2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

But according to Trump, those ballots would just be tossed out or lost in the mail. Why didn’t he encourage people to do mail-in voting during the pandemic? It probably cost him the election.

The GA run off is less than a month away, too late to change the rules.

[techtre2003]

"Okay, again, how many times did people communicate to the public that this year, we wouldn’t know the winner of the election? If you choose to ignore those warnings and want to believe some massive fraud happened then that’s a “you” problem, not a system problem. Also, if we are as advanced of a country as we like to believe then we should have more ways to vote than only in person. If absentee and mail-in voting is so riddled with fraud then why is Trump changing his tune and encouraging voters in Georgia to vote those ways?

Trump knew that Democrats were pushing mail-in voting and knew his chances of winning were smaller than he’d like. He isn’t a dumb guy like some people accuse him of. He knew the play was to call the election results into question to either save face or maybe attempt to steal the election.

I don’t recall seeing or hearing of a single democrat calling for a revote in 2016. Yet there are plenty on the right calling for it right now. I hope all this nonsense hurts the right in the Georgia run off elections. It should. It’s ridiculous.

I honestly only reply to people on here because it’s fun to see how many ways those on the right can twist and turn this to try and fit their narrative. Trump lost. Trump lost by a wide margin. He’s going to have to deal with it. His followers should too. They won’t though, they’ll just call it a fraud election and cry about it for the next four years."

I'm not even talking about Trump. Just look at the NY election that was posted about a page or 2 back. Republican up by 12 votes and then some votes are magically located in a desk drawer? That election may flip or it may not, but my point still stands. The same kind of stuff went on in California 2 years ago. Whether justified or not, many people have lost faith in the election system between 2016 and 2020. My opinion is we go back to paper ballots and have election DAY. No early voting and like I said, only absentee ballots for those who can't physically get out to vote. That's been my opinion long before now. And that's all it is, my opinion.

As far as Trump goes, yes I'm a Trump supporter. But he's had enough time to come up with evidence, it's been rejected, and agree or disagree with the whole thing I'm ready to just move on (although I'm sure I'll make some sarcastic remarks about it in the future).

[Clark]

Arizona Supreme Court agrees to review voter fraud case

https://www.oann.com/ariz-supreme-co...er-fraud-case/

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

But according to Trump, those ballots would just be tossed out or lost in the mail. Why didn’t he encourage people to do mail-in voting during the pandemic? It probably cost him the election.

Just about everyone that wanted to vote, voted. Didn't matter the method; few if any stayed home (or didn't mail in a vote).

Trump telling people not to vote by mail, but in person was a very sound strategy because the belief was that mail in votes would be tossed. They weren't so the advantage that was thought to be gained was simply nullified. It's not as if Democrats voted and Republicans did not; the House races prove in fact that Trump was an insanely effective messenger for the Republican vote.

To say his encouragement of in person voting cost him the election is kind of crazy.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Just about everyone that wanted to vote, voted. Didn't matter the method; few if any stayed home (or didn't mail in a vote).



Trump telling people not to vote by mail, but in person was a very sound strategy because the belief was that mail in votes would be tossed. They weren't so the advantage that was thought to be gained was simply nullified. It's not as if Democrats voted and Republicans did not; the House races prove in fact that Trump was an insanely effective messenger for the Republican vote.



To say his encouragement of in person voting cost him the election is kind of crazy.

Yeah, that's not what cost him.

His insanity, nutjob conspiracies, dishonesty, and character are what cost him. He drove democrat turnout like never before.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Zedlaw]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Just about everyone that wanted to vote, voted. Didn't matter the method; few if any stayed home (or didn't mail in a vote).

Trump telling people not to vote by mail, but in person was a very sound strategy because the belief was that mail in votes would be tossed. They weren't so the advantage that was thought to be gained was simply nullified. It's not as if Democrats voted and Republicans did not; the House races prove in fact that Trump was an insanely effective messenger for the Republican vote.

To say his encouragement of in person voting cost him the election is kind of crazy.

How is losing the house majority a mark of being an insanely effective messenger

[discostu]

Originally Posted by Zedlaw

How is losing the house majority a mark of being an insanely effective messenger

???

