2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think this is the key thing that Trump has exposed in American society.

The willingness & ability of GOP voters/supporters to ignore absolutely anything so long as "their guy" is in charge.

There appears to be absolutely no behaviour on the part of Trump that would make them stop supporting him so long as he continues to adhere to their political/societal goals.

The ends truly do justify the means for the GOP it would seem.

I have no dog in the fight from a political perspective and if Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush or whatever had won the Election in 2016 I probably wouldn't really have taken a whole lot of notice. They'd probably have done most of what that Trump has done legislatively speaking, and the world would largely not have noticed.

My interest now however is driven by ever increasing incredulity at peoples ability to ignore the day to day actions of a truly repugnant individual, absent even the most basic elements of human decency just because he's "on their side".

That is all very true on the most part.

It's really amazing how his behaviour has been accepted as "the new normal" (hate that phrase), but a lot of people have a newfound interest in politics with his election and it has become abundantly clear that if any president had of been subjected to such intense scrutiny as he has from day one, each one would have been pilloried by the opposite side and a lot of untruths and scandals would have been uncovered.

Politics is an odd tribal phenomenon. You only have to look at people who are staunch FF or FG or SF in Ireland. In America it is ramped up and the stakes are higher because their policy has an affect on global issues. Trump is bizarre. But he is far from unique. What makes him bizarre is that the media put him there and the media seem to be failing in removing him. I find it hard to believe his party would have put him there if it wasn't for the same media who are trying to oust him

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

I'm loving it. Twitter’s liberal bias boileth over... And they shot themselves in the foot in the process.

Obviously the fact that Trump uses Twitter to combat the liberal mainstream media advantage against Republicans has caused the collective heads of the executives at Twitter to explode and act without thinking.

Twitter needs to fact-check their fact checks. Pretending there is no connection between voting by mail and fraud is a fairy tale talking point right out of the DNC. Trump was targeting California and mail in voting in his Tweets. If Twitter would have done a rudimentary search they would have discovered California’s Republican party filed a lawsuit against Governor Newsom’s mail in vote order citing worries over voter fraud as there are many experts who have valid concerns about vote by mail.

Twitter probably did know all this but their liberal bias got the better of them. They will now pay the price of their decision as they’ve now opened themselves up to lawsuits.

Up until yesterday Twitter has been protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as Twitter has not been considered “publishers” or “speakers” and therefore have not been held liable for the information they host. That is all over with, now. Since there are experts on both sides regarding vote by mail and it’s correlation to fraud, Twitter has now moved into the realm of a “speaker” or a “publisher” and opened themselves for liable as they’ve taken sides. In one fell swoop they’ve stripped themselves of their special legal status and opened themselves to lawsuits brought about by groups who have worked to end Twitter's liability protections.

Well done, Twitter... Idiots of seismic proportions!

Since when is a frivolous law-suit by a vested interest "evidence" of fact??

Tell me. What evidence will the California Republican party bring forth in this lawsuit??

Will it be the findings from the Federal "Voter Fraud Commission" that Trump instigated?

Or will it be evidence from the multiple other investigations over many years that found absolutely ZERO evidence of systematic voter fraud anywhere in the US , ever?

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think this is the key thing that Trump has exposed in American society.

The willingness & ability of GOP voters/supporters to ignore absolutely anything so long as "their guy" is in charge.

There appears to be absolutely no behaviour on the part of Trump that would make them stop supporting him so long as he continues to adhere to their political/societal goals.

The ends truly do justify the means for the GOP it would seem.

I have no dog in the fight from a political perspective and if Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush or whatever had won the Election in 2016 I probably wouldn't really have taken a whole lot of notice. They'd probably have done most of what that Trump has done legislatively speaking, and the world would largely not have noticed.

My interest now however is driven by ever increasing incredulity at peoples ability to ignore the day to day actions of a truly repugnant individual, absent even the most basic elements of human decency just because he's "on their side".

You fail to recognize that most people here ultimately care more about what a politician does then what a politician says... and vote accordingly. The noise is usually cancelled out when they go to pull the lever in the voting booth.

Brussels Sprout

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The pretend moderate side

I have noticed on twitter that the people who have things like:

• Politically Independent
• Neither left nor right
• Independent thinker

in their bios are almost universally, foaming at the mouth, MAGA-heads whose timelines are chock full of James Woods, Ben Garrison and Bill Mitchell retweets.

