-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Biden was selected for an obvious tactical reason.
But selected by whom?
His party. That is how politics works.
The GOP fell in line behind Trump once they realised the offerings they had in schmucks like Ted Cruz were A. vanilla morons but B. not near as useful as Trump's "I'm not a politician drain the swamp build a wall" rhetoric.
It has changed US politics in a lot of ways, so if the Democrats get up this time, it will be interesting to see if that change stays or is mutated in some way.
Not really. In theory it should be the voters (shouldn't it). As it was with Trump. Yet all the other contenders just happened to step down at the end. Joe was fading and then he suddenly came back. maybe I'm wrong but it seemed like a fix to me with pressure from the aprty rather than letting the voters find the winner (like maybe last time too)
And Hillary is being slagged off now but only because she lost. My view she was a far and away better candidate than Joe
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court.Different from Russia gate?
Do you agree, that like the Russia collusion investigation, it would be reasonable to get this resolved through official processes.
Nothing to fear from an investigation?I just think it's fair to investigate on the same grounds as last time. And like last time, do the investigation and then everyone gets on with things.
An important principle here is what's acceptable for one side is also acceptable for the other.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
Not really. In theory it should be the voters (shouldn't it).
Why? Voters elect delegates who determine the leaders. That's how it works in most western democracies.
Does the popular vote determine the Presidency?
As it was with Trump. Yet all the other contenders just happened to step down at the end. Joe was fading and then he suddenly came back. maybe I'm wrong but it seemed like a fix to me with pressure from the aprty rather than letting the voters find the winner (like maybe last time too)
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The primaries are a mini election to determine the candidate - using delegates elected by the people - and Biden won the Dem 2020 primary (as well as the popular vote) in a landslide. Whether you think it is a fix or not, the people have spoken.
By your logic, Trump suddenly being the guy in 2016 for GOP is also highly suspect.
And Hillary is being slagged off now but only because she lost. My view she was a far and away better candidate than Joe
Probably, in purely political terms.
-
These are some of the claims being made that I have seen. They should be easy enough to check and investigate. Just a shame that the mainstream media can't be relied on to do it fairly
Georgia, where President Trump received 2,432,799 votes and the Republican Senator running with him received 2,433,617, a difference of 818 votes, as is expected—though for socialist leader Biden, and for the first time in American election history, this didn’t happen for reasons left unexplained—best exampled in Georgia, where Biden received 2,414,651 votes, but the Democrat Senator running with him only received 2,318,850, a difference of 95,801 votes—and in Michigan, where Biden received 2,787,544 votes, but the Democrat Senator running with him only received 2,718,451, a difference of 69,093 votes
Dead people
Votes on a flash drive
A weird claim that is unlikely to be correct
Non residents voting
The Harry Reid machine recklessly threw ballots into the mail, and now we cannot check whether or not there are non-residents, which we have evidence, publicly-available evidence that you all in the media should also be looking at. It’s publicly-available information that non-residents have voted. There is a 30-day residency requirement in the State of Nevada. If you haven’t been in the state for 30 days, it is illegal to vote. Reporters have a responsibility. The fact is, we are filing this federal lawsuit to protect legal voters.
It is unacceptable in this country to have illegal votes counted, and that is what’s happening in the State of Nevada. We have asked Clark County for answers. They have no answers. They continue to count illegal votes. T
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
We have officials from both sides saying that they are following the rules and observers are allowed yet 'anecdotal' stuff saying that observers are being turned away.
There is no knowing who these so called observers being turned away are. Are they extras? Party members hearing that there are no observers so volunteering themselves and being turned away because the 'real' ones are in place?
Another case of facts being ignored because the conspiracy theory is what they want to hear.
I'm pretty sure that if official observers were being turned away and not allowed to do their job there would be clear evidence of such. Haven't seen any yet.
