ArcticSEA wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Doesn't matter who wins.

It may not matter to you. But for some, it certainly does.
I am a veteran, a gay one. It mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012, and that he eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Also as a gay man, it mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012 and appointed judges to the courts to finally make gay marriage the law of the land.
Look around you outside of your bubble. It matters.

Judges are NOT supposed to make laws, legislatures and the sovereign citizens they represent are the law of the land, but thanks for showing us that judges are in fact now legislators in robes. Needs to change, I don’t want a dictatorship of 9 graduates of Ivy League law schools.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ArcticSEA wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Doesn't matter who wins.

It may not matter to you. But for some, it certainly does.
I am a veteran, a gay one. It mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012, and that he eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Also as a gay man, it mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012 and appointed judges to the courts to finally make gay marriage the law of the land.
Look around you outside of your bubble. It matters.

Judges are NOT supposed to make laws, legislatures and the sovereign citizens they represent are the law of the land, but thanks for showing us that judges are in fact now legislators in robes. Needs to change, I don’t want a dictatorship of 9 graduates of Ivy League law schools.

Hmmm...as this is your response ostensibly to same sex marriage judgments, perhaps retaking Civics would help? Or at least familiarizing yourself with the writings of Madison and de Tocqueville. Checks and balances exist in part to prevent tyranny of the majority.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ArcticSEA wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Doesn't matter who wins.

It may not matter to you. But for some, it certainly does.
I am a veteran, a gay one. It mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012, and that he eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Also as a gay man, it mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012 and appointed judges to the courts to finally make gay marriage the law of the land.
Look around you outside of your bubble. It matters.

Judges are NOT supposed to make laws, legislatures and the sovereign citizens they represent are the law of the land, but thanks for showing us that judges are in fact now legislators in robes. Needs to change, I don’t want a dictatorship of 9 graduates of Ivy League law schools.

I do not believe that overall judges do "make law" however successful cases have been made that laws passed properly by the legislature or enshrined in our Constitution, do apply.

For me the strongest is the 14th amendment. If a law covers one party there is little real reason that it should not cover all parties, even if the drafters did not understand or desire such. That is a high legal hurdle and the judges have been showing that. And that is not "making law" that is doing exactly what a judiciary is supposed to do.

Tugg

I'm old enough to remember Civics class as required. Took it in seventh grade, and when I changed to another school system in another state in 10th grade (only five miles away) - I had to take it again.

11th grade American History was also interesting because the first two months in 1968 were the lead up to the election of President Nixon, and that was a hotly contested election "The Most Important Election in American History". It was also a concern with riots in cities that summer, the horrible debacle for the Democrarts in Chicago at their convention, and the certainty that the election would determine if I and the other boys in my senior class spent the next fall after graduation in Vietnam. (I was in Vietnam in 1972)

After retiring from the US Navy in 1992, I considered getting involved in politics, but just didn't have the stomach for it.

Also, I haven't searched the archives of this forum, but I am willing to bet a cold beverage of your choice almost all the questions about the Electoral College, the process, the possibility of postponing the election and such were all asked in 2000.

Aaron747 wrote:

Hmmm...as this is your response ostensibly to same sex marriage judgments, perhaps retaking Civics would help? Or at least familiarizing yourself with the writings of Madison and de Tocqueville. Checks and balances exist in part to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Regarding same sex marriage, I always wanted to approach the argument on religious freedom grounds. If marriage is religious (I guess vs "civil union"? Which is just parsing words as it is the same thing) then government has no right not to recognize one religions action to wed same sex couples (based on the sound argument of consenting adults in equal standing) over another religions wish to not recognize it. There is a benefit to the state and no harm at all to allowing more consenting adults of equal standing, to marry. Freedom of religion works both ways, it is not a popularity contest.

Tugg

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Judges are NOT supposed to make laws, legislatures and the sovereign citizens they represent are the law of the land, but thanks for showing us that judges are in fact now legislators in robes. Needs to change, I don’t want a dictatorship of 9 graduates of Ivy League law schools.

