Was the Electoral College rigged too? - Politics Discussion

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) 2 months ago

Easy, hack the voting computers the electorates were using. It's not rocket science. The guy who invented the electronic voting machines even confessed to programming them so that they were hackable.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

“Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!” – Eric Coomer - VP of Dominion

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1770) 2 months ago

Well, hopefully the person who designed it was fired for incompetence.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

It was deliberate, not incompetence.

"A federal judge has ordered the founder of Dominion, the voting machine company, to give deposition evidence under oath to election integrity activists"

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1770) 2 months ago

So the person who designed it was actually a fraud? That's some hot shit.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) 2 months ago

Oh it gets even better than that! I've heard two very ugly discoveries people have made with those voting machines.

1.) Someone did an experiment during the 2020 election and isolated a voting machine from the others, and put in a hypothetical set of 50 votes for Biden and 50 votes for Trump. Guess how many each candidate got after the machine was done? Biden got 75 votes, and Trump got 20! Turns out the machines were calculating votes for Biden in higher percentages, and Trump votes in lower percentages!

2.) There have been rumors that coding on the ballots was also done in a way to trick people into voting for Biden without their knowledge, because the machines don't read the printed names with the dot colored in next to them. They read the code on the card next to the person's name on the ballot. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they had switched the code for Biden with Trump's.

3.) The machines were also hooked up to the internet, which is illegal. They aren't supposed to have an internet connection during the election at all, which allowed people overseas in places like Germany, Iran, and China to hack them easily to change the votes to favor Biden.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

This is literally just an unsourced tweet, lmao.

Meanwhile in actual news Dominion won or settled all their cases (in Dominion's favour).

https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/voting-machine-company-smartmatic-oann-settle-defamation-suit-rcna148148

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Old news and that was an internal payoff, keep up.

BTW, learn how to search, you found a retweet that didn't have the video clip from one of the sources.

There is also a second source from an external article.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>Old news and that was an internal payoff, keep up.

Yes, because they'd get reamed in court. That's how these things work. Nothing has ever stuck to Dominion ever.

>BTW, learn how to search, you found a retweet that didn't have the video clip from one of the sources.

https://www.newsweek.com/dominion-voting-donald-trump-mike-lindell-rudy-giuliani-one-america-1954365

This? What's the big deal here? It's from Dominion's own case against OAN.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Yes, but the founder of Dominion still has to give deposition evidence under oath to election integrity activists as stated in the quote where you claimed was "unsourced."

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Fair enough. But it doesn't mean anything here. You were suggesting that it was some slam-dunk down the line. It really isn't.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

So what? Trump refused to have another debate with Harris and that's just one reason why Trump will never be president again. Since you are not an American why do you care? Your conspiracy theories are pure bullshit.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Cheaters and and liars don't deserve second chances.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

It looks like we agree on something. Trump is definitely a cheat and a liar. The only reason Trump is declining to debate Harris again is because he got his ample ass kicked by Harris. Have you seen the polls lately?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

Remember, when the polls were favoring Trump you claimed those polls were completely accurate. So now what's your excuse as to why Trump is losing? Are there polls in your country?

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Are those the same fake polls that had Hillary winning, how did that turn out?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

You missed his point. Fivethirtyeight was until very recently preferencing Trump to win. He is then suggesting that when that was so you endorsed the polling.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

I never cited 538 except when they had Hillary winning in 2016.

Robo has me confused with others as usual.

The only polls I cited recently was about the Trump vs Harris debate and 538 was not among them.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

The only polls I cited recently was about the Trump vs Harris debate and 538 was not among them.

Fair enough. What polls are you referring to? Post links to backup your claims.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5827) 2 months ago

The only polls I cited recently was about the Trump vs Harris debate and 538 was not among them.

Tell me you don't know that 538 is an aggregate of polls without telling me you don't know that 538 is an aggregate of polls!

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

I still didn't include any polls from 538.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5827) 2 months ago

Fair enough...

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

But you claimed that all the polls were legitimate when Trump was leading. What changed?

