2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[wgdsr]

we got one side fighting for the little people with all their might for the most noble of causes. in my opinion, that's pretty far from the truth. they are paid to win.

Both can be true, no?

It just so happens that the Dems are on the "right side" on this issue. This voter suppression stuff needs to stop. The left DOES attack the Dems for their shenanigans......did you talk to any Bernie supporters last election? They had enough of the gamed system that gave them Hillary. And what happened? The held the Dem party accountable-----and as a result, at least in part? Hillary lost.

I get your point as to the Dems motivations regarding voter suppression in TX and other States. You're not wrong about the Dem motivations.

But that doesn't mean that the Dems aren't on the right side....their motivations are irrelevant to the end result.

That said? Let's have this same conversation if the Dems return fire next election. If the Dems limit access to voting in rural America? You win, and get to claim that they both do it.

If they don't? You admit that well, the R's are pretty well in the wrong here. Deal?

so let's not compare, then. and let's see if you believe these are voter suppression and not-so-altruistic efforts while being paid to win:
filing fees for texas, of all places:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/19 ... -november/
i, for one, don't want anyone on the ballot that hasn't paid their filing fees yet, so will time an action for after write in candidates are allowed. you probably feel the same.

https://www.wisconsingreenparty.org/wer ... ource=wigp
if a black candidate is going to move apartments in south carolina, i'm going to want any signatures to get her on the ballot reflect that.

the aforementioned pa:
https://apnews.com/article/election-202 ... 804ce3a5f8
no one respects faxes anymore.

socialists in michigan have to get 30k to 60k signatures during stay-at-home orders in michigan, and maybe don't have the juice to write new pandemic rules that democrats do:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 215293001/

jeez, what do texas (congressional), wisco, pa and mich have in common?

hell, let's just put several more of them together with those, adding montana and cali (200k (that's 200,000) sigs on a deadline during stay-at-home orders:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... e-a24.html

that didn't take long. and what about kanye?
so in a vacuum: altruistic and for the people to get out and vote? what say you? on the box and drive in issue in texas, they can be paid to win and fight for the little people. agreed.

[MDlaxfan76]

So, wgdsr, can you just be clear that the aggregate of what we're seeing from the GOP in this cycle has not been 'equivalent' to anything since the end of Jim Crow?

Put aside the point for a moment that there's some hard ball politics played by both parties, you'd agree that this voter suppression has escalated dramatically since the SCOTUS decision and with the GOP especially?

Kanye? really?

but actually hard ball politics by both parties with little regard for voter rights was my point.

i've made more than a few posts here in opposition to limiting boxes, particularly on purpose for gain.

voter suppression has become a very popular phrase lately. or maybe it's because this is my first time on the politics threads and watching the political news channels. so not good at comparing levels. has someone done the research with numbers?

Sure, that was your point.

But put that aside for a moment, are you saying that what has been described on here quite extensively of the GOP legislatures making it harder for specific demographics of voters to vote is matched by anything the Dems are doing to make voting harder?

I haven't seen anything remotely akin from the Dems. Have you?
I can imagine things they could do if they wanted to do so (I described some as future possibilities to make clear the analogue), however they haven't (yet) gone there.

I don't think we need to quantify the impact to see the effort to do so. And that's been very one sided. Not close.

Your point is more likely to be discussed, civilly, if you just make clear that you aren't arguing actual equivalence.

That's what is flipping folks off. There's a tremendous amount of disgust, even anger, at the efforts to make voting harder and what that ends up meaning in election outcomes. And real policy.

I'm a lifelong Republican who is also disgusted by this. It doesn't represent my values.
From my reading of your posts over time, I doubt it reflects yours.

So, help those disgusted and angry folks by being clear that you agree that there isn't an equivalence and it's not close.
Easier for them to listen to other points, if you do.

Just as an example of how out of whack of 'democracy' is right now, let's understand that in the last 40 years the GOP has only won the popular vote once, and that will be the case again in 2020. That will be once in 8 elections. And yet, we have a 6-3 GOP nominated SCOTUS.

I really think this invites enormous backlash eventually.

i'm fairly sure i never used the term equivalence proactively. that's another pretty popular term around nowadays.

you wish to keep moving the goalposts on my intent and meaning, and have me make comparisons between the 2, and other eras. the latter i already copped to being unqualified to do.

i did bring up a couple of examples... as examples of what very easily could be construed as not very altruistic votes-for-everyone mentality. this cycle.

so whether you or others like it or not, my own opinion might differ from yours. might surprise you, but i'm all good with people holding republicans' or anyone else's feet to the fire. outrage on fanlax if that's your avenue. or democrats actually in the trenches in texas trying to beat back what they feel are unfair practices. the latter, that's their job and what the country needs.

what i commented on was the sense i got (for some time now, here and many other places that have a bullhorn) that we got one side fighting for the little people with all their might for the most noble of causes. in my opinion, that's pretty far from the truth. they are paid to win.

I read this as further equivocation.

If you are simply pointing out that Dems taking a holier than thou position is not appropriate, I'm fine with that.

But you're definitely equipped to make a judgment that the GOP has a widespread active effort to target suppression of voting access based on demographic projections. And there's nothing remotely equivalent from the Dems in this cycle or during any cycle for the past 40 years.. It's just not a hard call.

Where I'd disagree with you would be any notion "they are paid to win" is a sufficient justification for these actions, IF that's what you meant. But you may not have meant it that way.

"Politics ain't bean bag" but actually trying to make it difficult for a voter group to vote is beyond the pale.

This is the kind of stuff we should all be able to agree on as Americans.

