Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Leroy42

I would have more faith in your concern if you didn't whitewash everything and anything that Trump does.

You excuse any of Trumps tweets with semantics yet you get triggered by even the slightest exaggerated headline on the 'liberal' media.

I am all for everyone being more truthful and less bombastic, but you expect people to take your outrage seriously when it magically disappears whenever Trump is concerned.

pixelburp

If Trump is so deeply worried by corruption worldwide on an abstract level, where are the initiatives trying to stamp it out anywhere else but Ukraine? Why isn't Giuliani flying across the world, meeting public anti-corruption advocates? Where are the taskforces or public announcements from the WH that this is policy? Central & South America could do with some of that democratic concern, plenty of Africa, and some parts of Europe like Bulgaria or Hungry.

What a startling coincidence that the one and only target of this sudden crisis of conscience, involved a strategy to dig up dirt on a political rival. All a wonderful coincidence from a man famously transparent in his business life.

Oh yes, because the argument is hypocritical. Horse. Shít. And either those making it are spectacularly naive, or open hypocrites too deep into Sunk Cost to admit their emperor has no clothes.

SeamusFX

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Do you folks ever listen?

Trump only brought up Hunter Biden because (as he said on the call) there was a lot of 'talk' and what he was referencing was allegations made by others (many in Ukraine). Trump didn't dream it all up. Check my previous posts on the topic for multiple articles making that patently clear. I know the contingent on here liked to refer to all that as a "right wing conspiracy theory" but it is far from that but then sure isn't everything a right wing conspiracy theory when it doesn't tie in with the democrat narrative, including FISA abuse and FBI bias resulting in unlawful actions.



lol. You're labelling what Hunter Biden got up to as merely using family links to get ahead? :P

A crackhead who started earning millions from sitting on the board of one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine, coincedently just as his father was the US Vice President tasked with tackling corruption in that country? The chap was trying to pull strings for Zlochevsky with the US state Dept ffs. Wake up.

But I understand the pretense that the interest had stopped as now y'all can say: Hey look, suddenly Joe Biden's the front runner and whaddayaknow but Trumpers are interested in Hunter again!! Truth is none of this has EVER gone away. Republicans in Congress have not stopped working on getting an investigation into the Bidens for one second and they won't stop either.

There are some crackheads alright and it’s not Hunter Biden. No one in their right mind actually believes that Trump only brought up Hunter Biden, because “lots of people were talking about him”. The line “lots of people are talking about it”, is Trump’s BS projection that he always uses, when he wants to talk about something that is only being discussed in his pea brain!

sid waddell

pixelburp wrote: »

If Trump is so deeply worried by corruption worldwide on an abstract level, where are the initiatives trying to stamp it out anywhere else but Ukraine? Why isn't Giuliani flying across the world, meeting public anti-corruption advocates? Where are the taskforces or public announcements from the WH that this is policy? Central & South America could do with some of that democratic concern, plenty of Africa, and some parts of Europe like Bulgaria or Hungry.

What a startling coincidence that the one and only target of this sudden crisis of conscience, involved a strategy to dig up dirt on a political rival. All a wonderful coincidence from a man famously transparent in his business life.

Oh yes, because the argument is hypocritical. Horse. Shít. And either those making it are spectacularly naive, or open hypocrites too deep into Sunk Cost to admit their emperor has no clothes.

What are Trump's anti-Russian corruption initiatives?

aloyisious

duploelabs wrote: »

Biden is a recovered stammerer, ten minutes of learning into the treatment of the affliction will explain his unusual speech patterns and how they would continue to affect anyone post treatment

Ta. I had wondered why he kept veering off track into "well, listen" short tales.

aloyisious

Mike Bloomberg has withdrawn from the race so that leaves six, one I suppose being the nominal runner within the GOP against Don. Though it's early days yet, its probable that questions are being asked about whom from the drop-out list will be on the Dem V/P ticket after the decision is made on whom the Dem Presidential candidate will be.

Did Mike Bloomberg vitalise the Dem race by entering it, giving it an unexpected impetus due to his apparent reason for entering the race being a personal dislike of Don? Did it force the Trump campaign to use its assets when it preferred not to? I'm thinking they would have preferred to let Joe and Bernie burn each other out.

eire4

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This about sums up the liberal media ....

Four weeks ago:



The very same publication today



Haha, you gotta love the liberal media. So full of it.