In 2016 the polls showed that Hillary was leading Trump by a few percentage points. Those polls accurately because showed that Hillary won the popular vote.

If you are an American you would know this.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Read my reply above.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

It looks like we agree on something. Trump is definitely a cheat and a liar. The only reason Trump is declining to debate Harris again is because he got his ample ass kicked by Harris. Have you seen the polls lately?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

Remember, when the polls were favoring Trump you claimed those polls were completely accurate. So now what's your excuse as to why Trump is losing? Are there polls in your country?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Biden's popular vote was boosted to sell the steal. Obama had a 3.9% popular vote advantage for 332 electoral votes while Biden had a 4.5% popular vote advantage for just 306 electoral votes.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

What steal? According to you the Democrats outsmarted all you Republicans by rigging the 2020 election. Thousands if not millions of co-conspirators worked together across state lines without getting caught or having a single problem. Not one. Knowing human behavior that's impossible. Why hasn't one single person involved come forward as a whistle blower? Why haven't Republicans provided any proof that the 2020 election was rigged?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Democrats didn't outsmart anybody. They are just better servants to the elites:

"Ukraine aid: 311-112. This was the most contentious bill and it received unanimous support from Democrats, while Republicans were split."

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

What does the Ukraine vote have to do with anything here? It's well known the Republicans are split on Ukraine, but that the Democrats are not.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Elites wanted Trump out; Elites wanted funding for Ukraine.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

You are comparing a national vote with a parliamentary vote. Completely different things.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

It was the Democrat House votes that were 100% in for Ukraine funding.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Okay so? I am still missing your point here. The Dems are notably massive pro-Ukraine.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Dems are pro whatever the elites want same with Rinos. Elites wanted the Iraq war. Hillary and Biden were all to happy to support George W. Bush's war. Vietnam War: The Senate passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with only two opposing votes, and the House of Representatives passed it unanimously...

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Who are the "elites" exactly?

The USA did not start the Ukraine conflict.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

That's bullshit. I was hoping you would show your evidence that the 2020 election was rigged because no one else has but you didn't. Hurry because Trump could really use your help right now.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

I already did. I'll wait for anyone to counter it.

Meanwhile we have the election that took 4 days to fortify and went against every other incumbent election in US history. What do you expect mass election fraud is going to look like?

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

That's bullshit. I was hoping you would show your evidence that the 2020 election was rigged because no one else has but you didn't. Hurry because Trump could really use your help right now.

Show your evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. It would be the biggest news story of the year. Otherwise go fuck yourself. 🤣

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

You can't even attempt to explain what mass election fraud would look like, talk about some bullshit.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

That's bullshit. I was hoping you would show your evidence that the 2020 election was rigged because no one else has but you didn't. Hurry because Trump could really use your help right now.

Show your evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. It would be the biggest news story of the year. Otherwise go fuck yourself. 🤣 Sorry, our stupidity cannot be cured.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>I already did. I'll wait for anyone to counter it.

By showing you don't understand how the electoral college works?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

What?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Your evidence of fraud is apparently your inability to understand how US presidential elections work.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Got any evidence for this claim?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Also you do realise that vote share does not directly correlate with electoral college results, right?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Good now go ahead and explain the popular voter margins/ electoral votes discrepancy between similar elections. I'll wait.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Because to win a state, and thus win its electoral votes only requires you to win a plurality of votes in the state. It doesn't matter by how much you could win it. You could win Pennsylvania by 46% or 70%. You still get the same EC boost.

Joe Biden got 4 million more votes than Obama did in 2012 in California. He got 500,000 than Obama did in NY. The Dems have been racking up the number heavily in the states they do win, meaning they have a big popular vote advantage whereas the Republicans win swing states (or lose them) by tiny margins.

Like this just isn't hard. You can look at this stuff state-by-state and do the maths. You genuinely don't seem to understand how US presidential elections work.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Comparing Biden and Obama votes? More Democrats votes after 8 years of population growth is expected. A noted shift between elections is not. Keep trying!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Right, it's as if you read half my reply there. Vote share doesn't rise or fall across every state equally.

