YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[AgnosticBoy]

The major source of voter fraud is now the government of states engaging in Gerrymandering and voter suppression. Can you agree that we have to clean this up so that the will of the people can determine elections?

I agree that gerrymandering is a form of voter suppression. Latest news I've read on it show that it tends be used a lot to break up districts with lots of communities of color. That would only effect local and congressional elections. Senate and presidential elections aren't effected since they aren't limited to votes by district.

Ideally, I'd want states to establish an office that runs independently, similar to the Congressional Budget office, to handle redistricting. You'll probably always have a problem of the dominant party trying to tilt the scales in their favor if that's not done.

[The Barbarian]

The major source of voter fraud is now the government of states engaging in Gerrymandering and voter suppression. Can you agree that we have to clean this up so that the will of the people can determine elections?

I agree that gerrymandering is a form of voter suppression. Latest news I've read on it show that it tends be used a lot to break up districts with lots of communities of color. That would only effect local and congressional elections. Senate and presidential elections aren't effected since they aren't limited to votes by district.

Except in Nebraska, which has two senatorial districts. But apparently, they aren't Gerrymandered. And statewide elections, like those for Governor couldn't be Gerrymandered. Hence, Wisconsin, where all statewide races went to democrats, but the legislature is heavily republican because of Gerrymandering.

Ideally, I'd want states to establish an office that runs independently, similar to the Congressional Budget office, to handle redistricting. You'll probably always have a problem of the dominant party trying to tilt the scales in their favor if that's not done.

Iowa and California have systems like that, and they work pretty well. In Iowa, legislators aren't even allowed to talk to the people doing the redistricting until it's done, and then it's an up-or-down vote in the legislature.

[The Barbarian]

Gerrymandering is a problem only for the citizenry, because we labour under the false assumption that we choose a candidate from two parties, when in reality there is only one party and that party (of the rich, by the rich and for the rich) does not care if we choose blue or red, since they control both candidates.

If so, it's hard to explain why republicans, (and occasionally democrats) work so hard to rig districts to favor their party.

The idea of "fact checkers" was brilliant, "It has to be true; I saw it on mediabiasfactcheck.com".

It depends on their output. For example, they also ding far-left and biased websites.

They believe everything that the fact checkers tell them, without even thinking about the possibility that these sites are just a part of the daily brainwashing.

If that were true, no one would use them.

Rumble is not a source that produces any content, they are a platform that allows content creators to provide videos without fear of censorship.

Rumble wasn't always like that:
Founded in 2013 by Chris Pavlovski, Rumble is a video-sharing platform that allows users to upload and share videos. Before 2020, Rumble was not known as a place that published politically biased videos. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic and the Presidential election, many right-wing pundits joined the service leading to incredible growth by right-biased and pro-Trump supporters. According to Chris Pavlovski, Rumble is a “clean YouTube competitor, the place they can feel safe.” Finally, in 2020, Conservative Pundit Dan Bongino bought an equity stake in the company.

This does mean that there will be bad information out there,

Yep.

and if one needs a nanny state to protect one from bad ideas,

In a free society, fact-checkers work pretty well. The guys backing the nanny state are those who want to "do something" about fact-checkers.

There are only so many ways to actually vote illegally. And all of them are checkable with existing security. Notice all the dead people voting for Trump were caught.

That would be an argument from incredulity, "I can't imagine any other way to cheat so there must be no other way to do it".

Nope. There might be invisible pink leprechauns hiding in my attic, but until someone gives me a reason to think so... Show me the leprechauns, and we'll talk.

Trust me on this, if there is a will, there is a way.

Show us the leprechauns.

the one thing that predisposes people to be fooled is the belief they can't be fooled.

You think you can't be fooled about this? If you can, why would you believe it in the absence of any evidence?

If you think that you have found all the ways to vote illegaly then you have just deceived yourself.

The way it works, is you make the assertion, you provide evidence. What do you have?

Have you seen this way of voter fraud?

You linked to a You Tube video. Summarize for us, the evidence for this new kind of voter fraud and we'll talk about it.

[Daedalus X]

[

If so, it's hard to explain why republicans, (and occasionally democrats) work so hard to rig districts to favor their party.

