[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Ironic, because this thread is the left wing version of what you just described.

Totally.

Also, TIL many Left Wing folk vote Conservative in Canada.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Nah Bro all good.

Mexico is paying for it.

I could see Mexico paying to have a wall built to keep him in, followed by a dome on top. No doors or windows. I'm sure multiple nations would happily contribute to funding that.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I could see Mexico paying to have a wall built to keep him in, followed by a dome on top. No doors or windows. I'm sure multiple nations would happily contribute to funding that.

Only if it was also a Faraday Cage with no communications getting in or out.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Maybe it's just me, but maybe these guys shouldnt be resigning at the worst time possible?

I dunno.

I'm pretty sure they "resigned" in the same way that Bill Peters "resigned" as the Flames coach.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

When you're totally not planning to pull some shady #### and want to keep out the rabble.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1325925159811780608

I propose we fund a Chernobyl dome over the WH and then concrete-in all exits.

Then build new WH in front of it.

[FlameOn]

Trump apparently plans on ignoring election results. Tells federal agencies to just prepare for Trump's February budget.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-po...post-election/

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Looch City

I propose we fund a Chernobyl dome over the WH and then concrete-in all exits.

Then build new WH in front of it.

Maybe this time we won't be the ones to burn it down. Though if the ask for help we should contribute.

[devo22]

I'm going to build my own White House, with blackjack and hookers!

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GGG

I missed this response before I posted. Do you have a link to an opinion on this. I’ve only seen the speculation that states without laws could have faithless electors

https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors

I’m no legal expert but a few of the articles I read suggested that the opinion was quite broad and not really limited to the state laws themselves even though that was what originated the case. I believe the opinion extended beyond that and said that electors (everywhere) are not free agents that they need to vote for the candidate the states have chosen.

This is one blog that has a concluding sentence that when the college meets in December that there should be no suspense because of the ruling.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/o...-elector-laws/

[djsFlames]

You call it left wing, I call it sensible and in touch with reality.

I don't bleed blue. I don't have Biden swag in my closet. I just see one side that is grounded and reasonable in what they're saying and one that's living on another planet where people are out to get you, oppress you and nothing you know can be trusted.

As someone that believes that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, to consider all the information available, and to never weigh too heavily into one take and evaluate opinions with a grain of salt, these takes coming from the people still backing Trump in the face of all the current information come across as very imbalanced. To lean so heavily into something that has not been substantiated really discredits their take on it imo. The rational republican approach would be something like Romney's twitter statement which was at least reasonable to say and I had no issues with whatsoever.

If this portion of the right wing didn't come across as eyes deep in fictional conspiracies and so aggressive and often hyperbolic in their approach then maybe they'd get more people and media personalities behind them.

I think they're their own worst enemies with the lack of self awareness in how they come across to their fellow man. Aggression, labels and paranoia doesn't do well win people over in regards to anything. Comes across as more of a "them" problem that exists between the ears than an "us" problem.

Just saying.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

\

You forgot homophobic! It completes the holy trinity of Trumpism. Anyone who supports him is unequivocally all three. Or so Ive learned from this thread.

Well no, it's not necessarily true that everyone who voted for Trump is all three.

What is true is that everyone who voted for Trump, unequivocally voted for someone who unequivocally IS all three.

Those people can square that any way they want, but they can't change the fact that it's true.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well no, it's not necessarily true that everyone who voted for Trump is all three.

What is true is that everyone who voted for Trump, unequivocally voted for someone who unequivocally IS all three.

Those people can square that any way they want, but they can't change the fact that it's true.

Most Trump voters would disagree with you that it is true... And so don't enjoy being called racists.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by ernie

I’m no legal expert but a few of the articles I read suggested that the opinion was quite broad and not really limited to the state laws themselves even though that was what originated the case. I believe the opinion extended beyond that and said that electors (everywhere) are not free agents that they need to vote for the candidate the states have chosen.

This is one blog that has a concluding sentence that when the college meets in December that there should be no suspense because of the ruling.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/o...-elector-laws/

I don’t think faithless voters are the play. More likely try to tie this up in courts and create enough FUD that a few states decline to certify their votes, essentially abstaining from the EC vote. If Biden’s EC total drops below 270 then Trump wins on the state delegation vote. This is highly unlikely since at least 3 (?) of the swing states would need to do this and several have Democratic governors even if the legislatures are Republican.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Most Trump voters would disagree with you that it is true... And so don't enjoy being called racists.

Yeah, a lot of them would also disagree that Trump lost. That doesn't make it so.

As I said, I'm not going to assume that anyone who voted for Trump is a racist. I'm not calling anyone who voted for Trump racist.
What I'm saying is they definitely voted for someone who is demonstrably racist (amongst other things).

As I said, they can try to square that any way they want. But to argue that they didn't vote for someone who is racist means they are either completely ignorant (willfully or otherwise), or they aren't being honest.

Voting for someone who clearly displays certain traits or behaviors doesn't mean you share those same traits or behaviors, but it does mean that you do not see them as important/egregious enough to disqualify that person from your list of acceptable leaders.

Put another way:
Voting for Trump does not mean you are racist.
Voting for Trump does mean, at best, you think it is acceptable for your leader to be racist provided they agree with you on what you think are more important issues.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

When you're totally not planning to pull some shady #### and want to keep out the rabble.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1325925159811780608

While this is obviously not good, it'll be freaking fantastic when federal agents physically drag his ass out and his useless family.

The first(?) non-peaceful transition of power in US history after 241 years. What a time to be alive.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Most Trump voters would disagree with you that it is true... And so don't enjoy being called racists.

Which three of Trump isn't true?

Misogynist? Racist? Homophobe? I'd honestly like to know what argument there would be to disprove he's not any of those three.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by GGG

I missed this response before I posted. Do you have a link to an opinion on this. I’ve only seen the speculation that states without laws could have faithless electors

https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors

I need to do some research but I heard that in 2016 certain electors ignored a state's popular vote and went their own way (might have been against Clinton).

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I need to do some research but I heard that in 2016 certain electors ignored a state's popular vote and went their own way (might have been against Clinton).

4 in Washington and 1 in Hawaii against Clinton, 2 in Texas against Trump. 3 others were invalidated (in Maine, Colorado and Minnesota).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...ntial_election

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I need to do some research but I heard that in 2016 certain electors ignored a state's popular vote and went their own way (might have been against Clinton).

I thought they were for Clinton in protest of her winning the popularity vote

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[KevanGuy]

Rudy brings the evidence (some pics). All about observers. He's saying if there are any examples of fraud (including oberserves being kept back) the entire state result can't be certified. And then, the states must deduct the # of votes that were unlawfully EXAMINED. Just in the cities though. Ha.
https://youtu.be/0xurB9TiCWE