The Democrat popular vote has been largely holding up across the USA proper, but not holding up equally across every state. The Democrats in 2016 narrowly lost the swing states, only having minor falls in vote share there - and they're not hugely populated. But their support in blue states held up, or improved. So in 2020, the Dems narrowly took back the swing states and their support in their states rose heavily.

I'll use raw percentages, shall I? Since you need it spelled out

California 2012: 60%
California 2020: 63%

Virginia 2012: 51%
Virginia 2020: 54%

The dems have also made progress in Texas since 2012:

Texas 2012: 41%
Texas 2020: 46%

So the Dems have been improving in the two largest states since 2012, which does a lot to their national vote percentage.

It all adds up.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Meanwhile Biden had the worst loss in Florida since 2004. Yet it adds up all right.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Yes, he had a decline in Florida (by 3%) but this doesn't outdo the improvement in California, Massachusetts, Georgia, Virginia and Texas amongst others. The change in fortunes in Texas and CA is huge for the Democrat vote percentage, to be frank. They're the two largest states.

I mean what are you getting at here? You can literally go state-by-state and manually add in all the results across the country and see the percentages.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Here's what's driving that disparity: "Naturalized Citizens Make Up Record One-in-Ten U.S. Eligible Voters in 2020
Since 2000, size of immigrant electorate nearly doubled to 23.2 million"

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

That's a completely separate argument. The point you seemed to be suggesting was that there was something dodgy in itself regarding the voting and used the fact that the Democrat vote was more efficient in 2012 to highlight that.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

Give it up because Skavau just handed your ass to you. Keep doubling down on stupid because you entertain me.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

You're both embarrassing yourselves. Keep it coming.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

I don't even get how you think this is evidence of fraud. The voter data is publicly viewable. The maths adds up. Basically the Democrat vote has become less efficient than the Republican vote.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

What evidence are you referring to?

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

The only person who is embarrassed by you is your wife/sister and the rest of your family. You seem to be very stupid and gullible but keep wasting your time by worshiping your orange master. How is that working out for you?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Why are you so emotional?

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

Is that the best you got? Just show us your evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. It's a simple request so why are you refusing?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

The burden is to explain why the 2020 election is legitimate. It's the only example in US history where the incumbent who maintained/gained support lost.

Meanwhile the 2020 election had all the signs of a fraud election and all to Biden's advantage:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190

reply

[–] robocat893 (15918) 2 months ago

That article is from September 2nd, 2016. Can't you find something current?

The burden is to explain why the 2020 election is legitimate.

That's not how it works, dumbass. If you make a claim about anything it's up to you to provide evidence of that claim. If you didn't drop out of middle school you would know this.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

More current? Sure, like the signs for a fraud election are going to drastically change in 4 years. Every one of those indicators of fraud was in 2020 all for Biden's benefit. Imagine that!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>Too many voters

Turnout in USA election 2020 was 66%. Far from 98%.

>A high turnout in specific areas

Any examples?

>Large numbers of invalid votes

Any examples?

>More votes than ballot papers issued

Any examples?

>Results that don't match

Any examples?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

You mean like 4 days to call an election that supposedly wasn't nearly as close as 2016?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Are you going to provide any substantiation for any of the other points?

The swing states were very close and took 4 days, overall, to confirm that their EC vote combined would put Biden over the edge.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

It was much closer in 2016:

In 2016 Pa was decided by 0.72% it was called 2:28am. In 2020, it was 1.9% but called 4 days later!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>It was much closer in 2016:

The swing states?

>In 2016 Pa was decided by 0.72% it was called 2:28am. In 2020, it was 1.9% but called 4 days later!

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/04/931136905/we-ll-be-working-24-hours-vote-counting-to-continue-through-the-week

Heavy postal voting

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Yes, another convenient excuse. Odd, we never seen this garbage until 2020: fraud election.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

There was a lot more postal voting in 2020 due to COVID. This was predicted, and nothing about it was unexpected.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Yes, perfect cover for mass election fraud.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

No evidence, just vibes.

