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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Had a conversation with a few kool-aid drinking card-carrying lefty family members over the holiday regarding all of this bullshit. One actually had the beginnings of what I can only call buyer's remorse over voting for a clear fraudster, and the other two were wholly on board with making sure the election was done legally even if "their guy" supposedly won. Turns out they may be (somewhat) redeemable yet.

I only bring this up to showcase that there are still people with some shred of integrity/self-awareness on the left. It's not a completely hopeless situation worthy of despair if even they are noticing that this election stinks.

Speaking of doomsaying:
You doom about everything, tho', so you are going to be right eventually. It's like someone who always bets on black bragging about their amazing insight into rioting.
I shit you not - I read it like that the first time. This is what 2020 has done to me.
 
1 and 2 are effectively the same fact, many more people voted in the 2020 election and both candidates benefited. Part of this will be the increased access to mail-in voting, if you make it easier to vote then more people will vote. Part of it will be Trump, it's clear that his style attracted people to vote for him who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote and his style attracts people to vote against him who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote.

3 and 4 are similar facts, states and counties can have bellwether status for a long time until they don't. South Dakota and Kansas both went for the winning candidate for 10 elections until 1940 when they flipped to Wilkie over FDR, they are both a long way from bellwether status now. It used to be received wisdom that no GOP candidate could win without carrying Illinois until George W Bush did it in 2000, Trump lost it by 17% in 2016 and that wasn't considered unusual.

5. True, but you're comparing to 2018 not 2016. The Democratic Party candidates did better than they did in 2016 but not as well as they did in 2018. If you compare congressional districts to the 2016 winner then the Dems flipped 28 GOP seats at worst (at time of writing 2 races remain uncalled and there's a runoff in LA-5 between two GOP candidates). A net gain of 28 House seats maps well to the improvement in vote share for Biden over Clinton.

6. Just not true. The claim is that Biden underperformed Clinton in every city except for Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Firstly in Philadelphia there was a swing from D to R of 3.8%, in the other three, Biden did do better than Clinton. Atlanta +4.0%, Milwaukee +3.0%, Detroit +0.3%. That's not an unusual swing in cities, look at Minneapolis +8.3%, Denver +6.6%, Dallas +5.8%, Portland +5.1%, Phoenix +5.0%, Cincinnati +5.3% all had better Biden performance than any of the 'suspicious four cities'.

Nice side-step, however, fraudulent votes, votes that were manufactured and stuffed into the ballot, were used en-masse. Paper ballots being bulk manufactured, as well as otherwise illegitimate votes being manufactured by social engineering methods, in addition to legitimate mail-in votes that were illegally separated from their verification envelopes (which were illegally destroyed in the process). Easily manipulated memory drives being out of the sight of officials magically turning up hours later with large swathes of votes appearing to be for Joe.

These are things the election officials themselves admitted to happening, just because the numbers add up from a cursory glance, it does not mean the statistical anomalies disappear. The machines were loading up votes faster than they were physically capable of counting, votes on the night magically decreased en-masse from Trumps totals and applied at the same number to Biden's total.

Time and time again the cyber security community have repeatedly breached these devices, and even the US Government has used intelligence assets to compromise these machines. Regardless of what Dominion says, their machines have been used in the races they purport to have had no involvement in, and frankly they are hoping a bold faced lie to an unwitting public will buy them enough chaos to memory-hole the digs that have already been completed.

It's absolutely absurd that leftist liberals will groan and complain about US interference in foreign elections, actively acknowledging that they are capable of doing so, as well as acknowledging the government and intelligence agencies absolutely dislike Trump and want him gone, and at the same time people like you will purposefully ignore the facts in order to pedantically present a semantic argument about claims that stem from a cursory observation of the results.

Edit: Let me put it this way, do you not, at the very least, find it suspicious only one side of the election dispute is having their claims labelled as "under dispute"?

It's telling that there's a dispute but only one side of a two sided dispute is being actively framed that way.
 
Last edited:
Really the only useful lawyer covering this at current is Viva and that is mostly because he does a show with Barnes.

Barnes seems the one keeping on top of what is happening.
I've given up on most of the pundits, they are practically useless. As soon as I can be bothered I am moving all of my content to rumble as well. Fuck youtube. Youtube is for riggers.
 
The stakes just keep getting more interesting, though, don't they? I don't know how anyone could be bored, right now. :woo:

And here we can see solid proof our lord and savior is a single-player-only purist. As it should be you fucking scrubs!

Yeah little kids claim to be bored when they see they're getting their asses handed to them. It's a very common excuse. "Oh I could've totally beaten you but I just wasn't in on it because it was sooooo booring." And the american left sure as shit has used that excuse a lot these past years when they got their asses handed to them and had to resort to censorship.