Uhmmm

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Zedlaw

How is losing the house majority a mark of being an insanely effective messenger

In this election; 194 House Republicans were up for re-election and all 194 held their seat. 27 house elections were deemed "toss-up" seats by the NY Times and Cook political report. Republicans won all 27 seats. They gained 12 additional house seats in this election. The majority was not theirs to lose.

I suppose one could argue that the gains Republicans made (and what they held in the House and Senate) could have been even greater; but the expectation going in was that Republicans were going to get demolished; and that was not the reality. Trump was a very effective voice at turning out the Republican vote.

[Zedlaw]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

In this election; 194 House Republicans were up for re-election and all 194 held their seat. 27 house elections were deemed "toss-up" seats by the NY Times and Cook political report. Republicans won all 27 seats. They gained 12 additional house seats in this election. The majority was not theirs to lose.

I suppose one could argue that the gains Republicans made (and what they held in the House and Senate) could have been even greater; but the expectation going in was that Republicans were going to get demolished; and that was not the reality. Trump was a very effective voice at turning out the Republican vote.

Before Trump 247 republican seats, after Trump 211. I fail to see the effectiveness

[HeadstrongRSS]

Trumpies are so funny. Its always "just wait" and "you're gonna see". Never actual evidence. Never ever. From Obamas birth certificate, to Hillarys emails, to Hunters laptop, to Soros, to Dominion vote switches...it never ends. Yet, never having a pot of gold at the end if the rainbow doesn't deter em. They just dispute it, when pushed for proof they spout some nonsense about not being a sheep, not believing the 'msm', 'deep state' craziness on why the claims weren't substantiated, and they walk away with a belief they just "owned those libs".

Truly bizarre behavior.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Zedlaw

Before Trump 247 republican seats, after Trump 211. I fail to see the effectiveness

Do you have an example of a President who's party had more house seats coming out than going in?

Obama had 256 House Democrats going into his tenure; had 194 coming out. To me, that would suggest Trump was extremely effective when compared to Obama no? (We can keep goin!)

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by EBCollectibles

Oh yea they will Osama is telling them what to do. Biden won't make it a year.

Osama is dead. Obama took care of that.

[Dielon]

Lets see how many people will get this. Systemic election fraud is real and it is a major issue in this country!

https://www.facebook.com/ConceptualJ...7146323151937/

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

In this election; 194 House Republicans were up for re-election and all 194 held their seat. 27 house elections were deemed "toss-up" seats by the NY Times and Cook political report. Republicans won all 27 seats. They gained 12 additional house seats in this election. The majority was not theirs to lose.

I suppose one could argue that the gains Republicans made (and what they held in the House and Senate) could have been even greater; but the expectation going in was that Republicans were going to get demolished; and that was not the reality. Trump was a very effective voice at turning out the Republican vote.

The bolded is true.

Unfortunately, he also turned out 81 million democrat votes, haha. I mean, it wasn't that ham sandwich Biden.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Zedlaw]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Do you have an example of a President who's party had more house seats coming out than going in?

Obama had 256 House Democrats going into his tenure; had 194 coming out. To me, that would suggest Trump was extremely effective when compared to Obama no? (We can keep goin!)

Trump 247 down to 211
Obama 233 down to 188
Bush 223 down to 202

So with your logic math does this mean Bush is super insanely effective. I certainly wouldn't label any of our recent presidents as insanely effective messengers. All were ineffective to keeping their party in power. We're going to have to go back to Reagan to find an effective messenger. Maybe FDR as an example of insanely effective messenger.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Zedlaw

Trump 247 down to 211
Obama 233 down to 188
Bush 223 down to 202

So with your logic math does this mean Bush is super insanely effective. I certainly wouldn't label any of our recent presidents as insanely effective messengers. All were ineffective to keeping their party in power. We're going to have to go back to Reagan to find an effective messenger. Maybe FDR as an example of insanely effective messenger.

Obama started w/ 256 my good man; your numbers are terribly incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_...tates_Congress

Obama lost 60+ seats.
Bush lost 50 seats
Clinton lost almost 60 seats (and 10 senate seats; yikes) And so on. It's the power of the minority and while it flexed in 2018 w/ Trump, it was non-existent in '20.