[Cooter]

This guy at Sky news thinks Trump will pull it out:

https://youtu.be/qmKGVyiiBCY

[MDlaxfan76]

This guy at Sky news thinks Trump will pull it out:

https://youtu.be/qmKGVyiiBCY

Seriously?
You watch this guy?

[ggait]

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:16 am
The same way every other POTUS cashes in...book deals, speeches, some sort of trump political organization that raises money.

Trump's post White House life is going to be VERY different than any other post-President. Just like his presidency.

He's generally unpopular and fairly toxic to many demographics. So he's not going to get a fat book deal from a name brand publisher (like Obama got). He's not going to be able to cha-ching on the establishment speaking circuit. Main stream corporations are not going to pay for a Trump speech like they did for Bill/Hill speeches. Simon Schuster and Goldman Sachs won't touch him.

But right wing nut MAGA outlets will be clamoring for him -- at least for a while. Maybe he'll keep doing rally tours -- but this time the MAGAs will have to pay to get in. And he'll definitely figure out a way to monetize all that personal info he's gathered over the past five years from the MAGAs.

No doubt that Trump's future life will be tackier, sleazier and more lucrative than any prior ex-president. Maybe a commercial Trump-land theme park instead of a presidential library/museum? I'd guess no more Trump Towers -- in the USA. But probably several going up in sketchy foreign countries. Plenty of Trump branded stuff--maybe a re-boot on Trump steaks? I don't think you can rule anything out. Think Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly on steroids.

And who knows how his lawsuit exposure is going to work out.

[seacoaster]

Thought this might interest a few folks:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IIHWfA ... YQyY-R0oRY

[njbill]

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:16 am
The same way every other POTUS cashes in...book deals, speeches, some sort of trump political organization that raises money.

Trump's post White House life is going to be VERY different than any other post-President. Just like his presidency.

He's generally unpopular and fairly toxic to many demographics. So he's not going to get a fat book deal from a name brand publisher (like Obama got). He's not going to be able to cha-ching on the establishment speaking circuit. Main stream corporations are not going to pay for a Trump speech like they did for Bill/Hill speeches. Simon Schuster and Goldman Sachs won't touch him.

But right wing nut MAGA outlets will be clamoring for him -- at least for a while. Maybe he'll keep doing rally tours -- but this time the MAGAs will have to pay to get in. And he'll definitely figure out a way to monetize all that personal info he's gathered over the past five years from the MAGAs.

No doubt that Trump's future life will be tackier, sleazier and more lucrative than any prior ex-president. Maybe a commercial Trump-land theme park instead of a presidential library/museum? I'd guess no more Trump Towers -- in the USA. But probably several going up in sketchy foreign countries. Plenty of Trump branded stuff--maybe a re-boot on Trump steaks? I don't think you can rule anything out. Think Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly on steroids.

And who knows how his lawsuit exposure is going to work out.

Think Pete Rose, including some time in the clink.

[jhu72]

Thought this might interest a few folks:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IIHWfA ... YQyY-R0oRY

Yup, "real" republican lawyers know republiCON lawyers are full of sh!t.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thought this might interest a few folks:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IIHWfA ... YQyY-R0oRY

A very cogent explanation of this particular effort at voter suppression from the point of view of two very Republican experts, and why it should be rejected by the federal court.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This guy at Sky news thinks Trump will pull it out:

https://youtu.be/qmKGVyiiBCY

Seriously?
You watch this guy?

“This guy”.....that about sums it up.

[CU88]

What are the odds that IMPOTUS o d tries to run again in 2024?

[Typical Lax Dad]

What are the odds that IMPOTUS o d tries to run again in 2024?

Win or lose it wouldn’t surprise me to see him try to figure out a way to run again. The American Democracy is just about over.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... d-athletes

[6ftstick]

Two weeks ago Nate silver said—Biden doesn't need Pennsylvania.

Today—Without PA Biden an underdog.

[kramerica.inc]

What are the odds that IMPOTUS o d tries to run again in 2024?

Senator Trump perhaps?

[kramerica.inc]

Two weeks ago Nate silver said—Biden doesn't need Pennsylvania.

Today—Without PA Biden an underdog.

And lots of hedging in this recent post too:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im ... still-win/

[seacoaster]

Two weeks ago Nate silver said—Biden doesn't need Pennsylvania.

Today—Without PA Biden an underdog.

And lots of hedging in this recent post too:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im ... still-win/

I don’t think this has changed materially over the last month. It is as ggait said, Trump has a glass jaw, but Joe needs to land a punch.

[Kismet]

Two weeks ago Nate silver said—Biden doesn't need Pennsylvania.

Today—Without PA Biden an underdog.

And lots of hedging in this recent post too:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im ... still-win/

These guys, like the rest of the online (and cable) media, want you to click in or watch - in might just be in their interest to predict something closer for this reason. Like last time, they can always apologize or explain after the fact whatever outcome occurs that differs from their predictions.

I'm with Yogi - "It gets late early out there."

[kramerica.inc]

Two weeks ago Nate silver said—Biden doesn't need Pennsylvania.

Today—Without PA Biden an underdog.

And lots of hedging in this recent post too:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im ... still-win/

I don’t think this has changed materially over the last month. It is as ggait said, Trump has a glass jaw, but Joe needs to land a punch.

I dont think it has either. But there's a lot of emphasizing, that it's not a BIG lock.

[ardilla secreta]

This guy at Sky news thinks Trump will pull it out:

https://youtu.be/qmKGVyiiBCY

Seriously?
You watch this guy?

A guy at the Waffle House says Trump will win. Continue to unite the country. Book it.