I always have to laugh when I see the "liberal media" propaganda misnomer as if the corporate owned and controlled stations like CNN or NBC are liberal. Absolutely risible. Just like the Corporate controlled Democratic party they are center right and very much want to keep the gravy train of the current broken and corrupt system in place. They may not be as far right as the current Republican party and their propaganda arms like Fox but they have no interest in a government that would actually be looking to run the country in a manner that served the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. They very much support and back the current Friedmanite disaster capitalism economic model in the US which has enriched them and the major corporations and wealthy of the US at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.

salmocab

eire4 wrote: »

I always have to laugh when I see the "liberal media" propaganda misnomer as if the corporate owned and controlled stations like CNN or NBC are liberal. Absolutely risible. Just like the Corporate controlled Democratic party they are center right and very much want to keep the gravy train of the current broken and corrupt system in place. They may not be as far right as the current Republican party and their propaganda arms like Fox but they have no interest in a government that would actually be looking to run the country in a manner that served the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. They very much support and back the current Friedmanite disaster capitalism economic model in the US which has enriched them and the major corporations and wealthy of the US at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.

People like Pete are trying to turn the word liberal into a bad word, they throw this kind of rubbish at it to try to stop people identifying as liberal.

Quin_Dub

aloyisious wrote: »

Mike Bloomberg has withdrawn from the race so that leaves six, one I suppose being the nominal runner within the GOP against Don. Though it's early days yet, its probable that questions are being asked about whom from the drop-out list will be on the Dem V/P ticket after the decision is made on whom the Dem Presidential candidate will be.

Did Mike Bloomberg vitalise the Dem race by entering it, giving it an unexpected impetus due to his apparent reason for entering the race being a personal dislike of Don? Did it force the Trump campaign to use its assets when it preferred not to? I'm thinking they would have preferred to let Joe and Bernie burn each other out.

Will Bloomberg hold to his promise and fund the nominee during the race.?

His money and access to the media would be a huge asset you'd have to imagine.

Plus he'd have a degree of freedom to "get down in the dirt" with Trump and leave the nominee to canvas on policy etc.

kowloon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You'd be hearing more about Hunter Biden no matter what his father's political fate was.

I'm not so sure, I mean, it's still a stick to hit the other crowd with but if he wasn't the son of the main competitor I'd imagine they would lose interest. It's about tarnishing the reputation of the other side, actually rooting out corruption isn't important and too much focus could even draw unwanted attention to their own corruption issues.

salmocab wrote: »

People like Pete are trying to turn the word liberal into a bad word, they throw this kind of rubbish at it to try to stop people identifying as liberal.

It's dem lefty liberuls who are responsible for all the ills in society. Providing people with healthcare is only a baby step away from eliminating the Kulaks.

salmocab

kowloon wrote: »

It's dem lefty liberuls who are responsible for all the ills in society. Providing people with healthcare is only a baby step away from eliminating the Kulaks.

Loony left, libtards, it’s just people worried that the world is changing for the better and they are slowly losing the power they had over what they perceive to be lesser people in society.

sid waddell

salmocab wrote: »

Loony left, libtards, it’s just people worried that the world is changing for the better and they are slowly losing the power they had over what they perceive to be lesser people in society.

In some small respects rich, right-wing conservatives are losing their power and in a much, much bigger way, they're consolidating it and vastly expanding it, and the power of ordinary people to create a fair, just society ever diminishes.

In the US this problem is particularly acute. Corporate power is almighty in every field. And corporate power is a kleptocracy. Vast wealth is being hoarded and nothing must be allowed get in the way of this. US politics operates as a cartel and each party is controlled by a corporate elite which will not allow "outsiders" change the system to a more just, more equal one. The media will not allow it. The US media is owned by that same corporate kleptocracy and will vilify anybody who attempts to change the system for the better. Social media has been hijacked and turned into a confusing mess to stop any prospect of change.

Workers' rights have been decimated. Many people cannot afford to live and have to work multiple jobs to try and make ends meet. Many people cannot start families because they cannot afford to. Many have no real access to healthcare. They are hamsters on a wheel. And there are many who are a lot worse off than that.

The current US regime is a nakedly corrupt kleptocracy working in consort with other such regimes. And in the same way the reconstruction and Jim Crow eras were a reaction of white power to the ending of slavery, so the racist politics of the Republican party is a reaction of white power to the civil rights era and Trump is a reaction of white power to Obama.

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Will Bloomberg hold to his promise and fund the nominee during the race.?

His money and access to the media would be a huge asset you'd have to imagine.

