Biden Over 80 Million Votes
3,566 Views |
42 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by J.B.Katz
Strange fact. Got a source or did you just pull it out ?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:That is not my job. The fact that elections are now more secure in Iran than the United States tells me there are a whole bunch of folks not doing their jobs.Canada2017 said:Prove it .RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Ronald Reagan received 54.4 million votes in 1984.
Barack Obama received 69.4 million votes in 2008.
Basement Joe received over 80 million votes? No way in Hell.
Prove that they are not. Got a source besides the new Socialist Democratic Party?Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Strange fact. Got a source or did you just pull it out ?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:That is not my job. The fact that elections are now more secure in Iran than the United States tells me there are a whole bunch of folks not doing their jobs.Canada2017 said:Prove it .RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
Ronald Reagan received 54.4 million votes in 1984.
Barack Obama received 69.4 million votes in 2008.
Basement Joe received over 80 million votes? No way in Hell.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
lol Its your statement so I guess we know the answer. Does it get sore pulling so much out?
Iran
(Reuters) - Defeated hardline candidate Ebrahim Raisi has complained of voter fraud in Iran's presidential election and called on the judiciary and the election watchdog to investigate, the semi-official Fars news agency said on Monday.
- The state of Georgia announced Tuesday that an official audit of its voting machines found no evidence of fraud or foul play.
- Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said that the probe was successful in ensuring that the machines hadn't been manipulated.
- "We are glad but not surprised that the audit of the state's voting machines was an unqualified success," he said.
Iran
(Reuters) - Defeated hardline candidate Ebrahim Raisi has complained of voter fraud in Iran's presidential election and called on the judiciary and the election watchdog to investigate, the semi-official Fars news agency said on Monday.
Democracy is a mechanism that is really only intended to solve the question of how we ought to be governed amongst people that as a necessary precondition, have agreed to adhere to a shared set of democratic norms.
Elections aren't really intended as a mechanism for getting what you want in and of itself. Elections are basically just a means of self perpetuating these Democratic norms.
We do want elections to be free and fair as a means of filtering out candidates who might seek to eliminate democracy. But this is primarily a concern before, not after, the candidate has revealed their true agenda.
You don't want elections to be rigged because that could lead to dictatorship. If elections were rigged but we see later that democracy survives anyway, it's still a concern, but far less of one.
We are already living in Biden's America. If there was a secret agenda to turn the country into a communist dictatorship, we would have known about it by now, or the powers that be in the DNC have at least judged that they intend to keep that objective secret as they do not believe their hand is strong enough to force it at this point in time.
Either way,it appears Democracy has been thrown a life preserver, at least by the Biden camp. Through this prism, the self perpetuation and commitment to democratic norms, the election has already served its purpose successfully, whether it was rigged or not. The only reason to rig an election to preserve Democracy would be out of fear the other side won't adhere to democratic norms.
Why fix what isn't broken, or overly obsess over something that is partly broken but still works well enough to serve its intended purpose?
The political mood since election day has overwhelmingly been one largely of relief. Stocks seem to be positive, rioting has mostly calmed, people mostly seem content to move on with their lives, with the usual conspiracy theories here and there.
Now lets compare that to Trump's rhetoric before the election. We can now see that he was either
a. lying
b. being extremely petty
c. using this as cover to do himself what he accused others of doing
As a thought exercise, let's suppose a married couple have a long standing argument that has recently become ever increasingly heated and divisive, claiming each is trying to poison the other. They have a deal where on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays the wife cooks, and on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays the husband cooks.
The wife cooks up a plate of soggy, overly salted noodles on a Tuesday. The husband complains that she broke the rules of the agreement by cooking on a Tuesday when that wasn't one of her days to cook and that the food tastes terrible. But at least now we know for sure the food the wife cooks is not poisoned.
Do we really want to take the risk of having the husband cook, even if he has the right to cook the meal on a Tuesday, given that we strongly suspect one of the two is trying to poison the other , and we now know it isn't the wife?
If we want better policies, and for people to follow the rules in the future, first let's lead by example and leave no doubt that we are committed to democratic norms and to following the rules ourselves from the beginning.
The main tool we have to ensuring the quality of policies improves is not through elections, but through persuasive arguments and education.
If you want elections to be fair and to produce the policies that you want, convince people your way is better, they won't want to cheat in the first place, and the problem ultimately solves itself. Our elections aren't broken, our national dialog is, or rather, perhaps our elections are broken because our national dialog was broken first.
If you are using elections as a means of forcing results on your political opponents, don't be surprised when the integrity of the election itself begins to break down.
Let's just eat the soggy salted noodles on a Tuesday and be grateful we are still alive, and focus on what really needs to be fixed.
