2020 Election - Catch-all Thread

47,319 Views | 1406 Replies | Last: 10 hrs ago by Another Bear
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It looks like it is the Republicans after all that are engaging in voter fraud.

https://www.axios.com/north-carolina-election-board-hearing-ballot-scheme-5cfec0ae-2564-462a-a0fb-32e2e8808816.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course they did because the GOP are into voter suppression and voter fraud. That's their thing from Rehnquist chasing away people at the polls to all the gerrymandering to straight out stealing votes. FCCK the un-American asswipes.
YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Of course they did because the GOP are into voter suppression and voter fraud. That's their thing from Rehnquist chasing away people at the polls to all the gerrymandering to straight out stealing votes. FCCK the un-American asswipes.
In general, I'm operating on the assumption that whatever Republicans loudly accuse Democrats of doing is something they themselves are also doing, to a far greater degree.
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

Of course they did because the GOP are into voter suppression and voter fraud. That's their thing from Rehnquist chasing away people at the polls to all the gerrymandering to straight out stealing votes. FCCK the un-American asswipes.
In general, I'm operating on the assumption that whatever Republicans loudly accuse Democrats of doing is something they themselves are also doing, to a far greater degree.


Democrats: Listen, in-person on-ballot voter fraud is not widespread and only involves a handful of votes in the few cases it has been found...

Republicans: Hold my beer.

(Aside: this is technically election fraud, not voter fraud, right? The voters were not fake. The choices were. Or did I miss something? Voter ID laws would not have prevented this.)
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OneKeg said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

Of course they did because the GOP are into voter suppression and voter fraud. That's their thing from Rehnquist chasing away people at the polls to all the gerrymandering to straight out stealing votes. FCCK the un-American asswipes.
In general, I'm operating on the assumption that whatever Republicans loudly accuse Democrats of doing is something they themselves are also doing, to a far greater degree.


Democrats: Listen, in-person on-ballot voter fraud is not widespread and only involves a handful of votes in the few cases it has been found...

Republicans: Hold my beer.

(Aside: this is technically election fraud, not voter fraud, right? The voters were not fake. The choices were. Or did I miss something? Voter ID laws would not have prevented this.)
Technically election fraud but perhaps both given the operative used absentee ballots. I'd call them similar enough if the intent was to cheat. Seems far more insidious. This is from the link from Bearister and Axios.
Quote:

An investigation into North Carolina's 9th Congressional District 2018 election has found a "coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme" in two counties carried out by a political operative hired by the Republican candidate, the state's elections board executive director revealed Monday at a hearing.

Quote:


After a months-long probe into election irregularities, elections board director Kim Strach said the Republican operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, hired workers and paid each $150.00 per 50 absentee ballot request forms, and another $125.00 for every 50 absentee ballots collected.


YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

OneKeg said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

Of course they did because the GOP are into voter suppression and voter fraud. That's their thing from Rehnquist chasing away people at the polls to all the gerrymandering to straight out stealing votes. FCCK the un-American asswipes.
In general, I'm operating on the assumption that whatever Republicans loudly accuse Democrats of doing is something they themselves are also doing, to a far greater degree.


Democrats: Listen, in-person on-ballot voter fraud is not widespread and only involves a handful of votes in the few cases it has been found...

Republicans: Hold my beer.

(Aside: this is technically election fraud, not voter fraud, right? The voters were not fake. The choices were. Or did I miss something? Voter ID laws would not have prevented this.)
Technically election fraud but perhaps both given the operative used absentee ballots. I'd call them similar enough if the intent was to cheat. Seems far more insidious. This is from the link from Bearister and Axios.
Quote:

An investigation into North Carolina's 9th Congressional District 2018 election has found a "coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme" in two counties carried out by a political operative hired by the Republican candidate, the state's elections board executive director revealed Monday at a hearing.

Quote:


After a months-long probe into election irregularities, elections board director Kim Strach said the Republican operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, hired workers and paid each $150.00 per 50 absentee ballot request forms, and another $125.00 for every 50 absentee ballots collected.



Agree it's a major violation and no less serious just because it's a different type of fraud. Sorry, I don't think I made my point clear.