At this point it's pretty clear the way this'll turn out:


View attachment 1753215

Bad day for rain...

You doom about everything, tho', so you are going to be right eventually. It's like someone who always bets on black bragging about their amazing insight into gambling.

That ain't a bad strategy though. If you always doom you're always either gonna be proven right or glad to be proven wrong...

Or that's what I said before 2020 proved you can still be disappointed. Holy shit what a year this has been.

(Also if you gamble by always betting on black you're a fucking idiot with no knowledge of mathematics. Actually if you gamble at all you're a fucking idiot unless you're actually counting cards or doing other things which will inevitably get you kicked out and blacklisted.)

A different country has a different culture than America? Shocking

WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT! TO THE WILSONMOBILE!


Actually, a State University research this and found that African migrants and children born from African Migrants are actually wealthier than the native-born "African-Americans." So, nobody fucking knows why American Blacks are fucking poor, other than something systematic in their communities they refuse to divulge because, at this point, that has to be a problem they refuse to address. Also, MSU is the Michigan State University

To be fair, due to the massive ocean in the way, african immigrants tend to be people who, you know, can actually afford to migrate. So it does stand to reason they'd be richer than a part of the native population which tends to be lower class. LEGAL migrants tend to be at leats lower middle class, 'cause if they're not, their permit expires and they get thrown out. But you can't kick the burgerniggers without rioting so they fester in america's poor regions instead.

That said. Reason why african americans are so poor is culture, gibbs and politics, so conclusion's right, it's just that the evidence used shows a natural bias that has gone unadressed. Bad example for a good model if you will.
 
That law is centered around stopping immigration. I am talking about passing legislation to stop the people already in the country from building themselves up. The Exclusion Act didn’t have any legislation that expressly killed Chinese wages. On top of that during WWII the law was repealed.

IIRC Asians had an easier time integrating into society post WWII. Until 1964 segregation made economic competition for blacks extremely difficult since it required building separate everything to people to try to interact with one another. I know there was some bullshit in California involving intermarrying Asians and the like around that time, so I know my explanation isn’t perfect across the board.

Long story short, yes Asian people went through bullshit too, but they didn’t have Congress passing laws specifically to nuke the ways they found to thrive in the US, as opposed to the black population. At least not as far as I know.



(You guys keep posting when I am responding good lord)
The laser focus comes from what I was mentioning involving unions and the minimum wage laws, where Congress looked at the fact that black communities were growing and smacked them back down. That kind of shit is different from the gov’t saying “Don’t come here anymore“. I didn’t say anything about the recent riots, because I am talking about the past and everyone with the ability to succeed is facing economic sabotage from this particular brand of stupid. African AND Asian-American businesses are being burned down for daring to exist as a symbol of individual success in a black neighborhood.

My point is that due to the continuous hits received over the course of decades, followed by the carrot known as social programs, the black community was pretty much crushed into its current state. Asians took several hits, but not to that degree. Hence why today’s SJWs are trying to toss Asians in the “white” bracket. There wasn’t enough force behind the discrimination they faced in the past, so getting out of the hole was easier.

(Thank you for coming to my TED talk.)

Chinese labourers were literally burned to death in two separate major incidents by Union members who didn't like the competition. And in a climate where the government paid lip-service to justice at most for the victims you cannot convince me there wasn't a widespread climate of prejudice and economic hindrance for Chinese people. And I don't see anything that convinces me it was notably different to prejudice against Black Americans. In fact, given the smaller numbers of Chinese families in the USA you can make a supportable argument that it was harder for them to make self-supporting business relationships in parallel to the economy they were excluded from.

I think you are hooked on arguing that Black people had it worse because you see the opposing view being that the current lower success rate for Black Americans must be some biological inferiority. In which case naturally you'd stick to your arguments. But I don't think that necessarily follows. You can accept that Chinese Americans had it just as tough as Black Americans without having to draw any unwanted conclusions. Maybe the Chinese immigrants had a stronger culture - after all, Black Americans had little long-term culture having had all that ripped away from them when transported from Africa (one reason you see nonsense attempts to invent a new culture like Afro-Centrism); maybe the smaller size of communities actually helped in that it forced Chinese immigrants to integrate in a way that Black Americans with whole large communities didn't; and maybe having their own language helped create a more resilient community to those threats than Black Americans who just spoke the same language as White Americans mostly did. Chinese Americans paradoxically both integrated more and less than Black Americans did with wider White America. They lived and worked closely amongst everyone else - a "China Town" like in San Francisco was still way more integrated than a lot of Black communities - yet also preserved own traditions and language at the same time.

