The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Ratt Mhule]

14 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I said the "campaign."  If a candidate goes off the rails you cannot ask for your ballot back.  (yet, they would demand a clawback option if it ever hurt a D).  I got political spam call urging me to "vote early"  next time I'm going to say and often?

 

 

 

Did Biden denounce the rioters chasing and attacking KR?

Yes, he did indeed

[Danny Bateman]

8 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

She's talking about threatening people in restaurants and department stores.  That's not protesting that's harassment.  Fox runs montages of Ds saying it every night.  You thought mobs acting dangerously was fine and dandy as long as it was politically useful.  Now you know it is not.  And you may soon find out the rioters aren't necessarily in the loop either.  I'm not sure the powers that be can make the Portland burners to stand down for Biden. 

 

Oh spare me your fake outrage. Where were you when Trump gassed protestors and beat them out of the way for a photo op?

 

Telling people stuff they don't want to hear, even yelling it at them, is a form of protest. You can call it harassment if you want - I'm sure it's not fun to be on the receiving end of - but it's explicitly protected free speech in the 1A. Depending on how you do it, does it make you an asshat? Maybe. But it's still protected protest. Public figures SHOULD be scrutinized by, well, the public or they should find a different line of work.

 

Also, I said violence is wrong. Biden said violence is wrong. Trump ducked the question. You did not give your thoughts on his ducking the question.

 

Find me where I said mobs are fine and dandy and politically useful.

 

Of course the rioters are not on Team Biden. I've been quite explicit in pointing that out. But that's kind of the new game for Trump, right? Lying to people about how Biden supports them and they love him and he's secretly funding them with Soros bucks from the basement?

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

She's talking about threatening people in restaurants and department stores.  That's not protesting that's harassment.  Fox runs montages of Ds saying it every night.  You thought mobs acting dangerously was fine and dandy as long as it was politically useful.  Now you know it is not.  And you may soon find out the rioters aren't necessarily in the loop either.  I'm not sure the powers that be can make the Portland burners to stand down for Biden. 

 

Every single elected Democrat, lamestream media pundit, and Facebook Karen has made the distinction between peaceful daytime protestor and night-time looters and provocateurs.  Of course the rioters are not in the loop. Have you ever talked to Northwest anarchist? Their affinity for Biden and Pelosi is roughly zero. The looters are actually a different group than the rioters who are a different group than the protestors, and somewhere in there are the rightwing vigilantes that have gleefully joined in to stoke the race war that has always given them a boner. 

 

It's amazing how much space we're giving to a single block in a single city that's still going about its normal business every day. 

 

 

[DevoHusker]

5 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Oh spare me your fake outrage. Where were you when Trump gassed protestors and beat them out of the way for a photo op?

 

Telling people stuff they don't want to hear, even yelling it at them, is a form of protest. You can call it harassment if you want - I'm sure it's not fun to be on the receiving end of - but it's explicitly protected free speech in the 1A. Depending on how you do it, does it make you an asshat? Maybe. But it's still protected protest. Public figures SHOULD be scrutinized by, well, the public or they should find a different line of work.

 

Also, I said violence is wrong. Biden said violence is wrong. Trump ducked the question. You did not give your thoughts on his ducking the question.

 

Find me where I said mobs are fine and dandy and politically useful.

 

Of course the rioters are not on Team Biden. I've been quite explicit in pointing that out. But that's kind of the new game for Trump, right? Lying to people about how Biden supports them and they love him and he's secretly funding them with Soros bucks from the basement?

 

 

 

The confrontations that include yelling and screaming, name calling and insults against people that are trying to eat dinner in a restaurant

is not "protesting" and is not protected free speech. It is disturbing the peace, and is punishable by arrest or at least a summons. 

[Danny Bateman]

5 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

The confrontations that include yelling and screaming, name calling and insults against people that are trying to eat dinner in a restaurant is not "protesting" and is not protected free speech. It is disturbing the peace, and is punishable by arrest or at least a summons. 

 

Hence the "might make you a jerk" bit?

 

Most of these confrontations result in one party or the other ultimately leaving or being booted from the restaurant, not hauled off in cuffs.

[DevoHusker]

21 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Hence the "might make you a jerk" bit?

 

Most of these confrontations result in one party or the other ultimately leaving or being booted from the restaurant, not hauled off in cuffs.

 

"might be a jerk" and also in cuffs or issued a ticket...because, as I stated, it is not free speech in that setting. 

[Danny Bateman]

6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

"might be a jerk" and also in cuffs or issued a ticket...because, as I stated, it is not free speech in that setting. 