They didn't "make laws"; they judged that the existing laws in place were unconstitutional. Have you ever read the Constitution? Like, ever?
I'm sorry the state's recognition of tax-paying, law-abiding Americans' rights triggers you so much.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Judges are NOT supposed to make laws, legislatures and the sovereign citizens they represent are the law of the land, but thanks for showing us that judges are in fact now legislators in robes. Needs to change, I don’t want a dictatorship of 9 graduates of Ivy League law schools.

At least as far as same sex marriages, the courts did not make the law.

They simply said that the government, on any level from a city ordinance to the Congress, cannot make a law to define some US citizens as a unique class of people and deny them the same rights which other citizens have.

And that is exactly what people were doing to try to criminalize same-sex marriages.

It was exactly the same as the laws which required people to be of the same race to get married, the laws which required blacks to pay a special tax to be able to vote, laws which said Chinese could not vote despite being citizens, etc.

The gays did not push same sex marriages into our faces. It started with Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese who decided the US government would push 'god fearing white Christian values' in the faces of everyone not a member of a fundamentalist protestant church in the United States.

Now, personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Define the legal steps necessary as a civil contract between two or more people and leave 'marriage' to churches or what every other thing people choose to call the union.

My prediction on the original topic: Nothing crazy will happen after Trump lose in a landslide. For most people, once morning comes, they will go back to work/schools.

ArcticSEA wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Doesn't matter who wins.

It may not matter to you. But for some, it certainly does.
I am a veteran, a gay one. It mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012, and that he eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Also as a gay man, it mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012 and appointed judges to the courts to finally make gay marriage the law of the land.
Look around you outside of your bubble. It matters.

How about ObamaCare? It shouldn't have survived using your logic. IMHO, doesn't matter how Supreme Court justices align themselves or get appointed, over a period, they will realize they have to build a legacy of their own, not serve the person who appointed them. Trump just got lucky with 3 appointments.

Let's say Biden wins tonight.

Can he make everyone wear masks?
Can we go borderless?
Can we go total free trade?
Can he make racists think differently?

No, it will be the same. Hence, doesn't matter who wins.

zakuivcustom wrote:

My prediction on the original topic: Nothing crazy will happen after Trump lose in a landslide. For most people, once morning comes, they will go back to work/schools.

I hope you are right on all counts.

dtw2hyd wrote:

ArcticSEA wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Doesn't matter who wins.

It may not matter to you. But for some, it certainly does.
I am a veteran, a gay one. It mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012, and that he eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Also as a gay man, it mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012 and appointed judges to the courts to finally make gay marriage the law of the land.
Look around you outside of your bubble. It matters.

How about ObamaCare? It shouldn't have survived using your logic. IMHO, doesn't matter how Supreme Court justices align themselves or get appointed, over a period, they will realize they have to build a legacy of their own, not serve the person who appointed them. Trump just got lucky with 3 appointments.

Let's say Biden wins tonight.

Can he make everyone wear masks?
Can we go borderless?
Can we go total free trade?
Can he make racists think differently?

No, it will be the same. Hence, doesn't matter who wins.

Judging from record from Neil Gorsuch so far, he is definitely somebody that puts the law above interest of a certain red-face idiot. Too bad he is no Earl Warren.

Still too early on Kavanaugh, and Barrett by all records is pretty right-wing.

Otherwise, something to keep in mind is that Trump still has 2 months to do idiotic stunt even if he loses.

PS The only person I will miss if Trump lose is Sec. Pompeo. The rest of the admin can go back to the swamp.

ArcticSEA wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Doesn't matter who wins.

It may not matter to you. But for some, it certainly does.
I am a veteran, a gay one. It mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012, and that he eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Also as a gay man, it mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012 and appointed judges to the courts to finally make gay marriage the law of the land.
Look around you outside of your bubble. It matters.

Obama was literally against gay marriage for half his presidency (or pretended to be at least), and it's pretty unlikely any of the justices he replaced on the Supreme Court would have ruled differently on Obergefell. I appreciate your service, and I'm glad you're rights are now more fully actualized, but I think you way overstate Obama's impact here while understating that of the shifting attitudes of the American people.

