US 2024 Presidential Election

[Dirty Hipsters]

Cuz complaining about a plainly stolen election is undoing democracy?

If it was so plainly stolen why were they never able to present any significant evidence of it in court in the last 4 years?

I hear the left/main stream media is today claiming Kamala was never a "border czar". Do you agree?

Kamala Harris was never in charge of the border or border policy. She did some diplomatic work with South and Central American countries in an effort to reduce migration. That's not the same as setting border policy.

There's isn't a "border czar" at all. Border security is handled by the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[Agema]

Cuz complaining about a plainly stolen election is undoing democracy?

What plainly stolen election?

 

[Gordon_4]

If it was so plainly stolen why were they never able to present any significant evidence of it in court in the last 4 years?



Kamala Harris was never in charge of the border or border policy. She did some diplomatic work with South and Central American countries in an effort to reduce migration. That's not the same as setting border policy.

There's isn't a "border czar" at all. Border security is handled by the Department of Homeland Security.

Calling someone a <title> Czar (or Mandarin) is usually a pejorative for a dictatorial civil servant in charge of something. Which is funny because calling Kamala Harris that implies she was the director of the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[gorfias]

What plainly stolen election?

The one we were told was the most secure ever and then a Rasmussen poll found about 20% of mail in voters admitted they committed voter fraud. That's just the ones that admitted it.

If it was so plainly stolen why were they never able to present any significant evidence of it in court in the last 4 years?



Kamala Harris was never in charge of the border or border policy. She did some diplomatic work with South and Central American countries in an effort to reduce migration. That's not the same as setting border policy.

There's isn't a "border czar" at all. Border security is handled by the Department of Homeland Security.

You may be technically correct, that it isn't an actual existing position, but that was the label used.
Example examination:


ITMT: https://youtube.com/shorts/pSa8yZNd2mQ?si=gTP5gIx8w6BwKeEP

This poster inserts the word, "fairly". Democrats committing election fraud is still very much at the forefront of MAGAs concerns.

 

[Hades]

This poster inserts the word, "fairly". Democrats committing election fraud is still very much at the forefront of MAGAs concerns.

Yeah because somehow they are unable to conceive that the disaster president who never had popular support won't get as much votes as they hope he will. I recall all these people so...ahem ''concerned'' about election safety were silent as the grave when Trump installed a crony in the postal service to try and mess with mail in ballots. I also mention their fears being absent all the way from the civil war up to 2020 since that's how long mail in ballots were an option.

 

[tstorm823]

The one we were told was the most secure ever and then a Rasmussen poll found about 20% of mail in voters admitted they committed voter fraud. That's just the ones that admitted it.

To expand on this:

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election

More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.

www.rasmussenreports.com

The things that add up to 20% here aren't actually terribly shocking. It's a combination of having other people fill out a ballot and voting somewhere where you aren't living, and those practices skewed strongly toward young people. I imagine a lot of those are young adults still registered to vote where their parents live, and many of them likely asked their parents to fill it in for them. Not legal, not confidence inspiring, but no reason to believe it was either malicious or impactful on outcomes.

The more striking thing from this polling further down is the "did someone offer to pay you to vote", with racial minorities hitting double digit percentages. 29% of Hispanics (mostly young people) responding that someone offered them a payment or reward to vote is not a great look.

 

[Eacaraxe]

That's basically what I was saying... I'm not the one concerned porn is gonna get banned here.

Porn isn't going to "pass" the Miller test.

I'm not concerned porn is going to get banned, either. The American Taliban will certainly try, and just might get something passed federally.

Then the rest of us just use a VPN, and that includes the kids they're claiming to protect but don't actually give a shit about. Meanwhile, the low-infos figure out what the American Taliban has been up to, and that triggers the biggest Democratic landslide since FDR in the next election. No stronger proof positive Democratic strategists are either the dumbest SOB's on the planet, or simply bought and paid off, can be found right there. Never interrupt the opponent when they're making a mistake, and this porn shit is building up to be an "invading Russia in winter" scale of political SNAFU.

When the Free Speech Coalition got Indiana's porn ban overturned in court before it could go into effect, the end result was...they saved the Indiana GOP from itself. If they'd been smart they'd have let that fucker go into effect, launch an oppo campaign for the history books, and turn the 2024 election into a referendum on it.