I think you are arguing Black Americans got attacked structurally and culturally more than Chinese Americans. I think that's only true in so far as there were more Black Americans. Both groups (and the Irish, too!) faced such attacks. Chinese communities simply proved more resilient for whatever reason. I doubt it's based on genetics. China is a culture that has survived thousands of years. Africans uprooted and transported around the world world and then given a bit of Christianity aren't comparable - there's little continuity of identity to build on. Frankly, Black Africans did pretty well all things considered up until the Democrats gibbed them to breaking point and the CIA flooded their communities with crack.

Anyway, this is something of a tangent but tl;dr: You want to argue that Black communities were deliberately undermined and leadership subverted, I'm right with you. I just don't accept dismissing other groups overcoming it as a way to show it. Every Chinese first and second generation immigrant I've ever known (up until the recent wave of hyper-rich property buying ones) has worked like a madman to succeed. I'm not going to take that away from them by downplaying things like the Rocks Springs massacre and the environment that created it.

1606567682827.png


To be fair, due to the massive ocean in the way, african immigrants tend to be people who, you know, can actually afford to migrate.

This hold true in theory and I'm sure there must be a basis for it, but anecdotally my experience of this really runs counter to it. You can get a flight from say Cairo to say New York for around $600 if you shop around. I mean, that's not cheap if you're from most African countries but it's certainly within reach of most working people if they approach it not as a "I've just decided to go to America" jaunt but as a "I'm working to save up to go to America. I'll have enough by May" styl thing. Which is how the African immigrants I have known have approached it. African immigrants to the USA I have known, workers and in one case a student, weren't rich and they were working super-hard to succeed. One uber driver I knew from Eritrea was pulling hours that terrified me week after week.

What you've said is popular wisdom and I'm sure they exist. But consider it's more often desperation and necessity that drives someone to leave everyone they know behind and work in a foreign country starting from scratch. I actually think most African immigrants don't fit it. Also, what you say wouldn't lead to the widespread contempt of African Americans by actual Africans that I have definitely witnessed (to the point Hitler would have blushed to hear the descriptions that were used).
 
Last edited:
1 and 2 are effectively the same fact, many more people voted in the 2020 election and both candidates benefited. Part of this will be the increased access to mail-in voting, if you make it easier to vote then more people will vote. Part of it will be Trump, it's clear that his style attracted people to vote for him who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote and his style attracts people to vote against him who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote.

3 and 4 are similar facts, states and counties can have bellwether status for a long time until they don't. South Dakota and Kansas both went for the winning candidate for 10 elections until 1940 when they flipped to Wilkie over FDR, they are both a long way from bellwether status now. It used to be received wisdom that no GOP candidate could win without carrying Illinois until George W Bush did it in 2000, Trump lost it by 17% in 2016 and that wasn't considered unusual.

5. True, but you're comparing to 2018 not 2016. The Democratic Party candidates did better than they did in 2016 but not as well as they did in 2018. If you compare congressional districts to the 2016 winner then the Dems flipped 28 GOP seats at worst (at time of writing 2 races remain uncalled and there's a runoff in LA-5 between two GOP candidates). A net gain of 28 House seats maps well to the improvement in vote share for Biden over Clinton.

6. Just not true. The claim is that Biden underperformed Clinton in every city except for Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Firstly in Philadelphia there was a swing from D to R of 3.8%, in the other three, Biden did do better than Clinton. Atlanta +4.0%, Milwaukee +3.0%, Detroit +0.3%. That's not an unusual swing in cities, look at Minneapolis +8.3%, Denver +6.6%, Dallas +5.8%, Portland +5.1%, Phoenix +5.0%, Cincinnati +5.3% all had better Biden performance than any of the 'suspicious four cities'.

There is another thing with the mail in voting that you haven't addressed. That is 2020 saw an unusually low rate of rejection when you would expect it to be higher than normal. Absentee ballots have been a thing for a long time but, a) they are often in relatively small numbers and b) its the same people who request them. If you have a bunch of new applications you would expect the new applications to ultimately be rejected ballots simply due to inexperienced respondents. Some states like Georgia made it more difficult to object to ballots and strangely enough Georgia is also a state where a lot of the anomalies we are complaining about happened.

These anomalies are as follows:

1) Substantial dumps of ballots where only the vote cast was for Biden with no downticket where Trump would receive between 0-10% of votes in these batches.
2) Addresses registered are actually P.O boxes, commercial units or nursing homes.
3) More mail-in ballots counted than officially sent out and received despite there being reports that other mail in ballots had not ended up being counted according.

The very least an impartial observer should come to conclusion that widespread fraud has been made a lot easier with the way mail in ballots were handled in the 2020 election.

