US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

MJohnston

It’s not about what Trump will do, it’s what the GOP will let him away with. So far the answer has been “anything” but if he’s causing trouble and they’re looking at these January runoffs, the calculus may change.

Brussels Sprout

jill_valentine wrote: »

It is, but I have to say it is a particularly lovely flag otherwise.

In fairness to them, as a state known for its low levels of educational attainment, they actually followed the guidelines laid out by the flag experts

The commission also added that suggestions would need to be unique and adhere to principles of the North American Vexillological Association: that the design should use only two or three basic colors, be simple enough for a child to draw, and have meaningful symbolism.

link


The vast majority of US State flags do not meet those criteria meaning that this flag is automatically already one of the best in the country.

Foxtrol

Whether it was intended or just another case of his ongoing battle with the English language, Trump has finally admitted that he lost the election. Baby steps but at least they're going in the right direction.

https://twitter.com/business/status/1327976171552829441?s=20

Manic Moran

MJohnston wrote: »

Hmm no. For the most recent example of this not being true, take a look at the legal hurdles California has faced trying to enact more drastic emissions standards than the country as a whole.

Because of active Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

prawnsambo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because of Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

Assuming they're all not pulling in different directions. Kinda pointless trying to do something like combatting climate change if half the states don't bother and the other half do the heavy lifting. Pollution and climate don't do state boundaries.

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

Assuming they're all not pulling in different directions. Kinda pointless trying to do something like combatting climate change if half the states don't bother and the other half do the heavy lifting. Pollution and climate don't do state boundaries.

True, and Congress can set a minimum level. It should not, however, and need not, prevent a State from setting a higher level should it wish to. I believe the EU works on a similar basis. Most other policies can be quite happily regional.

Congress is supposed to remove barriers between states and co-ordinate between them, not do the job of state governments. So, again, I ask the question, what policy proposals, from education to healthcare to policing, to public transport to water quality to pensions to unemployment to (whatever) are beyond the capability or authority for the States to control for themselves within their borders? If they can be, then why doesn't Congress simply remove any limitations, and let the States who want them implement them?

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because of active Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

I'm totally confused as to what is actually being argued in this rabbit hole anymore.

In other news, the failure to accept the outcome of the election continues to foment Proud Boy activity. I'm no longer sure whether they're standing by, standing down or standing up after their football-hooligan style attempt to taunt and Boogaloo through a DC street overnight. They seemed shocked that people didn't just pretend they weren't there or vacate the streets to let them do what they wanted. And of course the Trump cult had a field day with selective editing of video to portray the poor, innocent Trump supporters as being set upon by 'Antifa'.

Trump has sown the seeds of a winter of vicious dis-content in his pre- and post- election denials of democracy and the Will of the People. Who can be surprised when the seeds come into bloom?

TomOnBoard

Rudey, who is now Donald's lead legal resource for post-election challenges, was in full flight on Fox News this morning with his last-ditch effort to get the Courts to throw out the results in multiple States. The focus is now the Smartmatic voting machines.

Let's hope this ****e gets brought into Court immediately, so that Rudey can get his Ass handed to him by a judge. As it stands, the Courts have thrown out 19 of the 20 cases brought so far. I eagerly await No. 20.

MJohnston

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because of active Congressional interference, which is the point of my argument. Congress has let California implement requirements for special blends of fuel, cars which have certain stronger emissions controls, limitations on air pollution, and so on indicating that the State has the authority and capability to do what it wants if it's let to. It does not require Congress to create environmental law. Congress is actively placing limitations on the States, but if Congress does nothing and leaves well enough alone like it used to, any state can implement the policies it chooses, limited by the US Constitution. Why is this a bad thing? Why is much of the US focused on looking to DC to implement policies which can be conducted at lower levels?

If you're asking why states do not have full legislative autonomy then the answer is that it's because it's not in the interests of any political party in the US to actually let that happen, save for perhaps truly committed members of the Libertarian Party.

astrofool

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Rudey, who is now Donald's lead legal resource for post-election challenges, was in full flight on Fox News this morning with his last-ditch effort to get the Courts to throw out the results in multiple States. The focus is now the Smartmatic voting machines.

Let's hope this ****e gets brought into Court immediately, so that Rudey can get his Ass handed to him by a judge. As it stands, the Courts have thrown out 19 of the 20 cases brought so far. I eagerly await No. 20.

Aren't the smartmatic machines used in person, i.e. more likely to have been used by trump supporters, and wouldn't have affected the mail in vote? So are they arguing that trumps votes should have been less, or that because the machine is used that the entire election be voided?

TomOnBoard

astrofool wrote: »

Aren't the smartmatic machines used in person, i.e. more likely to have been used by trump supporters, and wouldn't have affected the mail in vote? So are they arguing that trumps votes should have been less, or that because the machine is used that the entire election be voided?

I dont really know what Rudey is arguing at this stage. I just want it to get into Court where someone has to give evidence to support whatever claim is currently in vogue in Q- world. Then I'll be able to follow the 'logic' if such exists..

Gunmonkey

astrofool wrote: »

Aren't the smartmatic machines used in person, i.e. more likely to have been used by trump supporters, and wouldn't have affected the mail in vote? So are they arguing that trumps votes should have been less, or that because the machine is used that the entire election be voided?

Ive been wondering that myself; just what is Rudy's "angle" here?

"Your honour, these machines can be easily hacked and fake votes added to the tally. You need to dis-avow all the votes for Sleepy Joe Biden as the Democrats faked all his votes!"
"Ok, so these CAN be hacked to produce fake votes but can you prove the Democrats actually DID this?"
"Errrr no!"

