|
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 November 29 2020 08:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2020 08:42 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:
What farva said. Plus I'm not a big fan of life imprisonment, certainly not in the really dumb 3 strikes context. For me it is a lesser of two evils choice and one that allows for the correction of mistakes. I don't see any societal benefit to killing someone. When was the last time someone spending life in prison got out and killed someone? I guarantee the number of times that has happened in the last 25 years is way lower than number of innocent people murdered by the legal system.
So many of the US laws and policy are not about what is best for society but rather tough talking points and making long term, repeat customers for their for profit criminal justice system, with seemingly no understanding of the costs of these decisions to their society and culture. So much time and money is spent on punishment very little is spent on prevention. If you fixed, or even improved life for all the poor, improved that gun situation, stopped the war on drugs and all the completely awful policy that is easy to see is awful if you just look pragmatically, then the death penalty would not be as big an issue.
How about you? How do you justify the morality of the death penalty being the "right" thing, given that you think it worse than life in prison? Is not final judgement supposed to be gods call? Is stripping away the opportunity for someone to be saved by the love of jesus a moral move? Is forgiveness and redemption not the two most important tenets of Jesus himself?
There is no good argument for the death penalty, it basically comes down to vengeance feels good enough that you're OK with the mistakes, that have and continue to happen. The death penalty is very anti christian/jesus, which he tried to correct with his teachings in the new testament.
There are people who cannot be rehabilitated and are a danger to society. You cannot ever let folks like Dahmer, Black Widow serial killers, etc. out of prison. Most people who have life imprisonment sentences fall in the too dangerous for society category. It would be interesting to see if you'd advocate letting someone like John Wayne Gacy walk free. You also realize only 7% of US prisons are nominally "private" right? How do you blame such a small figure for the state of the penal code? What about the 93% of Government run prisons? The government ones don't use nationalized industries to provide all of the necessary services. It's still all outsourced to the wider prison industry.
Can you show me the evidence that private industry is responsible for Clintons tough on crime binge, mandatory minimums, origins of the drug war, etc. I am sure the food services industry supplying Government prisons are responsible for 3 strike rule. I'm not downplaying that industry lobbies Government for favors in myriad ways (The MIC is prime example), but there's just not very strong evidence with our legal and penal systems. Pandering politicians too willing to abide by irrational populace fears with a complicit media is far more to blame. People think violent crime is out of control but the fact is that historically the US is at one of the lowest points we've ever had - you can thank media outlets for non stop coverage and hyperbolic statements.
|
|
|
On November 29 2020 09:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2020 09:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 08:55 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2020 08:42 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:
What farva said. Plus I'm not a big fan of life imprisonment, certainly not in the really dumb 3 strikes context. For me it is a lesser of two evils choice and one that allows for the correction of mistakes. I don't see any societal benefit to killing someone. When was the last time someone spending life in prison got out and killed someone? I guarantee the number of times that has happened in the last 25 years is way lower than number of innocent people murdered by the legal system.
So many of the US laws and policy are not about what is best for society but rather tough talking points and making long term, repeat customers for their for profit criminal justice system, with seemingly no understanding of the costs of these decisions to their society and culture. So much time and money is spent on punishment very little is spent on prevention. If you fixed, or even improved life for all the poor, improved that gun situation, stopped the war on drugs and all the completely awful policy that is easy to see is awful if you just look pragmatically, then the death penalty would not be as big an issue.
How about you? How do you justify the morality of the death penalty being the "right" thing, given that you think it worse than life in prison? Is not final judgement supposed to be gods call? Is stripping away the opportunity for someone to be saved by the love of jesus a moral move? Is forgiveness and redemption not the two most important tenets of Jesus himself?
There is no good argument for the death penalty, it basically comes down to vengeance feels good enough that you're OK with the mistakes, that have and continue to happen. The death penalty is very anti christian/jesus, which he tried to correct with his teachings in the new testament.