Plus he'd have a degree of freedom to "get down in the dirt" with Trump and leave the nominee to canvas on policy etc.

Good question. It would make him a man of his word if he did. Is it still legal for his campaign, or people working for a super pac to use funds raised for his super pac? Reading the Para's below [from this link: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/477670-bloomberg-pledges-to-help-fund-democratic-nominee-even-if-it-isnt-him] would lead me to assume he has ensured its legal to do so.

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg's campaign said the billionaire plans on helping to fund whoever wins the party's nomination — even if it isn't him, NBC News reports.
While he entered the Democratic primary race late and won't be on the ballot for the first four primaries, Bloomberg has amassed a campaign staff unparalleled in size and has spent well over $100 million in advertising.
“Mike Bloomberg is either going to be the nominee or the most important person supporting the Democratic nominee for president,” Kevin Sheekey, Bloomberg’s campaign manager, told the network. “He is dedicated to getting Trump out of the White House.”
If Bloomberg isn't the nominee, his massive team wouldn't work directly for the candidate but would function essentially like a super PAC. By law, super PACs can accept unlimited contributions and spend an unlimited amount of money as long as they act independently.
Bloomberg, in fact, already has a super PAC: Independence USA PAC. The billionaire's PAC spent over $110 million dollars in 2018 to help elect Democratic House candidates, the majority of whom won their races.
Since he entered the race in November, Bloomberg has hired over 800 staffers, including 500 field organizers across 30 states. His New York headquarters has an additional 300 staffers. The former New York mayor has committed to paying 500 of his staffers through the general election, according to NBC.

Edit. I assume he could also permit the carrying of "attack dog" ads on his privately owned facilities.

aloyisious

Looking at the Democratic caucus vote held yesterday in two voting centres in Texas had me aghast at the events. 4+ hour-long waiting in queues to cast your vote? Was it the Texan Democratic party who made the decision to use the two venues shown on TV or was the party obliged to use those voting centres? The impression given on the news was that this was down to a shortage of available voting centres, following on from the closures of a large number of the centres. Its obviously time for the DNC to force the issue and get the courts to order the re-opening of the shut-down centres and declare the closures as unlawful infringement by local and state officials of US citizens right to vote.

If this is actually the fact, then it should follow logically [maybe] that the GOP will be stuck in the same rut when it comes to deciding between Don and the other [maybe nominal] GOP candidate in its turn [maybe]. I can't see the GOP wearing the idea of its members being denied the right to vote for its candidate/s due to voting centres being closed: no siree bob, not in any way.

briany

salmocab wrote: »

People like Pete are trying to turn the word liberal into a bad word, they throw this kind of rubbish at it to try to stop people identifying as liberal.

What the hell is liberal or conservative these days? Liberal or conservative in what ways? Socially liberal/conservative? Economically liberal/conservative?

It seems to me that, in popular thought, those labels appear to revolve around whether one thinks that, say, Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is a bit of a muppet. It's micro-liberalism and micro-conservatism. People have these little pet issues they're invested in and give themselves or others a broad definition based off of that.

What's funny is that in America you have all these people banging on about freedom, yet define themselves as conservative. Surely if you believe in freedom, you're a kind of a liberal. Y'know liberty....freedom? Sounds like a synonym to me.

aloyisious

briany wrote: »

What the hell is liberal or conservative these days? Liberal or conservative in what ways? Socially liberal/conservative? Economically liberal/conservative?

It seems to me that, in popular thought, those labels appear to revolve around whether one thinks that, say, Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is a bit of a muppet. It's micro-liberalism and micro-conservatism. People have these little pet issues they're invested in and give themselves or others a broad definition based off of that.

What's funny is that in America you have all these people banging on about freedom, yet define themselves as conservative. Surely if you believe in freedom, you're a kind of a liberal. Y'know liberty....freedom? Sounds like a synonym to me.

Its the idea in some peoples heads that by saying other people have rights to use deprives the some people of the rights they still have... Damn libertards having fancy thoughts and taking liberties with MY liberties.

aloyisious

Don keeps throwing out rubbish statements, some worth noting as they show he's hurting, some as pertinent to current affairs affecting him and some like this tongue-in-cheek tweet which is obviously dual-use; to get a dig in to both Bernie and Elizabeth, and to self-publicize to his fan base. No using of slang-words for names to run down the candidates in the tweet either.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
·
4 Mar

So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race. She has Zero chance of even coming close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly. So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will he ever speak to her again? She cost him Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn’t!

