2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

Status
Not open for further replies.
GuntPunt said:
See if you can see me on TV.
Im the guy with the hat.
Click to expand...
Screen Shot 2020-11-01 at 11.16.41 PM.png


This you, bro?

(I just looked for the first guy in a not-red Trump hat)
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Parthenos, Harvey Danger, Iwasamwillbe and 9 others
Chin of Campbell said:
If Lefty thugs think blocking the polls and intimidating voters is going to do anything but piss the voters off even more they've got another thing coming. You'd have to be a real lowlife cuck to just go "Aw shucks, looks like I can't vote".

Carry a weapon and travel in groups with multiple people recording. It's a fucking shame what it's come to these days. Regardless of what happens, these thugs getting put in their place and the fuck out of society is a top priority.
Click to expand...
Is that why most modern "voter suppression" consists of locating polling stations in inconvenient areas for certain demographics to get to?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and Fanatical Pragmatist
millais said:
Why are all these Republican voters supposedly waiting until Election Day to vote? Is there some kind of security advantage to voting on Election Day as opposed to in person early voting? I would think that it's safer to attempt in person early voting to avoid any logistical foul ups on Election Day or standing in line for hours and not ending up able to cast a ballot.
Click to expand...
My reason, and maybe similar to others, is that they won't know ahead of time how many votes to fake if the majority of the voting is done on election day. That, combined with shy Trump voter, should hopefully overcome fraud.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Parthenos, Iwasamwillbe, the fall of man and 6 others
spiritofamermaid said:
My reason, and maybe similar to others, is that they won't know ahead of time how many votes to fake if the majority of the voting is done on election day. That, combined with shy Trump voter, should hopefully overcome fraud.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm doing, especially in a notorious dem county in a swing state. I got a text from HRC the other day asking about my ballot (how did they even know I requested one? I'm just bringing it with me unopened to vote in person) and whether I would mail it in or drop it off. I sad I didn't trust the local government so I'm voting in person—they never responded.

On a totally different note, I've seen some rumblings that Trump's going all-out before the election is psychologically persuasive. And I think it's totally true—at least, it's working on me. I see what Trump is doing and I'm not dreading walking over to the polling place at 6:30 AM. Watching him right now in Miami really strikes it home for me, especially seeing him this morning in the snow in Michigan.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe, the fall of man, schatze and 5 others
X Prime said:


View attachment 1700373

Anyone have more info about these 126,000 ballots in Harris County?
Click to expand...

Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to matter from the numbers.

In "blue texas", dems only hit 88% of their 2016 turnout, reps hit 108% of their 2016 turnout, from early vote so far.

Early-voting Texas atm is 107% of the entire 2016 turnout, its possible there mot not even be an election day surge there, and Reps are up by 1,625,632 votes (approx from the percentage).

The independents are more or less 1m votes that'l distribute to wherever, but even if 100% go blue, and 3rd parties get 0 votes, then reps are still 573k votes ahead.

1604293697400.png


X Prime said:
CNN has already called Michigan for Biden based on the early voting.
Click to expand...

Yep that sounds like CNN.

1604293701450.png
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Francis York Morgan, Shroom King and spiritofamermaid
Gehenna said:
Except its not gibs, so much as targeted growth. If it were "We'll give you 1,000 dollars each" I'd cry foul. Instead its "We'll focus investment into poor urban areas, which are disproportionately black, to help them grow".

This is far more sane, and actually makes business sense. If you have a section of an economic entity (Whether it be a family owned business, large corporation, or national economy) that is under performing then you have three options to make it do better. Cut it off entirely, gut and rearrange it, or invest in it to give it better tools.

The first two simply aren't options here. You can't just ship off all the black people and it wouldn't solve the underlying poverty anyway. The second is tempting, but its unlikely the democrats controlling these areas are likely to be out voted any time soon. So, you are left with only the third, investment.

Now, I am skeptical of the exact feasibility of Trump's plan as its high on rhetoric and only moderate on details. But what he has actually suggested is workable and not just straight up racist like reparations would be. Its targeted investment that technically rises everyone with equal opportunity, there's just a lot more black people in the targeted areas than white people to receive said opportunity.
Click to expand...
Terrorist said:
Like reparations, it's a plan marketed to black America explicitly on that identity basis. There's nothing in there for poor rural (white) areas for a reason. If it was meant as a universal program, it would be marketed as such.

There have been a million programs targeting the hood for investment and the hood is no better off. What you just gave was the liberal rationale given for all these failed programs since before we were born. Why will this be any different, because Trump does it?
Click to expand...
I think the both of you miss the point.

