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

Wanderer78

listermint wrote:

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

Democracy, in America!

Quin_Dub

This messing in Georgia is really putting those seats in play.

Immediately after the Election I reckoned that both seats would stay GOP - The absence of Trump from the ballot and the fact that with both seats up for election it would be harder for the Democrats to isolate Loeffler who is by far the more venerable, was going to make for an easier path for the GOP.

But now - With this constant assault on Georgia voters and process , they are managing to dilute that advantage considerably.

I still think that the seats will stay with Red , but it's getting much closer that I thought it might be.

pixelburp

"But at least he never started a war!" cried the apologists; not for the lack of trying, replied the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear.html

Not content with hi refusal to concede the election like an emotionally stunted individual - or indeed, a tantrum-throwing toddler - looks like Trump has been trying to start a war the next guy would have to fix.

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked senior advisers in an Oval Office meeting on Thursday whether he had options to take action against Iran’s main nuclear site in the coming weeks. The meeting occurred a day after international inspectors reported a significant increase in the country’s stockpile of nuclear material, four current and former U.S. officials said on Monday.

Wanderer78

pixelburp wrote: »

"But at least he never started a war!" cried the apologists; not for the lack of trying, replied the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear.html

Not content with hi refusal to concede the election like an emotionally stunted individual - or indeed, a tantrum-throwing toddler - looks like Trump has been trying to start a war the next guy would have to fix.

hes probably done a good job of potentially starting one, in america!

valoren

So he has literally gone into scorch the earth mode.

looksee

And that business of selling off large chunks of the Alaskan National Park for oil drilling is just appalling. Rushing through business to get it done before he leaves office, doing as much damage as possible. What benefit is it to him unless he is arranging back-handers? It won't get him (significant) votes next time.

Safehands

Brian? wrote: »

It wouldn’t have made a difference outside the cult though.

I think it may have swung it for him. If Pfizer and Modena had announced the imminent release of their vaccines before the election, the Republicans would have had a field day. They would have claimed that the Trump administration paid for and encouraged the production of these vaccines. The results were tight enough as it was.

MJohnston

It wouldn't have been the vaccine creation that would have swung it for Trump, it would have been the portion of voters for whom COVID was their top concern, and the fact that most people saw Trump as utterly useless at handling it.

With a vaccine on the horizon, people would have had different concerns (even though COVID will still be a massive problem for another 6 months at a bare minimum) and the age old "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" question would have been foremost.

Brian?

Safehands wrote: »

I think it may have swung it for him. If Pfizer and Modena had announced the imminent release of their vaccines before the election, the Republicans would have had a field day. They would have claimed that the Trump administration paid for and encouraged the production of these vaccines. The results were tight enough as it was.

They would have tried that, but it would have been too little too late IMO. Look at how heavily the early voting favoured Biden.


The results were close in a couple of states, but it really wasn't that right.

dogbert27

looksee wrote: »

And that business of selling off large chunks of the Alaskan National Park for oil drilling is just appalling. Rushing through business to get it done before he leaves office, doing as much damage as possible. What benefit is it to him unless he is arranging back-handers? It won't get him (significant) votes next time.

Probably got himself or the family to be named as board members for the companies invovled.

gmisk

Safehands wrote: »

I think it may have swung it for him. If Pfizer and Modena had announced the imminent release of their vaccines before the election, the Republicans would have had a field day. They would have claimed that the Trump administration paid for and encouraged the production of these vaccines. The results were tight enough as it was.

That is only true for the Moderna one though.
No matter what way Trump and his administration want to spin it they weren't involved at all in the development etc.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-vaccine-funded-by-trump/
They basically just said they would buy it if it was successful.
I honestly don't see that swinging the election his way.
His administrations handling of it has been an absolute disaster.

Christy42

gmisk wrote: »

That is only true for the Moderna one though.
No matter what way Trump and his administration want to spin it they weren't involved at all in the development etc.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-vaccine-funded-by-trump/
They basically just said they would buy it if it was successful.
I honestly don't see that swinging the election his way.
His administrations handling of it has been an absolute disaster.

So what. When was the last time that facts actually mattered? It would have been hailed as a great Trump victory. CNN would have wondered if it would help Trump though they obviously would say that he did not help the development. Fox would say he had essentially been in the lab. OANN would say he was the only scientist involved. Then they would have immediately gone back to bashing science without a hint of the contradictions.

Mentioning facts on boards would not have helped.

Would it have swung it for him and should it have swung it for him are two very different questions.

TomOnBoard

The latest cuckoo tweets from Sidney Powell (her to have been Mike Flynn's 'lawyer' and a certifiable loon to boot) would be entertaining if the subject was not so serious. Herself and Rudey now seem to be the last bastions of legal hope for Donald's failed coup attempt.

It is FRIGHTENING how the lunatic fringe is so deeply embedded in the POTUS reclamation effort by Trump. Does anyone seriously think this is anything other than an effort to suck the last traces of blood from the Trump cult corpse?