 

I have a different idea of acceptable free speech than you do. Mine is very liberal. You may be technically correct if shouting is actually occurring inside a restaurant and they persist despite being asked to leave. That doesn't often happen.

 

However, I have a very hard time getting worked up about, say, Sean Spicer or Kirstjen Nielsen getting publicly castigated while out to dinner. Or Rand Paul as he walks from Trump's speech to his hotel.

 

Nielsen spearheaded human rights abuses at the border. Spicer lied to the public every day and got paid for it. Rand Paul is just an asshat.

 

They're so severely deficient in facing public accountability despite being s#!tty public servants that I just can't get up in arms about it. It's like asking me to denounce everyone who's ever jaywalked.

[commando]

has trump denounced the caravan of armed fanatics driving from 1 city to another to drive through crowds of people?

[DevoHusker]

7 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I have a different idea of acceptable free speech than you do. Mine is very liberal. You may be technically correct if shouting is actually occurring inside a restaurant and they persist despite being asked to leave. That doesn't often happen.

 

However, I have a very hard time getting worked up about, say, Sean Spicer or Kirstjen Nielsen getting publicly castigated while out to dinner. Or Rand Paul as he walks from Trump's speech to his hotel.

 

Nielsen spearheaded human rights abuses at the border. Spicer lied to the public every day and got paid for it. Rand Paul is just an asshat.

 

They're so severely deficient in facing public accountability despite being s#!tty public servants that I just can't get up in arms about it. It's like asking me to denounce everyone who's ever jaywalked.

 

I can appreciate that stance. As long as the bold above is understood. I also agree that your examples hold water, but I still don't agree with the tactics. 

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, commando said:

has trump denounced the caravan of armed fanatics driving from 1 city to another to drive through crowds of people?

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

I can appreciate that stance. As long as the bold above is understood. I also agree that your examples hold water, but I still don't agree with the tactics. 

 

And that's fair. My view on this may be a bit more liberal than a lot of folks. Any peaceful speech short of threats should be free and we as a people should judge the speaker(s) accordingly.

 

For instance, this group of chuckleheads. Do I think this should be protected speech allowed in public? Yes. Do I agree with their tactics? No, and they're not winning anyone over this way. Just pure angry idiocy.

But I do prefer our 1A rights to the European model which is much more stringent.

 

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

11 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Oh spare me your fake outrage. Where were you when Trump gassed protestors and beat them out of the way for a photo op?

 

Telling people stuff they don't want to hear, even yelling it at them, is a form of protest. You can call it harassment if you want - I'm sure it's not fun to be on the receiving end of - but it's explicitly protected free speech in the 1A. Depending on how you do it, does it make you an asshat? Maybe. But it's still protected protest. Public figures SHOULD be scrutinized by, well, the public or they should find a different line of work.

 

Also, I said violence is wrong. Biden said violence is wrong. Trump ducked the question. You did not give your thoughts on his ducking the question.

 

Find me where I said mobs are fine and dandy and politically useful.

 

Of course the rioters are not on Team Biden. I've been quite explicit in pointing that out. But that's kind of the new game for Trump, right? Lying to people about how Biden supports them and they love him and he's secretly funding them with Soros bucks from the basement?

 

 

 

yeah this is all wrong.  Trump condemned the violence from the moment the Floyd protests turned violent and has always condemned the violence.   Ds held mum or gave thinly veiled hints that the protests were politically convenient.  The riots weren't mentioned in the DNC Zoom Convention but stoked with the usual "THEM" rhetoric. 

 

If/when right wing groups join the fight and get violent they will be condemned, but I will be the first to remind you that this was totally predictable.  When left wing mobs try to impose their will by force and the civil government goes into the fetal position, what do you think right wing groups are going to do?

[knapplc]

So, is it safe to say the people here parroting this "Biden's mental health" nonsense are susceptible to Russian propaganda?

 

Kinda seems that way.

 

Also, look! Another crime by the Trump administration. Whee!

 

 

[TGHusker]

Is there any wonder why Trump wants to disrupt mail in ballots?  Not after reading this.  I've added the emphasis on 'apparent' in the title.    At the end of the day on Nov 3rd it may look like Trump had won the election.  HOWEVER, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.  By the time mail in ballots are counted, there could be a landslide for Biden.  

I can only image the havoc and chaos and legal challenges Trump will take to block the tally of the final vote.  He will stir up his alt right friends and there could be massive demonstrations in the streets.  He has been setting this up for weeks now - statements about a rigged, fixed, unfair election, statements about the false issue of voter fraud via mail in ballots, de-funding certain postal operations and removing postal boxes and sorters, etc. 

