President Trump addresses the election fraud, takes questions from 'reporters'.

[Circe]

And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".

It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.

 

[the other mike]

 

[Pogo]

And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".

It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.

Whelp --- you just posted that "narrow" elections are bad for democracy, and I showed how that doesn't apply.

 

[basquebromance]

He’s so incompetent that he cannot even succeed at being a loser

 

[the other mike]

 

[Circe]

And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".

It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.

Whelp --- you just posted that "narrow" elections are bad for democracy, and I showed how that doesn't apply.

I don't know what you mean by 4+ point vote margin. If the 6.3 million is the current total of the popular vote on Biden's side (including all the California illegals with Motor Voter), that IS irrelevant, since counting the popular vote nationwide is not how we score elections.
The way we actually do score elections yielded so narrow a "victory" that many don't believe it. I've read this isn't good for democracy; I know that it has happened before, however, and we're still here, one fraught nation. Still, I agree with the point of what I read, which was that democracy was meant to register something like a comfortable majority. That hasn't happened lately, and I agree it's no good, though what to do about it I can't imagine.

 

[Pogo]

And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".

It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.

Whelp --- you just posted that "narrow" elections are bad for democracy, and I showed how that doesn't apply.

I don't know what you mean by 4+ point vote margin. If the 6.3 million is the current total of the popular vote on Biden's side (including all the California illegals with Motor Voter), that IS irrelevant, since counting the popular vote nationwide is not how we score elections.
The way we actually do score elections yielded so narrow a "victory" that many don't believe it. I've read this isn't good for democracy; I know that it has happened before, however, and we're still here, one fraught nation. Still, I agree with the point of what I read, which was that democracy was meant to register something like a comfortable majority. That hasn't happened lately, and I agree it's no good, though what to do about it I can't imagine.

Again, it's relevant because you described the election as a "narrow narrow margin". Neither 6.3 million popular votes nor a 306-232 Electoral vote can really be called "narrow". The reference to "4+ point margin" is the difference expressed as a percentage between the two popular vote totals. The same percentage could be calculated for the EV but it would be meaningless because of the way it's done.

As for getting past narrow margins, that's the fault of running with a Duopoly and an EC system that keeps it entrenched. As long as we're forcibly limited to two party (singular intentional), neither side of that Duopoly has any incentive to trot out a worthy candidate, because they know their only competition is the other side of the same Duopoly.

 

[Circe]

Again, it's relevant because you described the election as a "narrow narrow margin". Neither 6.3 million popular votes nor a 306-232 Electoral vote can really be called "narrow". The reference to "4+ point margin" is the difference expressed as a percentage between the two popular vote totals. The same percentage could be calculated for the EV but it would be meaningless because of the way it's done.

As for getting past narrow margins, that's the fault of running with a Duopoly and an EC system that keeps it entrenched. As long as we're forcibly limited to two party (singular intentional), neither side of that Duopoly has any incentive to trot out a worthy candidate, because they know their only competition is the other side of the same Duopoly.

I see that the reason you don't think the popular vote is irrelevant is that you want to delete the Electoral College. Maybe that will happen, and the less populated states will all secede, which is what I would assume (and we'd move to that new country, assuming that Maryland would stay on the Dark Side). But in the meantime, the excess popular vote from California and New York, with their overpopulation of illegals and new immigrants, simply doesn't matter.

I am not au fait with this term Duopoly -- is that the idea that the GOP and Dems are really all the same? Is this a longing for socialism or communism? Or (I could get into this) Libertarianism?

I've not thought the same as you about the lack of incentive to trot out worthy candidates: Trump swept the party with a new broom, filling the dustpan with shrieking never-Trumpers like George F. Will and Bill Kristol. A tidal wave isn't the same as a plot. And as for poor Biden, I have and do assume he was simply a sacrificial lamb, like Romney The Mormon was --- someone no one expected to win (what, deny re-election to The First Black President?? That would be, dare I say it, racist, right?) so they saved their big guns for luckier times, their on-coming talent, which are being run out fast now --- Cruz and Graham on the GOP side, I notice. No one expected Biden to win, and he didn't campaign, but then came COVID, and Trump went from being a sure shoo-in to aaaaaaacccccck, what just happened there?

 

[Pogo]

Again, it's relevant because you described the election as a "narrow narrow margin". Neither 6.3 million popular votes nor a 306-232 Electoral vote can really be called "narrow". The reference to "4+ point margin" is the difference expressed as a percentage between the two popular vote totals. The same percentage could be calculated for the EV but it would be meaningless because of the way it's done.

