|
On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enShow nested quote +Real education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted
Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't.
And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith.
|
On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway?
On November 04 2020 22:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. I'm mostly just perplexed at what the actual legal challenges will look like in WI/MI/AZ, if those really all go for Biden. I don't envy whatever lawyers have to surgically target counties they want thrown out at Trump's whims.
I'd guess there'll be accusations that mail-in ballots were tampered with, stuff like that, and then they'll lose when they are unable to provide any evidence in support. That's been the general trend with Trump's litigation strats.
|
On November 04 2020 22:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? By changing the actual votes (throwing out ballots, particularly mail-ins) and therefor who wins the state gets how many electoral votes, not the electoral collage itself.
Ah, so SCOTUS could arbitrarily declare a large chunk of Biden votes to be invalid, thus giving Trump the lead in a state, which would then lead to Trump "winning" the state and its electoral votes?
|
On November 04 2020 22:45 Zambrah wrote:
They care about policy insofar as they can digest it. Americans won’t read your in depth policy proposals, it has to be distilled in such a way that they can understand it. You don’t sell a car based on its unique shader technology, you sell games based on their flashy fun understandable aspects.
Precisely!
This is what I'm saying.
Pick a policy area where the public supports drastic reform that can simply stated and push that and only that. Then position themselves as the party of positive change.
|
On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway?
Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier
On November 04 2020 13:32 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:28 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 04 2020 13:24 Nevuk wrote:
To be fair, that's the electoral college. A system so bonkers that no other country has ever even considered it. Without it this would be a yawn inducing landslide. can anyone explain to me in simple terms what the actual benefit is of having the electoral college over popular vote? how is it even a democracy if the real popular vote doesnt get you the win? i cant be bothered to google through pages of shit to find an answer It has two purposes. + Show Spoiler +The first is that it allowed each state to have its own say in who would represent the federal power. When it was made, the US was more like the EU in how different the culture could be between States. Essentially it was a compromise to get more States to sign on to agree to limit their own power.
(We can go on about how part of it involved the 3/5 compromise, which gave slave states more power than they deserved, but that's really no longer relevant at all).
The second purpose, why there are individual electors and not just a rubber stamp for an individual running, is that it's supposed to be a safeguard against the "common people" electing a complete and total nitwit or nutjob as president.
So they say that electors having the discretion to vote against the results of their state is the point actually iirc
|
On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith.
How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here?
|
Northern Ireland27238 Posts
On November 04 2020 22:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:35 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:34 WombaT wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. Why can’t the primaries work like most other elections and be held on one day of voting? Momentum feeding into talk of electability seems massively exacerbated by quirks of the order of states, and rather distorts things when we factor in that some states aren’t even in play for a blue vote. A few statement victories benefitted Sanders in terms of that building of momentum as well. Can you imagine how much harder that would be when it comes to helping dictate which candidate you want to win? Nah, this process is exactly as intended by Democrats. They may not be outright cheaters imo, but they want to keep their ability to hold their boot on the scale. It's actually the opposite-if primaries were on one day, it would be a wet dream for the DNC from a crowning their own candidate perspective. Nobody gets anywhere near a majority, all the moderates guaranteed to wheel and deal amongst themselves. Phased primaries are the only reason the non-party choice ever wins. Without phased primaries, Sanders would have been a joke in 2016 and been even farther behind in 2020, and Clinton would have almost certainly won in 2008.
Yeah that very much is the other side of the coin as I alluded to.
Not sure how you find some compromise between that benefit of phased primaries and the time span giving space for tactical rearrangement against such a candidate.
|
On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier
Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway.
|
On November 04 2020 22:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other. Didn't Obama win primarily on the back of insane levels of support from the African American community? Obama did run a better campaign, but he had an advantage with a key demographic that nobody else will ever have; the chance to be the first black man in the white house.
Democrats have to find ways to drive that enthusiasm, Obama had a ton of it, especially from black voters, yes, but enthusiasm with a digestible forward thinking message is what we can learn from Obama’s win to try and carry onwards.
Declaring “LUL Americans are evil guess we should give up trying” is 100% the kind of thing I expect brunch Democrats to do going forward, but we should actually try to like, learn from the catastrophic failures were experiencing right now, not sweep them under the rug as, “eh, voters suck.”
Also I don’t admire Obama, it makes my skin feel slimy to think of him at this point, but he was the last real Democrat winner we had and I believe we can learn from the differences between his campaign and Hillary and Biden’s. They shat the bed, Obama didn’t. Trumps unique awfulness is about as good a mirror for Bush as were going to have for modern politics, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Obama’s path as easier than Hillary or Biden’s. It all just smacks of making excuses to not have to think critically about how Democrats can improve their campaigning and their candidate selection.
|
So it seems that Biden will win WI, and PA later today. That is if legal obstacles don't fall in their way.
|
On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway.
Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition)
|
On November 04 2020 22:52 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith. How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here?
It has been. Just not directly. We had the same argument over here in the UK in regards to wages for NHS staff.
Yes, the numbers went up if you looked at the "funding" by itself. Then you looked at the real world impact, and the numbers were down.
Let me ask you this: do you think the price of education stayed the same? Social services?
The very fact that private schools are included in your number - what does that number look like if you adjust for public schools only?
Again. Yes, the number for funding went up. No, you're nowhere near spending as much on pure education than in the 60s.
|
That's an incredibly slim margin... isn't Trump currently up by, like, 700K votes?
|
On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway.
Pennsylvania has a Republican legislature.
If Biden doesn't win NV+WI+MI+AZ+ME, this is a real concern.
|
On November 04 2020 22:53 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:47 iamthedave wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other. Didn't Obama win primarily on the back of insane levels of support from the African American community? Obama did run a better campaign, but he had an advantage with a key demographic that nobody else will ever have; the chance to be the first black man in the white house. Democrats have to find ways to drive that enthusiasm, Obama had a ton of it, especially from black voters, yes, but enthusiasm with a digestible forward thinking message is what we can learn from Obama’s win to try and carry onwards. Declaring “LUL Americans are evil guess we should give up trying” is 100% the kind of thing I expect brunch Democrats to do going forward, but we should actually try to like, learn from the catastrophic failures were experiencing right now, not sweep them under the rug as, “eh, voters suck.” Also I don’t admire Obama, it makes my skin feel slimy to think of him at this point, but he was the last real Democrat winner we had and I believe we can learn from the differences between his campaign and Hillary and Biden’s. They shat the bed, Obama didn’t. Trumps unique awfulness is about as good a mirror for Bush as were going to have for modern politics, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Obama’s path as easier than Hillary or Biden’s. It all just smacks of making excuses to not have to think critically about how Democrats can improve their campaigning and their candidate selection.
Obama campaigned on making changes.
Hilary didn't.
Biden campaigned on changing things back to how they were before Trump, basically.
The difference is clear.
The public want to feel like their president is going to make positive changes to the country. Trump gives his supporters that feeling, Biden doesn't and doesn't even try.
|
On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition)
Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol).
|
On November 04 2020 22:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's an incredibly slim margin... isn't Trump currently up by, like, 700K votes?
Basically also keep in mind people take sites like 538 like gospel. How they manage to get 800k out over a million is beyond me.
Also Biden is ahead in WI and the cities haven't been counted yet.
|
On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol).
That would be electoral fraud, no?
|
On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no?
So?
|
On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol).
I don't know or who would hold him accountable if there was?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
