|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 26 2020 00:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa. I don't see how iowa and this are related. this seemed like a thing trump would have gone for no matter what and with louder and louder screams of socialism invading the states, it would have made a trump re-election even easier. but continue on.
Reasonable people will be able to look at Iowa and rightly extract that Democrats are willing to ignore votes, declare a losing candidate the winner, then move on like nothing happened/minimize such blatant disenfranchisement when it suits them.
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 00:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 25 2020 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa. I don't see how iowa and this are related. this seemed like a thing trump would have gone for no matter what and with louder and louder screams of socialism invading the states, it would have made a trump re-election even easier. but continue on. Reasonable people will be able to look at Iowa and rightly extract that Democrats are willing to ignore votes, declare a losing candidate the winner, then move on like nothing happened/minimize such blatant disenfranchisement when it suits them.
Oh. I thought this was a focus on trump refusing to vacate if he lost and republicans figuring out a way to legitimize all the illegal shit even further. but it's just another shot at democrats. got it. ignore me then.
|
On September 26 2020 00:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2020 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa. Time to move all voting to a hastily designed app produced by the White House at the last minute? Was it hastily designed? When did they decide to go with an app? What was the procedure to pick the App developer? After it failed was it used again? If the whitehouse was willing to try things but then admit when they were failures and go back to things that worked and it lead to a unquestioned result in the end (outside of really wacky conspiracy people). Sounds like a better outcome than what most are predicting from either side right now.
If it ends up being an epic fail and puts the result of 2020 into doubt, they'll fix their mistakes and make sure it doesn't happen again in 2024. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Trump's people made use of primaries, but not in that way. They looked up all the potential ways they could throw out ballots, looked at how they were and weren't applied, and made lists of challenges they're going to use to throw out democratic mail in votes.
|
On September 26 2020 01:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 00:49 JimmiC wrote:On September 26 2020 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2020 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa. Time to move all voting to a hastily designed app produced by the White House at the last minute? Was it hastily designed? When did they decide to go with an app? What was the procedure to pick the App developer? After it failed was it used again? If the whitehouse was willing to try things but then admit when they were failures and go back to things that worked and it lead to a unquestioned result in the end (outside of really wacky conspiracy people). Sounds like a better outcome than what most are predicting from either side right now. If it ends up being an epic fail and puts the result of 2020 into doubt, they'll fix their mistakes and make sure it doesn't happen again in 2024. No big deal.
We're talking about a thousands votes out of over 100,000,000. Not like a handful of votes and a errant declaration of the wrong winner (and a media apparatus that treats the loser as the winner [even when demonstrably wrong]) could cause any problems
On September 26 2020 01:12 Nevuk wrote:
Trump's people made use of primaries, but not in that way. They looked up all the potential ways they could throw out ballots, looked at how they were and weren't applied, and made lists of challenges they're going to use to throw out democratic mail in votes.
This is extremely common from both parties and the part of the story no one really wants to touch. 2016 is the first and only time my ballot was ever challenged and it was in the primary.
|
On September 25 2020 22:59 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2020 22:56 followZeRoX wrote:
Wow I thoght USA has far better institutions for prevent autocracy. I can tell from the 1st hand it ain't pretty.
Also, Trump only got 1 more possible mandate left so I don't think he has time to set it up.
But man, he has best opponent to beat ever, after Hillary of course. Democrats really can mess up inner elections. The problem is that institutions preventing autocracy stop working very well when half of the population is totally okay with autocracy as long as they get to tell the other half how to live their lives. The main requirement to prevent a democracy turning bad is that the majority of the population is strongly opposed to autocracy. If you no longer have that, even the best of institutions can only save you for a short period of time.
I completely agree but I didnt knew majority of Americans support autocracy.
We had that and in span of 5 years autocracy prevailed and new goverment started to gun down all who opposed... I always thought UsA would be the last to face that. Dont know if immogration became supportive of Trump or what but I am concerned right now, all big powers will be autocratic if this pass.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 01:38 JimmiC wrote:
You do understand that the primary is not the first part of the election that it is a separate event with different rules, and these rules are different for a reason. Also this is true of every democracy (and likely many authoritarian countries as well).
Yes, undoubtedly better than you. That you even entertain the idea you have a remotely comparable (let alone superior) understanding of US politics to me (or almost any of the US posters here really) is completely asinine.
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 01:00 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2020 00:49 JimmiC wrote:On September 26 2020 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2020 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. Also why it was a potentially fatal error to ignore what happened in Iowa. Time to move all voting to a hastily designed app produced by the White House at the last minute? Was it hastily designed? When did they decide to go with an app? What was the procedure to pick the App developer? After it failed was it used again? If the whitehouse was willing to try things but then admit when they were failures and go back to things that worked and it lead to a unquestioned result in the end (outside of really wacky conspiracy people). Sounds like a better outcome than what most are predicting from either side right now. If it ends up being an epic fail and puts the result of 2020 into doubt, they'll fix their mistakes and make sure it doesn't happen again in 2024. No big deal. Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 01:12 Nevuk wrote:
Trump's people made use of primaries, but not in that way. They looked up all the potential ways they could throw out ballots, looked at how they were and weren't applied, and made lists of challenges they're going to use to throw out democratic mail in votes. This is extremely common from both parties and the part of the story no one really wants to touch. 2016 is the first and only time my ballot was ever challenged and it was in the primary.