Either these people picked their descriptions thinking they were accurate or they think it gives them some kind of fake authenticity. Not sure which is worse.

osarusan

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think this is the key thing that Trump has exposed in American society.

The willingness & ability of GOP voters/supporters to ignore absolutely anything so long as "their guy" is in charge.

There appears to be absolutely no behaviour on the part of Trump that would make them stop supporting him so long as he continues to adhere to their political/societal goals.

The ends truly do justify the means for the GOP it would seem.

Tbf, some woman came out the other day with her comment about how she'd vote for Biden even if he boiled babies. Hyperbole I know, but the same sentiment is there.

I am sure if we go back to Clinton's impeachment trial we would see a whole load of Democrats and their supporters making agonising, contorted arguments to defend him and his 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' comment.

When you have so many voters on both sides that will vote Rep or Dem no matter what, and no credible third option, you end up with stuff like this.

ELM327

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The tactics have changed over the last few hours .

The pretend moderate side are in, just like the anti vaxx threads.

"I don't support either side" then slowly the more pro trump stuff creeps in.

"Principles before personality"

Came in too strong too early there. The man has no principles and proves it, unless the principle is to lie.

His whole thing is personality and it's a ****ty one. He's literally a TV personality that decided the presidency was his next step.

Thankfully none of that BS describes me.
I've been on the train since before 2016.


Edited to add:Not anti vax, fervently pro vax.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So Trump is threatening to shut down or regulate social media companies.

Earlier in the day he was celebrating job losses at The Atlantic publication.

This is all tin pot dictator behaviour.

Thankfully he's too stupid to achieve anything in that regard.

I have no problem with social media being regulated if they are espousing they are an impartial medium but have been shown to show bias. I don't think anyone (well apart from a handful here) can say that twitter is impartial.

And celebrating the demise of a publication that tries to take you down is certainly not presidential but hardly surprising.

A little hyperbolic to call it dictatorial

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

compared to trump he is a mensa member.

If he remembers what mensa is.

Joe Biden wrote:

I'm joe biden and I'm going to the mens a room.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Since when is a frivolous law-suit by a vested interest "evidence" of fact??

Tell me. What evidence will the California Republican party bring forth in this lawsuit??

Will it be the findings from the Federal "Voter Fraud Commission" that Trump instigated?

Or will it be evidence from the multiple other investigations over many years that found absolutely ZERO evidence of systematic voter fraud anywhere in the US , ever?

"Frivolous????" Do you also work for Twitter?

There's enough evidence out there by experts correlating mail in votes with voter fraud. As to your other questions, if the lawsuit move forth then it does have merit. Methinks you're suffering from premature prognostication.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

That is all very true on the most part.

It's really amazing how his behaviour has been accepted as "the new normal" (hate that phrase), but a lot of people have a newfound interest in politics with his election and it has become abundantly clear that if any president had of been subjected to such intense scrutiny as he has from day one, each one would have been pilloried by the opposite side and a lot of untruths and scandals would have been uncovered.

Politics is an odd tribal phenomenon. You only have to look at people who are staunch FF or FG or SF in Ireland. In America it is ramped up and the stakes are higher because their policy has an affect on global issues. Trump is bizarre. But he is far from unique. What makes him bizarre is that the media put him there and the media seem to be failing in removing him. I find it hard to believe his party would have put him there if it wasn't for the same media who are trying to oust him

I'm not sure that's true.. I mean Hilary Clinton lost , not because Trump was better than her , but because not enough Democrat voters could get past their dislike of her.

In terms of Ireland and the hard core party supporters , the thing is they are "PARTY" supporters and no individual in bigger than the party (except maybe Adams during his tenure as leader of SF) and many have been dropped like a hot potato if they were seen to be damaging the party.

Some of that is down to the political system here in that the Parliamentary party can dump a Taoiseach without triggering an election for example , but the current GOP attitude of "Nothing matters as long as we get our tax cuts and our judges" simply baffles me.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder if fact checking will apply across the board. I mean, would this come under scrutiny?

https://twitter.com/Emmy_Zje/status/1236731147561943040?s=19

She is no blue-check, in twitter speak, with only a few thousand followers.

