Would it kill you to actually engage with what the President of the United States says instead of rewriting it to fit your agenda? Why does a man "who says it like it is" always require you to put words in his mouth?
Last edited:
Suspending the Election
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
So lemme get this straight...
Trump has repeatedly said that "mail-in voting will be massively fraudulent [in his view] and no republican will ever be elected ever again", and now he's gone on saying "We'd be paying the post office billions for something that will be fraudulent [in his view]" and he and the GOP who are opposed to mail-in voting are basically denying additional funding...
And this isn't about the GOP under trump wanting to not have mail-in voting because they're terrified that if more people vote, they'll lose an election that he's already (somehow, against all odds) currently primed to lose? When it's a publicly known fact that the more people vote, the less often the GOP win?
Or am I misunderstanding you? 'cuz that's a distinct possibility.
Because none of you actually listen to what he says, you listen to third-hand news edits.
That's not truth. That's truthiness. That's what they say often enough to trick people into thinking it's true.
I mean, I'm pretty sure a GOP head honcho full on said that at a RNC convention, and that lines up pretty well with how much they push for voter suppression in considerably more ways than the Dems...
If by GOP head honcho you mean Trump... I don't what to tell you. The man is a Democrat, he believes all the crap Democrats say.
You could make arguments and debate Tstorm on this instead of just biting everyone's heels all the time.
No, it wasn't trump, this was years ago, I forget the guy's name.
Also, Trump is a Democrat? He ran for and won as a republican, and has pretty much given his base 90% of what they want. He may have been a registered democrat in the past, but to say he's one now? That's funny.
Ah, the mystery person of mystery credibility. Lovely.
Feel free to research if increased turnout benefits either party specifically. You'll find the data to suggest the answer is a resounding "depends".
And yeah, Trump is a Democrat. The difference between the parties lies largely in rhetoric, and the Democrats are the populists, the insult comics, the race-baiters, etc. Trump is the quintessential Democrat, he's Lyndon Johnson to a T, he just ran with an R next to his name at a time when party politics were sort of fluid.
Conservatives are the plutocrats that give tax breaks, the gerrymanderers, the law and order-callers, the anti-immigrationists etc.
Seems I just transmuted Trump back into a republican.
Furthermore he has the backing of the republican party to such a degree that there is no rational way he could be a democrat, if he was Mitch would have let impeachment go through and gotten Pence, someone who is definitely a republican, as president. But no, instead the republicans closed rank like never seen before and the impeachment of the wolf in sheeps clothes was prevented. How does that make sense? Or are you perhaps the only one who solved the riddle?
Why would breitbart, fox news, and OAN back a democrat? Why are republican governors backing Trump even when it is to their own detriment?
And to address your first point, it doesn't really matter whether or not turnout affects outcome in favor of democrats, the only thing that matters is that Trump think it does.
Three actually, because this is what my degrees are in, I know what I'm looking for, and information on racial disparities in population per polling station, distribution of voting machines per precinct, and the impact on polling station closure and precinct consolidation is not just widely available, it's indisputably clear. All the way down to usability studies comparing optiscan voting machines with DRE, and racial disparities in distribution of DRE to majority-minority and less-affluent precincts versus optiscan for white and affluent precincts. But somehow I suspect you're woefully unequipped to have a conversation about per-voter TOT analysis by voting machine, let alone racial disparities in distributing end-of-life or near-end-of-life voting machines on a per-precinct basis.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not thinking there's really any point arguing that the Republican leader is a Republican. If that's not immediately apparent, it's not because someone just needs it explained to them.
This is going to take more googling and video watching to find this guy than is feasible during half of a lunch break. Imma get back to this assuming I don't 100% unplug for my week off when I get home from work.
While on one hand, it's good you recognize that both parties have more or less become two heads of the same corporatist hydra that cares not for the people... (with the policy differences being the GOP openly dogwhistle to bigots while the DEMs pretend to care, and the GOP openly advocates for the dissolution of important social services while the DEMS just offer token fights before losing or just end up offering to make a deal with the GOP to cut them anyway)...
I'm going to just quote Thaluikhain here.
Basically any trump supporter would tell you that you're insane for associating him with the Democrats, and most republicans would heavily disagree too.
Cuz in Policy and Temperment, he's clearly more in line with the GOP, just louder and slightly more unpredicatble and prone to unilateral "!@#$ you, I'm doing what I want" moments.
A socialist running under the democrat banner, however, socialist is not a party affiliation in the US, as opposed to democrat and republican. Instead Bernie could be seen as someone on the outer left, not the extreme left, of the democratic party by virtue of him being a socialist.
Isn't Revnak part of the DSA? Democratic Socialists of America? So a socialist party exists yet Bernie still ran as a Democrat.
Fine, there is no mainstream socialist party that actually have a chance of winning an election, and since many socialist values still fit the Democratic party it makes sense to run under that banner. Bernie even made it clear that he still considers himself a socialist.
Here's an article from back in May, before the current round of negotiations.
A Fight Over the Future of the Mail Breaks Down Along Familiar Lines (Published 2020)
With the coronavirus pandemic threatening the Postal Service’s financial viability, a rescue for America’s favorite agency has become a political battle.
I know you don't like reading, lemme help ya out.
I'd like to dig up articles about how Trump has pressured the USPS for most of his entire presidency with the aim of downsizing and selling it off into the private sector, but unfortunately Google is clogged with articles from the last day over this most recent furor about it. But hey, don't let that stop you from saying it's all nonsense unless I dig it up and it's all nonsense even when I do. Nonsense all the way down.
I mean, on one hand Trump's got a point. Amazon and other online retailers do abuse the USPS's "fair competition" and package rate price mandates, and that costs the USPS a helluva lot of money on a per-package basis it could use. But on the other, that's part of the same 2006 bill that fucked the USPS by mandating pre-funded pensions. However you cut it, it's a manufactured crisis born entirely out of the GOP "break it prove it's broken, and privatize" playbook.
Yeah, effective governance would be to fix the problem, not just wack it with a wrench a couple of times, shrug, and hold a garage sale.