I was specifically saying that it is election fraud, not voter fraud with the purpose of making the following distinction:

All the Voter ID laws Republicans are pushing to supposedly stop all the "voter fraud" they allege is going on (but whose main effect might be to suppress legitimate voting) would NOT have actually prevented this very real case of election (not voter) fraud. The affected voters here, even if they all had undergone some supposedly more stringent ID verification, would still have had their ballots altered.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OneKeg said:

Another Bear said:

OneKeg said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

Of course they did because the GOP are into voter suppression and voter fraud. That's their thing from Rehnquist chasing away people at the polls to all the gerrymandering to straight out stealing votes. FCCK the un-American asswipes.
In general, I'm operating on the assumption that whatever Republicans loudly accuse Democrats of doing is something they themselves are also doing, to a far greater degree.


Democrats: Listen, in-person on-ballot voter fraud is not widespread and only involves a handful of votes in the few cases it has been found...

Republicans: Hold my beer.

(Aside: this is technically election fraud, not voter fraud, right? The voters were not fake. The choices were. Or did I miss something? Voter ID laws would not have prevented this.)
Technically election fraud but perhaps both given the operative used absentee ballots. I'd call them similar enough if the intent was to cheat. Seems far more insidious. This is from the link from Bearister and Axios.
Quote:

An investigation into North Carolina's 9th Congressional District 2018 election has found a "coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme" in two counties carried out by a political operative hired by the Republican candidate, the state's elections board executive director revealed Monday at a hearing.

Quote:


After a months-long probe into election irregularities, elections board director Kim Strach said the Republican operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, hired workers and paid each $150.00 per 50 absentee ballot request forms, and another $125.00 for every 50 absentee ballots collected.



Agree it's a major violation and no less serious just because it's a different type of fraud. Sorry, I don't think I made my point clear.

I was specifically saying that it is election fraud, not voter fraud with the purpose of making the following distinction:

All the Voter ID laws Republicans are pushing to supposedly stop all the "voter fraud" they allege is going on (but whose main effect might be to suppress legitimate voting) would NOT have actually prevented this very real case of election (not voter) fraud. The affected voters here, even if they all had undergone some supposedly more stringent ID verification, would still have had their ballots altered.
For the GOP it's basically all the same crap...and yet they're so quick to point the finger. When you hear about the Russian stuff it's like they know they're losing so they'll do anything. I just watched Chris Hayes and there was a witness clip being drilled by a state elections official. They were paid to find absentee ballots, either blank or semi-complete. If semi-complete they completed them for GOP candidates. Agree, all the GOP voter ID stuff wouldn't have made a difference. Just bogus but the GOP are for it to simply suppress votes.
YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And Bernie Sanders enters the race.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-2020/bernie-sanders-faces-new-challenges-in-crowded-2020-u-s-presidential-race-idUSKCN1Q82M1

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?


As of right now, my ranking.

Joe Biden, would be okay
Bernie Sanders, would be okay

1. Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota, would be okay.

2. Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts
3. Cory Book, Senator from New Jersey, need to know more
4. Kamala Harris, Senator from California
5. Julian Castro, Mayor from San Antonio
6. Tulsi Gabbard, Representative from Hawaii
7. Richard Ojeda, State Senator from West Virginia, need to know more
8. John Delaney, Representative from Maryland, need to know more
9. Andrew Yang, Tech Business Dude
10. Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator New York, need to know more
11. Pete Buttigieg, Mayor South Bend, need to know more
12. , Beto O'Rourke, Sherrod Brown, have not announced. need to know more.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:



As of right now, my ranking.

Joe Biden, would be okay
Bernie Sanders, would be okay

1. Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota, would be okay.

2. Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts
3. Cory Book, Senator from New Jersey, need to know more
4. Kamala Harris, Senator from California
5. Julian Castro, Mayor from San Antonio
6. Tulsi Gabbard, Representative from Hawaii
7. Richard Ojeda, State Senator from West Virginia, need to know more
8. John Delaney, Representative from Maryland, need to know more
9. Andrew Yang, Tech Business Dude
10. Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator New York, need to know more
11. Pete Buttigieg, Mayor South Bend, need to know more
12. , Beto O'Rourke, Sherrod Brown, have not announced. need to know more.
I'm curious, what are the top one or two issues you are using to decide whom you want to see win the nomination. Is it just electability v. Donald T?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't have a favorite yet but Pete Buttigieg just went way up on my list. He said he would be in favor of adding Supreme Court Justices to offset the recent manipulation from McConnell. That's the kind of fighting spirit I am looking for.

To me, the ideal plan would be to add 2 Justices. Merrick Garland and a super liberal who would offset Gorsuch. That would basically put the Courth where it should have been when Obama nominated Garland.
An old white dude
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I don't have a favorite yet but Pete Buttigieg just went way up on my list. He said he would be in favor of adding Supreme Court Justices to offset the recent manipulation from McConnell. That's the kind of fighting spirit I am looking for.

To me, the ideal plan would be to add 2 Justices. Merrick Garland and a super liberal who would offset Gorsuch. That would basically put the Courth where it should have been when Obama nominated Garland.
He is probably unelectable, not well known enough (I don't know him that well), but when I hear him talk I take a big deep relaxing sigh at what thoughtful integrity sounds like. I hope he doesn't disappoint, but he seems like a good man who is smart and would actually be a damn good president.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would be all for a candidate having a policy point of amending the constitution to close some of these loopholes. I think there is a lot of grey area that small and big states can agree on to limit the executive branch and congress' ineptitude.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

concordtom said:



As of right now, my ranking.

Joe Biden, would be okay
Bernie Sanders, would be okay

1. Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota, would be okay.

2. Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts
3. Cory Book, Senator from New Jersey, need to know more
4. Kamala Harris, Senator from California
5. Julian Castro, Mayor from San Antonio
6. Tulsi Gabbard, Representative from Hawaii
7. Richard Ojeda, State Senator from West Virginia, need to know more
8. John Delaney, Representative from Maryland, need to know more
9. Andrew Yang, Tech Business Dude
10. Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator New York, need to know more
11. Pete Buttigieg, Mayor South Bend, need to know more
12. , Beto O'Rourke, Sherrod Brown, have not announced. need to know more.
I'm curious, what are the top one or two issues you are using to decide whom you want to see win the nomination. Is it just electability v. Donald T?
Yes. I don't think anything matters more than that.
He is a monster who is wrecking this country. Any ONE of the above people would do a better job.
Hopefully the Democratic Party nominates someone who ultimately beats Trump. If ALL of the can, then hopefully we get a good healthy vetting and choose the best one.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

I would be all for a candidate having a policy point of amending the constitution to close some of these loopholes. I think there is a lot of grey area that small and big states can agree on to limit the executive branch and congress' ineptitude.
Our two party system is completely f'ed up.
The power resides in the party power brokers.
They controlled all the GOP into supporting an idiot candidate they had pretty much all previously bashed.
And who are they?
Dark money!

Here's an example of one of most all who simply rolled over and died. What a bunch of p*ssies! No backbone.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

golden sloth said:

I would be all for a candidate having a policy point of amending the constitution to close some of these loopholes. I think there is a lot of grey area that small and big states can agree on to limit the executive branch and congress' ineptitude.
Our two party system is completely f'ed up.
The power resides in the party power brokers.
They controlled all the GOP into supporting an idiot candidate they had pretty much all previously bashed.
I'm not sure this is quite right. I think it's more that the GOP power brokers had long pursued a strategy to chase the votes of the racist, lunatic fringe and then were left flat-footed when the fringe actually took over.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Truth! "There is no Republican Party. There is a Trump Party."

May 31 2018

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

concordtom said:

golden sloth said:

I would be all for a candidate having a policy point of amending the constitution to close some of these loopholes. I think there is a lot of grey area that small and big states can agree on to limit the executive branch and congress' ineptitude.
Our two party system is completely f'ed up.
The power resides in the party power brokers.
They controlled all the GOP into supporting an idiot candidate they had pretty much all previously bashed.
I'm not sure this is quite right. I think it's more that the GOP power brokers had long pursued a strategy to chase the votes of the racist, lunatic fringe and then were left flat-footed when the fringe actually took over.
Well, what amazes me is how come there were not, are not, more people willing to speak truth like Flake, Corker, McCain, and Beohner here?
They were all afraid they'd be primaried.
Nobody was willing to stand up for what seems obvious.
They all caved.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have you seen the PBS POV documentary on Dark Money?