There are people who cannot be rehabilitated and are a danger to society. You cannot ever let folks like Dahmer, Black Widow serial killers, etc. out of prison. Most people who have life imprisonment sentences fall in the too dangerous for society category. It would be interesting to see if you'd advocate letting someone like John Wayne Gacy walk free. You also realize only 7% of US prisons are nominally "private" right? How do you blame such a small figure for the state of the penal code? What about the 93% of Government run prisons? The government ones don't use nationalized industries to provide all of the necessary services. It's still all outsourced to the wider prison industry. Can you show me the evidence that private industry is responsible for Clintons tough on crime binge, mandatory minimums, origins of the drug war, etc. I am sure the food services industry supplying Government prisons are responsible for 3 strike rule. I'm not downplaying that industry lobbies Government for favors in myriad ways (The MIC is prime example), but there's just not very strong evidence with our legal and penal systems. Pandering politicians too willing to abide by irrational populace fears with a complicit media is far more to blame. People think violent crime is out of control but the fact is that historically the US is at one of the lowest points we've ever had - you can thank media outlets for non stop coverage and hyperbolic statements. What is your theory on why yours is such a problem compared to everyone else. Governemnt as a answer does not make sense, since everyone else uses them as well (more). So what is different. Also your Clinton crime bill is proof to what were saying. He was lobbied to make horrible policy and he did it. That is bad for the system.
I don't think our penal and criminal justice system is comparatively so much worse. The US is not the only developed country with a Government waging a "drug war". The UK for instance has much worse free speech protections (with associated prosecutions).
If you believe the tough on crime bill was passed because private prisons lobbied for it you're a million miles off base. The US has a deep puritanical streak which seeks to punish vices. It is in fact one of the "successes" of Democracy. The people wanted Prohibition. The people wanted the Drug War. Thankfully the tide is turning, but your complete dismissal of the myriad of causes as to the evolution of the US criminal code is laughable. Stick to Canada.
By the way you never answered my questions. How would you deal with serial killers and others who are too dangerous for society if you got rid of life imprisonment?
|
|
|
On November 29 2020 09:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2020 09:28 JimmiC wrote:On November 29 2020 09:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 08:55 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2020 08:42 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:
What farva said. Plus I'm not a big fan of life imprisonment, certainly not in the really dumb 3 strikes context. For me it is a lesser of two evils choice and one that allows for the correction of mistakes. I don't see any societal benefit to killing someone. When was the last time someone spending life in prison got out and killed someone? I guarantee the number of times that has happened in the last 25 years is way lower than number of innocent people murdered by the legal system.
So many of the US laws and policy are not about what is best for society but rather tough talking points and making long term, repeat customers for their for profit criminal justice system, with seemingly no understanding of the costs of these decisions to their society and culture. So much time and money is spent on punishment very little is spent on prevention. If you fixed, or even improved life for all the poor, improved that gun situation, stopped the war on drugs and all the completely awful policy that is easy to see is awful if you just look pragmatically, then the death penalty would not be as big an issue.
How about you? How do you justify the morality of the death penalty being the "right" thing, given that you think it worse than life in prison? Is not final judgement supposed to be gods call? Is stripping away the opportunity for someone to be saved by the love of jesus a moral move? Is forgiveness and redemption not the two most important tenets of Jesus himself?
There is no good argument for the death penalty, it basically comes down to vengeance feels good enough that you're OK with the mistakes, that have and continue to happen. The death penalty is very anti christian/jesus, which he tried to correct with his teachings in the new testament.