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Don keeps throwing out rubbish statements, some worth noting as they show he's hurting, some as pertinent to current affairs affecting him and some like this tongue-in-cheek tweet which is obviously dual-use; to get a dig in to both Bernie and Elizabeth, and to self-publicize to his fan base. No using of slang-words for names to run down the candidates in the tweet either.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
·
4 Mar

So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race. She has Zero chance of even coming close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly. So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will he ever speak to her again? She cost him Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn’t!

He will start trying a divide & conquer tactic now.

Quin_Dub

aloyisious wrote: »

Looking at the Democratic caucus vote held yesterday in two voting centres in Texas had me aghast at the events. 4+ hour-long waiting in queues to cast your vote? Was it the Texan Democratic party who made the decision to use the two venues shown on TV or was the party obliged to use those voting centres? The impression given on the news was that this was down to a shortage of available voting centres, following on from the closures of a large number of the centres. Its obviously time for the DNC to force the issue and get the courts to order the re-opening of the shut-down centres and declare the closures as unlawful infringement by local and state officials of US citizens right to vote.

If this is actually the fact, then it should follow logically [maybe] that the GOP will be stuck in the same rut when it comes to deciding between Don and the other [maybe nominal] GOP candidate in its turn [maybe]. I can't see the GOP wearing the idea of its members being denied the right to vote for its candidate/s due to voting centres being closed: no siree bob, not in any way.

As I understand it the voting locations are set by local government - e.g. for Texas ,The GOP control State house/senate.

They have been closing voting locations at a significant rate in recent years , especially in places with high or increasing black/hispanic populations

Last year, Texas led the US south in an unenviable statistic: closing down the most polling stations, making it more difficult for people to vote and arguably benefiting Republicans.

On a local level, the changes can be stark. McLennan county, home to Waco, Texas, closed 44% of its polling places from 2012 to 2018, despite the fact that its population grew by more than 15,000 people during the same time period, with more than two-thirds of that growth coming from Black and Latinx residents.

briany

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He will start trying a divide & conquer tactic now.

Start? Divide and conquer is pretty much his whole deal. I remember back when it was Bernie v. Hillary, Trump was bigging Bernie up a bit when he'd won a few states. Very much a tried and tested tactic to stoke divisions within the party of his opponents.

Quin_Dub

briany wrote: »

Start? Divide and conquer is pretty much his whole deal. I remember back when it was Bernie v. Hillary, Trump was bigging Bernie up a bit when he'd won a few states. Very much a tried and tested tactic to stoke divisions within the party of his opponents.

The whole approach is currently quite bizarre..

In order to try and anger/suppress the youth vote that predominantly support Sanders , Trump is trying to paint Biden as this "deep state plant" trying to suppress change and the will of the people blah blah blah.

At the same time , in order to try to shift the Suburban middle class voter away from Biden , Trump et al are trying to say that Biden is the puppet of "The crazy radical left" and that he will introduce communism and and and.

So two utterly incompatible arguments aimed at two utterly different demographic groups..

How can Biden be both "led by the radical left" AND be a "Deep state plant suppressing the left" ??

sid waddell

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The whole approach is currently quite bizarre..

In order to try and anger/suppress the youth vote that predominantly support Sanders , Trump is trying to paint Biden as this "deep state plant" trying to suppress change and the will of the people blah blah blah.

At the same time , in order to try to shift the Suburban middle class voter away from Biden , Trump et al are trying to say that Biden is the puppet of "The crazy radical left" and that he will introduce communism and and and.

So two utterly incompatible arguments aimed at two utterly different demographic groups..

How can Biden be both "led by the radical left" AND be a "Deep state plant suppressing the left" ??

Again, it's the Russia playbook 101.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, it used two directly contradictory arguments on different audiences.

When speaking to a Western audience, Russia claimed Ukraine was a fascist construction and that Russia was standing up for freedom by invading it.

When speaking to a domestic audience, it claimed Ukraine was a Jewish construction and part of a conspiracy to push homosexuality and all the evil "liberal" ideas of the west onto Russia.

None of it has to make sense.

kowloon

aloyisious wrote: »

Its the idea in some peoples heads that by saying other people have rights to use deprives the some people of the rights they still have... Damn libertards having fancy thoughts and taking liberties with MY liberties.

Freedom as a zero-sum game. Gays being allowed marry ruins marriage for the rest of us doncha know?!