I agree that it would be hard to explain, if one had been fooled into believing that the two parties are NOT controlled by one powerful faction.

The hidden false premise is that if they were being controlled by one faction, then the Republicans and Democrats would be colluding like wrestlers doing Kayfabe. But neither side knows that the other side is being controlled. So they fight like dogs and cats.

As an example look at Obama 2008, I supported Obama because he was going to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain was going to escalate the wars and probably get us into a few more wars to boot. I was vindicated when in his first year Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace prize. But the wars did not end, and Obama started five new wars. True, he did not use ground troops so much as he used drones and conventional aviation to bomb these countries into submission. A simple campaign promise like shutting down the Guantanamo prison camp did not happen, all he needed to do that was sign a simple executive order. Also he did not cancel Bush's temporary Patriot act, he fortified it and made it more enduring.

Obama was hailed as the 2nd coming, and what did the people get? Mostly nothing. He promised to strengthen homeowners rights against the mortgage bankers, he did the opposite, he allowed the vultures to buy up the foreclosures at deep discounts, he bailed out the banks and large corporations, and no banker was prosecuted for all the misconduct that precipitated the crash. He promised to protect the small farmers but instead sided with big agriculture and gave them everything they wanted. Big oil got production to the highest levels ever, becoming the number one oil producing country, yet Obama got us into the Paris Climate Agreement. I guess the people can have their global warming cake and the oil companies can eat it.

Obama was the puppet in chief, Wikileaks got a hold of the e-mail from Citigroup banking, that laid out Obamas cabinet, they were mostly from Citigroup and Wall Street. He was there to represent the Wall Street class and not the people. His wars were great for the military industrial complex. His Obama Care was great for the insurance, hospital and pharmaceutical industries but the middle class got screwed big time.

So why did we vote for Obama and get the McCain agenda anyways? Because they are both owned by the oligarchy.



It was not till I looked at American politics with that premise in mind, that things began to make a lot of sense.

[The Barbarian]

The hidden false premise is that if they were being controlled by one faction, then the Republicans and Democrats would be colluding like wrestlers doing Kayfabe. But neither side knows that the other side is being controlled. So they fight like dogs and cats.

If McConnell and Obama were unable to figure this out how is it you were able to do that?

[Gracchus]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #255]They might be struggling for the best payoffs. They will both deliver but if one delivers more or cheaper, there would be some real competition.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #255]They might be struggling for the best payoffs. They will both deliver but if one delivers more or cheaper, there would be some real competition.

But that would pretty much destroy the whole story of each being the same. I mean, in theory each party is trying to do the best for America, and are trying to find a way to deliver it best.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #257]
But in reality, they are trying to do what is best for themselves. The "elites" divide in order to conquer, and parties divide the government, so the one-percenters can get the best deal. Why should they spend more on bri... errr ... campaign contributions than they have to?

[Daedalus X]

I mean, in theory each party is trying to do the best for America, and are trying to find a way to deliver it best.

You understand the theory, but do you understand why the theory never translates to the actual world?

I gave you the example of Obama (the same could be said for all presidents), where he promised to do the best for America, yet when he got into office he did not even try to do anything for the ordinary working people of America, instead he gave the rich and powerful everything that they could have possibly wanted. The second greatest transfer of wealth happened on Obama's watch and he did nothing to stand in its way.
The first greatest transfer of wealth occurred during Trump's presidency. So, if someone supports one party or the other then it is a symptom of having been deceived by the Uniparty.

[The Barbarian]

I mean, in theory each party is trying to do the best for America, and are trying to find a way to deliver it best.

You understand the theory, but do you understand why the theory never translates to the actual world?

I gave you the example of Obama (the same could be said for all presidents), where he promised to do the best for America, yet when he got into office he did not even try to do anything for the ordinary working people of America, instead he gave the rich and powerful everything that they could have possibly wanted.

Hmmm... most of the rich seemed frantically angry about the Affordable Care Act. I can remember some of them shouting that if the bill passed, and people got used to it, they'd never be able to repeal it. Seems to be the case.

They seemed very unhappy about his signing the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act that put $787 billion into pulling us out of the Great Recession, because it was aimed mostly to help the poor and middle-class Americans.

Most of them seemed pretty happy about him taking out Osama bin Laden, though. So a mixed bag.