Elections aren't really intended as a mechanism for getting what you want in and of itself. Elections are basically just a means of self perpetuating these Democratic norms.
We do want elections to be free and fair as a means of filtering out candidates who might seek to eliminate democracy. But this is primarily a concern before, not after, the candidate has revealed their true agenda.
You don't want elections to be rigged because that could lead to dictatorship. If elections were rigged but we see later that democracy survives anyway, it's still a concern, but far less of one.
We are already living in Biden's America. If there was a secret agenda to turn the country into a communist dictatorship, we would have known about it by now, or the powers that be in the DNC have at least judged that they intend to keep that objective secret as they do not believe their hand is strong enough to force it at this point in time.
Either way,it appears Democracy has been thrown a life preserver, at least by the Biden camp. Through this prism, the self perpetuation and commitment to democratic norms, the election has already served its purpose successfully, whether it was rigged or not. The only reason to rig an election to preserve Democracy would be out of fear the other side won't adhere to democratic norms.
Why fix what isn't broken, or overly obsess over something that is partly broken but still works well enough to serve its intended purpose?
The political mood since election day has overwhelmingly been one largely of relief. Stocks seem to be positive, rioting has mostly calmed, people mostly seem content to move on with their lives, with the usual conspiracy theories here and there.
Now lets compare that to Trump's rhetoric before the election. We can now see that he was either
a. lying
b. being extremely petty
c. using this as cover to do himself what he accused others of doing
As a thought exercise, let's suppose a married couple have a long standing argument that has recently become ever increasingly heated and divisive, claiming each is trying to poison the other. They have a deal where on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays the wife cooks, and on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays the husband cooks.
The wife cooks up a plate of soggy, overly salted noodles on a Tuesday. The husband complains that she broke the rules of the agreement by cooking on a Tuesday when that wasn't one of her days to cook and that the food tastes terrible. But at least now we know for sure the food the wife cooks is not poisoned.
Do we really want to take the risk of having the husband cook, even if he has the right to cook the meal on a Tuesday, given that we strongly suspect one of the two is trying to poison the other , and we now know it isn't the wife?
If we want better policies, and for people to follow the rules in the future, first let's lead by example and leave no doubt that we are committed to democratic norms and to following the rules ourselves from the beginning.
The main tool we have to ensuring the quality of policies improves is not through elections, but through persuasive arguments and education.
If you want elections to be fair and to produce the policies that you want, convince people your way is better, they won't want to cheat in the first place, and the problem ultimately solves itself. Our elections aren't broken, our national dialog is, or rather, perhaps our elections are broken because our national dialog was broken first.
If you are using elections as a means of forcing results on your political opponents, don't be surprised when the integrity of the election itself begins to break down.
Let's just eat the soggy salted noodles on a Tuesday and be grateful we are still alive, and focus on what really needs to be fixed.
This last one crossed my mind. Trump's entire life has been built on lies and deceit. This board is a continual string of conspiracy theories from every Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet. And of course on this board, they are all taken as truth. After all what right wing outlet would present something that wasn't true?Quote:
Now lets compare that to Trump's rhetoric before the election. We can now see that he was either
a. lying
b. being extremely petty
c. using this as cover to do himself what he accused others of doing
Why not another?
- Once Covid hit, Trump or at least the people around him felt the message that he was vulnerable so there needed to be a fall-back plan in case he didn't win on vote count.
- Months before the election Trump lays the ground work that the election will be rigged and there will be massive mail fraud. His supporters eat it up and he publicizes it at every opportunity.
- In order to make sure to the best extent possible that doubt is sown in the results, he has operatives in battleground states submit fraudulent ballots in bulk and even have good chunks of them voting for Biden to make it look like it is all coming from the blue side of the street. Meanwhile he implores his supporters to vote in person in case after the election he is successful in getting mail in ballots thrown out in bulk, their votes will stand.
- Do the fraudulent ballots, especially where Biden is checked make it possible for him to lose with those ballots? Sure, but it is a gamble he is willing to take to have "proof" that the all the mail ins should be thrown out and we are left with either a non-election or an election he wins because more people voted for him in-person. In knowing how the "fraud" was taking place (since his people participated in it) he knows where to look and what to look for after the election to populate lawsuits. And a gamble worth taking if his internal polls show him in dire trouble.
- The ultimate goal and reason for the gamble.......delay, delay, delay and get this to the House and bypass the tens of millions of American voters (both blue and red) that stupidly thought their vote would count for something. Why? because he didn't really think he would win a straight-up election with all the misery going on in the country. If he did win on Nov 3rd...great....but he had a fall back plan.