The word liberal has been hijacked by people who either don't know the meaning of the word, it just means 'people I don't like' to them, or by people purposely misusing it to try and get a rise out of someone or to further confuse the first group. Pete doesn't seem stupid, so I doubt he's in the first group but I don't want to accuse anyone of trolling.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

How can Biden be both "led by the radical left" AND be a "Deep state plant suppressing the left" ??

If you target the advertising right the two views don't cross paths. This is where advertising on social media like Facebook really beats the old media. You don't have to worry about contradicting yourself so much.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

Looking at the Democratic caucus vote held yesterday in two voting centres in Texas had me aghast at the events. 4+ hour-long waiting in queues to cast your vote? Was it the Texan Democratic party who made the decision to use the two venues shown on TV or was the party obliged to use those voting centres? The impression given on the news was that this was down to a shortage of available voting centres, following on from the closures of a large number of the centres. Its obviously time for the DNC to force the issue and get the courts to order the re-opening of the shut-down centres and declare the closures as unlawful infringement by local and state officials of US citizens right to vote.

If this is actually the fact, then it should follow logically [maybe] that the GOP will be stuck in the same rut when it comes to deciding between Don and the other [maybe nominal] GOP candidate in its turn [maybe]. I can't see the GOP wearing the idea of its members being denied the right to vote for its candidate/s due to voting centres being closed: no siree bob, not in any way.

I looked this up yesterday. Voting, here, like a lot of things, is run by each county, and the county's Dept of Elections is funded by the county commisisoners in the annual budget. For example, my county spent $12mn buying new election machines late last year. Texas is a very decentralised structure, likely resulting from the fact that the State legislature only meets three months every two years. My property taxes are some of the highest in the country, they go to the county. (No income tax in Texas, so the State doesn't get that revenue either, they're down to corporate taxes and the like)

I looked up the county budget reports for Bexar County (Where I am, in and out in ten minutes), and Harris County, (which is Houston, reporting lines of 4-5 hours in the news.) They're publicly available.

Harris county, pop about 4.5mn, put some $15mn into the elections budget, Bexar county, pop about 2mn put $25mn [Error. Actually $14mn] into its Dept of Elections.

Longer lines in Harris county vs Bexar county seem to be a natural result. I do not know the political leanings of the two county commissioners, but I suspect the result was more a matter of budget priorities than any political shenanigans.

Note that the Harris County elections division page states that it is responsible for securing and manning polling stations.
https://www.harrisvotes.com/

[Edit: That said, there seems to be some further distribution of authority. The Harris County Clerk is blaming Republicans for 'not sharing voting machines'.
https://www.click2houston.com/decision-2020/2020/03/04/harris-county-clerk-blames-gop-for-refusing-to-allow-joint-primary-causing-long-wait-times-for-voters-on-super-tuesday/

I'm not sure why the parties get a vote on where the machines go.]

[Further Edit] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-GOP-chair-opposes-Dem-county-clerk-s-13969625.php
Apparently the older machines currently in use in Harris county are not capable of being multi-party on the fly? Here in Bexar, we indicated our ballot preference to the polling site staff as per the version that the Harris clerk doesn't want, instead doing something with an ipad? However, we were able to share the machines, no matter which ballot we selected, any machine would work. The Harris County site says that they plan on upgrading their machines in use since 1998, but haven't done it yet. Or something like that.

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

I looked up the county budget reports for Bexar County (Where I am, in and out in ten minutes), and Harris County, (which is Houston, reporting lines of 4-5 hours in the news.) They're publicly available.

Harris county, pop about 4.5mn, put some $15mn into the elections budget, Bexar county, pop about 2mn put $25mn into its Dept of Elections.

Longer lines in Harris county vs Bexar county seem to be a natural result. I do not know the political leanings of the two county commissioners, but I suspect the result was more a matter of budget priorities than any political shenanigans.

That's hard to tally with the nature of the changes - Biggest rate of closures in the areas with large or increasing populations not typically predisposed to voting for the GOP..

Easy to hide behind "budget concerns" when you can shift spending to something that your voters will like and shift it away from something that would benefit the opposition.

It's voter suppression , pure and simple.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As I understand it the voting locations are set by local government - e.g. for Texas ,The GOP control State house/senate.