As for getting past narrow margins, that's the fault of running with a Duopoly and an EC system that keeps it entrenched. As long as we're forcibly limited to two party (singular intentional), neither side of that Duopoly has any incentive to trot out a worthy candidate, because they know their only competition is the other side of the same Duopoly.

I see that the reason you don't think the popular vote is irrelevant is that you want to delete the Electoral College. Maybe that will happen, and the less populated states will all secede, which is what I would assume (and we'd move to that new country, assuming that Maryland would stay on the Dark Side). But in the meantime, the excess popular vote from California and New York, with their overpopulation of illegals and new immigrants, simply doesn't matter.

Whether I like or dislike the EC doesn't affect the point that a 6.3 million margin simply is not "narrow". "Narrow" compared to what? Minus 2.9 million?

Fabricated fantasies of "illegals" are dismissed out of hand as regards voting, unless you have actual evidence, which would be the first. Having said that, California and New York --- or any other state(s) anyone would like to cherrypick --- remain part of the country and as such, they all count. Lots of wags around here like to wax all pipe-and-slippers about "if you take out California..." --- well, you can't do that.

I am not au fait with this term Duopoly -- is that the idea that the GOP and Dems are really all the same? Is this a longing for socialism or communism? Or (I could get into this) Libertarianism?

The former basically. Technically meaning a monopoly of two but in practice I like to describe them as a single party that dresses up alternately in red or blue uniforms and we're all supposed to think they're 'different' from each other, but the sad fact remains, as long as everything electoral is controlled by that Duopoly, said Duopoly has no challengers, because it will not allow any.

I've not thought the same as you about the lack of incentive to trot out worthy candidates: Trump swept the party with a new broom, filling the dustpan with shrieking never-Trumpers like George F. Will and Bill Kristol. A tidal wave isn't the same as a plot. And as for poor Biden, I have and do assume he was simply a sacrificial lamb, like Romney The Mormon was --- someone no one expected to win (what, deny re-election to The First Black President?? That would be, dare I say it, racist, right?) so they saved their big guns for luckier times, their on-coming talent, which are being run out fast now --- Cruz and Graham on the GOP side, I notice. No one expected Biden to win, and he didn't campaign, but then came COVID, and Trump went from being a sure shoo-in to aaaaaaacccccck, what just happened there?

I think everyone expected Biden to win, or we could say, expected Rump to lose to whoever the alternative turned out to be. The polling and Rump's consistently high disapproval numbers ensured that. Those disapproval numbers have been the most consistent ever recorded, perhaps the only consistent feature of these last four interminable years. Remember also that Rump barely squeaked into office (there's your 'narrow narrow margin') with a 2.8 million vote shortfall and a "perfect storm" in the Terrible Three states which he won by a combined margin of under 80,000 (which Biden more than tripled) and was unable to win a majority of the vote in any of them. All of that points to a soft and vulnerable target.

Finally, "never Trumpers" never existed until there was a Trump to never. That's why such revulsion has always been about the personal and not the political.

 

[BluesLegend]

This election was a fraud.....the blue cities did everything they could do to insert fraudulent votes...and when those evil efforts came up short still...Dominio kicked in.....that is why the count stopped in the middle of the night so Dominion could do their thing.....

During the magical overnight vote count spikes...573,000 votes for Biden and only 3,200 for Trump.

 

[the other mike]

 

[deanrd]

That was hilarious when Trump's secret Chinese bank accounts were discovered.

Remember what Obama said? If he had secret Chinese bank accounts, Fox and the GOP would be calling him Beijing Barry.

They should ask Trump about his secret Chinese Bank Accounts.

I would be curious what Trump would answer.

 

[Circe]

Whether I like or dislike the EC doesn't affect the point that a 6.3 million margin simply is not "narrow". "Narrow" compared to what? Minus 2.9 million?

If you don't like "irrelevant" maybe we could agree on invisible? I just can't take any interest in California and New York running up the score pointlessly, and very likely illegally, IMO. If it's not how the game is played I'm surprised you care about it, because, you know, it's not how the game is played. I don't care about the popular vote.

Lots of wags around here like to wax all pipe-and-slippers about "if you take out California..." --- well, you can't do that.

No........can't take out all their motor-voter illegals, either. I sure would like to see all that cleaned up with voter IDs. Since the popular vote doesn't matter, I suppose the illegals in CA and NY don't matter either, but they are likely to spread to battleground states, is the problem as I see it.