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

sycasey said:

concordtom said:

golden sloth said:

I would be all for a candidate having a policy point of amending the constitution to close some of these loopholes. I think there is a lot of grey area that small and big states can agree on to limit the executive branch and congress' ineptitude.
Our two party system is completely f'ed up.
The power resides in the party power brokers.
They controlled all the GOP into supporting an idiot candidate they had pretty much all previously bashed.
I'm not sure this is quite right. I think it's more that the GOP power brokers had long pursued a strategy to chase the votes of the racist, lunatic fringe and then were left flat-footed when the fringe actually took over.
Well, what amazes me is how come there were not, are not, more people willing to speak truth like Flake, Corker, McCain, and Beohner here?
They were all afraid they'd be primaried.
Nobody was willing to stand up for what seems obvious.
They all caved.
Yes . . . they were afraid of their own voters.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

concordtom said:

golden sloth said:

I would be all for a candidate having a policy point of amending the constitution to close some of these loopholes. I think there is a lot of grey area that small and big states can agree on to limit the executive branch and congress' ineptitude.
Our two party system is completely f'ed up.
The power resides in the party power brokers.
They controlled all the GOP into supporting an idiot candidate they had pretty much all previously bashed.
I'm not sure this is quite right. I think it's more that the GOP power brokers had long pursued a strategy to chase the votes of the racist, lunatic fringe and then were left flat-footed when the fringe actually took over.
Well, what amazes me is how come there were not, are not, more people willing to speak truth like Flake, Corker, McCain, and Beohner here?
They were all afraid they'd be primaried.
Nobody was willing to stand up for what seems obvious.
They all caved.
Yes . . . they were afraid of their own voters.
The problem with getting in bed with stupid people as the majority of your base is that they can be manipulated by a better snake oil salesman than you.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

sycasey said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

concordtom said:

golden sloth said:

I would be all for a candidate having a policy point of amending the constitution to close some of these loopholes. I think there is a lot of grey area that small and big states can agree on to limit the executive branch and congress' ineptitude.
Our two party system is completely f'ed up.
The power resides in the party power brokers.
They controlled all the GOP into supporting an idiot candidate they had pretty much all previously bashed.
I'm not sure this is quite right. I think it's more that the GOP power brokers had long pursued a strategy to chase the votes of the racist, lunatic fringe and then were left flat-footed when the fringe actually took over.
Well, what amazes me is how come there were not, are not, more people willing to speak truth like Flake, Corker, McCain, and Beohner here?
They were all afraid they'd be primaried.
Nobody was willing to stand up for what seems obvious.
They all caved.
Yes . . . they were afraid of their own voters.
The problem with getting in bed with stupid people as the majority of your base is that they can be manipulated by a better snake oil salesman than you.
Sadly, I don't think either party has the market cornered on intelligence or judgment.
This chapter in American history has me believing that we are not so very special.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


This is why DiFi and the older generation and corporate Democrats have to go...they're not listen and they don't get it. Even when faced literally with the future, and those effected by it, she just doesn't get it. These kids know what's at stake and DiFi plays the senile elder...which is fine as your neighbor but not your f'ing senator.

Completely out of touch...utter, insulting bullbleep...f'ing apologist.
YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:



This is why DiFi and the older generation and corporate Democrats have to go...they're not listen and they don't get it. Even when faced literally with the future, and those effected by it, she just doesn't get it. These kids know what's at stake and DiFi plays the senile elder...which is fine as your neighbor but not your f'ing senator.

Completely out of touch...utter, insulting bullbleep...f'ing apologist.
I don't like all of her responses here, but this video is VERY selectively edited (after the recent B.S. around the conservative guy getting punched in Sproul Plaza I'd think we should all learn our lesson here). The longer video doesn't have Feinstein being nearly so dismissive. They selected the part where she looks the worst.