Thanks all for demystifying the mysterious 38.

zakuivcustom wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

ArcticSEA wrote:

It may not matter to you. But for some, it certainly does.
I am a veteran, a gay one. It mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012, and that he eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Also as a gay man, it mattered to me that Obama won in 2008/2012 and appointed judges to the courts to finally make gay marriage the law of the land.
Look around you outside of your bubble. It matters.

How about ObamaCare? It shouldn't have survived using your logic. IMHO, doesn't matter how Supreme Court justices align themselves or get appointed, over a period, they will realize they have to build a legacy of their own, not serve the person who appointed them. Trump just got lucky with 3 appointments.

Let's say Biden wins tonight.

Can he make everyone wear masks?
Can we go borderless?
Can we go total free trade?
Can he make racists think differently?

No, it will be the same. Hence, doesn't matter who wins.

Judging from record from Neil Gorsuch so far, he is definitely somebody that puts the law above interest of a certain red-face idiot. Too bad he is no Earl Warren.

Still too early on Kavanaugh, and Barrett by all records is pretty right-wing.

Otherwise, something to keep in mind is that Trump still has 2 months to do idiotic stunt even if he loses.

PS The only person I will miss if Trump lose is Sec. Pompeo. The rest of the admin can go back to the swamp.

That is one fortunate thing about Trump's judicial nominations...his characteristic laziness and disinterest means he's farmed his judicial picks out to a right-of-center think tank. Whatever one thinks of that, at the least his judicial picks don't necessarily conform to his world view but are rather more typical conservatives or civil libertarians. I wouldn't write off Amy Coney Barrett either. US Catholics, while pro-life, are generally anti-Trump and relatively liberal...not that I believe she'd solely let her religion dictate her rulings.

Biden clearly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nebraska 2 along with everything that Hillary carried in 2016, bringing him to exactly 270 even without Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, or any of the other high profile swing states - rendering them all irrelevant.

He's later declared the winner of Pennsylvania later in the week but again - doesn't matter. Election over. Trump declares himself the winner tonight based on absolutely nothing whatsoever, and he's laughed at as Republicans work to distance themselves from him as quickly as possible. Small pockets of civil unrest from MAGA idiots clinging to their guns are quickly subdued.

Texas and Georgia both teeter on turning Blue but don't quite get there, setting the tone for what is to come in future elections as demographics and migrations within the country continue to take place in a way that's advantageous to Democrats.

dtw2hyd

Can he make everyone wear masks?
Can we go borderless?
Can we go total free trade?
Can he make racists think differently?

How many of these things does he say that he will do?.

winginit wrote:

setting the tone for what is to come in future elections as demographics and migrations within the country continue to take place in a way that's advantageous to Democrats.

The Republican Party in Texas is already realizing that most of the people coming to the state from California and northern states are not going to vote for ultra-right wing conservative TEA party candidates and issues. Which is not surprising. Migrants from other states almost never chance their political views to match the new state existing political picture.

Now, the second or third generation, those will be more like their peers. But for 20 years or so, Texas as a Democrat stronghold is possible.

rfields5421 wrote:

winginit wrote:

setting the tone for what is to come in future elections as demographics and migrations within the country continue to take place in a way that's advantageous to Democrats.

The Republican Party in Texas is already realizing that most of the people coming to the state from California and northern states are not going to vote for ultra-right wing conservative TEA party candidates and issues. Which is not surprising. Migrants from other states almost never chance their political views to match the new state existing political picture.

Now, the second or third generation, those will be more like their peers. But for 20 years or so, Texas as a Democrat stronghold is possible.

So Interestingly enough, migrants supported Ted Cruz more and natives supported Beto more in 2018

It's a Beautiful Day to Win an Election !!!

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a Beautiful Day to Win an Election !!!

Yes it is!

And hopefully it will be clear and "land-slidey" today, end of, and not have to wait longer.
Go for the WIN TODAY!

Tugg

Objectively true--the weather in most of the country is magnificent. Hope I'm happy at the end of the day.

Fortunately the "integrity of the election and ballots" seems to not had any real staying power beyond the bluster of Trump and his sycophants. Yes I am sure there may be cries of "fraud!" etc. but after the alarm bells last month, the idea lost most of its legs. It is still there in the back of peoples minds but overall I am seeing what I expected: a solid, well practiced election process in full swing. Confidently doing what it knows how to do, a process that has been done for thousands of elections through our history.