Bat**** Crazy tinfoil hat stuff!

https://twitter.com/MarshallCohen/status/1328557110418935809?s=19

StringerBell

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 hadn't been himself and handled the entire situation in his usual incompetent manner I think he probably would have walked to reelection funnily enough.

Joe Biden brought out (so far) about 12 million more votes that Clinton got and is further ahead in terms of popular vote margin but the fact that trump increased his vote at all given how much of a steaming pile his administration has been (in my opinion) and extremely instructive to dig into once he's gone as to how and why that happened beyond the group of people who would vote for him no matter what. I still can't believe there would be 70 million who fall into that category.

Pfizer wasn't part of his warp speed thing so can't really credit him for that one but to be sure he'd have spun it that way. The polling that came out on election day said that most people had their minds made up more than two weeks before voting and given the amount of early vote it is hard to say if the timing of the vaccines showing promising (though very early) signs would have made enough difference.

The Moderna one looks to have a bit more about it than the Pfizer one right now because of the storage capability but more data is needed on both tbf. Every decision trump made let him to that "landslide" defeat. It would be hard to pinpoint just one that could have turned it all around for him but I'd say his handling of Covid was the final nail alright. It was ludicrous how he behaved pre election and indeed post election on the subject.

Safehands

Christy42 wrote: »

So what. When was the last time that facts actually mattered? It would have been hailed as a great Trump victory. CNN would have wondered if it would help Trump though they obviously would say that he did not help the development. Fox would say he had essentially been in the lab. OANN would say he was the only scientist involved. Then they would have immediately gone back to bashing science without a hint of the contradictions.
Mentioning facts on boards would not have helped.
Would it have swung it for him and should it have swung it for him are two very different questions.

I agree. Actually I heard CNN giving him accolades yesterday, they said that he should get some credit for helping to finance it. Would they have said that before the election though? I doubt it very much.
Would it have swung it for him? I think so.
Should it have swung it for him? Absolutely not!

Foxtrol

Christy42 wrote: »

So what. When was the last time that facts actually mattered? It would have been hailed as a great Trump victory. CNN would have wondered if it would help Trump though they obviously would say that he did not help the development. Fox would say he had essentially been in the lab. OANN would say he was the only scientist involved. Then they would have immediately gone back to bashing science without a hint of the contradictions.

Mentioning facts on boards would not have helped.

Would it have swung it for him and should it have swung it for him are two very different questions.

The facts don't matter to the people that were already Trump voters, for everyone else I just don't see the swing being there. Polls showed that people didn't trust Trump on the virus and it had already been flagged for months by the media and Dems that Trump was likely to try a hail mary with some COVID cure.

A potential vaccine being available doesn't automatically mean everyone is cured and immune. For people that ended up voting for Biden due to trusting him more on COVID would have still trusted him more to roll-out the vaccine than Mr 'Have we tried injecting people with bleach'.

StringerBell

Timeline of recent news from the US and election fallout here https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/us-wahl-2020-in-den-letzten-wochen-seiner-amtszeit-drueckt-trump-noch-umstrittene-projekte-durch_id_12606704.html

It also states that not contrary to what has been posted here about the margin of victory being less than the 78k votes people say Hilary lost the election by in the key states that got it done that the margin this time was 90k so far.

Also makes a very salient point, if William Barr were not the AG there would be an investigation launched already into whether GOP lawmakers Graham included have been pressuring or suggesting that ballots should be thrown out

StringerBell

Safehands wrote: »

I agree. Actually I heard CNN giving him accolades yesterday, they said that he should get some credit for helping to finance it. Would they have said that before the election though? I doubt it very much.
Would it have swung it for him? I think so.
Should it have swung it for him? Absolutely not!

CNN have given him credit when its due though - from what I have seen on CNN anyway. The issue really is that it is often criticism rather than credit his actions deserve. That's not the media's fault despite what some would have you believe.

Windmill100000

Safehands wrote: »

Would it have swung it for him? I think so.

I don't.

TomOnBoard

Rudey Rises in PA... I just bought a ton of popcorn. I hope the Tesco delivery gets here on time...

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1328714409171165185?s=1

VinLieger

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Rudey Rises in PA... I just bought a ton of popcorn. I hope the Tesco delivery gets here on time...

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1328714409171165185?s=1

Please let there be a video recording of this farce when it happens

TomOnBoard

VinLieger wrote: »

Please let there be a video recording of this farce when it happens

Its audio and/or video may be available later. Folks in the US (up to 4000) of them can log in to the stream via a telephone number. However prohibitions on recording and re-broadcast (dunno the details) do exist.

Roanmore

Is the objective here not to win the cases but keep appealing so that they eventually go to the Supreme Court who will (Trump hoping) turn over the results to give Trump victory?

I've heard a lot of Trump supporters trot out the line (paraphrasing) "we're taking this to the Supreme Court and they can rule on it"
Surely it's not that easy to get to the Supreme Court?

eastie17

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let me get this straight Trump politicising scientific trials would have swung it for him?

The same Trump who is anti science, anti facts and pro injecting bleach?