First time I recall Twitter slapping a fact check on anyone it was @realDonaldTtump, yesterday. For peddling conspiracy theories that are bunk and disinformation that are resulting in real life death threats for a victims family.

As your whataboutism you chose some rando post of someone making an ambiguous point about gender identity that I suspect will come as no harm to anyone. Also, as if Twitter yesterday would unleash a fact check on every tweet on the site in a matter of hours.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

"Frivolous????" Do you also work for Twitter?

There's enough evidence out there by experts correlating mail in votes with voter fraud. As to your other questions, if the lawsuit move forth then it does have merit. Methinks you're suffering from premature prognostication.

Really - Where is this evidence and why hasn't it been provided by anyone anywhere ever to date?

I mean even a Federally funded commission, specifically tasked with finding evidence of Voter fraud found absolutely NONE.

Brussels Sprout

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I have noticed on twitter that the people who have things like:

• Politically Independent
• Neither left nor right
• Independent thinker

in their bios are almost universally, foaming at the mouth, MAGA-heads whose timelines are chock full of James Woods, Ben Garrison and Bill Mitchell retweets.

Either these people picked their descriptions thinking they were accurate or they think it gives them some kind of fake authenticity. Not sure which is worse.

Another tactic I have seen from some on the left.

If anyone doesn't identify as left and says they are moderate, they are uncle Tom's and thrown to the wolves.

Tell me, is there any typically left policies you disagree with?

What would people need to believe to allow you to recognise them as centrists? What's your cut off point?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

You fail to recognize that most people here ultimately care more about what a politician does then what a politician says... and vote accordingly. The noise is usually cancelled out when they go to pull the lever in the voting booth.

Actually - Almost exclusively GOP voters.

As I already said - Clinton lost in 2016 because not enough Democrat voters could get past their dislike of Hilary the person rather than just voting for Hilary the Democrat..

To be fair , the wide scale dislike of Trump has meant that more Democrat voters are likely willing to "hold their nose" as it were to voter for Biden this time around.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

She is no blue-check, in twitter speak, with only a few thousand followers.

First time I recall Twitter slapping a fact check on anyone it was @realDonaldTtump, yesterday. For peddling conspiracy theories that are bunk and disinformation that are resulting in real life death threats for a victims family.

As your whataboutism you chose some rando post of someone making an ambiguous point about gender identity that I suspect will come as no harm to anyone. Also, as if Twitter yesterday would unleash a fact check on every tweet on the site in a matter of hours.

Sorry I picked a "rando". I already admitted it wasn't the best comparison or example I could have given but I didn't give my post too much thought.

But sure, I think anyone who uses a platform should come under the same scrutiny for publishing their opinions (outside of calls to violence etc).

And again, whataboutism has been debunked here as my point literally was "what about people who hold the opinions typically on your political "side". Should they be scrutinized?"

That's not whataboutism. That is asking "what about". I wasn't answering another question with another, I was asking my own question.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Really - Where is this evidence and why hasn't it been provided by anyone anywhere ever to date?

I mean even a Federally funded commission, specifically tasked with finding evidence of Voter fraud found absolutely NONE.

Unfortunately for you there have been enough instances of absentee ballot fraud over the years to make it a worrisome matter.

Just one example...
https://texasscorecard.com/local/texas-ag-launches-mail-ballot-voter-fraud-probe-in-harris-county/

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Actually - Almost exclusively GOP voters.

As I already said - Clinton lost in 2016 because not enough Democrat voters could get past their dislike of Hilary the person rather than just voting for Hilary the Democrat..

To be fair , the wide scale dislike of Trump has meant that more Democrat voters are likely willing to "hold their nose" as it were to voter for Biden this time around.

Wrong. It's both sides. And I think how the economy shakes out the closer you get to election will be the deciding factor of whether Trump is reelected. Disgusting how Democrats are wishing for pain on Americans until after the election, just to get Trump out of office.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Unfortunately for you there have been enough instances of absentee ballot fraud over the years to make it a worrisome matter.

Just one example...
https://texasscorecard.com/local/texas-ag-launches-mail-ballot-voter-fraud-probe-in-harris-county/

...of alleged fraud that hasn’t been proven?

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that's wrong. I think her reaction to Gaddafi and her dubious foundation, her flip flopping on populist issues along with her vilification of her husband's accusers along with myriad of other things doesn't project an image of someone who is principled.