There are people who cannot be rehabilitated and are a danger to society. You cannot ever let folks like Dahmer, Black Widow serial killers, etc. out of prison. Most people who have life imprisonment sentences fall in the too dangerous for society category. It would be interesting to see if you'd advocate letting someone like John Wayne Gacy walk free. You also realize only 7% of US prisons are nominally "private" right? How do you blame such a small figure for the state of the penal code? What about the 93% of Government run prisons? The government ones don't use nationalized industries to provide all of the necessary services. It's still all outsourced to the wider prison industry. Can you show me the evidence that private industry is responsible for Clintons tough on crime binge, mandatory minimums, origins of the drug war, etc. I am sure the food services industry supplying Government prisons are responsible for 3 strike rule. I'm not downplaying that industry lobbies Government for favors in myriad ways (The MIC is prime example), but there's just not very strong evidence with our legal and penal systems. Pandering politicians too willing to abide by irrational populace fears with a complicit media is far more to blame. People think violent crime is out of control but the fact is that historically the US is at one of the lowest points we've ever had - you can thank media outlets for non stop coverage and hyperbolic statements. What is your theory on why yours is such a problem compared to everyone else. Governemnt as a answer does not make sense, since everyone else uses them as well (more). So what is different. Also your Clinton crime bill is proof to what were saying. He was lobbied to make horrible policy and he did it. That is bad for the system. I don't think our penal and criminal justice system is comparatively so much worse. The US is not the only developed country with a Government waging a "drug war". The UK for instance has much worse free speech protections (with associated prosecutions). If you believe the tough on crime bill was passed because private prisons lobbied for it you're a million miles off base. The US has a deep puritanical streak which seeks to punish vices. It is in fact one of the "successes" of Democracy. The people wanted Prohibition. The people wanted the Drug War. Thankfully the tide is turning, but your complete dismissal of the myriad of causes as to the evolution of the US criminal code is laughable. Stick to Canada. By the way you never answered my questions. How would you deal with serial killers and others who are too dangerous for society if you got rid of life imprisonment?
The state of the US is the best possible argument in favour of restrictions on Free Speech I can think of. Though I'm glad someone in the Western world went for it, so we could at least properly put a bullet in the head of the idea of the free market of ideas and take away a libertarian talking point worldwide.
|
On November 29 2020 09:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2020 09:28 JimmiC wrote:On November 29 2020 09:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 08:55 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2020 08:42 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:
What farva said. Plus I'm not a big fan of life imprisonment, certainly not in the really dumb 3 strikes context. For me it is a lesser of two evils choice and one that allows for the correction of mistakes. I don't see any societal benefit to killing someone. When was the last time someone spending life in prison got out and killed someone? I guarantee the number of times that has happened in the last 25 years is way lower than number of innocent people murdered by the legal system.
So many of the US laws and policy are not about what is best for society but rather tough talking points and making long term, repeat customers for their for profit criminal justice system, with seemingly no understanding of the costs of these decisions to their society and culture. So much time and money is spent on punishment very little is spent on prevention. If you fixed, or even improved life for all the poor, improved that gun situation, stopped the war on drugs and all the completely awful policy that is easy to see is awful if you just look pragmatically, then the death penalty would not be as big an issue.
How about you? How do you justify the morality of the death penalty being the "right" thing, given that you think it worse than life in prison? Is not final judgement supposed to be gods call? Is stripping away the opportunity for someone to be saved by the love of jesus a moral move? Is forgiveness and redemption not the two most important tenets of Jesus himself?
There is no good argument for the death penalty, it basically comes down to vengeance feels good enough that you're OK with the mistakes, that have and continue to happen. The death penalty is very anti christian/jesus, which he tried to correct with his teachings in the new testament.
