2020 Presidential Race

[Velo Vol]

Turns out Americans don't like Trump and don't like rioting. I am not sure why this is hard for people to understand. It's why Pelosi got ripped on a post election Dem leadership call.

I'd like to think swing voters still determine elections, but it's become difficult the last ten years.

 

[tnmarktx]

Same here. Next time don't ask for a link.

If you respond to a post. I'll likely respond back.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The fraud arguments were dead on arrival if you just look at down ballot voting. Turns out Americans don't like Trump and don't like rioting. I am not sure why this is hard for people to understand. It's why Pelosi got ripped on a post election Dem leadership call.

100% right. Republicans such as Sen. Ron Johnson (Wisconsin) and Sen. Rand Paul (Kentucky) would have you believe that the one contest which appeared on every ballot in the country was "rigged" - though, they are only claiming fraud in states which Trump lost - but every other contest on all of those millions of ballots was legitimate.

So, Democrats who were capable of cheating on the Presidential election, weren't also able to "fix" any one of the toss-up Senate races, such as in North Carolina, Maine or Iowa, which would have flipped the Senate to their side? That defies logic. This will always boil down to sour grapes. Republicans won nearly every single toss-up election... but they want to cry over the one they lost. Well, cry me the Mississippi River. Joe Biden won a fair election.

 

[1972 Grad]

I saw an amusing statement by an old friend of Trump’s and it’s pretty evident a lot of his supporters follow the same mantra. He said “Trump believes if you say something often enough (even if it’s a total lie), people eventually begin to believe it.

Like saying all Republicans are racists?

 

[volfanhill]

I'd like to think swing voters still determine elections, but it's become difficult the last ten years.

It was swing votes. I think the Dems would have eaten the GOP's lunch had it not been for the rioting. Many on here don't want to admit it but Trump is truly unliked. Rioting started. Dems appeared to be ok with it, supporting it, or justifying it. And here we are.

 

[1972 Grad]

I believe that’s a Hitler quote

Edit:
Adolf Hitler

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

But, but...............Trump is Hitler.

 

[clarksvol00]

If you respond to a post. I'll likely respond back.

Honest question, do you believe Roberts went into a closed room and screamed at the other justices about this?

 

[tnmarktx]

Honest question, do you believe Roberts went into a closed room and screamed at the other justices about this?

I have no idea what anyone on the scotus would do. I don't believe the scotus does what they're supposed to do and haven't for awhile. They are just another failed branch of government.

 

[clarksvol00]

I have no idea what anyone on the scotus would do. I don't believe the scotus does what they're supposed to do and haven't for awhile. They are just another failed branch of government.

Understood. I find the allegation extremely questionable because I believe the veracity of the press release that says they've been meeting remotely since November. Now we have had a reasonable discussion and nobody needs to be triggered.

 

[zeppelin128]

 

[volgr]

The fraud arguments were dead on arrival if you just look at down ballot voting. Turns out Americans don't like Trump and don't like rioting. I am not sure why this is hard for people to understand. It's why Pelosi got ripped on a post election Dem leadership call.

Now address record low rejection rates of mail in ballots.

 

[volgr]

It was swing votes. I think the Dems would have eaten the GOP's lunch had it not been for the rioting. Many on here don't want to admit it but Trump is truly unliked. Rioting started. Dems appeared to be ok with it, supporting it, or justifying it. And here we are.

Not true, as he gained with minorities, gained with working class, got a HUGE day of vote.

 

[volgr]

Trump was hated...except he trounced Biden in swing bell weather counties across America. The same swing counties that Obama trounced in. The same ones that habe predicted every President in the modern era.

No, Trump wasnt hated, he was jobbed in a few States by mountains of mail in ballots with near zero rejection rate.

Very simple.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Now address record low rejection rates of mail in ballots.