There were many audits done, and no evidence was found, and Trumps campaign was unable to produce any evidence whatsoever.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

They recounted the same fraud ballots over and over.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Any evidence for this whatsoever?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh5j7s1H7ek

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-georgia-media-social-media-e9a73462e39e7aa39683f0f582a6659e

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/23/georgia-election-worker-cleared-trump-giuliani-vote-2020

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Elites wanted Trump out. Do you really think they're going to self incriminate?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

So you have no evidence here. You're just assuming that the evidence is there, but concealed because of a conspiracy amongst the elites.

That's my point. It's vibes. Your position is completely unfalsifiable.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>The burden is to explain why the 2020 election is legitimate. It's the only example in US history where the incumbent who maintained/gained support lost.

Joe Biden gained more support than Trump did in 2020. It's that simple.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

>Joe Biden gained more support than Trump did in 2020.

please provide evidence of this....

also Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery, was there any chicanery?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>please provide evidence of this....

Joe Biden got 81 million votes in 2020. Clinton got 66 million votes in 2016.

Trump got 74 million votes in 2020. Trump got 63 million votes in 2016.

Do you need me to do the maths?

>also Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery, was there any chicanery?

No

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

there is no evidence that Joe won as the election was not investigated. why did Joe say he was going to lose by chicanery but then say there was no chicanery? Nancy said that Trump stole the 2016 election. and dont forget about the Durham report.

this is confusing for sure.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>there is no evidence that Joe won as the election was not investigated.

What would constitute a valid investigation to you? Do you automatically expect every election to be "investigated"? There's no evidence that Trump won in 2016 either by this logic. Or Obama in 2008 or 2021. Or Bush in 2004. How far do you want to go back here?

>why did Joe say he was going to lose by chicanery but then say there was no chicanery?

He didn't lose? He suggested that Trump was going to try and meddle (and he did, amusingly enough - although it didn't work).

>Nancy said that Trump stole the 2016 election. and dont forget about the Durham report.

I don't give a fuck about anything Nancy Pelosi has to say. I don't speak for her.

What about the Durham report? Zero relevance whatsoever here.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

any election going forward needs to be investigated for collusion or hijacking. a valid investigation would be someone like Mueller to investigate for 2 years just to make sure there wasnt any chicanery.

how did Trump meddle in the 2020 election? there was no fraud, hijacking or chicanery reported in the 2020 election. was there a official federal investigation for Trump meddling?

well Nancy is weird. and says weird stuff.

the Durham report said all the "evidence" presented in the Mueller report was fake.

there has been 2 official investigations for the 2016 election but none for the 2020 election even though Nancy said that Trump was going to steal the election again and Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery and Hillary said not concede under any circumstances.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>any election going forward needs to be investigated for collusion or hijacking. a valid investigation would be someone like Mueller to investigate for 2 years just to make sure there wasnt any chicanery.

And what about prior elections? Do you assume that they were all fraudulent?

>how did Trump meddle in the 2020 election?

Trying to set up a slate of false electors, pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to find him votes. Openly and baselessly inciting people by claiming that there was fraud.

>there was no fraud, hijacking or chicanery reported in the 2020 election.

I didn't say there was. But I said that Trump tried to meddle.

>was there a official federal investigation for Trump meddling?

There have been many investigations, yes. Georgia themselves filed state charges against him.

>there has been 2 official investigations for the 2016 election but none for the 2020 election

Also, you know there's been various election audits in many battleground states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Election_audits

That turned up nothing

>even though Nancy said that Trump was going to steal the election again and Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery and Hillary said not concede under any circumstances.