Twitter Thread:



Mercury News article with the full interaction at the bottom:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/22/dianne-feinstein-viral-video-green-new-deal-kids/
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think the nuances of what she said matter. Point is she will be dead when these kids have to deal with the wreckage of inaction. The best thing she could do is die sooner not later
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

this video is VERY selectively edited (after the recent B.S. around the conservative guy getting punched in Sproul Plaza I'd think we should all learn our lesson here).

So, are you saying I missed something on the sproul plaza punch?
There was an edited and long version which told a different story?
Can you link both?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

sycasey said:

this video is VERY selectively edited (after the recent B.S. around the conservative guy getting punched in Sproul Plaza I'd think we should all learn our lesson here).

So, are you saying I missed something on the sproul plaza punch?
There was an edited and long version which told a different story?
Can you link both?

No, it's more that the details coming out later (about both men not being students, etc.) paint a different picture than what you got from the original story.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:



This is why DiFi and the older generation and corporate Democrats have to go...they're not listen and they don't get it. Even when faced literally with the future, and those effected by it, she just doesn't get it. These kids know what's at stake and DiFi plays the senile elder...which is fine as your neighbor but not your f'ing senator.

Completely out of touch...utter, insulting bullbleep...f'ing apologist.
I don't like all of her responses here, but this video is VERY selectively edited (after the recent B.S. around the conservative guy getting punched in Sproul Plaza I'd think we should all learn our lesson here). The longer video doesn't have Feinstein being nearly so dismissive. They selected the part where she looks the worst.

Twitter Thread:



Mercury News article with the full interaction at the bottom:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/22/dianne-feinstein-viral-video-green-new-deal-kids/

Sorry, I get the point about editing but a U.S. senator does NOT tell school children, "you didn't vote for me," or "I just won an important election". See it's not about who voted for her or her frankly..it's that her JOB is to represent the people and they showed up to her office. That's BS towards anyone and for god sake...that's common sense, or she's getting senile.

DiFi has to go. She's past her expiration date and out of touch. Her husband is a robber baron. He's the one behind the post office real estate sell-off. I also have a few first hand accounts of DiFi being a stick up the butt and plain ole mean. She might be the senior senator from California but she works for the people and she's not doing a good job.

YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

I don't think the nuances of what she said matter. Point is she will be dead when these kids have to deal with the wreckage of inaction. The best thing she could do is die sooner not later
This. In fact DiFi has shown the epitome of generational stupidity. She's literally screwing the future with her, "it won't happen in 10 years" BS. That's not the point. The point is, it's her job to show some leadership and wisdom on this like legislation but nooooooooooo..... she's sitting on her hands.
YMMV. Have a nice day. Enjoy the sunshine. Smoke two joints. That's what she said.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ding ding ding
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Still only two parties ...sigh
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That whole incident smells fishy as af. I get right wing energy from both. Violence is only supposed to be used as an appropriate response ...

The fact that both were non students big red flag ( no pun intended)

I guess they couldn't pay/get a poc to play the punchers role
kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

sp4149 said:


A poll just before the 2016 election showed that Trump supporters would refuse to recognize the validity of the election is Trump lost. Nothing has changed. They would support him staying in the White House if he lost the 2020 election. I don't think they will go quietly. And what if his new allies, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey recognize him as the President after the election? Much like he did with Venezuela.
I don't think Trump will go gently into the night is he 'loses' in 2020.
If your pessimistic vision holds true, I'm confident the military commanders would be happy to forcibly remove Trump from office and usher in the winner, even if there are some local militias that get radical. That said, I don't think it gets that far. I think the economy gets worse by fall of 2020 (not a full-blown crisis, but it stalls), and I think Trump continues his BS, and his support falls to 35%, and the election is not that close, dampening enthusiasm on the right for armed support of Trump. Though, I do admit, if the elections don't go Trump's way, I do believe there will be one or two crazies that do something violent and dumb.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/23/an-american-epidemic-toxic-imbecility/
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.