There are people who cannot be rehabilitated and are a danger to society. You cannot ever let folks like Dahmer, Black Widow serial killers, etc. out of prison. Most people who have life imprisonment sentences fall in the too dangerous for society category. It would be interesting to see if you'd advocate letting someone like John Wayne Gacy walk free. You also realize only 7% of US prisons are nominally "private" right? How do you blame such a small figure for the state of the penal code? What about the 93% of Government run prisons? The government ones don't use nationalized industries to provide all of the necessary services. It's still all outsourced to the wider prison industry. Can you show me the evidence that private industry is responsible for Clintons tough on crime binge, mandatory minimums, origins of the drug war, etc. I am sure the food services industry supplying Government prisons are responsible for 3 strike rule. I'm not downplaying that industry lobbies Government for favors in myriad ways (The MIC is prime example), but there's just not very strong evidence with our legal and penal systems. Pandering politicians too willing to abide by irrational populace fears with a complicit media is far more to blame. People think violent crime is out of control but the fact is that historically the US is at one of the lowest points we've ever had - you can thank media outlets for non stop coverage and hyperbolic statements. What is your theory on why yours is such a problem compared to everyone else. Governemnt as a answer does not make sense, since everyone else uses them as well (more). So what is different. Also your Clinton crime bill is proof to what were saying. He was lobbied to make horrible policy and he did it. That is bad for the system. I don't think our penal and criminal justice system is comparatively so much worse. The US is not the only developed country with a Government waging a "drug war". The UK for instance has much worse free speech protections (with associated prosecutions). If you believe the tough on crime bill was passed because private prisons lobbied for it you're a million miles off base. The US has a deep puritanical streak which seeks to punish vices. It is in fact one of the "successes" of Democracy. The people wanted Prohibition. The people wanted the Drug War. Thankfully the tide is turning, but your complete dismissal of the myriad of causes as to the evolution of the US criminal code is laughable. Stick to Canada. By the way you never answered my questions. How would you deal with serial killers and others who are too dangerous for society if you got rid of life imprisonment?
If you honestly think that the US penal and criminal justice system 'isn't comparatively much worse' than that of any other developed country, you're either very poorly informed or just plain dumb. You have the world's highest incarceration rate, ahead of such wonderful places like Thailand, Brazil, or Belarus; around 5 times higher than that of other anglophone countries, and nearly 10 times higher than that of social democracies of Europe such as Sweden or Germany. Your total prison population is higher than that of China and India put together. All the while your crime rates are at best comparable to that of other developed countries, but likely worse (difficult to compare directly because everyone measures crime rates in their own way, but yeah).
And this is before we even get into the way your criminal justice system has completely different outcomes based on how wealthy you are or what color your skin is and other fun topics like that.
|
Back on the streak again, i see.
I don't think our penal and criminal justice system is comparatively so much worse. The US is not the only developed country with a Government waging a "drug war". The UK for instance has much worse free speech protections (with associated prosecutions).
As usual, half truth at best.
Did you know that the US in the press freedom index ranks behind Botswana? Ah, right. You weren't talking about that. You were talking about the ability to incite violence, rally against minorities and quite literally everything else that doesn't bother or interfere with an actual normal person. Sucks for edgelords, but it's not like you can't be prosecuted for stuff you say in the US either. I've not once been restricted in my speech. Mainly because i don't need to run around to demonstrate against "dem gay spreading brown peoples".
It is in fact one of the "successes" of Democracy. The people wanted Prohibition. The people wanted the Drug War.
It's also "in fact" a display of why religion should have zero influence on policy or politica as a whole. I don't remember reading about Nixon running his campaign with a "Drug War" in mind either. Law and order, yes. Who wouldn't want that?
And in fact, who wouldn't want a war on drugs? The idea of war on drugs isn't bad. It's the idiocy that followed.
|
On November 29 2020 09:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2020 09:28 JimmiC wrote:On November 29 2020 09:15 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 08:55 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2020 08:42 Wegandi wrote:On November 29 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:
What farva said. Plus I'm not a big fan of life imprisonment, certainly not in the really dumb 3 strikes context. For me it is a lesser of two evils choice and one that allows for the correction of mistakes. I don't see any societal benefit to killing someone. When was the last time someone spending life in prison got out and killed someone? I guarantee the number of times that has happened in the last 25 years is way lower than number of innocent people murdered by the legal system.
So many of the US laws and policy are not about what is best for society but rather tough talking points and making long term, repeat customers for their for profit criminal justice system, with seemingly no understanding of the costs of these decisions to their society and culture. So much time and money is spent on punishment very little is spent on prevention. If you fixed, or even improved life for all the poor, improved that gun situation, stopped the war on drugs and all the completely awful policy that is easy to see is awful if you just look pragmatically, then the death penalty would not be as big an issue.