Who gives a fuck? Why does this remotely matter?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

The steal was was facilitated with this ruling:

in the three "Blue Wall" states the president won in 2016 -- Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- judges have recently issued rulings that extend the deadline for mail ballots to be received.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-changed-rules-voting-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/story?id=72309089

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Yup, That's the main reason they declared the scamdemic.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

What makes it a "scamdemic" exactly? That the virus existed, or the reaction to it?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Why would extending the deadlines constitute a theft? This makes no sense.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

It gave ample time account for key vote differentials and dump ballots as needed to push Biden ahead like this:

https://katychristianmagazine.com/2020/11/06/democracy-dies-in-broad-daylight/michigan-vote-dump-map/

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-vote-spikes-in-wisconsin-michigan-and-pennsylvania-do-not-prove-ele-idUSKBN27Q304/

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/04/fact-check-typo-led-false-post-michigan-votes-biden/6164385002/

This is basic conspiracy mythos that doesn't understand how elections work.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Big media lied about Russia collusion, WMD in iraq, Vietnam war etc. Yes, believe them about the 2020 election what could go wrong.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

You do realise that those articles I provided to you are source their claims.

I should apparently trust an evangelical christian blog over everything else. Is that what you're claiming?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

AP showed the same but made excuses for it: Graph shows thousands of ballots reported at once, overwhelmingly for Biden
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9647421250

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

"AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. Milwaukee didn’t finish counting absentee ballots until 3 a.m. The outstanding ballots at that point -- including 169,000 from Milwaukee -- overwhelmingly broke for the Democrat. Based on the counting of in-person votes, President Donald Trump initially had the lead in Wisconsin on election night, but once all the votes were counted, Biden picked up the win. The counting of those outstanding ballots shows up as a big surge in the tally, but those votes didn’t come “out of nowhere.”

Maggie Koerth, senior science writer for FiveThirtyEight, addressed concerns over the graph on the FiveThirtyEight website.

“We are getting very close to having some results from Wisconsin, and I’m seeing a lot of questions like this one, which was directed to the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Twitter,” she said Wednesday morning. “That weird-looking bump in the Wisconsin results is what happened when 170,000 absentee votes from the city of Milwaukee poured in all at once. It’s not nefarious. It’s just counting.”

Most of Wisconsin’s largest cities, including Milwaukee and Green Bay, count absentee ballots in one centralized location. The count of Milwaukee’s absentee ballots, for example, began Tuesday morning and was live-streamed for people to view throughout the day on YouTube. But Wisconsin law requires that the results of those absentee votes be reported all at once, Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe explained Wednesday.

It literally directly answers you right there.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Pathetic excuses.

They did the same with the covered the polling windows:

Some – but not all – windows were covered, because poll workers seated just inside those windows expressed concerns about people outside the center photographing and filming them and their work,” Garcia told CNN Business. “Only the media is allowed to take pictures inside the counting place, and people outside the center were not listening to requests to stop filming poll workers and their paperwork.”
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/05/media/detroit-windows-covered-ballots-vote-center/index.html

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

What's the excuse here?

"But Lawrence Garcia, an attorney for the City of Detroit, said that the windows were partially blocked because of concern voter information could be wrongfully revealed to the public. Those concerns were compounded by the fact that protesters standing outside the ballot-counting area were taking photographs and recording video."

https://eu.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/12/11/summary-michigans-2020-election-lawsuits/3861548001/

Zero evidence for any allegations in Michigan was ever provided.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Joe Biden gained more support than Trump? You don't get it. Modern Election history shows when the incumbent loses; they lose support:

George Bush declined by 9m votes. Carter declined by 5m. Hoover declined 5M. Taft declined 4.3M. Harrison declined 330k.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>Joe Biden gained more support than Trump? You don't get it. Modern Election history shows when the incumbent loses; they lose support:

Most elections don't see a big gain in turnout. The turnout increased by 6.5% between 2016 and 2020. Biden gained more support than Trump did.

>George Bush declined by 9m votes.

The turnout of the USA election in 1992 decline compared to 1988, and Reagan had such a big victory that Bush could afford to lose support.

>Carter declined by 5m. Hoover declined 5M. Taft declined 4.3M. Harrison declined 330k.

I don't get what your point is here at all. Turnout in the USA election in 2020 massively increased compared to 2016, so all candidates were much more likely to hold onto raw vote numbers compared to their parties last performance.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

There was a 6 point increase in voter turnout between 2016-2020. That's nothing unusual. The same happened % jump between 2000-2004 yet we didn't seen any odd outliers like we do in 2020 why?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>There was a 6 point increase in voter turnout between 2016-2020. That's nothing unusual. The same happened % jump between 2000-2004 yet we didn't seen any odd outliers like we do in 2020 why?