Claims of malfeasance and fraud or errors on a scale that would affect the election? Bring it. Ain't going to be an issue (outside of bluster).

Tugg

bennett123 wrote:

dtw2hyd

Can he make everyone wear masks?
Can we go borderless?
Can we go total free trade?
Can he make racists think differently?

How many of these things does he say that he will do?.

I am expecting Biden to right the wrongs committed by Trump. These four appear to be top of the list summarizing 24-hour news cycle. Otherwise, both are same.

One change I sincerely hope to see tomorrow is complete shutdown of in-seat instructions at educational institutions. Again, it is irrelevant who wins, this need to be fixed. These superspreaders need to be stopped, before flu season peaks.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a Beautiful Day to Win an Election !!!

Indeed!

Betting odds for Biden now at -210, the best they've ever been.

winginit wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a Beautiful Day to Win an Election !!!

Indeed!

Betting odds for Biden now at -210, the best they've ever been.

I am incredibly desperate for a Biden win but am inflating my pessimism to avoid the dread of 2016.

What is the basis for the spike in betting odds? Just polling? I don't think any exit polls or state responses are out yet, except the Florida ballot returns by party. Even in those, 'independent' is large enough to swing the state one way or the other.

And meanwhile a "non scalable fencing" has gone up around (again) the White House....

https://www.foxnews.com/us/white-house- ... eparations

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

And meanwhile a "non scalable fencing" has gone up around (again) the White House....

https://www.foxnews.com/us/white-house- ... eparations

Tugg

Did Mexico pay for that wall...I mean fence...

Tugger wrote:

Fortunately the "integrity of the election and ballots" seems to not had any real staying power beyond the bluster of Trump and his sycophants. Yes I am sure there may be cries of "fraud!" etc. but after the alarm bells last month, the idea lost most of its legs. It is still there in the back of peoples minds but overall I am seeing what I expected: a solid, well practiced election process in full swing. Confidently doing what it knows how to do, a process that has been done for thousands of elections through our history.

There are many, I mean many last-minute lawsuits by Trump sycophants in whatever attempt to throw out as many what they deemed ballots that went to D's as possible. Those lawsuits are so frivolous that most went nowhere - including the very recent one in Harris County (TX) that was shot down by a very conservative judge.

winginit wrote:

Small pockets of civil unrest from MAGA idiots clinging to their guns are quickly subdued.

They can always shoot themselves in the foot, or better, put a bullet into their head.

rfields5421 wrote:

Now, the second or third generation, those will be more like their peers. But for 20 years or so, Texas as a Democrat stronghold is possible.

I can see it becoming VA (along with NC and GA) - used to be purple, now clearly in blue, thanks to the large amount of people that moves there.

Midwest states like OH or IA may turn red, but those states will be less relevant as population continue to moved south.

Of course, if D's take control of TX, there's basically zero path for any Republicans to win any presidential election anyway - TX had long been the counteract to solid-blue CA.

N867DA wrote:

I am incredibly desperate for a Biden win but am inflating my pessimism to avoid the dread of 2016.

It's just hard to see MI being won by Trump. It was underpooled in 2016, not so much this time around.

WI also trend blue again after the disaster call Scott Walker. It trended blue in 2018 and I don't see that change.

Ultimately, I just don't see Trump getting lucky again and win every single swing states by the thinnest of margin again.

zakuivcustom wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

Now, the second or third generation, those will be more like their peers. But for 20 years or so, Texas as a Democrat stronghold is possible.

I can see it becoming VA (along with NC and GA) - used to be purple, now clearly in blue, thanks to the large amount of people that moves there.

Midwest states like OH or IA may turn red, but those states will be less relevant as population continue to moved south.

Of course, if D's take control of TX, there's basically zero path for any Republicans to win any presidential election anyway - TX had long been the counteract to solid-blue CA.

Well, there is...

The GOP could wake up to the reality that the USA of the 21st century has moved on, especially on social issues, but also things like affordable socialized healthcare and education. If they realized that, they could deduce that it might be time to adapt their policy platform ever so slightly, by moving towards the center - and not further to the right-wing fringes.