The issue isn't investing into the community-- the issue is what you're investing into, in the first place. Downing money in a bid to improve African-American communities cannot work as it stands because the ground isn't tilled-- that is, their societies are unstable because their families are unstable. Their families are unstable between Sex Revolution fallout and crime laws with which they disproportionately come into contact, and the latter is largely caused by a societal rot that drives money and other resources out while attracting and entrenching criminal subcultures that prey on vulnerable children from the aforementioned broken homes. Supposing you funneled money into these communities and that brought them into substantial stability, said stability would only last for as long as that money flow continues because the root problems have not been addressed.

The first order of business is targeting what threatens the family structure in these communities and eliminating those threats. If that requires money, so be it. Then, you can talk about shelling out billions of dollars into these communities, because the foundational societal stability afforded through stable families as well as the virtue that can be more easily cultivated in stable families would better ensure the changes would be permanent.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MidUSA, Iwasamwillbe, Francis York Morgan and 14 others
Zero Day Defense said:
I think the both of you miss the point.

The issue isn't investing into the community-- the issue is what you're investing into, in the first place. Downing money in a bid to improve African-American communities cannot work as it stands because the ground isn't tilled-- that is, their societies are unstable because their families are unstable. Their families are unstable between Sex Revolution fallout and crime laws with which they disproportionately come into contact, and the latter is largely caused by a societal rot that drives money and other resources out while attracting and entrenching criminal subcultures that prey on vulnerable children from the aforementioned broken homes. Supposing you funneled money into these communities and that brought them into substantial stability, said stability would only last for as long as that money flow continues because the root problems have not been addressed.

The first order of business is targeting what threatens the family structure in these communities and eliminating those threats. If that requires money, so be it. Then, you can talk about shelling out billions of dollars into these communities, because the foundational societal stability afforded through stable families as well as the virtue that can be more easily cultivated in stable families would better ensure the changes would be permanent.
Click to expand...
I'd... not disagree, because I do agree. But I also Disagree. By this confusing waffling, I mean to say this is a chicken and egg situation. A large part of their breakdown in family structure stems from the abysmal poverty and opportunity they have. There is no reason to lay down roots, because there is no way for those roots to grow financially.

At the same time, you have a point in that the money will be up against a lack of family structure. Its a catch-22, in order to restore the family structure they need to have financial stability, but in order to have financial stability they need the family structure.,
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe, EmuWarsVeteran, schatze and 2 others
Any thoughts on this final Florida predictor poll from Scott Rasmussen?

There are very few undecided voters left because the vast majority of votes have already been cast in Florida. Among those who have already voted, our baseline turnout model estimates that Biden is leading by 11 points. That’s true even though the poll shows 42% of the early votes were cast by Republicans and just 40% by Democrats.

Biden’s advantage among this group comes partly from the fact that more Republicans have voted for Biden than the number of Democrats who have voted for Trump. Democrats who have already voted favor Biden by a 97% to 2% margin. But 11% of Republicans have voted for Biden.

Additionally, Biden has a 25-point lead among Independents who have already voted.
Click to expand...


Definitely hoping that's not going to be the case, but you never know with Sunshine Boomers...
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe, Literally Murdered, spiritofamermaid and 2 others
Zero Day Defense said:
I think the both of you miss the point.

The issue isn't investing into the community-- the issue is what you're investing into, in the first place. Downing money in a bid to improve African-American communities cannot work as it stands because the ground isn't tilled-- that is, their societies are unstable because their families are unstable. Their families are unstable between Sex Revolution fallout and crime laws with which they disproportionately come into contact, and the latter is largely caused by a societal rot that drives money and other resources out while attracting and entrenching criminal subcultures that prey on vulnerable children from the aforementioned broken homes. Supposing you funneled money into these communities and that brought them into substantial stability, said stability would only last for as long as that money flow continues because the root problems have not been addressed.

The first order of business is targeting what threatens the family structure in these communities and eliminating those threats. If that requires money, so be it. Then, you can talk about shelling out billions of dollars into these communities, because the foundational societal stability afforded through stable families as well as the virtue that can be more easily cultivated in stable families would better ensure the changes would be permanent.
Click to expand...
exact, the problem of so called structural racism has a lot to do with culture.

if we don't encourage the family as an institution, real oportunities for people who got the shit short stick in life, get rid of a culture that celebrates crime and disorder, no ammount of gibs will elevate poor black people socially.

stable families, cultural rejection of criminality, real opportunities of jobs and education.

basically what is needed is the complete rejection of the notion that black people are somehow inferior, instead of turning it into a fucking dogma and working from there.

the entire premise seems to be fucked, but as said before, it may be a chicken and egg situation, is the social inferiority of poor blacks the cause of the destructive cutlure for lack of opportunities? or it's the destructive culture that causes the social inferiority for lack of better options? its a feedback loop and a self fufilling one.

if the cultural values don't change it will never end.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Parthenos, Cowboy Boot, Iwasamwillbe and 7 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back