I am not au fait with this term Duopoly -- is that the idea that the GOP and Dems are really all the same? Is this a longing for socialism or communism? Or (I could get into this) Libertarianism?

The former basically. Technically meaning a monopoly of two but in practice I like to describe them as a single party that dresses up alternately in red or blue uniforms and we're all supposed to think they're 'different' from each other, but the sad fact remains, as long as everything electoral is controlled by that Duopoly, said Duopoly has no challengers, because it will not allow any.

I've seen people say that, presumably describing the politics of both parties tending toward the center. That strategy failed with a whoosh on both sides as of 2016, I'd say, when radical populism and socialism took over most of the election, and the same thing in 2020. All those COMMIES calling themselves Democrats --- if that's not a break-up of the Duopoly, I don't know what you could want --- well, maybe I do: I have a book to suggest to people who want a really radical break with politics as usual: In Defense of Looting, by Vicky Osterweil, a tranny. Pretty well written.......something seems wrong with the logic a little, though, among other things.....

I think everyone expected Biden to win, or we could say, expected Rump to lose to whoever the alternative turned out to be. The polling and Rump's consistently high disapproval numbers ensured that. Those disapproval numbers have been the most consistent ever recorded, perhaps the only consistent feature of these last four interminable years. Remember also that Rump barely squeaked into office (there's your 'narrow narrow margin') with a 2.8 million vote shortfall and a "perfect storm" in the Terrible Three states which he won by a combined margin of under 80,000 (which Biden more than tripled) and was unable to win a majority of the vote in any of them. All of that points to a soft and vulnerable target.

We seem to disagree here. You think "everyone" expected Biden to win (here I am, yet again not "Everyman") whereas I thought Everyman expected Trump to be a shoo-in because of the great economy at least, until COVID spoiled the party. I thought he might scrape by all the same (at least from 10 to 11 PM election night) but I am aware (Hi, Herbert Hoover!) that great disasters throw governments out of office, even if it's not their fault. There will likely be a lot of falling dominoes in 2021 around the world, I think.

Finally, "never Trumpers" never existed until there was a Trump to never. That's why such revulsion has always been about the personal and not the political.

Well, that seems true enough, and I like the phrase, until there was a Trump to never.

 

[Pogo]

Whether I like or dislike the EC doesn't affect the point that a 6.3 million margin simply is not "narrow". "Narrow" compared to what? Minus 2.9 million?

If you don't like "irrelevant" maybe we could agree on invisible? I just can't take any interest in California and New York running up the score pointlessly, and very likely illegally, IMO. If it's not how the game is played I'm surprised you care about it, because, you know, it's not how the game is played. I don't care about the popular vote.

Lots of wags around here like to wax all pipe-and-slippers about "if you take out California..." --- well, you can't do that.

No........can't take out all their motor-voter illegals, either. I sure would like to see all that cleaned up with voter IDs. Since the popular vote doesn't matter, I suppose the illegals in CA and NY don't matter either, but they are likely to spread to battleground states, is the problem as I see it.

That's two sections in a row where you've brought up "illegals voting", without any evidence that it significantly exists, and certainly none that it exists more in those states. Ergo if you see a 'problem' you can't substantiate with evidence.... it might just be it wasn't a problem to start with.

Or the short version, "saying so doesn't make it so".

I am not au fait with this term Duopoly -- is that the idea that the GOP and Dems are really all the same? Is this a longing for socialism or communism? Or (I could get into this) Libertarianism?

The former basically. Technically meaning a monopoly of two but in practice I like to describe them as a single party that dresses up alternately in red or blue uniforms and we're all supposed to think they're 'different' from each other, but the sad fact remains, as long as everything electoral is controlled by that Duopoly, said Duopoly has no challengers, because it will not allow any.

I've seen people say that, presumably describing the politics of both parties tending toward the center. That strategy failed with a whoosh on both sides as of 2016, I'd say, when radical populism and socialism took over most of the election, and the same thing in 2020. All those COMMIES calling themselves Democrats --- if that's not a break-up of the Duopoly, I don't know what you could want --- well, maybe I do: I have a book to suggest to people who want a really radical break with politics as usual: In Defense of Looting, by Vicky Osterweil, a tranny. Pretty well written.......something seems wrong with the logic a little, though, among other things.....

