Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[crimson5pheonix]

Personal responsibility based on the guidelines you seem to want.

Voting for the party that loses immediately is grounds to lose your job and be blacklisted in any industry you are in until you managed to vote for the winner. It's also ground to face people attacking your property, harassing your neighbours to pressure you to move.

I don't think this is the precedent for accountability you want to set now is it?

Did she say that?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Damn imperium coming in here accusing people of being Chaos cultists just because we don't agree with the what we're told is the God Emperors will.............

Notice how stealer cultists used to sometimes have a bright orange colour scheme, and they don't anymore?

 

[Silvanus]

Personal responsibility based on the guidelines you seem to want.

Voting for the party that loses immediately is grounds to lose your job and be blacklisted in any industry you are in until you managed to vote for the winner. It's also ground to face people attacking your property, harassing your neighbours to pressure you to move.

I don't think this is the precedent for accountability you want to set now is it?

Where the hell are you getting all of this from? None of it's in the original statement, and none of it has been expressed by anybody here. It's pure fever dream.

Which, is not actually what happened here.......................

People are calling others cultist for refusing to repeat the LIE that there was absolutely 0 fraud at all that happened in the US election.

It's one thing to claim people are being cultists if they are saying Trump won 401 EC votes (WHICH NO-ONE HAS SAID HERE).

It's quite another to call them cultists for pointing out actual reports and charges for election fraud even admitting it's not likely co-ordinated or widespread but fraud happened.........

OK, this line has been repeated so many times now.

Every election in history will have some minor incidence of fraud. Every election official/ expert knows this and it's so obvious as to not be worth repeating.

But we're currently in a discussion about whether there was widespread, significant fraud of the level necessary to flip a state, or an entire election.

Every statement has to be seen in that context. When an official says "there is no fraud", or "there's been zero fraud", there is the implicit addition: "...of any relevant or significant scale". Because... that's what they were asked about.

That should be obvious, honestly, because a couple dozen fraudulent ballots, having no impact on the outcome, is not relevant to the discussion we're having. It's a bit like how someone might say there's been "no violence" at a peaceful protest, because it's not relevant to mention that some twat hit his mate outside the kebab shop at the same time.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Where the hell are you getting all of this from? None of it's in the original statement, and none of it has been expressed by anybody here. It's pure fever dream.

On the other hand, lots of people who worked in Trump's administration could use this treatment:

 

[Agema]

I dunno, I'd say the mainstream media over the past 5 years, by calling him:

sexist,
racist,
corrupt,
criminal,
eating steak well-done and with ketchup,

 

[Hades]

I dunno, I'd say the mainstream media over the past 5 years, by calling him sexist, racist, corrupt, criminal, trying to impeach him and ending up with nothing, eating steak well-done and with ketchup, claiming collusion with Russia ,etc.

I don't know what's controversial about calling Trump corrupt. Trump has a long history of corruption that predates his political career. Things like Trump university were public knowledge even before the election. Trump has also bragged about not paying his taxes on national television. And when he became president Trump continued this pattern of corruption.

Its also not controversial to call Trump racist. During his real estate years he got dragged to court for discriminating against black renters and he was one of the driving forces behind the birther movement which firmly believed a black president simply couldn't have been born in America. His political debut was a speech where he said most Mexicans were rapist and one of his earliest policies included a ban on Muslims from entering the country.

There's hardly anything controversial about the whole Russia thing either. We know Russia did meddle in the election, we know Trump publicly ''joked'' about wanting their help and we know he had his kids meet with an envoy of the Kremlin. At that point it becomes irresponsible not to ask some serious questions about it.

And impeaching Trump was a result of his own corruption. If he hadn't tried to blackmail Ukraine to intervene for him then nothing would have happened. Had the democrats not tried to impeach him this behavior would be normalized and next you'd have presidential candidate Pence try to blackmail India for dirt on Harris, or Cuba for dirt on Sanders. And it became quite telling how even Trump's cronies in the senate at some point stopped trying to deny he did it and just tried to argue why they didn't want to punish him for it.

Its a pattern with Trump. Every time he gets into trouble its always a reaction to his own unacceptable behavior, and letting him go on unopposed would risk the unacceptable turning into something acceptable.

 

[tstorm823]

Its also not controversial to call Trump racist. During his real estate years he got dragged to court for discriminating against black renters and he was one of the driving forces behind the birther movement which firmly believed a black president simply couldn't have been born in America. His political debut was a speech where he said most Mexicans were rapist and one of his earliest policies included a ban on Muslims from entering the country.