[yanksfan1]

So if SCOTUS takes the case and ACB, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch all vote against Trump, will they be considered part of the deep state conspiracy? Thomas and Alito will side with Trump for anything so not including them.

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by chezball

TX sues GA, WI, MI & PA.
For illegally changing rules.
Violating US Constitution.
This 100% goes to SCOTUS.
Inside Safe Harbor Deadline.
Other States can join later.
Don’t Mess with Texas.

This lawsuit is ridiculous along with others similar to this. You can't go back and challenge the rules the state initiated leading up to the election after the election results are already in. Republicans in Texas even tried to pull this garbage within their own state where they were trying to get all the drive up votes thrown out a couple days before the last day of the election. This is easily detrimental reliance and no legitimate judge would ever rule in their favor.

It was known for months ahead of time how the election was going to be held in each state. The voters, regardless of what party they voted for, abided by the rules and voted in accordance with the laws of that state at the time the election was being held. If lawmakers had an issue with the way the election was going to be held it needed to be addressed before everyone voted, not after. Now if they want to argue that certain voters did not abide by the rules that is a different story.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by yanksfan1

So if SCOTUS takes the case and ACB, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch all vote against Trump, will they be considered part of the deep state conspiracy? Thomas and Alito will side with Trump for anything so not including them.

Trump's last stand! (SCOTUS case is on the docket; they may not hear/rule however).

Ken Paxton in Texas. LOL. The guy is one funny MFer.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

This.

Sure while others put their feelings and beliefs above the feelings and beliefs above another that is oppression and that goes both ways. I shouldn't discriminate against say a gay person but the shouldn't try to force their beliefs on me

[Zedlaw]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Obama started w/ 256 my good man; your numbers are terribly incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_...tates_Congress

Obama lost 60+ seats.
Bush lost 50 seats
Clinton lost almost 60 seats (and 10 senate seats; yikes) And so on. It's the power of the minority and while it flexed in 2018 w/ Trump, it was non-existent in '20.

2008 was Obama's election, he was the messenger for his party to gain seats from 2006. The numbers are the numbers, I defined the person running in the election or holding office being the messenger for those accumulated or subtracted seats.

All these guys lost their party power and Trump even lost his election. All were ineffective messengers. So Trump was less ineffective than Obama but that is a weird way to define insane effectiveness. Reagan and FDR were effective messengers.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Zedlaw

2008 was Obama's election, he was the messenger for his party to gain seats from 2006. The numbers are the numbers, I defined the person running in the election or holding office being the messenger for those accumulated or subtracted seats.

All these guys lost their party power and Trump even lost his election. All were ineffective messengers. So Trump was less ineffective than Obama but that is a weird way to define insane effectiveness. Reagan and FDR were effective messengers.

Well I'm glad you define things that way; but that is meaningless in reality.

In reality you see, House members are elected at the same time as the President every four years (and even in-between Presidencies). So when Obama took office in 2009, he had 256 Democratic house members. The day he left office, Democrats had 194. That is a loss of 62 seats, very simple.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by Zedlaw

Yes because we as a society were so civil about LGBTQ+ rights that the supreme court decided to hear the case just to put a bow on our already established nondiscriminatory social practices.

You're saying it's a double standard to rip gay discrimination and praise the firings of All Lives Matter and lockdown protestors. But what you don't see is they are both consistent in the idea of eradicating bigotry towards the oppressed

It goes both ways though that is what you refuse to see. Both should be able to have their beliefs and lives, but that isnt how it works and only one side gets painted as bigots, etc

[chezball]

Originally Posted by Clark

Because there is too much at stake to not vote. If the dems get the senate, say hello to the green new deal.

Say hello to Venezuela.

[yanksfan1]

Originally Posted by Clark

Because there is too much at stake to not vote. If the dems get the senate, say hello to the green new deal.

Do you even know how the Senate works? You really think Joe Manchin is gonna vote for the Green New Deal? It would be a 50-50 Senate if the Dems won both seats. There is also this thing called the filibuster, look it up. It's not going anywhere.