But apparently, the GOP has chosen that this path, generally accepted as the universal playbook for political parties in democracies and even proven in mathematical models, is not for them.
Instead, they've taken to moving even further right, ever further away from a median voter trending leftward. And in order to nonetheless remain in power they've set out to undermine the vote of the people by purging voter rolls, making restrictive voting laws, shutting down polling stations and, in the most stunning recent example, even trying to throw out ballots that had already been cast.

And all of this is just the prelude to a potential coordinated effort to stop the counting of legitimately cast votes, after spending the last half year politicizing a pandemic and then going on the airwaves to undermine trust in the "pandemic-safe" way to vote, which will likely be chosen in statistically significantly higher numbers by voters of the opposing party.


So yes, if this election somehow manages to go over fairly, and the GOP loses its grip on Sunbelt states, they really might find themselves locked out of races for national office in the foreseeable future. And that will be a good thing for the future of the United States.

winginit wrote:

Biden clearly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nebraska 2 along with everything that Hillary carried in 2016, bringing him to exactly 270 even without Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, or any of the other high profile swing states - rendering them all irrelevant.
.

This is pretty much the scenario I was pitching to my lady friend. She's a staunch Democrat and has been stressing out over the election since she went to bed on election night 2016 secure in the thought that Hillary won, only to wake up the next day to her worst nightmare. I told her to relax because Biden will win in a cake walk.....she's still nervous.

ER757 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Biden clearly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nebraska 2 along with everything that Hillary carried in 2016, bringing him to exactly 270 even without Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, or any of the other high profile swing states - rendering them all irrelevant.
.

This is pretty much the scenario I was pitching to my lady friend. She's a staunch Democrat and has been stressing out over the election since she went to bed on election night 2016 secure in the thought that Hillary won, only to wake up the next day to her worst nightmare. I told her to relax because Biden will win in a cake walk.....she's still nervous.

She must of turned in early that night. At 9pm the media was like WTF this isn't going to be a Hillary landslide by any means, by midnight they basically knew Trump was going to win and it was final at around 2am IIRC.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I have seen warnings of election violence in developing countries, but never before have I seen an advanced democracy warn of election violence in another advanced democracy.

If memory serves me correctly, this would not be the first time. Segolene Royale suggested that there would be post-elections riots during her 2007 loss to Sarkozy.

Just seen this on the BBC website;

Someone is apparently playing games.

Posted at 20:2120:21
FBI investigating automated calls telling people to stay at home
The FBI has launched an investigation after reports of automated phone calls urging people to stay at home emerged on election day.

A senior Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency official described the calls, which have been reported in a number of states, as "a voter intimidation, voter suppression tactic". However, the official also noted that similar incidents occur at every election.

In New York, Attorney General Letitia James said her office was actively investigating reports of phonecalls to residents.

“Voting is a cornerstone of our democracy,” she said in a statement. “Attempts to hinder voters from exercising their right to cast their ballots are disheartening, disturbing, and wrong. What’s more is that it is illegal, and it will not be tolerated."

Dana Nessel, the attorney-general for Michigan, said she had received reports of robocalls to residents in Flint, which falsely claimed that people should vote tomorrow because of long queues.

Social embed from twitter

ReportReport this social embed, make a complaint
Another message posted on Facebook by the secretary of state in Kansas confirmed reports of voters receiving calls and told residents: "Disregard these calls. If you have not already voted, today is the day!"

There have been a number of different reported automated calls, with Reuters news agency reporting that one campaign did not explicitly mention voting.

Article share tools


ShareView more share options
Share this post
Copy this link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/electio ... type=share

Read more about these links.

Posted at 20:1320:13
'We love President Trump'

Chelsea Bailey

Digital producer, BBC News

lugie wrote:

The GOP could wake up to the reality that the USA of the 21st century has moved on, especially on social issues, but also things like affordable socialized healthcare and education. If they realized that, they could deduce that it might be time to adapt their policy platform ever so slightly, by moving towards the center - and not further to the right-wing fringes.