By no means would I suggest that Donald Trump is without prejudices, and when he calls himself the least racist person it's laughable, but if you want to convince someone of something, you probably shouldn't lie about it. Not a single thing in this paragraph above is accurate, every one of them is blurring the truth to make Trump seem worse, and with how consistently you've managed to list very subtle lies, I can only assume you're doing it on purpose to elicit a reaction.

So the question is: why do you want people to defend Trump more?

 

[Cheetodust]

By no means would I suggest that Donald Trump is without prejudices, and when he calls himself the least racist person it's laughable, but if you want to convince someone of something, you probably shouldn't lie about it. Not a single thing in this paragraph above is accurate, every one of them is blurring the truth to make Trump seem worse, and with how consistently you've managed to list very subtle lies, I can only assume you're doing it on purpose to elicit a reaction.

So the question is: why do you want people to defend Trump more?

Not a single thing?
Trump wasn't prominent in spreading the birther conspiracy? Bullshit. If you're going to say that you're actually not worth talking to.

Twitter

14 of Trump's most outrageous 'birther' claims -- half from after 2011 - CNN Politics

Here are 14 of Donald Trump's list of birther declarations regarding President Barack Obama

www.google.com

What Donald Trump has said through the years about where President Obama was born

Donald Trump spent years spreading the lie that President Obama wasn't an American citizen. A timeline.

www.latimes.com

 

[SupahEwok]

Jesus Christ, why do you people insist on feeding the right-wing troll squad. Dwarven and Iron never do more than post alt-right conspiracy bullshit and refuse to concede when it's pointed out how many ways its wrong, Houseman does the same while also mistaking strawmanning and nitpicking for debate (while also having the mother of all hangups that he isn't allowed to bring up an event from this site's history to have a flame war over, and he doesn't get tired of bringing it up), and Tstorm just calls anybody who doesn't match his beliefs a liar without actually stating what in particular their lying about or posting proof of his claims.

What is wrong with all of you that you can spend 100 PAGES engaging with this bullshit. They aren't hiding it, they're proud that they're only here to waste the time of everybody involved and cause as much frustration as possible.

 

[Hades]

By no means would I suggest that Donald Trump is without prejudices, and when he calls himself the least racist person it's laughable, but if you want to convince someone of something, you probably shouldn't lie about it. Not a single thing in this paragraph above is accurate, every one of them is blurring the truth to make Trump seem worse, and with how consistently you've managed to list very subtle lies, I can only assume you're doing it on purpose to elicit a reaction.

So the question is: why do you want people to defend Trump more?

Not really.

I mean I could have claimed Trump said ''all'' Mexicans are rapists which he didn't do, if only because it would ruin the dog whistle. I could also have gone into detail about how ''And some I assume are good people'' is actually a deeply malicious statement that makes the whole thing more racist rather then that because he presents good Mexicans as an exception of who's existence he's not even particularly certain of.

Don't see how saying Trump was among the fiercest birthers is blurring things either. Obama was black and that was the whole lynchpin of that particular movement. If he was white it simply wouldn't have existed.

 

[ObsidianJones]

*Let's FACT CHECK!*

I'm the link guy, so allow me to help out.

Trump discriminating against Black Renters

FBI releases files on Trump apartments' race discrimination probe in '70s

The agency has released nearly 400 pages of records.

www.politico.com

First Notice of Trump's birither tweets is Nov 18th 2011

https://twitter.com/i/events/776795610817007616?lang=en

Although he stated in March of 2011 that he had real doubts that Obama had a real certificate

The birth of the Obama 'birther' conspiracy

Donald Trump blames Hillary Clinton for starting rumours about Barack Obama's citizenship and birthplace - but the truth is markedly different.

www.bbc.com

Trump himself saying that he meant the Mexico Rapist thing and that it is more widespread from other countries

Trump asking for Russia to hack

Knowing that Russia meddled in the election

Mueller's own words about his Report

Special counsel Robert Mueller: 'If we had had confidence that' President Trump 'clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Special counsel Robert Mueller says: "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

www.cnbc.com

In remarks lasting about nine minutes Wednesday, the special counsel cited a long-standing Justice Department policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president for a federal crime.
“That is unconstitutional,” Mueller said. “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.”
But he also noted, “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

...
However, Mueller noted that there was another avenue for dealing with a sitting president who broke the law. He said that the internal Justice Department opinion barring the prosecution of a president also “says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
That “process,” which Mueller did not name, is impeachment.