Agreed. Even if there was some evidence of this happening, (and if its proven it should absolutely be dealt with) I just can't see how the scale can be there to become anything meaningful. Other than GA, he just seems too far behind
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
These are some of the claims being made that I have seen. They should be easy enough to check and investigate. Just a shame that the mainstream media can't be relied on to do it fairly
Georgia, where President Trump received 2,432,799 votes and the Republican Senator running with him received 2,433,617, a difference of 818 votes, as is expected—though for socialist leader Biden, and for the first time in American election history, this didn’t happen for reasons left unexplained—best exampled in Georgia, where Biden received 2,414,651 votes, but the Democrat Senator running with him only received 2,318,850, a difference of 95,801 votes—and in Michigan, where Biden received 2,787,544 votes, but the Democrat Senator running with him only received 2,718,451, a difference of 69,093 votes
Dead people
Votes on a flash drive
A weird claim that is unlikely to be correct
Non residents voting
The Harry Reid machine recklessly threw ballots into the mail, and now we cannot check whether or not there are non-residents, which we have evidence, publicly-available evidence that you all in the media should also be looking at. It’s publicly-available information that non-residents have voted. There is a 30-day residency requirement in the State of Nevada. If you haven’t been in the state for 30 days, it is illegal to vote. Reporters have a responsibility. The fact is, we are filing this federal lawsuit to protect legal voters.
It is unacceptable in this country to have illegal votes counted, and that is what’s happening in the State of Nevada. We have asked Clark County for answers. They have no answers. They continue to count illegal votes. T
Brilliant stuff mate, some of your finest work.
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court.Different from Russia gate?
Do you agree, that like the Russia collusion investigation, it would be reasonable to get this resolved through official processes.
Nothing to fear from an investigation?I just think it's fair to investigate on the same grounds as last time. And like last time, do the investigation and then everyone gets on with things.
An important principle here is what's acceptable for one side is also acceptable for the other.
I have stated before that there are two different aspects and cases involving Russia and the last election. They should not be treated as one.
Russia DID try and influence the election. There was clear evidence that pointed in that direction that was investigated to find out more before any available court remedies were pursued. Cyber security monitoring companies compiled a lot of evidence on traffic and handed it over. There was a smoking gun not just a suspicion.
Then there is the separate (but partly related) aspect of whether there was any collusion by republicans/Trump campaign officials and family with Russia that was illegal. This was not unfounded either as the investigations uncovered many lies about contacts with Russia that raised warranted suspicion. The evidence was clear that contact happened (and was lied about) but not conclusive enough to meet a high threshold of taking it to court.
So all of that worked exactly along the lines I was explaining about the 'observer' questions. First there should be evidential grounds to investigate, then a proof threshold before prosecutions/court.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court.Different from Russia gate?
Do you agree, that like the Russia collusion investigation, it would be reasonable to get this resolved through official processes.
Nothing to fear from an investigation?I just think it's fair to investigate on the same grounds as last time. And like last time, do the investigation and then everyone gets on with things.
An important principle here is what's acceptable for one side is also acceptable for the other.
I have stated before that there are two different aspects and cases involving Russia and the last election. They should not be treated as one.
Russia DID try and influence the election. There was clear evidence that pointed in that direction that was investigated to find out more before any available court remedies were pursued. Cyber security monitoring companies compiled a lot of evidence on traffic and handed it over. There was a smoking gun not just a suspicion.
Then there is the separate (but partly related) aspect of whether there was any collusion by republicans/Trump campaign officials and family with Russia that was illegal. This was not unfounded either as the investigations uncovered many lies about contacts with Russia that raised warranted suspicion. The evidence was clear that contact happened (and was lied about) but not conclusive enough to meet a high threshold of taking it to court.
So all of that worked exactly along the lines I was explaining about the 'observer' questions. First there should be evidential grounds to investigate, then a proof threshold before prosecutions/court.
Honestly I'm bored now with all this Russia Russia Russia nonsense (unless it relates to this election). Can we please focus on this election
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Has anyone got on top of these claims about observers yet?