By itself, that does not serve as evidence of fraud. The burden of proof rests with the people who are making allegations of wrongdoing. Unless Trump's legal representation can prove that these "record low rejection rates" were the result of fraudulent activity (and they have not presented evidence of that in the 6 weeks since the election), then a statistic such as this, will remain nothing more than an anomaly. You don't overturn the results of a presidential election due to anomalies.

 

[volgr]

By itself, that does not serve as evidence of fraud. The burden of proof rests with the people who are making allegations of wrongdoing. Unless Trump's legal representation can prove that these "record low rejection rates" were the result of fraudulent activity (and they have not presented evidence of that in the 6 weeks since the election), then a statistic such as this, will remain nothing more than an anomaly. You don't overturn the results of a presidential election due to anomalies.

No, when a State has record low rejection rates, the burden of proof is on the State.

I can guarantee if Trump won because a record number of ballots were rejected, the burden of proof would be on the State to explain themselves.

The fact these States have fought independent audits, is telling. Take a random 10k sample of mail ins along with envelopes for signature match, from across the State and let an independent commission audit. Very simple, should have already been done and gives public transparency.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trump was hated...except he trounced Biden in swing bell weather counties across America. The same swing counties that Obama trounced in. The same ones that habe predicted every President in the modern era.

No, Trump wasnt hated, he was jobbed in a few States by mountains of mail in ballots with near zero rejection rate.

Very simple.

The percentage of the popular vote (46.9%) which Donald Trump received in the 2020 Presidential Election, is consistent with the percentage of the popular vote (46.1%) that he received during the 2016 Presidential Election. 46.9% is also slightly above where Trump's Real Clear Politics Average Approval Rating has been throughout his first term in office. That shows that Trump remained very popular with his core base of support. The Trump campaign was able to turn out Republican support in record numbers, but in order to win this election, they needed to do better with independent voters.

One significant change from the 2016 election is largely being overlooked:

In the 2016 Presidential Election, 5.7% of the popular vote went to a 3rd party candidate. However, in the 2020 Presidential Election, only 1.7% of the popular vote went to a 3rd party candidate. This shows how voters who didn't like either candidate in 2016, tended to vote 3rd party... However, in the 2020 Presidential Election, those same voters tended to vote for Joe Biden. It made a difference.

 

[BowlBrother85]

No, when a State has record low rejection rates, the burden of proof is on the State.

I can guarantee if Trump won because a record number of ballots were rejected, the burden of proof would be on the State to explain themselves.

The fact these States have fought independent audits, is telling. Take a random 10k sample of mail ins along with envelopes for signature match, from across the State and let an independent commission audit. Very simple, should have already been done and gives public transparency.

This is dead wrong. In the United States of America, the burden of proof always rests with the party who has filed the complaint (known as the "plaintiff" in legal proceedings). The party who is being accused of wrongdoing (known as the "defendant" in legal proceedings), doesn't have to prove their innocence. Sorry, but that is just how it works in this great country of ours.

Trump's legal representation has been provided ample opportunity to prove their allegations in court. According to Judge Brett Ludwig (of the Eastern District of Wisconsin), a Trump appointed judge, they have not yet met their burden of proof.

 

[volgr]

The percentage of the popular vote (46.9%) which Donald Trump received in the 2020 Presidential Election, is consistent with the percentage of the popular vote (46.1%) that he received during the 2016 Presidential Election. 46.9% is also slightly above where Trump's Real Clear Politics Average Approval Rating has been throughout his first term in office. That shows that Trump remained very popular with his core base of support. The Trump campaign was able to turn out Republican support in record numbers, but in order to win this election, they needed to do better with independent voters.

One significant change from the 2016 election is largely being overlooked:

In the 2016 Presidential Election, 5.7% of the popular vote went to a 3rd party candidate. However, in the 2020 Presidential Election, only 1.7% of the popular vote went to a 3rd party candidate. This shows how voters who didn't like either candidate in 2016, tended to vote 3rd party... However, in the 2020 Presidential Election, those same voters tended to vote for Joe Biden. It made a difference.