Trump and some of his actions are indefensible, but Clinton also has multiple skeletons in her and her family's closet.

For clarity before the usual guys accuse me of being a trump supporter, trump is far from clean and equally if not more guilty of similar things, but to say Clinton has more principles in her big toe is patently false or at least disingenuous

I have an opinion on Clinton. You might disagree but don't accuse me of being disingenuous.

amdublin

Watching his briefing yesterday am wondering is he ok healthwise? What is with the chipmunk cheeks? Is it related to steroid medication he may be taking?

Serious lower chipmunk cheeks to the point where it is affecting his speech making his mouth appear smaller.

Then on facebook today I see people posting that they think he could be suffering from frontotemporal dementia.

He certainly does have a very odd way of standing. A weird forward leaning kind of stance. And other symptoms align also
- Stiffness and awkwardness in gait
- Poor judgement
- Loss of empathy
- Socially inappropriate behaviour
- Lack of inhibition
- Repetitive compulsive behavior
- Inability to concentrate or plan
- Frequent, abrupt mood changes
- Speech difficulties
- Problems with balance or movement
- Memory loss

Aside from all that yesterday's briefing was farcical. He introduced multiple CEO's "and xxxx is CEO of yyy which is a very good big company, very big indeed, and doesn't he look very young to be the CEO of this very big good company". :pac: I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist.
He made an inappropriate joke about him maybe taking insulin :rolleyes:
He got some immature digs in at "sleepy Joe" :rolleyes:
He repeated every second sentence and said clichés like "the likes of never seen before....never seen before". The biggest ever, the biggest ever. Etc etc :P
He accused a reporter of wanting to keep his mask on "because you want to be politically correct"

The man doesn't have a clue

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Unfortunately for you there have been enough instances of absentee ballot fraud over the years to make it a worrisome matter.

Just one example...
https://texasscorecard.com/local/texas-ag-launches-mail-ballot-voter-fraud-probe-in-harris-county/

That's not evidence - it's an as yet unproven allegation.

It might absolutely become evidence , if the person is charged and found guilty , but for now it's an allegation.

Here's the thing - Could someone commit fraud with mail-in voting?

Absolutely they could , of course it could happen , however the likelihood of someone or some entity being able to commit fraud at the scale required to materially influence a State or Federal level election is infinitesimally small.

So the question becomes - Is the risk of extremely low levels of fraud worth it when balanced against the positives of increased legitimate access to Voting (particularly in the context of the current public health concerns).

Most people outside the GOP, believe that it absolutely is.

Everything and anything has the potential for fraud - but if the efforts to mitigate the fraud are so incredibly onerous that no one wants to do it, then you've defeated the purpose.

If online retailers wanted to completely remove all opportunity for fraud, the only guaranteed solution would be for them to shut down.

They don't because the risk is small and the benefits far outweigh the risk.

The burden of proof here is not to show that Fraud occurs (absolutely no-one says that it doesn't) , but that the fraud that does occur actually makes a material difference to the outcomes.

And thus far , no one has ever been able to provide that proof..

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, do you think what Biden said was ok?

He only apologized after it was discovered that his claim his comment was merely a joke didn’t resonate with voters. So his team then went to plan B. And if the apologizing tactic doesn’t work you know they’ll just come up with something else after they're administered to focus groups.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265604027678670848

Kinda strikes to the heart of why it's problematic to have an untrustworthy imbecile in the White House.

What country in the world would call on this fool or his abortion of an administration to mediate anything?

Having people in power with integrity, a capacity to gain and maintain knowledge of any given situation and at least a basic level of common decency is important.

But that's not what we have here.

Without it you have no credibility and thus no one gives a damn what you have to say about their actions.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I have an opinion on Clinton. You might disagree but don't accuse me of being disingenuous.

Ok. I will say your opinion is false then.

And if we are to put it to fact checked, principals arent held in toes and therefore your statement that Clinton has more principals in her big toe is untrue.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That's not evidence - it's an as yet unproven allegation.

It might absolutely become evidence , if the person is charged and found guilty , but for now it's an allegation.

Here's the thing - Could someone commit fraud with mail-in voting?

Absolutely they could , of course it could happen , however the likelihood of someone or some entity being able to commit fraud at the scale required to materially influence a State or Federal level election is infinitesimally small.