Republican Senators admitting that Democrat's proved their case

Senate Republicans Admit Trump Did It but Vote to Acquit Him Anyway

The outcome seemed pre-ordained. And yet, a late speech by Mitt Romney added an immense amount of drama and bipartisan support for conviction.

www.thedailybeast.com

On Wednesday, the president’s defiance paid off. Despite several Republican Senators conceding that House Democrats had proved the case that Trump had abused his office, all but one, Mitt Romney of Utah, voted to acquit him on grounds of abusing his office and obstructing Congress. The two articles of impeachment failed to pass the Senate, the first by a vote of 48 to 52 the latter by a vote of 47 to 53. All Democrats voted to convict on each count. Romney only voted to convict on the abuse of power article.

The tally was just the latest illustration of the degree to which the president has become the political commodity that the Republican Party seems most keen on protecting. Indeed, the loyalty exhibited by Republicans on Capitol Hill during the course of the trial often left Democrats despondent, wondering what else they could have possibly done to prove that Trump deserved to be removed from office.

Senators Like Rubio

Rubio: Impeachable actions don’t necessarily mean a president should be removed

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) argued Friday that impeachable actions don’t always mean a president should be convicted, saying lawmakers must also weigh the impact of removal from office.&#82…

thehill.com

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office," Rubio wrote in a Medium post.

Lamar Alexander

Alexander Statement on Impeachment Witness Vote - Press Releases - United States Senator Lamar Alexander

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

And Rob Portman

GOP senator: Trump’s actions to withhold Ukraine aid ‘wrong’ but not impeachable

Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio), a prominent Republican moderate, criticized President Trump on Friday for actions “including asking a foreign country to investigate a potential political opponent” th…

thehill.com

“I do not believe that additional witnesses are needed,” he said in the statement.

While Portman said delaying military aid to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden was “wrong and inappropriate,” he argued Trump’s actions did not “rise to the level of removing a duly-elected president from office and taking him off the ballot in the middle of an election.”

Oh, and Republicans' own words about Impeachment

So fact check... Much like my feelings of the game with your same nomenclature, I'm going to give you an A.

 

[Houseman]

snip

Yes, that's what the media has been telling me.
Just on the subject of racism, they've told me all that. They didn't tell me about the Platinum Plan, aimed at helping black Americans. Do you know about the Platinum Plan? Is that the action of a racist person?

Weird how we know how Trump eats his steak, but not in the helpful strides he's made towards helping black Americans.
Weird how the coverage is skewed like that, huh?

 

[Hades]

Yes, that's what the media has been telling me.
Just on the subject of racism, they've told me all that. They didn't tell me about the Platinum Plan, aimed at helping black Americans. Do you know about the Platinum Plan? Is that the action of a racist person?

And we should dismiss it just because the media said it? Even if Trump university was a scandal that actually existed? Even if Trump himself talked about most Mexicans being racist in his own speech? Even if we know Trump cancelled aid to Ukraine before asking the to investigate Biden?

 

[ObsidianJones]

Jesus Christ, why do you people insist on feeding the right-wing troll squad. Dwarven and Iron never do more than post alt-right conspiracy bullshit and refuse to concede when it's pointed out how many ways its wrong, Houseman does the same while also mistaking strawmanning and nitpicking for debate (while also having the mother of all hangups that he isn't allowed to bring up an event from this site's history to have a flame war over, and he doesn't get tired of bringing it up), and Tstorm just calls anybody who doesn't match his beliefs a liar without actually stating what in particular their lying about or posting proof of his claims.

What is wrong with all of you that you can spend 100 PAGES engaging with this bullshit. They aren't hiding it, they're proud that they're only here to waste the time of everybody involved and cause as much frustration as possible.

I personally hate it. And I do it too much.

The problem with it is, we're not fighting to convince them. They are long gone. Facts don't matter. That is literally the catch phrase this party started.

But there are people who are not life long democrats, who aren't staunch republicans... There are independents. There are the uneducated about these matters. There are people not from this damn country that don't know the facts about the situation and might see someone lie about how Poor Innocent Donald Trump is being mistreated and lied about in the media and by the mean ole democrats.

