Trump vs Biden 2020, And the winner is.......... (pt 4) Read OP

DeanAustin

eastie17 wrote: »

He also isnt a brilliant business man, how a man can get personally wealthy by just rolling debt, and not even in a very clever way, is another story

Very good point. And I wouldn't dispute that. Not that I study his business dealings a whole lot but there seems to be some substance to the claim that he inherited his wealth and hasn't managed it too well. But I do believe that a lot of high profile business leaders display a lot of the same traits as Trump that make them unsuitable for this sort of political office. That said, I think Trump takes it up a few notches.

ohnonotgmail

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The Republicans are saying they nominated a person with the credentials to scrutinise the counting and he was told he had to keep 30 feet away from the counting. You can't verify the counting is being done fairly if you can't see what they are doing, what they decide the standard is for a 'spoiled' or unclear vote etc.

source?

Smee_Again

Necro wrote: »

Don't understand why Trump fans can't debate without the stupid petty generalisations, conspiracy theories and downright nasty attacks.

This is all they have, their arguments don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny or logic so they have to rely on generalisations, conspiracy theories etc.

ArmaniJeanss

Laois_Man wrote: »

Georgia - Trump ahead by 18,500. Biden is gaining but only 4% (200,000 votes) left to go. Biden needs to win about two-thirds of remaining votes to take the state.

two-thirds would sound a difficult task, but on your figures it's closer to 55%.
i.e., a 110K-90K split does it.

Call Me Jimmy

Penn wrote: »

Some outlets called AZ early for Biden. Even though he's still in the lead, Trump still has a chance to overtake him and the last update showed he still could, so AZ shouldn't have been called so early.

As for the delay in general, a lot of the votes being counted now are mail in, so there are more things to be checked in terms of matching signatures, opening/checking envelopes etc. They're also mostly from the most populous areas so more votes to be counted.

Plus it's about 7am on the east coast at the minute, so some areas stopped counting for the night and will be continuing again soon.

Cheers.

It's mad that there was the ruling about signatures not having to be checked as well as requiring no evidence that the ballot was sent in before election day in PA. There's at least an argument about signatures changing over time and are not always the same. But in those cases where no signature check and no postmark is on it, what exactly are they validating? Basically if the name is on the voter file?

MoonUnit75

Penn wrote: »

And that's what's happening. Each state has their own agreed processes for transparency, oversight and vote monitoring, and there has been no suggestion that any state has broken those processes. What Trump supporters are claiming is that they're not being allowed to do things that they're not actually allowed to do in the first place.

From what I gather they aren't allowed scrutinise the counting as in previous elections because of covid restricitons on the number of people allowed in and proximity to the people counting. That would mean it isn't as transparent as previous years.

Padre_Pio

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

The Republicans are saying they nominated a person with the credentials to scrutinise the counting and he was told he had to keep 30 feet away from the counting. You can't verify the counting is being done fairly if you can't see what they are doing, what they decide the standard is for a 'spoiled' or unclear vote etc.

How much do you know about the organisation of vote counting in various US states. Who's allowed in, who's not etc.
Probably not much. I don't either.

Why is no one other than certain republicans talking about this?
Why is there not a review from the election body into why this man wasn't allowed in? Was he meant to be allowed in? Did he even have a right to be there?

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From what I gather they aren't allowed scrutinise the counting as in previous elections because of covid restricitons on the number of people allowed in and proximity to the people counting. That would mean it isn't as transparent as previous years.

That's reasonable enough.

"Sorry Sir, COVID restrictions, we can't have too many people in the counting area. "

"What??? Voter fraud!! My rights!! Transparency!! blah blah."

Show the proof of the fraud.

joe40

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

how TF is this ****show not over yet? i think trump would have lost a fair few supporters yesterday with his behavior. if you have something concrete, go to the courts. if you dont have anything, accept defeat graciously.

Normally I would agree with that statement, but if anyone who still supports Trump after the last 4 years of madness, then yesterdays speech is hardly going to change their mind.
It was simply classic Trump and well anticipated.

ohnonotgmail

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From what I gather they aren't allowed scrutinise the counting as in previous elections because of covid restricitons on the number of people allowed in and proximity to the people counting. That would mean it isn't as transparent as previous years.

gather from where?

Sir Oxman

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually maybe someone living in the states can correct this but what I read was the house decides but votes in state blocks and that that would actually suit the republicans. I don't think it'll actually come up but...

Thta's what I understand as well - one vote per state

Polar101

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You can't verify the counting is being done fairly if you can't see what they are doing, what they decide the standard is for a 'spoiled' or unclear vote etc.

Best way to verify that the claims are probably rubbish is that they only found "problems" where Trump wasn't winning.

y0ssar1an22

Padre_Pio wrote: »

An answer straight out of the Trump playbook :rolleyes:

"We condemn in the strongest most possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides," Trump said.

"But Mr. President - we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism."

would that not be hugely partisan of trump if he only condemned 1 side?

both sides were doing ****, and he condemned both sides. he also said both sides have good people.

like, do you disagree with any of that?

ThewhiteJesus

joe40 wrote: »

Normally I would agree with that statement, but if anyone who still supports Trump after the last 4 years of madness, then yesterdays speech is hardly going to change their mind.
It was simply classic Trump and well anticipated.

it was 66 mill for trump and 70mill for Joe last night anyway,
mad figures really when you think about it

wes

degrassinoel wrote: »

armed trump protesters in AZ apparently shouting "let us in" to the counting offices.