Certanly anyone may call him/herself a Democrat or Republican; that's just a political party the horse one rides to the gate. It doesn't mean they carry a particular philosophy, witness that David whatzisname sheriff in Wisconsin, Billy Graham, Zell Miller - lifelong Democrats. That said, I see no socialism/communism at least in the final candidacies marketed by any major party. What I see in the Duopoly is in ideological terms as far as such can be generalized a party on the right and a party on the center-right. We have no left-wing party to speak of, certainly not within the Duopoly, as a casual comparison with the rest of the world will demonstrate.

But the main issue with the Duopoly is that it dominates and shuts out competing parties, ensuring that they can never get a foothold. That's why a fringe element here or there might don the mantle of "Republican" or "Democrat" even though lacking in what are supposedly the core values of that party. Bernie Sanders for example isn't a Democrat and never has been, but he's got no chance at the Presidency running as a 3P, because the Duopoly will not allow it. Rump for another example had never been a Republican. In both cases they needed a horse to ride to the gate, and the stable has only two horses available. And that limitation is a problem, because entrenched parties have but one goal and it has nothing to do with any ideology --- it's simply self-perpetuation, regardless what ideologies or principles are either taken up or abandoned.

I think everyone expected Biden to win, or we could say, expected Rump to lose to whoever the alternative turned out to be. The polling and Rump's consistently high disapproval numbers ensured that. Those disapproval numbers have been the most consistent ever recorded, perhaps the only consistent feature of these last four interminable years. Remember also that Rump barely squeaked into office (there's your 'narrow narrow margin') with a 2.8 million vote shortfall and a "perfect storm" in the Terrible Three states which he won by a combined margin of under 80,000 (which Biden more than tripled) and was unable to win a majority of the vote in any of them. All of that points to a soft and vulnerable target.

We seem to disagree here. You think "everyone" expected Biden to win (here I am, yet again not "Everyman") whereas I thought Everyman expected Trump to be a shoo-in because of the great economy at least, until COVID spoiled the party. I thought he might scrape by all the same (at least from 10 to 11 PM election night) but I am aware (Hi, Herbert Hoover!) that great disasters throw governments out of office, even if it's not their fault. There will likely be a lot of falling dominoes in 2021 around the world, I think.

Obviously "everyone" is not to be taken literally, but let's say the prevailing wisdom. Rump has consistently --- far more consistently than any POTUS on record ---- maintained a high disapproval rating throughout his tenure. That's held true whether the economy was up or down, whether COVID was spreading or not yet extant. You can see the graphs here (scroll down for the comparisons) That, coupled with the "soft" electoral perfect-storm that squeaked him in four years ago, pointed to quite the challenge in any re-election.

Finally, "never Trumpers" never existed until there was a Trump to never. That's why such revulsion has always been about the personal and not the political.

Well, that seems true enough, and I like the phrase, until there was a Trump to never.

Indeed, "never, the verb!" Inasmuch as you're an especially literate sort, I appreciate the compliment. Sometimes I treat words like free-form jazz.

 

[The Original Tree]

I'm surprised to find out that I am only 7/10ths of a person, according to Democrat Fraud Machines used in The 6 states that cheated.

Dr Shiva from MIT just proved Vote Swapping Live on TV at The Arizona Hearing.

130% of Democrats voted for Biden vs. -30% voted for Trump.

If you are a Republican, you are only 7/10ths of a person.

Based on the revelation from MIT Scientist Dr. Shiva, that Dominion Machines swapped votes counting Trump votes at 7/10ths of a vote, and Biden votes as 1.3 votes, here are the actual legal vote totals for the 2020 Election

President Trump 98,028,452 votes
Joe Biden 56,161,000

 

[Circe]

That's two sections in a row where you've brought up "illegals voting", without any evidence that it significantly exists, and certainly none that it exists more in those states. Ergo if you see a 'problem' you can't substantiate with evidence.... it might just be it wasn't a problem to start with.

Or the short version, "saying so doesn't make it so".

It's an article of faith for me. Mexifornia; California as a third-world country with all those natural disasters, power failures constantly, the socialist totalitarian governor. Mexico taking it over. Ah, well. Doesn't matter if it's true.....California letting Mexicans vote in their millions is a symbol that it's a lost state to us. US. When we split up, all the scifi writers assume it will go as a separate country: I agree. I don't think they'll join Mexico; they might take it over, though.

What I see in the Duopoly is in ideological terms as far as such can be generalized a party on the right and a party on the center-right. We have no left-wing party to speak of, certainly not within the Duopoly, as a casual comparison with the rest of the world will demonstrate.