While it is very common by both parties, it tends to be a local/county level series of issues rather than being coordinated nation-wide like this. The planned challenges are truly unprecedented in scope. Hanging chads, which the 2000 election turned around, only affected something like a few thousand votes. These are being planned for hundreds of thousands of votes in key states, to help create justification to change electoral voters.
I will note : primaries are run by the parties, and as such, not required or even expected to be fair (I believe this was even the defense the DNC used in some court challenges about 2016). Corruption in the primary voting process has literally nothing to do with issues in the normal voting process, outside of the point you made about shitty media reporting.
|
On September 26 2020 02:31 Nevuk wrote:
I will note : primaries are run by the parties, and as such, not required or even expected to be fair (I believe this was even the defense the DNC used in some court challenges about 2016). Corruption in the primary voting process has literally nothing to do with issues in the normal voting process, outside of the point you made about shitty media reporting.
There's a lot of wiggle room, legally, for both the primary and general process to deviate from how people vote. Democrats can certainly just present what looks like a voting process while putting their thumb on the scale in favor of party favorites. They could also just skip the facade entirely and directly anoint their candidate of choice. The state-by-state laws against faithless voters in the general also provide sufficient wiggle room that an entirely different candidate could legally be put into office, so that's something.
Whether or not "it's technically legal" should be taken seriously as an argument for obvious foul play is an entirely different question altogether.
|
The theories were bunk, and they either knew it or their hatred of trump overcame their normal mental faculties. The investigation and its various threads were concocted at the outset, in order to get in there and try to find some criminality. The only question that remains is how high up the chain the sabotage plot went. I suspect that the efforts to leak the plot and its threads into the media during the trump transition will help answer that question. That was the moment at which the insurance policy was activated.
I can sympathize with this guy:
|
So Trump was an useful idiot for the kremlin at the start, according to Barnett.
Wasn't the Mueller report damning against Trump ? It's honestly hard to keep track of those alternative facts.
|
The Mueller report was all hot air, except for all the actual evidence they found and the people that have confessed to crimes because of evidence found by the investigation.
Heck recently the Senate intelligence committee, a majority of who are Republicans, came out saying there was even more collusion with Russia to be found that wasn't in the Mueller report.
But if you ignore all that, you can conclude that the Mueller investigation was a farce. /s
Trump followers are fortunately really good and practised at ignoring the facts when making statements.
|
On September 26 2020 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:
The Mueller report was all hot air, except for all the actual evidence they found and the people that have confessed to crimes because of evidence found by the investigation.
Heck recently the Senate intelligence committee, a majority of who are Republicans, came out saying there was even more collusion with Russia to be found that wasn't in the Mueller report.
But if you ignore all that, you can conclude that the Mueller investigation was a farce. /s
Trump followers are fortunately really good and practised at ignoring the facts when making statements.
This thread just had more discussion on how trump is going to commandeer the military and secret service after biden takes the oath of office in order to hold on to power. So I'm not surprised that people still believe conspiracies about trump. I'm also not surprised that you declined the address the issue of what happened at the outset of the investigation.
As for the mueller report, if they believed there was collusion or obstruction they should have said so, rather than declining to come to a conclusion. The obvious truth is that there was no vollusion and no obstruction but they wanted to tell us what they found anyway (which is why we'll also hear what durham finds). Not that the mueller report excuses what happened at the outset of the investigation anyway.
|
On September 26 2020 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:
The Mueller report was all hot air, except for all the actual evidence they found and the people that have confessed to crimes because of evidence found by the investigation.
Heck recently the Senate intelligence committee, a majority of who are Republicans, came out saying there was even more collusion with Russia to be found that wasn't in the Mueller report.
But if you ignore all that, you can conclude that the Mueller investigation was a farce. /s
Trump followers are fortunately really good and practised at ignoring the facts when making statements.
The post is a bit misleading. They found that there was interference by the Russians. A lot. And that some people were tied with the russians, through ukrainians or others. But not really the Trump campaign per se, which is what collusion usually mean when talking about Mueller (debatable for Manafort).
On September 26 2020 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:
The Mueller report was all hot air, except for all the actual evidence they found and the people that have confessed to crimes because of evidence found by the investigation.
Heck recently the Senate intelligence committee, a majority of who are Republicans, came out saying there was even more collusion with Russia to be found that wasn't in the Mueller report.
But if you ignore all that, you can conclude that the Mueller investigation was a farce. /s
Trump followers are fortunately really good and practised at ignoring the facts when making statements. This thread just had more discussion on how trump is going to commandeer the military and secret service after biden takes the oath of office in order to hold on to power. So I'm not surprised that people still believe conspiracies about trump. I'm also not surprised that you declined the address the issue of what happened at the outset of the investigation. As for the mueller report, if they believed there was collusion or obstruction they should have said so, rather than declining to come to a conclusion. The obvious truth is that there was no vollusion and no obstruction but they still wanted to tell us what they found. Not that the mueller report excuses what happened at the outset of the investigation anyway.
You might want to have a look at recent interviews by members of the Mueller team who are pretty pissed that Mueller himself didn't have the guts to put the explicit words that there was obstruction, though they found ample proof of it and provided it in the report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