How about you? How do you justify the morality of the death penalty being the "right" thing, given that you think it worse than life in prison? Is not final judgement supposed to be gods call? Is stripping away the opportunity for someone to be saved by the love of jesus a moral move? Is forgiveness and redemption not the two most important tenets of Jesus himself?
There is no good argument for the death penalty, it basically comes down to vengeance feels good enough that you're OK with the mistakes, that have and continue to happen. The death penalty is very anti christian/jesus, which he tried to correct with his teachings in the new testament.
There are people who cannot be rehabilitated and are a danger to society. You cannot ever let folks like Dahmer, Black Widow serial killers, etc. out of prison. Most people who have life imprisonment sentences fall in the too dangerous for society category. It would be interesting to see if you'd advocate letting someone like John Wayne Gacy walk free. You also realize only 7% of US prisons are nominally "private" right? How do you blame such a small figure for the state of the penal code? What about the 93% of Government run prisons? The government ones don't use nationalized industries to provide all of the necessary services. It's still all outsourced to the wider prison industry. Can you show me the evidence that private industry is responsible for Clintons tough on crime binge, mandatory minimums, origins of the drug war, etc. I am sure the food services industry supplying Government prisons are responsible for 3 strike rule. I'm not downplaying that industry lobbies Government for favors in myriad ways (The MIC is prime example), but there's just not very strong evidence with our legal and penal systems. Pandering politicians too willing to abide by irrational populace fears with a complicit media is far more to blame. People think violent crime is out of control but the fact is that historically the US is at one of the lowest points we've ever had - you can thank media outlets for non stop coverage and hyperbolic statements. What is your theory on why yours is such a problem compared to everyone else. Governemnt as a answer does not make sense, since everyone else uses them as well (more). So what is different. Also your Clinton crime bill is proof to what were saying. He was lobbied to make horrible policy and he did it. That is bad for the system. I don't think our penal and criminal justice system is comparatively so much worse. The US is not the only developed country with a Government waging a "drug war". The UK for instance has much worse free speech protections (with associated prosecutions). If you believe the tough on crime bill was passed because private prisons lobbied for it you're a million miles off base. The US has a deep puritanical streak which seeks to punish vices. It is in fact one of the "successes" of Democracy. The people wanted Prohibition. The people wanted the Drug War. Thankfully the tide is turning, but your complete dismissal of the myriad of causes as to the evolution of the US criminal code is laughable. Stick to Canada. By the way you never answered my questions. How would you deal with serial killers and others who are too dangerous for society if you got rid of life imprisonment?
Aside from other people here picking apart how absurd the bolded part is, if you think that the War On Drugs is a simple example of "the will of the people", you need to read more history. While the U.S. has a long history of various restrictions on drugs (often brought about by industry opponents - thank the free market), the War on Drugs is deeply embedded in racist Republican drug policy that was jump-started by Nixon.
|
To nobody's surprise, Trump and his team is still spinning that he won the election through interviews. He now claims the courts do not want to see their "proof", which of course is "tremendous", despite being dismissed by over 30 courts, including by judges he picked himself.
My theories:
-He is making an echo-chamber where the "I won and election was rigged" is repeated so many times, his followers will believe it on a religious level, no matter how weak the proof is.
-He actually believes there is still a chance he can overturn the outcome of the election.
-He keeps fighting to make people keep donating to his campaign, despite some already wanting their money back
-He is making the groundwork for a "revenge" campaign in 2024 to undo this unlawful rigged election.
No matter what his intentions are, I find this very disturbing. At some point, the GOP will have to step up to stop this vicious attack on democracy, and I find it very disappointing they have not done so a lot more already.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sunday-morning-futures-judges-election-lawsuits
|
On November 30 2020 18:05 Slydie wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Trump and his team is still spinning that he won the election through interviews. He now claims the courts do not want to see their "proof", which of course is "tremendous", despite being dismissed by over 30 courts, including by judges he picked himself.
But I thought the grand master plan was to not have proof in the cases to get them to the Supreme Court faster?