The same Trump under whose watch 4-5x Vietnam or 20-30x 9/11 death happened in 9 months? With at least half of these arguably (when compared to Ireland) being needless if he didn't spend so much time decrying and containing his own experts.

Riiiiight...

Your presuming that his "fans" or supporters have joined up thought process and cognitively associate statement A with Statement B and so on to inform an educated opinion on their leader. To date they have been unable to do this, they just pick and choose what to believe in 10 second gaps, bit like a facebook feed really. So a complete contradiction in other areas is not going to stop them giving their candidate credit where it suits the narrative irrespective of the contradictions from his own mouth and actions.

TomOnBoard

Roanmore wrote: »

Is the objective here not to win the cases but keep appealing so that they eventually go to the Supreme Court who will (Trump hoping) turn over the results to give Trump victory?

I've heard a lot of Trump supporters trot out the line (paraphrasing) "we're taking this to the Supreme Court and they can rule on it"
Surely it's not that easy to get to the Supreme Court?

That seems to be part of the Rudey 'Plan' alright. However, when lads arrange a presser at the Four Seasons and it turns out to be a garden centre between a porn-shop and a crematorium, you'd have to think that any plan of Rudey's is doomed from the start...

Brussels Sprout

Roanmore wrote: »

Is the objective here not to win the cases but keep appealing so that they eventually go to the Supreme Court who will (Trump hoping) turn over the results to give Trump victory?

I've heard a lot of Trump supporters trot out the line (paraphrasing) "we're taking this to the Supreme Court and they can rule on it"
Surely it's not that easy to get to the Supreme Court?

You cannot just appeal a case because you didn't like the verdict.

A popular misconception is that cases are always appealed. Not often does a losing party have an automatic right of appeal. There usually must be a legal basis for the appeal—an alleged material error in the trial—not just the fact that the losing party didn’t like the verdict.

....

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial’s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

link

This is especially true in cases that lack any legal merit such as what the Trump lawyers appear to be filing.

There is also a hierarchy of courts so it's quite tricky to get a case to the supreme court as it would need to pass upwards through the various levels, each of which acts as a filter.

jmayo

listermint wrote: »

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.

It is going to be very hard to prove because it is one's word against him.
And he didn't outright say anything, but hinted.

I do think though that the new AG, and new DAs around the country need to go after Trump and the Trumpists, that includes all those connected and backing him.

In the past presidents refused to do this, but this time Trump and his gang of ar**hole top republicans need to be thrown in jail where possible.
Otherwise he or one of them will try and rise again in 2024.

And screw the cr** about wanting to unite the country, not antagonise the opposition and make Trump out to be a martyr.

You cannot reason with these morons so might as well try destroy them.

pixelburp wrote: »

"But at least he never started a war!" cried the apologists; not for the lack of trying, replied the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear.html

Not content with hi refusal to concede the election like an emotionally stunted individual - or indeed, a tantrum-throwing toddler - looks like Trump has been trying to start a war the next guy would have to fix.

He fired top civilian appointed Pentagon officials and it looks very much like he wants to pull th plug on Afghanistan, no matter what the Taliban agrees to.
He could end the government and whatever hope Afghanistan has for some form of future in a couple of months.

And he is idiot enough to want to strike Iran and start the mother of all conflicts.

The guy is a moron and worse still top Republicans are enabling him.

Never mind the morons that are out in the streets still supporting him and the likes of the ones even arguing with doctors when in hospital with covid.
I would say let those fookers die and do the gene pool a favour.

TomOnBoard

Jesus, I thought we had jumped the shark, but the loons have now got a whole new conspiracy theory, courtesy of OANN and that great bastion of truth, Congressman Louis Gomert.

Now, put down any hot drinks, babies ye might be holding etc. before ye read this:

The US Army has raided a premises in Frankfurt, Germany and have take custody of a server (why is it always a ****ing server?) that is owned by a Spanish company based in Barcelona, that 'proves categorically' that, on Election night, Trump had won not 270, no; not 306, no; but 410 Electoral votes!

Ah, FFS!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ab_channel=DanielMalice&v=FKdDeWQaBjI

AMKC

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/donald-trump-mulled-an-attack-on-iran-nuclear-site-last-week-but-ended-up-holding-off-official-says-12134403#aoh=16056439179203&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

So Trump wanted to attack Iran Nuclear sites. This man is insane and needs to be gone ASAP.

gmisk

gmisk wrote: »

That is only true for the Moderna one though.
No matter what way Trump and his administration want to spin it they weren't involved at all in the development etc.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-vaccine-funded-by-trump/
They basically just said they would buy it if it was successful.
I honestly don't see that swinging the election his way.
His administrations handling of it has been an absolute disaster.

He tried to spin it that Pfizer got money off the trump administration for their vaccine and his supporters on here and elsewhere have been parroting it since despite evidence that he was talking bs as usual same as how they defended how he handled the pandemic.

Given that covid was apparently not a high priority with voters and his administration stated before the election that they had given up trying to control the spread and were just waiting on a vaccine, I don't think that if one of the drug companies announced before the election it would have swung many votes his way.