Well, that's true enough, IMO (in my opinion), as my decades-long love-hate relationship with the Economist attests. Migod, they call themselves rightwing??? They're the king of Hate-America and Hate-Americans!! I've cancelled my subscription twice I know, maybe three times. Obviously I need to stop even hoping to get anything good out of them and bothering their subscription department. I am aware that there are far weirder political parties in Europe (the rest of the world doesn't really count), even real communists in these parliaments --- darn, it's like the forum Russkies, we thought we'd got rid of that infestation!

But the main issue with the Duopoly is that it dominates and shuts out competing parties, ensuring that they can never get a foothold. That's why a fringe element here or there might don the mantle of "Republican" or "Democrat" even though lacking in what are supposedly the core values of that party. Bernie Sanders for example isn't a Democrat and never has been, but he's got no chance at the Presidency running as a 3P, because the Duopoly will not allow it. Rump for another example had never been a Republican. In both cases they needed a horse to ride to the gate, and the stable has only two horses available. And that limitation is a problem, because entrenched parties have but one goal and it has nothing to do with any ideology --- it's simply self-perpetuation, regardless what ideologies or principles are either taken up or abandoned.

As for the Duopoly "not allowing" third parties ---- they wish! those, they can't help. And they cause a WHOLE lot of trouble: the worst being Year 2000! But I can think of several other trouble-causing third party years, and I bet you can too. However, I agree with you otherwise. In spades. Thinking about this, I realize it's a well-known political issue or theory, presented as I recall not with the name Duopoly but that both parties are "centrist," and have to be or have no hope of winning.

Now, you don't like this: but as I recall the exposition of the theory, two centrist parties avoids radicals and forces both parties to get serious and bid for a majority --- and I like that. A lot. Big majorities = strong democracy.

As for your point that neither Sanders nor Trump fit well within the usual Dem/Republican themes ---- of course they were both just riding the only two horses available in the stable! Good way to say that. When I was thinking of this, I recalled that Dems and Repubs switched places entirely at least once (post Civil War) and maybe twice (Nixon's Southern Strategy), so yes, it matters not at all to these two parties whether a candidate "fits" -- it just matters if they WIN. As I said, I am okay with a majoritarian strategy and think it a whole lot better for the country than the wild European system of truly awful parties of literal communists and I don't know what all, not "our kind of folks." Not mine, anyway, and I wonder how sympathetic you are to adventurism (and leftism, i.e., communism or socialism) in radical politics, if you dislike the "Duopoly." So in summary, I entirely agree there IS a Duopoly, and I like it.

I think everyone expected Biden to win, or we could say, expected Rump to lose to whoever the alternative turned out to be. The polling and Rump's consistently high disapproval numbers ensured that. Those disapproval numbers have been the most consistent ever recorded, perhaps the only consistent feature of these last four interminable years. Remember also that Rump barely squeaked into office (there's your 'narrow narrow margin') with a 2.8 million vote shortfall and a "perfect storm" in the Terrible Three states which he won by a combined margin of under 80,000 (which Biden more than tripled) and was unable to win a majority of the vote in any of them. All of that points to a soft and vulnerable target.

We seem to disagree here. You think "everyone" expected Biden to win (here I am, yet again not "Everyman") whereas I thought Everyman expected Trump to be a shoo-in because of the great economy at least, until COVID spoiled the party. I thought he might scrape by all the same (at least from 10 to 11 PM election night) but I am aware (Hi, Herbert Hoover!) that great disasters throw governments out of office, even if it's not their fault. There will likely be a lot of falling dominoes in 2021 around the world, I think. [/QUOTE]

Finally, "never Trumpers" never existed until there was a Trump to never. That's why such revulsion has always been about the personal and not the political.

Well, that seems true enough, and I like the phrase, until there was a Trump to never.

Indeed, "never, the verb!" Inasmuch as you're an especially literate sort, I appreciate the compliment. Sometimes I treat words like free-form jazz.

Words as Jazz is surely better than Humpty Dumpty's view of how to use them.

 

[JimH52]

ACTUALLY! The little fellow in the fat body got all flustered and yelled at the report....I guess he his getting closer to the edge of No Return?

 

[the other mike]

Michigan live now;

 

[the other mike]

You absolutely have to be a real idiot to believe anything this guy says.

You need help twisted sister.
Serious help.

 

[Skylar]

Are there any real reporters anymore ?

President Trump said Thursday that he would leave office if the Electoral College votes for President-elect Joe Biden, but also alleged “massive fraud” in the vote count and promised to keep up with his legal fight.

Have any of these reporters asked Trump about his 'massive fraud' claims since Barr confirmed that there's no evidence of widespread fraud?