You are right that bellweathers do change. However, the assumption is that bellweathers should be accurate until they are shown not to be so. That isn't proof of fraud, it's a display of an anomaly. And the thing with bellweathers changing status is that your supposed to come up with a reason as to why they would. Why are the bellweathers not accurate anymore?

I will have to think about your point regarding the house races. I'm guessing that you have put the cart before the horse but having had only 3 hours sleep its hard to explain how you have done it.

As far as Bidens performance goes I've seen evidence that you are right he didn't under perform Clinton everywhere apart from urban areas in swing states. However he did really bad in states where they count the mail in ballots first like you know Florida, Ohio and Texas and really well where they were counted last like the states under contention right now. What I've given isn't proof, its just another strange happening in what has been a very strange election.

Edit: And one more thing the counting stopped in these contentious states at around midnight. Joe Biden comes out about half an hour later stating he is sure that he has enough votes to win Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Even though at the time there wasn't enough ballots officially available in these states to give him the lead. I think that's what made me think that the fix was in, I really hoped someone archived that
 
Last edited:
Had a conversation with a few kool-aid drinking card-carrying lefty family members over the holiday regarding all of this bullshit. One actually had the beginnings of what I can only call buyer's remorse over voting for a clear fraudster, and the other two were wholly on board with making sure the election was done legally even if "their guy" supposedly won. Turns out they may be (somewhat) redeemable yet.
Care to go more in-depth about the one having buyer's remorse over voting for a clear fraudster? People seem to double down on Biden winning legitimately.
 
I wonder what's going to happen with WI and MI, those votes coming in illegally late are a black and white example of fraud but it seems like no real progress is being made from the "audits". There's a clear amount of votes that need to be thrown away but no one seems to be willing to take the action to throw them away.

Michigan we're just gonna have to wait until the hearing to see what happens. I think there's solid ground for a case in Michigan so I think there's a chance of Rudy being able to sway them over. I remember Rudy spending alot of time on Michigan the other week so I think Rudy can make a good case.

From what I've heard about Wisconsin, Trump's team is gonna pursue the 160,000 ballots from Milwaukee. And Barnes was saying the other day he had been working behind the scenes to coordinate a legal strategy to challenge the election in states like Wisconsin and these challenges include petitioning the Wisconsin supreme court. He didn't specfically say who he working with.
 
I doubt we would even arrive at such a situation as this in the UK but I think if we did and there were this much widespread doubt in the population about the validity of the election, all parties would be calling for full audits. The simple fact that approximately half the country and maybe more think that there was widespread fraud is in itself a bad place to be - anyone who believes the results are accurate would be in favour of audits for that reason alone.
 
Social Security is a textbook Ponzi Scheme.

To own the Boomers we should abolish it and cut taxes off the working class.
The Boomers have already been "owned". Social Security does not provide a living wage. Any savings or assets they were able to accumulate are garnished by the state if they are unfortunate enough to live long enough to need assisted living or a nursing home. Anything left when they die is eaten up by probate or inheritance taxes. So yes, in essence, I agree with you. Social Security is not an adequate safety net.
However, your suggestion that S.S. should be stopped and the taxed money be returned back to the workers assumes that this consoomer mind-set takes a radical change and we become a nation of savers....I could rant on, but this already OT.
 
Like @Übertroon pointed out, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 proves that wrong, but it could be argued that it was originally supposed to only keep new Chinese immigrants from coming in and theoretically wouldn't effect those already in the country.

There was also the Japanese-American internments during WWII, but that's a little shakier since it was part of wartime paranoia and there were smaller internment efforts directed at German-American and Italian-American communities on the East Coast, but they were far more limited and less sweeping in their scope and scale than the ones targeted at Japanese communities

japanese internment was justified given the niihau incident. where three japanese americans went out and killed a few hawaiians to smuggle a japanese kamikazi pilot back to japan.

that made the american government realize that minorities would have loyalty to their race than nation. which is true today for chinese, korean, indians, somalis, etc.

the george taki asians dont acknowledge it ever happened, and the lib asians really raked Michelle Malkin over the coals for indirectly mentioning it.
 
@Rand /pol/ @A_Skellington @Son of Nothing @Zǒngtǒng bǐ dēng wànsuì @Hollywood Hulk Hogan @2020Suicide @Taco @3119967d0c

Before the end of this year, you will learn yet again that Trump always wins. I promise you ;)
What about all of those times he didn't win?

You QAnoners are seriously batshit insane. Get some mental help
You guys really are assmad if you can't appreciate a joke that's not even divisive just because it comes from HHH.
Snowflakes like @Gehenna get really mad when you break up their hugbox and give them prickly wicklies, so he goes through my post history and neg-rates me. I don't like his politician, so thus I am automatically a troll. He even reported me last night, lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back