And we won't until it goes to a higher court. That's the frustrating thing. The media are no longer trustworthy and competent so no hope to find the truth here.
You need some kind of basis to take things as far as a court. Can you point to ANY evidence that this is happening? Surely the right wing media would be out there with cameras and reporters recording attempts by (real) observers to do their jobs if they were being rejected.
There is nothing, nada. It's a theory based on unsubstantiated anecdotes, not something to argue in court.Different from Russia gate?
Do you agree, that like the Russia collusion investigation, it would be reasonable to get this resolved through official processes.
Nothing to fear from an investigation?I just think it's fair to investigate on the same grounds as last time. And like last time, do the investigation and then everyone gets on with things.
An important principle here is what's acceptable for one side is also acceptable for the other.
I have stated before that there are two different aspects and cases involving Russia and the last election. They should not be treated as one.
Russia DID try and influence the election. There was clear evidence that pointed in that direction that was investigated to find out more before any available court remedies were pursued. Cyber security monitoring companies compiled a lot of evidence on traffic and handed it over. There was a smoking gun not just a suspicion.
Then there is the separate (but partly related) aspect of whether there was any collusion by republicans/Trump campaign officials and family with Russia that was illegal. This was not unfounded either as the investigations uncovered many lies about contacts with Russia that raised warranted suspicion. The evidence was clear that contact happened (and was lied about) but not conclusive enough to meet a high threshold of taking it to court.
So all of that worked exactly along the lines I was explaining about the 'observer' questions. First there should be evidential grounds to investigate, then a proof threshold before prosecutions/court.
Honestly I'm bored now with all this Russia Russia Russia nonsense.
Tends to happen when reality doesn't meet expectation.
As for the Georgia example, you do realise that the management of the election there is being run by Republicans? It isn't unusual for people, especially swing voters to spread their vote especially if they actually think their Senator is doing a good job. Many voters also believe in the concept of the three branches of government balancing out extremes so vote accordingly.
But still, everything you state is suspicions, not evidence.
By the way no one is stating that there won't be some irregularities somewhere. It even happens in NZ. Independent studies though have shown that if you take all possibilities together (and not just cherrypick the ones you don't like) there is no material effect.
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial ummm, so would you mind if there was an investigation of electoral fraud through official processes?
No, not if there was some evidence that made an investigation rather than the investigation being solely a fishing expedition.
Has to be something other than suspicions to kick things off
-
Oh, one last thing.
When counts are very close it is standard to do a recount just to double check some of the possible irregularities that may have slipped through.Georgia is very likely to have a recount by standard process. No toy throwing or courts required.
-
@Crucial Wait a minute, everything is a suscpician in every court case for anything - until it is presented as evidence in a court of law.
Suscipion of theft, assault, rape, arson, etc
By your standard there needn't be anything taken to court ever
Why such reticence to follow through on a tenet of democracy - "entitled to your day in court"?
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
Honestly I'm bored now with all this Russia Russia Russia nonsense (unless it relates to this election). Can we please focus on this election
I'm trying to keep up weren't we talking about the primaries a second ago? Can we please focus on this election?
-
Favourite moment so far..
Judge to trumps lawyers when they made a claim about observers being present.
‘How many republican observers were present in the room?Trump lawyer
‘There is a non zero number of people in the room’
Non zero = new alternate facts
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
Dead people
This is actually quite funny. Yes they should update the rolls, but the concept of everybody that receives a ballot that isn't theirs and then using it to vote...really?
Surely it's also really easy to check and correct. They know who the dead people are - see if they voted FFS, check the graves see if they escaped the reaper.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
Dead people
This is actually quite funny. Yes they should update the rolls, but the concept of everybody that receives a ballot that isn't theirs and then using it to vote...really?
Surely it's also really easy to check and correct. They know who the dead people are - see if they voted FFS, check the graves see if they escaped the reaper.
Lots of rechecking/recounting coming in a few states?
US Politics