Is there any truth to the above?........most likely not (so don't get your panties in a wad), but we are dealing with possibly the greatest con man in modern times. It is not beyond the realm of possibility and certainly no more outlandish than some of the other conspiracy theories I have seen floated here. It would be the greatest con in our history, possibly in the history of the world. And what con man wouldn't want to have put that past the entire USA?
Regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office on January 21, this election has been the most damaging in our lifetimes to successfully have sown doubt in our election process. There will never be enough evidence on either side to say it was "stolen" or totally secure. The losing side will always look on it was being illegitimate. How will that feeling not be present in every election going forward?
I was with you until your last paragraph. While this election has been the most damaging of our lifetime, federal courts staffed by judges appointed by none other than Trump himself are not finding evidence of election fraud.blackie said:This last one crossed my mind. Trump's entire life has been built on lies and deceit. This board is a continual string of conspiracy theories from every Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet. And of course on this board, they are all taken as truth. After all what right wing outlet would present something that wasn't true?Quote:
Now lets compare that to Trump's rhetoric before the election. We can now see that he was either
a. lying
b. being extremely petty
c. using this as cover to do himself what he accused others of doing
Why not another?
- Once Covid hit, Trump or at least the people around him felt the message that he was vulnerable so there needed to be a fall-back plan in case he didn't win on vote count.
- Months before the election Trump lays the ground work that the election will be rigged and there will be massive mail fraud. His supporters eat it up and he publicizes it at every opportunity.
- In order to make sure to the best extent possible that doubt is sown in the results, he has operatives in battleground states submit fraudulent ballots in bulk and even have good chunks of them voting for Biden to make it look like it is all coming from the blue side of the street. Meanwhile he implores his supporters to vote in person in case after the election he is successful in getting mail in ballots thrown out in bulk, their votes will stand.
- Do the fraudulent ballots, especially where Biden is checked make it possible for him to lose with those ballots? Sure, but it is a gamble he is willing to take to have "proof" that the all the mail ins should be thrown out and we are left with either a non-election or an election he wins because more people voted for him in-person. In knowing how the "fraud" was taking place (since his people participated in it) he knows where to look and what to look for after the election to populate lawsuits. And a gamble worth taking if his internal polls show him in dire trouble.
- The ultimate goal and reason for the gamble.......delay, delay, delay and get this to the House and bypass the tens of millions of American voters (both blue and red) that stupidly thought their vote would count for something. Why? because he didn't really think he would win a straight-up election with all the misery going on in the country. If he did win on Nov 3rd...great....but he had a fall back plan.
Is there any truth to the above?........most likely not (so don't get your panties in a wad), but we are dealing with possibly the greatest con man in modern times. It is not beyond the realm of possibility and certainly no more outlandish than some of the other conspiracy theories I have seen floated here. It would be the greatest con in our history, possibly in the history of the world. And what con man wouldn't want to have put that past the entire USA?
Regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office on January 21, this election has been the most damaging in our lifetimes to successfully have sown doubt in our election process. There will never be enough evidence on either side to say it was "stolen" or totally secure. The losing side will always look on it was being illegitimate. How will that feeling not be present in every election going forward?
More people voted by mail because of the pandemic. Five states -- CO, HI, UT, OR and WA - allow elections to be conducted almost exclusively by mail. Heard any yelps about fraud from those states?
There was a large turnout possibly motivated by an unpopular president even some Republican voters considered out of control, divisive and erratic.
Trump lost this election, and it was his to lose, not really Biden to win. He lost it because he was a bad president, not because Joe Biden was an outstanding candidate. Biden was a low-key, plain vanilla, no-drama candidate, and the Dems were smart to run him instead of someone you could imagine in a WWF ring with Trump. The contrast was very clear during that debate where Trump wouldn't stop running his mouth.
Even voters whose understanding of politics is so vague they switchhed from Bernie Sanders, a socialist, to Donald Trump, a fascist in 2016 because Clinton was an unlikeable candidate--don't want their government to be a reality show drama with cabinet appointees and high-profile hires being voted off the island while a pandemic rages. Some in the Trump camp still buy the idea that Covid's a hoax or that the impact isn't as bad as people say--there's a thread right now trying to say no more people are dying that would in a normal year. That level of denial of how bad Covid is, hurt Trump's credibility with everybody except the people still stupid enough to not think the threat is real.
It's also amusing and sad to watch Trump claim credit for a vaccine one minute and tell people the virus threat is overblown the next.
The White House is a bad venue for theater of the absurd. Jan 20 can't come soon enough.
Hey, he worked magic to get that vaccine out. Credit goes to no one but him.
Yeah everybody would've just sat there and twiddled their thumbs, especially that Turkish couple in Germany that developed the first vaccine they announced, if Trump hadn't been cheering them on by saying the virus was a hoax.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Hey, he worked magic to get that vaccine out. Credit goes to no one but him.