And the vote number for both the Republicans and the Democrats increased in 2004 too. John Kerry had 9 million more votes than Al Gore.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

That's not unusual Now if John Kerry had 5 million more votes than Bush while Bush maintained/grew then you'd have a point.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

I don't see why you think this is such an outlandish outcome. In the UK, the Labour party just won a 400+ seat majority on *less votes* than in 2019 because of turnout decline.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

This isn't the UK.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

...Not sure of the relevance. The point is that all kinds of factors influence things. Biden increased the vote for the Democrats more than Trump did in 2020 for the Republicans.

Remember that Clinton lost the electoral college in 2016, but still had the plurality vote. That's highly irregular too. Especially by the margin she won it.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Where was all the magic support for Hillary's historic run?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

I have no idea what you're getting at here. Hillary was a relatively contentious candidate. She still got more votes than Trump, but in all the wrong areas.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Hillary got 55% of the Democratic primary votes compared to 51% for Biden.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

And Obama got 48% of the primary votes in 2008. What's your point?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

The point was Hilary was well liked by Democrats. Yet, she didn't have magic support like Biden.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

What was Biden's "magic support" exactly? Are you alleging fraud in the Democrat primary now? He was a VP for eight years. That gave him a huge boost.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Where was Gore's huge boost?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

He won the Democrat primary in 2000, did he not?

Being a VP doesn't mean you win the election, it means you are much more likely to win your parties primary.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

No kidding.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

So what the hell is your point here?

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

You stated the obvious.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Right, but I'm still not sure where you were going with this:

"Hillary got 55% of the Democratic primary votes compared to 51% for Biden."

How well you win a primary doesn't necessarily translate into winning the election.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

I never claimed that. However, it showed that Hillary wasn't contentious like you claimed and her historic election should have had the magic support not an old white guy.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Contentious amongst the general voting population as compared to the Democrat primary. She was also against Sanders in the primary, who whilst punching above his weight politically, was also somewhat contentious.

Why should her "historic election" have had the "magic support"? You're saying because she didn't win the election in 2016, then Biden couldn't have done? 4 years had passed since then. Biden was an ex-VP, and Trump was widely unpopular due to his handling of COVID (amongst other reasons). Things changed.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Again, your argument is with election history.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

I'm not making an argument here. You are the only person suggesting that Biden can't have won because it somehow contradicts older election results.

Trends are trends until they aren't. A seat is a safe seat until it isn't. A seat is bellweather until it isn't.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Not older results; all other results.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Yes, all other older results. Something that hasn't happened in an election results hasn't happened until it has.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) 2 months ago

Everyone knows Dems cheated in 2020. Skavau’s pathetic gaslighting is convincing nobody.

reply

[–] Branson26 (985) 2 months ago

Tha'sTrue.
The same people who defend the 2020 election will typically have no problem attacking the 2016 election because of this:

"Hillary Clinton calls Trump 'illegitimate president'
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/30/hillary-clinton-calls-trump-illegitimate-president-sot-ip-vpx.cnn

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>The same people who defend the 2020 election will typically have no problem attacking the 2016 election because of this:

I don't care what other people do. By the rules of the 2016 election, Trump won. There was no fraud of any appreciable value then, and none now.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

And what am I gaslighting him about? Be specific.

You can't because you're completely full of shit.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) 2 months ago

Fuck off snitch

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1770) 2 months ago

Why ask for evidence or sources anyway? We already know what's going on. Feelings come over facts.

reply

[–] Rorikon (17855) 2 months ago

Yep, rigged. Imagine a few states (7) of 50 could decide the fate of their nation's leader for every other state that aren't considered 'important'.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3021) 2 months ago

The electoral college ticks me off. I can't believe it's still in place but most people don't understand it. It took me twenty years of voting to figure it out. Most people vote every two years and go back to their daily lives. The electoral college basically cements a two-party system since a candidate has to earn 270 electoral college votes in order to avoid Congress voting for the President and Vice President. Most states are winner-take-all so the votes of roughly half of the voters do not count.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3021) 2 months ago