So the question becomes - Is the risk of extremely low levels of fraud worth it when balanced against the positives of increased legitimate access to Voting (particularly in the context of the current public health concerns).

Most people outside the GOP, believe that it absolutely is.

Everything and anything has the potential for fraud - but if the efforts to mitigate the fraud are so incredibly onerous that no one wants to do it, then you've defeated the purpose.

If online retailers wanted to completely remove all opportunity for fraud, the only guaranteed solution would be for them to shut down.

They don't because the risk is small and the benefits far outweigh the risk.

The burden of proof here is not to show that Fraud occurs (absolutely no-one says that it doesn't) , but that the fraud that does occur actually makes a material difference to the outcomes.

And thus far , no one has ever been able to provide that proof..

The 2018 congressional race in North Carolina that was overturned by the state election board. Or the mayor of Gordon, Alabama, who was removed from office last year after his conviction for absentee ballot fraud.

An example from our newest batch of cases illustrates a common type of fraud. John and Grace Fleming both were found guilty of duplicate voting, once by absentee ballot in New Hampshire and then in person in Massachusetts.

We also added to the database the case of Reginald Holman, a city council member in Ashtabula, Ohio, who was forced to resign after an investigation found he illegally registered at his parents’ address in Ashtabula rather than his actual residence in Plymouth, Ohio.

Take the case of Courtney Rainey in Canton, Mississippi, who was found guilty of bribing and harassing individuals to win a municipal election.

Or take the case of April Atilano, who was found guilty of changing party affiliations of voters and forging signatures on voter registration forms, among other things. Atilano was hired by a private company to contact and register voters in Madera County, California.

Vigilant staffers in the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office noticed something fishy with the registration cards submitted by Atilano. If they hadn’t have been so diligent, the forms would have been altered without the consent or knowledge of the voters.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/database-swells-1285-proven-cases-voter-fraud-america


Now I don’t believe mail in voting is all bad… as long as safeguards are put in place. But democrats are fighting against those safeguards tooth and nail.

https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/FS_188_NEW.pdf

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265604027678670848

Kinda strikes to the heart of why it's problematic to have an untrustworthy imbecile in the White House.

What country in the world would call on this fool or his abortion of an administration to mediate anything?

Having people in power with integrity, a capacity to gain and maintain knowledge of any given situation and at least a basic level of common decency is important.

But that's not what we have here.

Without it you have no credibility and thus no one gives a damn what you have to say about their actions.

The use of the word abortion is problematic. It may have alternate meanings which you were connecting to this situation but it is triggering to some. It's most common usage isn't applicable to this scenario. Can you please apologise?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

The use of the word abortion is problematic. It may have alternate meanings which you were connecting to this situation but it is triggering to some. It's most common usage isn't applicable to this scenario. Can you please apologise?

the usage is quite appropriate.

Guy:Incognito

nthclare wrote: »

There's the bin, you're welcome to put a solid foundation underneath and recycle your response rinse and repeat...

Your X y commonology is just letter salad.
Hopefully you'll get a few thanks for your effort.

I never said I like Trump or dislike him, but hey you're entitled to your opinion too,as am I.

It's warm out there isn't it, have you watered the geraniums and put out the slug pellets yet ?

It's now the Hostas are the right shade for slug's and snails etc...

Is all that rubbish meant to mean something?

You literally just posted some baseless rubbish about vague people suggesting she's not the nicest person.

Exactly trump nonsense . "Some people suggest he got away with a killing " (paraphrase, I'm not bothering searching for the exact tweet)

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/database-swells-1285-proven-cases-voter-fraud-america


Now I don’t believe mail in voting is all bad… as long as safeguards are put in place. But democrats are fighting against those safeguards tooth and nail.

https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/FS_188_NEW.pdf

Again , those are just examples of voter fraud , not examples of where the fraud materially changed the result.

The North Carolina one , the guy was forced to resign (and rightly so) not because the result had been changed due to the fraud but because he was involved in the fraud (or at least persons in his employ were involved).

Fraud happens and will always happen and you can never fully remove the risk.

There is no evidence that Mail-in voting is inherently more risky than other types of voting that's the point that's being made.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The use of the word abortion is problematic. It may have alternate meanings which you were connecting to this situation but it is triggering to some. It's most common usage isn't applicable to this scenario. Can you please apologise?

If you've an issue, why don't you report it?