On November 30 2020 18:05 Slydie wrote:My theories: -He is making an echo-chamber where the "I won and election was rigged" is repeated so many times, his followers will believe it on a religious level, no matter how weak the proof is.
-He actually believes there is still a chance he can overturn the outcome of the election.-He keeps fighting to make people keep donating to his campaign, despite some already wanting their money back-He is making the groundwork for a "revenge" campaign in 2024 to undo this unlawful rigged election. No matter what his intentions are, I find this very disturbing. At some point, the GOP will have to step up to stop this vicious attack on democracy, and I find it very disappointing they have not done so a lot more already. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sunday-morning-futures-judges-election-lawsuits
I honestly think Trump team's immediate plan might be something like this:
1. Continue convincing their base that they did win the election.
2. Get an unprecedented number of Faithless Electors to swing the EC total to his side.
3. Justify this with "I won and the Democrats are trying to steal this election. These Faithless Electors are saving our Democracy by making sure the real winner gets elected."
4. Encourage his supporters to ruthlessly defend him and his inner circle from all who oppose him.
The rational part of my brain knows this is incredibly unlikely (probably less than 1% to be honest) and that he more than likely is just trying to keep his base attached to him for a 2024 campaign, but with all the crazy shit the Trump administration has pulled, it wouldn't surprise me.
|
Norway28712 Posts
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'.
|
On November 30 2020 19:46 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2020 18:05 Slydie wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Trump and his team is still spinning that he won the election through interviews. He now claims the courts do not want to see their "proof", which of course is "tremendous", despite being dismissed by over 30 courts, including by judges he picked himself. But I thought the grand master plan was to not have proof in the cases to get them to the Supreme Court faster? Show nested quote +On November 30 2020 18:05 Slydie wrote:My theories: -He is making an echo-chamber where the "I won and election was rigged" is repeated so many times, his followers will believe it on a religious level, no matter how weak the proof is.
-He actually believes there is still a chance he can overturn the outcome of the election.-He keeps fighting to make people keep donating to his campaign, despite some already wanting their money back-He is making the groundwork for a "revenge" campaign in 2024 to undo this unlawful rigged election. No matter what his intentions are, I find this very disturbing. At some point, the GOP will have to step up to stop this vicious attack on democracy, and I find it very disappointing they have not done so a lot more already. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sunday-morning-futures-judges-election-lawsuits I honestly think Trump team's immediate plan might be something like this: 1. Continue convincing their base that they did win the election. 2. Get an unprecedented number of Faithless Electors to swing the EC total to his side. 3. Justify this with "I won and the Democrats are trying to steal this election. These Faithless Electors are saving our Democracy by making sure the real winner gets elected." 4. Encourage his supporters to ruthlessly defend him and his inner circle from all who oppose him. The rational part of my brain knows this is incredibly unlikely (probably less than 1% to be honest) and that he more than likely is just trying to keep his base attached to him for a 2024 campaign, but with all the crazy shit the Trump administration has pulled, it wouldn't surprise me.
I think there are too many misunderstandings with these "faithless electors". Each party pick their EC representatives mainly based on party loyalty, so the 7 faithless electors in 2016 all voted for other candidates from the same party or did not vote.
The battle is really about who gets sent, not what they vote when they are present at the EC summit. Trump has already tried make the state authoroties pick their own electors instead of following the popular vote, and failed. I don't think anybody believes Electors picked by the democrats will swing to vote for Trump.
The only thing he could possibly hope for would be for a couple of electors to vote for Sanders or the like if the vote were super close, but why would the Dems be that stupid? I find it a lot more likely that Trump will LOSE a few EC votes to other Republicans, like he did last time.
|
On November 30 2020 21:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2020 19:46 StasisField wrote:On November 30 2020 18:05 Slydie wrote:
To nobody's surprise, Trump and his team is still spinning that he won the election through interviews. He now claims the courts do not want to see their "proof", which of course is "tremendous", despite being dismissed by over 30 courts, including by judges he picked himself. But I thought the grand master plan was to not have proof in the cases to get them to the Supreme Court faster? On November 30 2020 18:05 Slydie wrote:My theories: -He is making an echo-chamber where the "I won and election was rigged" is repeated so many times, his followers will believe it on a religious level, no matter how weak the proof is.