It boggles the mind

BlitzKrieg

Maybe his position is that it didnt count a bunch of trump votes?

Blowfish

Gunmonkey wrote: »

"Your honour, these machines can be easily hacked and fake votes added to the tally. You need to dis-avow all the votes for Sleepy Joe Biden as the Democrats faked all his votes!"
"Ok, so these CAN be hacked to produce fake votes but can you prove the Democrats actually DID this?"
"Errrr no!"

It boggles the mind

His approach is to demonise the company that makes the machines and with zero evidence repeatedly call them 'radical left democrats'. He's instinctually aware of the illusory effect in psychology where most people will believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. He's completely unaware of the fact however that this is not how courts work. This is why the court cases bear no reality to the 'widespread fraud' that he keeps claiming and end up being about process issues or a handful of questioned ballots.

Ironically in his repetition of lies, the person he's actually most convincing is himself. He'll keep repeating it until it's the absolute truth that he believes. To him, of course the Democrats cheated, he's far too smart to have lost to Biden legitimately.

Foxtrol

OAN is some crazy station. This is what Trump's base supporters are consuming and warping their brains. They've given NC to Trump but won't give MI to Biden, despite Biden having a 40,000 greater lead there.

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1328332566089314304?s=20

TomOnBoard

Foxtrol wrote: »

OAN is some crazy station. This is what Trump's base supporters are consuming and warping their brains. They've given NC to Trump but won't give MI to Biden, despite Biden having a 40,000 greater lead there.

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1328332566089314304?s=20

OANN and Newsmax appear to have taken over the Joseph Goebbels division of Conservative messaging. The folks in Fox are gonna have to compete with them for customers and are now facing a big threat, as viewers switch allegiances as advised by Trump et al. So, either the raging lies and bull**** out of Fox that have characterised their programming for years (with notable exceptions) will be ramped up to compete with the crazy fringe stuff out of OAN/Newsmax, or they're gonna have to go after the more moderate, less cultish parts of Trumpland and distinguish themselves in that space.

Brian?

TomOnBoard wrote: »

OANN and Newsmax appear to have taken over the Joseph Goebbels division of Conservative messaging. The folks in Fox are gonna have to compete with them for customers and are now facing a big threat, as viewers switch allegiances as advised by Trump et al. So, either the raging lies and bull**** out of Fox that have characterised their programming for years (with notable exceptions) will be ramped up to compete with the crazy fringe stuff out of OAN/Newsmax, or they're gonna have to go after the more moderate, less cultish parts of Trumpland and distinguish themselves in that space.

I'm a regular watcher of OAN. It's actually hilarious. I haven't seen Newsmaz though.

By comparison to OAN, Fox is actually fair and balanced.

Brussels Sprout

Brian? wrote: »

I'm a regular watcher of OAN. It's actually hilarious. I haven't seen Newsmaz though.

By comparison to OAN, Fox is actually fair and balanced.

It's certainly funny in an ironic "I can't believe they are peddling this sh1t" kind of way but it's also deeply worrying. A large section of the American population don't seem to possess the critical thinking skills to realise that this stuff is a pack of lies and will assume that it's just as legit as the regular networks because "it feels right to me".

When objective truth itself becomes debatable then you end up in a world where nothing is really true. You see this in action when Trump supporters are presented with evidence that some point that they just made was not accurate and they just dismiss it as propaganda. To me as a rational person that's frightening.

It also reminds me of these tweets that I saw the other day from an Intensive Care nurse in South Dakota:

https://twitter.com/JodiDoering/status/1327771329555292162

josip

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

Water John

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

If he had helped keep alive the quarter of a million who have died, they'd be around to benefit from the vaccine.

pixelburp

This was an election of minds made up: for sure the admin would have milked the vaccines for all their worth and likely been front & centre of its campaign. However, after 4 years of Trump the undecideds and unsures were thin on the ground IMO, with partisanship more rooted than ever - as evident by the fact this was a much narrower election than it should / could have been. A last minute convenience can't have shoved the needle that much.

Foxtrol

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

I don't think it would have made any difference. Trump had lost credibility amongst those that didn't vote for him, they either wouldn't have believed the news (due to all his previous lying) or else wouldn't have trusted Trump to roll it out competently (given how he hasn't been able to get a handle around testing or tracing and we're 9 months in).

Brian?

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

Given that Trump had nothing to do with the vaccine, I wouldn’t say it would have helped him much

beggars_bush

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

I think its hilarious.

everlast75

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

Not at all. Sure it was gone by easter, and was the same as the flu after all...

astrofool

Brian? wrote: »

Given that Trump had nothing to do with the vaccine, I wouldn’t say it would have helped him much

He would have claimed it anyway, you'd have had the usual crowd crowing about trump defeating the virus, and justifying their superspreader events.

Brian?

astrofool wrote: »

He would have claimed it anyway, you'd have had the usual crowd crowing about trump defeating the virus, and justifying their superspreader events.

Oh I completely agree that would have happened. It wouldn’t have made a difference outside the cult though.

listermint

Well I think this constitutes as pretty big news. Republican party are a stain on democracy

https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/1328491046939090945

sdanseo

If that's true the FBI need to get involved immediately. Attempting to coerce a state official to commit fraud is blatantly illegal.

listermint

sdanseo wrote: »

If that's true the FBI need to get involved immediately. Attempting to coerce a state official to commit fraud is blatantly illegal.

Well it's very much the exact official involved , a republican too telling us Graham came in to him and said it. Hard to get more red handed than that.