If this were true, you would've seen Biden flip predictor bell weather counties. Again, the same counties Obama won and predicted his Presidential win. Biden was trounced.

 

[BowlBrother85]

If this were true, you would've seen Biden flip predictor bell weather counties. Again, the same counties Obama won and predicted his Presidential win. Biden was trounced.

Once again, by itself, this does not serve as evidence of fraud. Unless Trump's legal representation can go before a judge and prove that this statistic occurred by way of fraudulent activity, then it will remain nothing more than an anomaly.

 

[zeppelin128]

Last I checked, we still operated on a system of innocent until proven guilty. This extends to all areas of public life, including the election. Trump and friends have had weeks to prove massive fraud in court, millions of dollars to afford top notch legal representation, the complete backing of the GOP, and a fairly large chunk of the electorate behind them. They have had ample opportunities, almost 60 different lawsuits I believe. And they have failed over, and over, and over and over to prove it. When someone accuses someone of shenanigans, it is on the person doing the accusing to prove it. That is how this works. I don't care about tweets, I don't care about anything said on here. They have had over a month to present something, anything, that will stick in court. And they have failed, repeatedly. It is done. Trump lost.

 

[volgr]

This is dead wrong. In the United States of America, the burden of proof always rests with the party who is making allegations of wrongdoing (known as the "plaintiff" in legal proceedings). The party who is being accused of wrongdoing (known as the "defendant" in legal proceedings), doesn't have to prove their innocence. Sorry, but that is just how it works in this great country of ours.

Trump's legal representation has been provided ample opportunity to prove their allegations in court. According to Judge Brett Ludwig (of the Eastern District of Wisconsin), a Trump appointed judge, they have not yet met their burden of proof.

They cant provide further proof without getting an audit. The proof is record low ballot rejection rate. The only way for the State to prove their rejection rate was legitimate is to grant an audit.

AZ judge did this with a small sample of mail ins. 11% were DQ'd by a Dem auditor. Apply just a fraction of that Statewide and Trump wins AZ easily.

 

[volgr]

Last I checked, we still operated on a system of innocent until proven guilty. This extends to all areas of public life, including the election. Trump and friends have had weeks to prove massive fraud in court, millions of dollars to afford top notch legal representation, the complete backing of the GOP, and a fairly large chunk of the electorate behind them. They have had ample opportunities, almost 60 different lawsuits I believe. And they have failed over, and over, and over and over to prove it. When someone accuses someone of shenanigans, it is on the person doing the accusing to prove it. That is how this works. I don't care about tweets, I don't care about anything said on here. They have had over a month to present something, anything, that will stick in court. And they have failed, repeatedly. It is done. Trump lost.

Cant prove anything if State Courts wont allow audits. Wouldnt let them bring suit before the election, no standing. Wont let them bring suit after the election, no standing. Exactly when were they supposed to bring suit? This is a judicial joke by the Courts.

 

[volgr]

Once again, by itself, this does not serve as evidence of fraud. Unless Trump's legal representation can go before a judge and prove that this statistic occurred by way of fraudulent activity, then it will remain nothing more than an anomaly.

I already explained it. Ballot rejection rates.

 

[BowlBrother85]

They cant provide further proof without getting an audit. The proof is record low ballot rejection rate. The only way for the State to prove their rejection rate was legitimate is to grant an audit.

AZ judge did this with a small sample of mail ins. 11% were DQ'd by a Dem auditor. Apply just a fraction of that Statewide and Trump wins AZ easily.

The low rejection rate does not serve as proof of fraud. It can serve as a result of fraud, but by itself, it does not prove fraud. Statistical anomalies do occur by way of legitimate activity.

There is a very clear disconnect from what Trump's legal representation will allege when they are being interviewed on Fox News, versus what they will allege whenever they are standing before a judge, when there could be repercussions for lying.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I already explained it. Ballot rejection rates.

That doesn't prove anything. Ballot rejection rates can be the result of fraud, but they do not serve as proof of fraud. Statistical anomalies do occur by way of legitimate activity.