Those people are the ones that I'm doing this for. The facts are there. Not mouth pieces. Hear it from the mouths of Republicans and Democrats so we don't get half truths.

Take Gorfias for instance. I often think favorably of him, and remove from politics we seem to have similar interests. So just by his personality alone, I'm more prone to take heed to what he has to say than some others. Hell, I blocked some others.

He often claimed that Obama said Trump would need a magic wand to reach a better economy. Not to paraphrase, I'll use his own words.

It is one thing to see growth in an economy when you are at that nation’s nadir. Trump inherited an economy that was doing OK. Where was there to go from there? His predecessor stated it would take a magic wand to get the kind of numbers and growth Trump promised in his campaign. And yet it happened.

Myself, I didn't know the magic wand thing that Gorfias was talking about. But I looked up the economy and there was an uptick. If I stopped my research there, I would begin questioning Obama's BS and thinking I gave Trump a raw deal.

But then I do more research.

Like this

About That Trump Economy . . .

When you look at the data, it’s less impressive than it seemed.

www.cato.org

And that the actual Magic Wand statement was about bringing back Manufacturing Jobs to America.


Yes, it gets tiring. Yes, nothing we're going to say is going to change some of these right-winged thinkers. I painfully know that.

But we've seen what four years of half-truths and good sounding but fundamentally false sound clips can do. Hell. Slogans. Leaving words out in the air gives them time to grow into something uncontrollable. We didn't take Trump seriously. He was obviously a laughable choice, just blatantly lying, saying harmful things, and not looking presidential in the slightest. So we sat back and prepared for a Clinton White House.

We will not make that mistake again.

 

[Houseman]

And we should dismiss it just because the media said it?

We should be skeptical of the media, especially when it is very clearly biased.

Case in point, you didn't even say a word about the Platinum Plan. You probably didn't even know about it until I mentioned.

Why do you think this graph is the way that it is?

 

[Agema]

Just on the subject of racism, they've told me all that. They didn't tell me about the Platinum Plan, aimed at helping black Americans. Do you know about the Platinum Plan? Is that the action of a racist person?

Who knows? The Platinum Plan is nothing but a wish list.

Four fucking years to work on and enact something, and a back-of-a-beermat splurge of vague ideas gets announced conveniently just before an election. As the saying goes, "talk is cheap". At worst, it's showing contempt.

 

[Hades]

We should be skeptical of the media, especially when it is very clearly biased.

Case in point, you didn't even say a word about the Platinum Plan. You probably didn't even know about it until I mentioned.

Why do you think this graph is the way that it is?

I do know about it. I just don't find it particularly relevant. I certainly don't think its proof he's not racist. With how he presented it so close to the election I'm more inclined to believe it to be a purely tactical maneuver to try and win some Black voters.

Personally I would be far more skeptical of the media if they saw the overwhelming flaws and malice in Trump but still tried to present a narrative that it was an election between two equal parties. It would be inherently silly if the media went ''Okay we know Trump is incompetent, racist and deeply corrupt but we must stress that he's just as valid an option as Biden....somehow'' and the strange thing is that's what demagogues seem to demand these days. That we just ignore the easily visible flaws in the demagogues and operate under the assumption they are just as valid as candidates who do not share these flaws.

 

[Houseman]

Who knows? The Platinum Plan is nothing but a wish list.

Four fucking years to work on and enact something, and a back-of-a-beermat splurge of vague ideas gets announced conveniently just before an election. As the saying goes, "talk is cheap". At worst, it's showing contempt.

I do know about it. I just don't find it particularly relevant. I certainly don't think its proof he's not racist. With how he presented it so close to the election I'm more inclined to believe it to be a purely tactical maneuver to try and win some Black voters.

Well, part of that plan is the "First Step act" which was signed into law two years ago. Say what you want about promises, but this is already done:

BOP: First Step Act Overview

www.bop.gov

 

[Silvanus]

Why do you think this graph is the way that it is?

Probably because the Republican candidate has spent 4+ years condemning the mainstream media, including perfectly factual reporting, as a method of deflecting criticism.

Well, part of that plan is the "First Step act" which was signed into law two years ago.

First Step was signed in 2018, and the Platinum Plan was unveiled about 2-3 months ago.

 

[Houseman]

Probably because the Republican candidate has spent 4+ years condemning the mainstream media, including perfectly factual reporting, as a method of deflecting criticism.

Since 1997?