 

[meiam]

So Trump is now bragging that Christian only have to vote this time and that in four more year it'll be "fixed" and they won't have to vote anymore...

 

[gorfias]

Yeah because somehow they are unable to conceive that the disaster president who never had popular support won't get as much votes as they hope he will. I recall all these people so...ahem ''concerned'' about election safety were silent as the grave when Trump installed a crony in the postal service to try and mess with mail in ballots. I also mention their fears being absent all the way from the civil war up to 2020 since that's how long mail in ballots were an option.

I'd be against anyone tampering with an election. And mail in voting as practiced in 2020 I think was for exactly that purpose.

To expand on this:

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election

More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.

www.rasmussenreports.com

The things that add up to 20% here aren't actually terribly shocking. It's a combination of having other people fill out a ballot and voting somewhere where you aren't living, and those practices skewed strongly toward young people. I imagine a lot of those are young adults still registered to vote where their parents live, and many of them likely asked their parents to fill it in for them. Not legal, not confidence inspiring, but no reason to believe it was either malicious or impactful on outcomes.

The more striking thing from this polling further down is the "did someone offer to pay you to vote", with racial minorities hitting double digit percentages. 29% of Hispanics (mostly young people) responding that someone offered them a payment or reward to vote is not a great look.

Hence these were the ones admitting it. That it can be done so easily is worrisome. The cash for voting is also illegal.

And so is trying to have your opponent, who is leading in the polls, murdered.

ITMT: Fun Kamala Harris Ad PARODY

 

[Hades]

I'd be against anyone tampering with an election. And mail in voting as practiced in 2020 I think was for exactly that purpose.

So you were against Trump's conduct after he lost the election then?

 

[Asita]

And so is trying to have your opponent, who is leading in the polls, murdered.

I've said it many times before: you need to be less credulous and actually do your damn research. That did not happen. What you refer to is Biden talking to donors in the context of asking them to move on from his poor debate performance and put the focus back on Trump. It used the word bullseye, yes, but that does not constitute an assassination order.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I've said it many times before: you need to be less credulous and actually do your damn research. That did not happen. What you refer to is Biden talking to donors in the context of asking them to move on from his poor debate performance and put the focus back on Trump. It used the word bullseye, yes, but that does not constitute an assassination order.

Remember: Sarah Palin putting crosshairs over the faces of her political opponents was just hyperbole. But Biden using the word "bullseye" was an order to take the shot.

 

[gorfias]

So you were against Trump's conduct after he lost the election then?

You mean after the election was stolen But seriously, I concede, I'm sure there were instances of Trump being out of line.

I've said it many times before: you need to be less credulous and actually do your damn research. That did not happen. What you refer to is Biden talking to donors in the context of asking them to move on from his poor debate performance and put the focus back on Trump. It used the word bullseye, yes, but that does not constitute an assassination order.

And the Secret Service appear to have been negligent but not murderous. I'm sure its all part of the plan. Too many coincidences to find credible at all.

Remember: Sarah Palin putting crosshairs over the faces of her political opponents was just hyperbole. But Biden using the word "bullseye" was an order to take the shot.

Remember people pointed out she was wrong for doing so. Were any of her "targets" shot about 5 days later? I think the only mass shooting of politicians was the time that Democrat shot the Republicans while they were playing baseball.

Grrrr, wife just told me she thinks Kamala is going to win as she will destroy Trump in a debate as she finds Trump to be a poor debater. Must not fight with family over politics!

 

[Silvanus]

The one we were told was the most secure ever and then a Rasmussen poll found about 20% of mail in voters admitted they committed voter fraud. That's just the ones that admitted it.

I assume you mean this "survey of likely voters" with a statistically-insignificant ~1000 respondents (including a large number of Republican voters) that they conducted with opaque and questionable methodology upon the request of a right-wing think tank, and which was disowned even by other right-leaning outlets.

And this flimsy stuff is the basis for your claim the entire election was stolen. While you have zero issue with Republicans attempting to get entire states' voters disenfranchised. You don't actually have a concern for the democratic process at all, do you? Because if you did, the Republicans would make you run a mile.