First, I want to say Donald Trump is not a Republican and does not support traditional Republican values and platforms. A small percentage of the far right wing is controlling the GOP for most of the past 30 years. Newt Gingerich started the scorched earth, all or nothing movement back when Clinton was President. The far right loves Donald Trump because his concentrates on a few hot button issues and does not give a darn about the rest of the county.

Republicans need to take control of their party, just as Democrats do. Most of the people in the US in my opinion are too fed up with the fringe groups that they don't really care any longer. And are too lazy to go out and work to bring some sanity and balance to the political system.

Second, the GOP had a wonderful opportunity to lock up the White House, maybe, but to run the country probably through 2050 under George W. Bush. By capturing the vast majority of the Hispanic vote.

While we hear horror stories of gangs and such, most Hispanics in the US, legally or illegally, are hard working family members, religious with a strong family values culture. Generally they find a lot of dissatisfaction with much of the Democratic Party standard platform. They know people have to work hard, earn a decent wage, and have a chance to have their children educated for a better future.

George W had a very good plan to create a guest worker program that would allow many of them to work in the US, legally, and still be Mexican citizens. But also a path to citizenship for those who wished to do so. The hard-line Republicans refused to even allow him to present the ideas to Congress, or the people. If he had made speeches as he did as Texas governor, he would have been thrown out of the White House by his own party.

It is not 1910, and the US allowing millions to come in without prior approval. But we can establish a system to allow the good people already here to earn citizenship. Reagan knew that.

He also knew, just as George W knows, that if the GOP can come to an accommodation with a reasonable and fair plan, the Hispanic voters will quickly turn to loyal supporters of the GOP.

Personally I believe the GOP is driving away more votes with the hardline anti-immigration stand than they are protecting with that position.

luckyone wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I have seen warnings of election violence in developing countries, but never before have I seen an advanced democracy warn of election violence in another advanced democracy.

If memory serves me correctly, this would not be the first time. Segolene Royale suggested that there would be post-elections riots during her 2007 loss to Sarkozy.

So, Ségolène Royal (a French citizen in a French election) warned of post-election riots in... France.

That is NOT what was said by RyanairGuru.

The exact wording was;
"Over the weekend, the Australian Government updated their travel advice for Australian citizens in the USA, due to concerns of widespread demonstrations, protests and violence" (i.e. in the USA)

Which brings us back to;

RyanairGuru wrote:

I have seen warnings of election violence in developing countries, but never before have I seen an advanced democracy warn of election violence in another advanced democracy.

(my italics & bolding for emphasis of key phrases)
When a country that doesn't have any skin in the game sees you having problems with your election, things have gone beyond bad.

However if you wish to argue that Australia is not yet an "advanced democracy", then the floor is yours.

StarAC17 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Biden clearly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nebraska 2 along with everything that Hillary carried in 2016, bringing him to exactly 270 even without Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, or any of the other high profile swing states - rendering them all irrelevant.
.

This is pretty much the scenario I was pitching to my lady friend. She's a staunch Democrat and has been stressing out over the election since she went to bed on election night 2016 secure in the thought that Hillary won, only to wake up the next day to her worst nightmare. I told her to relax because Biden will win in a cake walk.....she's still nervous.

She must of turned in early that night. At 9pm the media was like WTF this isn't going to be a Hillary landslide by any means, by midnight they basically knew Trump was going to win and it was final at around 2am IIRC.

Pretty much. I went to bed around 10 and the reports were definitely WTF, Trump isnt getting blown out here, he could win. Then I woke up and saw the confirmation.

rfields5421 wrote:

First, I want to say Donald Trump is not a Republican and does not support traditional Republican values and platforms. A small percentage of the far right wing is controlling the GOP for most of the past 30 years. Newt Gingerich started the scorched earth, all or nothing movement back when Clinton was President. The far right loves Donald Trump because his concentrates on a few hot button issues and does not give a darn about the rest of the county.

Republicans need to take control of their party, just as Democrats do. Most of the people in the US in my opinion are too fed up with the fringe groups that they don't really care any longer. And are too lazy to go out and work to bring some sanity and balance to the political system.

Second, the GOP had a wonderful opportunity to lock up the White House, maybe, but to run the country probably through 2050 under George W. Bush. By capturing the vast majority of the Hispanic vote.

