same thing happened in 2016 general, last place to be called iirc

uptherebels

RobertKK wrote: »

btw I do find it rather strange, the obsession some have with me for not sharing what some have here believes, I say some, if this offends then maybe one thinks it is them because they know it is the case.
Yesterday when I was right about people from blue cities/states moving to the suburbs of Texan cities and it was treated as being untrue by a lot of people, backed up with thanks to show the group mindset.

If you believe you are right why do you need the validation of other posters?
If you believe you are right why do you care how many likes a post get?

vetinari

Bit rich for any GOP supporter to be complaining about election day issues.
Why not just wait for all the votes to be counted before spouting off conspiracy theories.

2 Scoops

vetinari wrote: »

Bit rich for any GOP supporter to be complaining about election day issues.
Why not just wait for all the votes to be counted before spouting off conspiracy theories.

You get a roffle from me, not just a roffle, but a gold plated one.


Tell ya what, one day when voted ID is implemented we can get past it, until then whatever.

Rhineshark

Sinema is now 2000 votes ahead of McSally in Arizona, with both Florida races within the recount margin.