They have been closing voting locations at a significant rate in recent years , especially in places with high or increasing black/hispanic populations

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

I looked this up yesterday. Voting, here, like a lot of things, is run by each county, and the county's Dept of Elections is funded by the county commisisoners in the annual budget. For example, my county spent $12mn buying new election machines late last year. Texas is a very decentralised structure, likely resulting from the fact that the State legislature only meets three months every two years. My property taxes are some of the highest in the country, they go to the county. (No income tax in Texas, so the State doesn't get that revenue either, they're down to corporate taxes and the like)

I looked up the county budget reports for Bexar County (Where I am, in and out in ten minutes), and Harris County, (which is Houston, reporting lines of 4-5 hours in the news.) They're publicly available.

Harris county, pop about 4.5mn, put some $15mn into the elections budget, Bexar county, pop about 2mn put $25mn into its Dept of Elections.

Longer lines in Harris county vs Bexar county seem to be a natural result. I do not know the political leanings of the two county commissioners, but I suspect the result was more a matter of budget priorities than any political shenanigans.

Note that the Harris County elections division page states that it is responsible for securing and manning polling stations.
https://www.harrisvotes.com/

[Edit: That said, there seems to be some further distribution of authority. The Harris County Clerk is blaming Republicans for 'not sharing voting machines'.
https://www.click2houston.com/decision-2020/2020/03/04/harris-county-clerk-blames-gop-for-refusing-to-allow-joint-primary-causing-long-wait-times-for-voters-on-super-tuesday/

I'm not sure why the parties get a vote on where the machines go.]

[Further Edit] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-GOP-chair-opposes-Dem-county-clerk-s-13969625.php
Apparently the older machines currently in use in Harris county are not capable of being multi-party. Here in Bexar, we indicated our ballot preference to the polling site staff as per the version that the Harris clerk doesn't want. However, we were able to share the machines, no matter which ballot we selected, any machine would work. The Harris County site says that they plan on upgrading their machines in use since 1998, but haven't done it yet.

this is absolute white wash of whats going on, its an active tactic to close down voting centers by the GOP across the country.

In Texas for example there was a new state wide law to keep polling places open for the states full 12 day early voting period. localities cannot afford to keep it open that long so they have to close them. This enforces lower turnout.

They are actively trying to keep certain demographics out of the booths.


I saw the last guy to vote in texas waited 7 hours. And you claim this is all down to just budget. The GOP have been honing these jim crowesque laws for decades they know well creating rules in certain areas carry outputs elsewhere.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

this is absolute white wash of whats going on, its an active tactic to close down voting centers by the GOP across the country.

In Texas for example there was a new state wide law to keep polling places open for the states full 12 day early voting period. localities cannot afford to keep it open that long so they have to close them. This enforces lower turnout.

They are actively trying to keep certain demographics out of the booths.


I saw the last guy to vote in texas waited 7 hours. And you claim this is all down to just budget. The GOP have been honing these jim crowesque laws for decades they know well creating rules in certain areas carry outputs elsewhere.

You can't argue with the budget figures. Barring efficiency differences, if one county is spending over $9/voter in its elections department and has equipment six months old, and another county is spending about $3/voter in its elections department using equipment over two decades old, there is going to be a serious mismatch of capability. No wonder Harris County can't afford to keep the polling stations open. Oh, and the Houston area has a GDP over twice that per person than the San Antonio area, so what's their excuse? Austin and the GOP does not control the Harris County budget. Further, Bexar may not be as blue as Harris, but it's still blue.

[Edit. I looked at the wrong line on the budgets. I'm tracking Bexar spending $14mn, not $25mn. Also fixed $3 vice $0.3)

Toeuptony

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/05/trump-coronavirus-who-global-death-rate-false-number

Trump is contradicting the WHO now. The man has no shame, but then again we have ample evidence of that already.

Quin_Dub

Toeuptony wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/05/trump-coronavirus-who-global-death-rate-false-number

Trump is contradicting the WHO now. The man has no shame, but then again we have ample evidence of that already.

Just another example of his utter narcissism - He does not care about anyone or anything but himself.

His ONLY concern here is for how all of this might impact his re-election.

So he will lie and obfuscate about anything and everything that he thinks might negatively impact him. The fact that people are dying means nothing to him..

It's all about him..

ancapailldorcha

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Just another example of his utter narcissism - He does not care about anyone or anything but himself.

His ONLY concern here is for how all of this might impact his re-election.

So he will lie and obfuscate about anything and everything that he thinks might negatively impact him. The fact that people are dying means nothing to him..

It's all about him..

All true but I would have thought that his best move would be to let someone else such as the head an organisation like the HHS or the CDC be the face of the state's response to the Coronavirus outbreak. It makes no sense for him to humiliate himself in an election year.