While we hear horror stories of gangs and such, most Hispanics in the US, legally or illegally, are hard working family members, religious with a strong family values culture. Generally they find a lot of dissatisfaction with much of the Democratic Party standard platform. They know people have to work hard, earn a decent wage, and have a chance to have their children educated for a better future.

George W had a very good plan to create a guest worker program that would allow many of them to work in the US, legally, and still be Mexican citizens. But also a path to citizenship for those who wished to do so. The hard-line Republicans refused to even allow him to present the ideas to Congress, or the people. If he had made speeches as he did as Texas governor, he would have been thrown out of the White House by his own party.

It is not 1910, and the US allowing millions to come in without prior approval. But we can establish a system to allow the good people already here to earn citizenship. Reagan knew that.

He also knew, just as George W knows, that if the GOP can come to an accommodation with a reasonable and fair plan, the Hispanic voters will quickly turn to loyal supporters of the GOP.

Personally I believe the GOP is driving away more votes with the hardline anti-immigration stand than they are protecting with that position.

Word....

Tugg

rfields5421 wrote:

First, I want to say Donald Trump is not a Republican and does not support traditional Republican values and platforms. A small percentage of the far right wing is controlling the GOP for most of the past 30 years.

Thirty years, let me repeat that... THIRTY years.

Have you considered that Donald Trump IS the modern day republican? And that you are no longer represented by the modern republicans.

How many years do you want to wait before the large percentage reclaim the party from the small percentage? Or, alternatively, for the large percentage to start a new party? Or even switch party?

Apathy is the greatest problem with the democratic process in the United States. Maybe that is changing.

I say that Trump is not a Republican in that he cares nothing about fiscal conservancy, controlling government spending, etc. He does not want the government to work efficiently. He is more an anarchist who wants to destroy everything that keeps him and his peers from raping the country and consigning the rest of us to be his low paid servants. More along the style of Warren G Harding, under whose administration everything was for sale.

Personally my hope for the Republican Party is Paul Ryan. I don't personally agree with many of his positions, but he is a smart man who knows how government must work to serve the people. Maybe in 2024 he might have a chance.

But he has committed the cardinal sin of criticizing Trump.

Heck, I would have been happy with McCain or Romney. Both are/were principled gentlemen.

I knew I shouldn't have wandered in here on Election night.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

luckyone wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I have seen warnings of election violence in developing countries, but never before have I seen an advanced democracy warn of election violence in another advanced democracy.

If memory serves me correctly, this would not be the first time. Segolene Royale suggested that there would be post-elections riots during her 2007 loss to Sarkozy.

So, Ségolène Royal (a French citizen in a French election) warned of post-election riots in... France.

That is NOT what was said by RyanairGuru.

The exact wording was;
"Over the weekend, the Australian Government updated their travel advice for Australian citizens in the USA, due to concerns of widespread demonstrations, protests and violence" (i.e. in the USA)

Which brings us back to;

RyanairGuru wrote:

I have seen warnings of election violence in developing countries, but never before have I seen an advanced democracy warn of election violence in another advanced democracy.

(my italics & bolding for emphasis of key phrases)
When a country that doesn't have any skin in the game sees you having problems with your election, things have gone beyond bad.

However if you wish to argue that Australia is not yet an "advanced democracy", then the floor is yours.

Mea culpa. I misread it.

ER757 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Biden clearly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nebraska 2 along with everything that Hillary carried in 2016, bringing him to exactly 270 even without Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, or any of the other high profile swing states - rendering them all irrelevant.
.

This is pretty much the scenario I was pitching to my lady friend. She's a staunch Democrat and has been stressing out over the election since she went to bed on election night 2016 secure in the thought that Hillary won, only to wake up the next day to her worst nightmare. I told her to relax because Biden will win in a cake walk.....she's still nervous.

Feeling ... exceptionally good about my prediction at present with the exception of the Texas bit.

WHY AP HASN’T CALLED NORTH CAROLINA:

The Associated Press has not declared a winner in North Carolina’s presidential contest because the race between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden is too early to call.

Trump, who is locked in a tight battle with Biden to secure the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, prematurely claimed early Wednesday that he won the state.