Trump's 2020 scheme was to use fake electors to override the actual electoral college votes. Mike Pence oversaw the certification of the election and he refused to go along with the scheme. The new scheme might be to refuse to certify the election and that would prevent a candidate from reaching 270 electoral college votes. If a candidate fails to reach 270 electoral college votes, Congress picks the President and Vice President. Unfortunately, the popular vote is irrelevant.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/the-cases-against-fake-electors-and-where-they-stand/

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-joe-biden-presidential-elections-election-2020-electoral-college-311f88768b65f7196f52a4757dc162e4

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/republicans-will-refuse-certify-harris-election

https://www.270towin.com/content/electoral-college-ties/

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

dont forget about the steele dossier scheme to overturn the 2016 election.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3021) 2 months ago

The Steele dossier was opposition research initially funded by conservatives and later funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The dossier was published after Trump was elected and there is no evidence of a Steele dossier scheme to overturn the 2016 election.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/newly-leaked-dossier-trump-circulated-dc-months

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

that has been debunked already as fake news.

The Washington Free Beacon said it hired Fusion GPS to provide research on candidates, but it had no involvement with a controversial dossier about Trump. The Washington Free Beacon said it hired Fusion GPS to provide research on candidates, but it had no involvement with a controversial dossier about Trump.

the steele dossier turned into the Mueller report because Nancy said she had cold hard facts that Trump colluded with Russia. it was all a scheme to discredit Trumps legitimate win. the durham report said all the "facts" were fake.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3021) 2 months ago

Nothing has been debunked as fake news. Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS and Fusion GPS hired Steele.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/28/560544607/conservative-website-initially-hired-firm-that-later-produced-trump-dossier

Mueller focused on Russia and indicted 34 individuals and 3 Russian businesses. Mueller didn't go after Trump because Trump threatened to fire him.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-wanted-fire-mueller-june-backed-down-reports-n841206

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

Fusion GPS was later hired by an attorney representing the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, it was revealed this week. Fusion GPS formally hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele after it was hired by the law firm working with the DNC and Clinton campaign, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/conservative-site-first-hired-firm-later-linked-steele-dossier-n815256

that has been debunked by NBC news. the NPR news is old and fake.

Trump didnt have the power to fire Mueller anyways. and also Mueller concluded that Trump did not collude with Russia. Trump won the election fair and square. and Obama was right to say that US elections cant be hacked. its sour grapes for dems.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3021) 2 months ago

I trust NPR over NBC. Nothing has been debunked.

Trump may have had the power to fire Mueller. It's a complicated legal issue.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/trump-has-the-constitutional-authority-fire-mueller-heres-why

Mueller did not reach a conclusion regarding Trump's collusion with Russia. Mueller did not want to investigate Trump since his team would be fired.

https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/

Most Dems will admit that Trump won the election. The purpose of the Russia investigation was to investigate Russian meddling in the US election. Russia certainly tried to influence the election and Mueller indicted many Russians. Russia was caught paying money to social media influencers to promote Kremlin propaganda.

https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Most Dems will admit that Trump won the election.

24 STRAIGHT MINUTES of Democrats denying election results: https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ

20 Minute video of prominent Democrats exposing electronic voting machines:

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1814400567390720001/vid/avc1/854x480/bjm5hjIJbGsA1k5Y.mp4?tag=14

reply

[–] joej2923 (3021) 2 months ago

I did specify that MOST Dems would admit that Trump won but there will always be a few who complain. Hillary Clinton did concede the election after a few days but she's probably still complaining. I will rely on reputable news organizations for my news instead of your questionable social media videos.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

I will rely on reputable news organizations for my news

Translation: I will only rely on sources that confirms my bias; truth and facts be damned.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Dude, lets assume this is true here - you do the exact same. You cherrypick blogs, rumble videos and obscure claimants and tweets that don't provide any supporting evidence purely because they confirm your prejudice.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

I rely on experience, instinct, intuition, gut, common sense, reason, discernment and deduction.