If they are armed, they are not "protesters". Terrorists or insurgents would be more accurate imo.

vojiwox

Polar101 wrote: »

I feel he's too old, and his campaign seemed just to be "I'm not Trump". I'm surprised they couldn't find anyone better.

Maybe they are saving someone better for when they are up against someone less of a loon than Trump.

Doctor Jimbob

pjohnson wrote: »

This really is a hard time for Trump fans.

This thread is saltier than the dead sea today.

Timberrrrrrrr

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From what I gather they aren't allowed scrutinise the counting as in previous elections because of covid restricitons on the number of people allowed in and proximity to the people counting. That would mean it isn't as transparent as previous years.

How much were they "scrutinising" the counting in Florida or other guaranteed red states?

Penn

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

From what I gather they aren't allowed scrutinise the counting as in previous elections because of covid restricitons on the number of people allowed in and proximity to the people counting. That would mean it isn't as transparent as previous years.

From what I remember from one PA count centre, they said there were over 400 observers in that centre, which was actually in excess of what they were allowed to have. There should have been I think 134 R, 134 D and about 70 Ind.

Covid certainly may be affecting things, but regardless there is an agreed process in place and there's been no proven accusations that those processes have been broken to the detriment of any candidate. Most of the accusations of wrongdoing are people claiming they haven't been allowed to do something they were never allowed to do regardless.

BonnieSituation

degrassinoel wrote: »

armed trump protesters in AZ apparently shouting "let us in" to the counting offices.

They're all at it on both sides I'd say.

That's the moral equivocation we need to make here, right?

Tij da feen

Dems have a chance at 50-50 Senate again. The Georgia race has Perdue (Republican) sitting at exactly 50.0%. If a few more votes nudge him down then it goes to a run-off election.

vojiwox

Padre_Pio wrote: »

"What??? Voter fraud!! My rights!! Transparency!! blah blah."

Show the proof of the fraud.

He doesn't need to show proof. His base just believe anything he sees. See last 4 years.

Even if he clearly says something incorrect, they will say he meant...

There is no talking to them. Looks to be over for a bit anyway.

America voting against lying and misinformation and any of that right wing rubbish by the looks of it. Long may it continue.

y0ssar1an22

Penn wrote: »

From what I remember from one PA count centre, they said there were over 400 observers in that centre, which was actually in excess of what they were allowed to have. There should have been I think 134 R, 134 D and about 70 Ind.

Covid certainly may be affecting things, but regardless there is an agreed process in place and there's been no proven accusations that those processes have been broken to the detriment of any candidate. Most of the accusations of wrongdoing are people claiming they haven't been allowed to do something they were never allowed to do regardless.

have the process been broken (never mind the potential outcome)? if no, then no issue. if yes, then further questions do need to be asked.

Padre_Pio

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

would that not be hugely partisan of trump if he only condemned 1 side?

both sides were doing ****, and he condemned both sides. he also said both sides have good people.

like, do you disagree with any of that?

The riot started with a Unite the Right rally, a white supremacist crowd chanting racist and anti-semetic slogans, protesting the removal of a confedarate statue.

One white supremacist (read: terrorist) rammed a car into counter-protestors, killed a woman and injured 17 others.

How can you agree with any of that??

Faugheen

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself

He said asylum seekers crossing Dover should be let drown. He has no shame.

Doctor Jimbob

wes wrote: »

If they are armed, they are not "protesters". Terrorists or insurgents would be more accurate imo.

The big question on every Trump supporter's mind right now is "How do we blame antifa for this?"

y0ssar1an22

Tij da feen wrote: »

Dems have a chance at 50-50 Senate again. The Georgia race has Perdue (Republican) sitting at exactly 50.0%. If a few more votes nudge him down then it goes to a run-off election.

about 115k ahead with more than 99% in.

8-10

Tij da feen wrote: »

Dems have a chance at 50-50 Senate again. The Georgia race has Perdue (Republican) sitting at exactly 50.0%. If a few more votes nudge him down then it goes to a run-off election.

Yeah it's not clear to me on what the criteria is, is it at least 1 single vote under 50% or a 0.1% point? One commentator specified 49.9%

Imagine the money the Democrats would spend on 2 run off elections in Georgia that would give them effectively a majority if they win the Presidency

Tij da feen

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

about 115k ahead with more than 99% in.

Ahead doesn't matter. If he drops to 49.9% then it goes to a runoff election. 50% or over is needed to get the seat.

BonnieSituation

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah it's not clear to me on what the criteria is, is it at least 1 single vote under 50% or a 0.1% point? One commentator specified 49.9%

Imagine the money the Democrats would spend on 2 run off elections in Georgia that would give them effectively a majority if they win the Presidency

You never count in percentages. It would be on the number of votes.

So it would be whatever exactly 50% of votes is less 1 vote. That's the maximum that the Dems need Perdue to achieve.

Penn

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

have the process been broken (never mind the potential outcome)? if no, then no issue. if yes, then further questions do need to be asked.

Agreed, and if either side presents proof of it there are legal avenues for them to avail of to challenge it.

Nothing of what the Trump campaign has alleged so far though has come with any proof, and given Trump's claims before the election and following early results demonstrates that their only reason for challenging is for spurious reasons because it's his last chance at winning states he looks likely to lose.