-He actually believes there is still a chance he can overturn the outcome of the election.-He keeps fighting to make people keep donating to his campaign, despite some already wanting their money back-He is making the groundwork for a "revenge" campaign in 2024 to undo this unlawful rigged election. No matter what his intentions are, I find this very disturbing. At some point, the GOP will have to step up to stop this vicious attack on democracy, and I find it very disappointing they have not done so a lot more already. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sunday-morning-futures-judges-election-lawsuits I honestly think Trump team's immediate plan might be something like this: 1. Continue convincing their base that they did win the election. 2. Get an unprecedented number of Faithless Electors to swing the EC total to his side. 3. Justify this with "I won and the Democrats are trying to steal this election. These Faithless Electors are saving our Democracy by making sure the real winner gets elected." 4. Encourage his supporters to ruthlessly defend him and his inner circle from all who oppose him. The rational part of my brain knows this is incredibly unlikely (probably less than 1% to be honest) and that he more than likely is just trying to keep his base attached to him for a 2024 campaign, but with all the crazy shit the Trump administration has pulled, it wouldn't surprise me. I think there are too many misunderstandings with these "faithless electors". Each party pick their EC representatives mainly based on party loyalty, so the 7 faithless electors in 2016 all voted for other candidates from the same party or did not vote. The battle is really about who gets sent, not what they vote when they are present at the EC summit. Trump has already tried make the state authoroties pick their own electors instead of following the popular vote, and failed. I don't think anybody believes Electors picked by the democrats will swing to vote for Trump. The only thing he could possibly hope for would be for a couple of electors to vote for Sanders or the like if the vote were super close, but why would the Dems be that stupid? I find it a lot more likely that Trump will LOSE a few EC votes to other Republicans, like he did last time.
Plus, the final tally of the electoral college isn't even close enough to make a significant difference anyway. Fortunately, Biden didn't only win by, like, 5 electoral votes. Thankfully there's no way that a few faithless electors will change the outcome.
|
I'm much more worried about whatever he's trying to pull once his election fraud cases fail their way to the Supreme Court, where he packed it with justices who were involved with Bush's election. It does not seem out of the realm of possibility that they try to steal this election for him.
|
|
|
On November 30 2020 22:56 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm much more worried about whatever he's trying to pull once his election fraud cases fail their way to the Supreme Court, where he packed it with justices who were involved with Bush's election. It does not seem out of the realm of possibility that they try to steal this election for him. To many votes in to many states with not enough evidence of mistakes.
The SC isn't going to steal this.
|
On November 30 2020 23:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2020 22:56 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm much more worried about whatever he's trying to pull once his election fraud cases fail their way to the Supreme Court, where he packed it with justices who were involved with Bush's election. It does not seem out of the realm of possibility that they try to steal this election for him. To many votes in to many states with not enough evidence of mistakes. The SC isn't going to steal this.
Not to mention, if they do, they destroy their own insitution and maybe the whole foundation of the US as a united nation. The judges are free to do whatever they want after they are appointed.
Even a single judge voting for changing this election in any way will cause a lot of harm, so I believe they will all fall in line here.
But Trump has hopes at the "so you say there is a chance" level.
|
On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'.
this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf?
on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot?
|
On December 01 2020 01:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'. this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf? on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot?
I would imagine you don't care that they see you cheating. You just lift the ball out of the rough. Move it a few cm for an easier angle or just don't count one of your hits in your total (last one easiest to miss).
|
On December 01 2020 01:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'. this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf? on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot?
You just lie on your card at the end. On top of moving the ball around like Yurie said. While your opponent does watch you, it's not like they're really recording every single swing you make, and if they are, you just say "oh, I guess I miscounted" and accuse them of being a poor sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