Some of your listed sources happen to also arrive at the same similar conclusions (partially or in whole) based on circumstantial evidence and connecting the dots.

I don’t rely on perceived authoritative sources to think for me or come to a conclusion because I’m told they are credible or reputable.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>I rely on experience, instinct, intuition, gut, common sense, reason, discernment and deduction.

With you this is literally just "vibes" and "bias". You lack all of those qualities and dismiss sources outright because you reject who they are, not what they say. I've caught you multiple times just uncritically believing tweets that literally derive from fake news websites. That's hardly common sense by any measure.

>Some of your listed sources happen to also arrive at the same similar conclusions (partially or in whole) based on circumstantial evidence and connecting the dots.

Seeing how you've never scrutinised any of them, and just dismiss them, it's hard to take this claim seriously at all.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

I reject them because I rely on those qualities.

You have a different interpretation of what fake news is because you lack "all" those qualities and rely solely on establishment propaganda because you believe they are credible and reputable sources.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>I reject them because I rely on those qualities.

No, you don't. You believe you do. But I've caught you falling for outright nonsense repeatedly. You don't read anything that disagrees with your opinions. You're also, if I recall a holocaust denier too - which in my mind makes you, amongst other things, a nazi piece of shit.

>You have a different interpretation of what fake news is because you lack "all" those qualities and rely solely on establishment propaganda because you believe they are credible and reputable sources.

"no u" is the best you've got here, of course.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

Nothing has been debunked as fake news.

lol, All your sources are literally from propagandists, fake news mockingbird media.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3021) 2 months ago

I posted links from news organizations that employ journalists to report on the news. You get all your misinformation from social media.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 2 months ago

I posted links from news organizations that employ journalists to report on the news.

Yes, 99% that are establishment shills. That doesn't make them credible sources.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

Obama said that elections cant be rigged or stolen. Nancy said the election was stolen and then said that Trump was going to steal the next election, but then said the election wasnt stolen. Hillary said the next election was going to be stolen by Russia again. confused yet?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Who gives a fuck?

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

I do. I am still trying to get an answer from the resident dems if US elections can be hijacked or not.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

No, they can't. I'm not a Dem, but no - there's no evidence of any fraud in any election ever in the USA in modern times.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

if they cant then why did Nancy say that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election? she also said that Trump was going to steal the 2020 election and Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery. Hillary said the next election was going to be stolen by Russia again. I am still confused.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

No idea. I truly don't care. Why should I give the slightest fuck? There was no evidence of any fraud.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

if there was no evidence of any fraud, then why was Mueller hired to investigate the 2016 election? Obama said that elections cant be hacked.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

He was investigating possible Trump and Trump campaign ties and association with Russian state entities. He was not investigating the conduct of the 2016 election.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

but Nancy said that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. so Trump stealing the election had nothing to do the with Mueller report? what happened to the cold hard facts?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

Who gives a fuck

Was Nancy Pelosi the lead investigator of Mueller's reports? Trump didn't "steal" the election. That wording is stupid and I would never use it.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

Mueller was in charge of the Mueller report but Nancy requested Mueller to investigate for collusion and hijacking of the 2016 election.

agree, Trump didnt steal the 2016 election and won fair and square. people that say that Trump stole the election are election deniers.

glad we finally agree on something. :)

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 months ago

>Mueller was in charge of the Mueller report but Nancy requested Mueller to investigate for collusion and hijacking of the 2016 election.

And what did Nancy mean when she suggested "collusion" and "hijacking"?

>agree, Trump didnt steal the 2016 election and won fair and square. people that say that Trump stole the election are election deniers.

Yes. And so are the clowns who claim it for 2020.

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5827) 2 months ago

I've literally never heard anyone talk about 2016 here on mc except you and Bubba...

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 2 months ago

thats because bubba and I are movie chats buddies. the 2016 election was not stolen. everyone knows this. if you say otherwise, then you are a election denier.

reply

[–] Freddy (1325) 2 months ago

money talks bullshit walks

reply