Exclusive: Dem group warns of apparent Trump Election Day landslide

https://www.axios.com/bloomberg-group-trump-election-night-scenarios-a554e8f5-9702-437e-ae75-d2be478d42bb.html

 

Quote

 

A top Democratic data and analytics firm told "Axios on HBO" it's highly likely that President Trump will appear to have won — potentially in a landslide — on election night, even if he ultimately loses when all the votes are counted. 

Why this matters: Way more Democrats will vote by mail than Republicans, due to fears of the coronavirus, and it will take days if not weeks to tally these. This means Trump, thanks to Republicans doing almost all of their voting in person, could hold big electoral college and popular vote leads on election night.

• Imagine America, with its polarization and misinformation, if the vote tally swings wildly toward Joe Biden and Trump loses days later as the mail ballots are counted.
• That is what this group, Hawkfish, which is funded by Michael Bloomberg and also does work for the Democratic National Committee and pro-Biden Super PACs, is warning is a very real, if not foreordained, outcome.

What they're saying: Hawkfish CEO Josh Mendelsohn calls the scenario a "red mirage."

• "We are sounding an alarm and saying that this is a very real possibility, that the data is going to show on election night an incredible victory for Donald Trump," he said.
• "When every legitimate vote is tallied and we get to that final day, which will be some day after Election Day, it will in fact show that what happened on election night was exactly that, a mirage," Mendelsohn said. "It looked like Donald Trump was in the lead and he fundamentally was not when every ballot gets counted."

 

•  

Quote

 

By the numbers: Under one of the group's modeling scenarios, Trump could hold a projected lead of 408-130 electoral votes on election night, if only 15% of the vote by mail (VBM) ballots had been counted.

• Once 75% of mail ballots were counted, perhaps four days later, the lead could flip to Biden's favor.
• This particular modeling scenario portrays Biden as ultimately winning a massive victory, 334-204.
• The methodology, described in detail below, was based in part on polling from FiveThirtyEight in August.
• The ultimate results may well sit somewhere between these low-end and high-end scenarios and will also be impacted by who actually votes, and how voters' views about their options change over the coming weeks.

The other side: “The news media should get out of the business of predicting the future,” Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh said in response.

Between the lines: Hawkfish is not just trying to educate the public about the possibility that Trump could prematurely declare victory, or try to delegitimize a Biden victory if it took days or weeks to determine.

• The group is also trying to sensitize state and county elections officials, news and social media organizations, and the courts to the perils of premature results — and to the possibility of Trump and his team applying challenges and political pressure to reject a high share of mailed-in ballots counted after election day.
• And the group is warning voters that rejection rates for mail ballots are higher than in-person voting.
• To avoid having their votes thrown out, Hawkfish is advising voters to be extra careful about voting early enough and following all the instructions to the letter — or, potentially, putting on masks and gloves and going early either to safely vote in person or return the mail ballot in person.

Methodology: Hawkfish surveyed 17,263 registered voters in 50 states and DC, July 1-Aug. 16, 2020, to assess who people planned to vote for and whether they intend to vote by mail or in person at a polling place.

• Responses were filtered for those described as definitely voting or likely to vote and weighted for state and national registered voter demographics.
• The scenarios assumed votes at polls would be counted on election day itself (Nov. 3). A scenario taking a week to count mail ballots would translate to approximately 15% per day on average.
• In another scenario, mail ballot counts took four days at 25% per day. For states that have had high vote-by-mail participation rates, Hawkfish assumed they would take two days.

 

•  

[BigRedBuster]

22 hours ago, Undone said:

 

Totally agree, and as a Libertarian I have a really strong antennae for this kind of central overreach. But at the same time I strongly believe in non-aggression; so when a random group of angry people (who apparently now covertly even bring guns to the riots) show up to enact wanton, indiscriminate destruction to property & lives and local police don't show up quickly & swiftly to deter it, something is wrong.

 

There's probably a wide array of opinion on this forum about whether or not local police in these areas are or aren't doing enough, or are/aren't showing up quickly enough to deter it. That's probably a discussion to be had in one of the other threads in this sub, I realize.

It's a very very thin line to try to walk.  The problem is, as has been seen many times recently, the police are what the demonstrators are protesting about.  So, the police come in and strong arm them.....that angers them more and causes the protesters and rioters to get worse.

 

We have seen many times in the last few months police going WAY over board to the point of, what should be, illegal when confronting these protesters.  The police get emotional in the heat of the moment and take it out (inappropriately) on various protesters when they have a chance.