“We’ve clearly won North Carolina, where we’re up 1.7%, 77,000 votes with only approximately 5% left. They can’t catch us,” he said during an appearance at the White House. Trump also said he planned to contest the U.S. presidential election before the Supreme Court. It was unclear, exactly, what legal action he might pursue.

Though Trump is correct that he held a 76,000-vote lead in the state early Wednesday, the race is too early to call and there are still about 200,000 mail-in ballots left to count.

As long as those ballots are postmarked by Nov. 3, state election officials have until Nov. 12 to count them. And when it comes to mail ballots, Biden was far outperforming Trump.

That means there’s a considerable number of ballots yet to be counted that could give Biden a lead.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-race-calls-0b1988605f9101f4b799fc63b01e0090

^ Trump is an unconscionably annoying narcissist fool. Unbelievable ANYONE sees him as a ‘tough guy’.

Well I was right about the counting, but I was wrong about Florida by a long shot, and NC I missed by a bit,but as posted, lots of absentees outstanding200,000 , but Biden would have to run those by ~ 70% - to really win.

Well, it's Nov. 4. No riots (yet), no Trump supporters shooting themselves yet, and votes are still being counted.

My prediction was wrong, though - I guess I relied too much on FL (which if Biden win would render all the current vote counting meh anyway).

Independent what happens I see that the Bush period of world police is over.

I can imagine that Biden will have better relationships with EU but independent I see that USA will be less and less interested in Nato probably further or later to a point that EU need to handle the defense in Europe. Nato will probably soon have member such as USA, EU, UK, Canada, Turkey and Norway rather then USA, UK and a number of European countries.

Yeah so can we please talk about now how stupidly overwrought and over sensationalized all that media-ginned up hand wringing was from the other day with boarding up businesses, thinking last night was going to see the outbreak of a new civil war but also the beginning of the Purge all wrapped together with mass shootings, deaths, and rioting? True to form, we had an incredibly peaceful election and Americans woke up the next morning and just kept on living their lives.

flyguy89 wrote:

Yeah so can we please talk about now how stupidly overwrought and over sensationalized all that media-ginned up hand wringing was from the other day with boarding up businesses, thinking last night was going to see the outbreak of a new civil war but also the beginning of the Purge all wrapped together with mass shootings, deaths, and rioting? True to form, we had an incredibly peaceful election and Americans woke up the next morning and just kept on living their lives.

A comment I saw elsewhere made a point of this election will, as with 2016, margins of 10's of 1000's of votes in any one state the difference in who won. In 2000, it came down to less than 1000 votes in one state, Florida and why that battle raged. Most votes this year are on paper due to mail voting so recounts and audits will be easier the winner. Yes, Trump and Republicans may challenge the counts, but like in 2016, it may be futile to call for recounts if the percentage margins are above state mandated recount levels.
And yes, there hopefully won't be violence although if the Republicans try to thwart the proper counting of ballots by physical harassment at vote counting sites, political games or court challenges, it could happen. If Biden wins with enough margins in the key states, then people will be unlikely to protest.

flyguy89 wrote:

Yeah so can we please talk about now how stupidly overwrought and over sensationalized all that media-ginned up hand wringing was from the other day with boarding up businesses, thinking last night was going to see the outbreak of a new civil war but also the beginning of the Purge all wrapped together with mass shootings, deaths, and rioting? True to form, we had an incredibly peaceful election and Americans woke up the next morning and just kept on living their lives.

This thing is far from over... the lawyers are just getting started. I suspect things will change once there's a declared winner, whoever that might be.

flyguy89 wrote:

Yeah so can we please talk about now how stupidly overwrought and over sensationalized all that media-ginned up hand wringing was from the other day with boarding up businesses, thinking last night was going to see the outbreak of a new civil war but also the beginning of the Purge all wrapped together with mass shootings, deaths, and rioting? True to form, we had an incredibly peaceful election and Americans woke up the next morning and just kept on living their lives.

Not dumb at all. We literally do not know the outcome of the election. People might not fight each other but if they will, no one even knows who to fight or what to fight over yet. And considering this is all going to get very very messy with recounts and litigation we'll have to see.