 

[tstorm823]

So Trump is now bragging that Christian only have to vote this time and that in four more year it'll be "fixed" and they won't have to vote anymore...

Earlier in the speech, Trump was chastising Christians for not voting more, for going to Church every week but not voting in every election. Then he gets to this part:

I negotiate with Democrats all the time, I say "Look, we have to fix our laws on voting, we have to start with voter ID, everybody has to have-" "NO WAY!" The discussion never even goes any further... There's only one reason they want to do that, they want to cheat....

But until then, Republicans must win, we have to win this election, the most important election ever. We want a landslide that's too big to rig. If you want to save America, get your friends, get your family, get everyone you know and vote. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on election day, I don't care how but you have to get out and vote. And again, Christians get out and vote. Just this time, you won't have to do it anymore. 4 more years, it'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote anymore my beautiful Christians.

So, do you think it is more likely that he is using the word "fix" euphemistically to mean all elections going forward will be rigged, or do you think he was using it in the exact same direct sense he had used it a minute prior, suggesting that 4 more years in office he can get better election laws passed? (In before you insist he's obviously talking about becoming a dictator because yada yada yada orange man bad.) Speech linked at relevant time below.

 

[tstorm823]

I assume you mean this "survey of likely voters" with a statistically-insignificant ~1000 respondents (including a large number of Republican voters) that they conducted with opaque and questionable methodology upon the request of a right-wing think tank, and which was disowned even by other right-leaning outlets.

Is there something in that last link I'm missing, or did you just call WaPo right-leaning? Are you perhaps thinking of the Washington Examiner?

Also, 1000+ respondents is 3% margin of error with 95% confidence, which is certainly less than ideal but is relatively standard practice.

 

[BrawlMan]

I heard Trump hates his VP pick, JD Vance, because he's another loud mouth, idiotic, biatch, and the former isn't happy. Good, they're a match made made in hell and the sum of all their parts. You made your choice you biatch-in-a-boxstand. Now live with it.

Trump in a debate as she finds Trump to be a poor debater.

That is an absolute truth and fact. Bitches are usually the worse debaters can't handle it.

 

[Asita]

And the Secret Service appear to have been negligent but not murderous. I'm sure its all part of the plan. Too many coincidences to find credible at all.

How about this, after you explain to me why you think Biden to be so brazen about an assassination ordrer as to discuss it with his donors and make the Secret Service complicit in it, but then use a 20 year old dietary aide at a nursing home as the hitman, you can regale me with why there were too many coincidences in the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and how Pearl Harbor and 9/11 must have been inside jobs because you can't wrap your head around the simple idea that sometimes things slip through.

Old wisdom regarding these kinds of events: You rarely hear about the threats that the authorities prevent. You always hear about the events that they failed to prevent. Did the Secret Service drop the ball? Signs point to yes. But there's a pretty big difference between making mistakes and "being part of the plan".

 

[Hades]

So, do you think it is more likely that he is using the word "fix" euphemistically to mean all elections going forward will be rigged, or do you think he was using it in the exact same direct sense he had used it a minute prior, suggesting that 4 more years in office he can get better election laws passed? (In before you insist he's obviously talking about becoming a dictator because yada yada yada orange man bad.) Speech linked at relevant time below.

For once I actually do think that context makes the latest horrible thing Trump said a bit less horrible.

That said a candidate who already has an intensely questionable loyalty to democracy(verging on outright hostility) has no business expressing himself that way. Also a Republican vouching for better election laws is already questionable, especially if the one doing it tried to browbeat his vice president into throwing votes away to get himself crowned president. Better election laws for who? The public or Trump privately? Its worth noting that Republicans have nothing to gain from improving the public's access to voting, only by restricting it.

Just as Trump is uniquely unsuited to say ''after the election you don't have to vote for it'' he's also uniquely unsuited to argue for electoral reform. Behaving like a rogue demagogue and trying to overthrow an election has consequences I'm afraid.

 

[Hades]

Grrrr, wife just told me she thinks Kamala is going to win as she will destroy Trump in a debate as she finds Trump to be a poor debater.

I mean the only presidential debate Trump ever won was against a 82 year old with a cold. So evidence suggests he's indeed a poor debater.