Official Election 2020 Doomsday Thread

[Nauseated Courgi]

Biden supporters overall don't seem as cult-like as Trump's folks (after all, most only voted for Biden because "Well at least he's not Trump")

You say that as if most of his voters in 2016 didn't vote for him for that same reason.

 

[potato in mah painus]

Honestly, this is something we should really remember.

Trump might've lost this time, but he did beat Hillary Clinton, something that nobody thought was going to happen, let alone be even possible. Trump, the man that the media threw everything at in an attempt to stop, and had only the backing of his supporters was able to take down the woman that truly did rig everything to make it so she'd be the nominee, and thought she was so untouchable and such a shoe-in for the presidency that she didn't even try to hide her disdain for the common man, and outright flaunted it.

He humiliated not only her, but the media, the government, the pollsters, the historians, world leaders-everyone who thought he couldn't do it. Like it, or not, he beat everyone, and made history, and that is something to be proud of. To think that a reality tv star could be a Clinton despite everything is still unprecedented, and is something that will always be remembered.

No matter what happens from now on, Trump will always have been a president.

Hillary will not.

Trump will always be more famous, beloved, and remembered than she will ever be.

And that is, and will always be something Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot stand.

Sadly, in 20 years Trump's presidency will be scrubbed from the net and history books. Those of us who lived through these last 4 years will be silenced and unable to contest it.

With that said, lets pay tribute to 2016: Hall of the troll king

https://youtu.be/RE-uhXKO-nk

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

View attachment 1793184

lol don't forget Liechtenstein

 

[Random Internet Person]

Sadly, in 20 years Trump's presidency will be scrubbed from the net and history books. Those of us who lived through these last 4 years will be silenced and unable to contest it.

I don't think it'll be scrubbed. If anything, it'll be regarded as a four year reign of terror, with 2020 being seen as the year of revolution where he was finally overthrown. If anything, the years that follow will be of the years where the nation heals, Trump and his supporters are brought to justice and removed from society, and the nation moves forward to a future that was prophesized.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Sadly, in 20 years Trump's presidency will be scrubbed from the net and history books. Those of us who lived through these last 4 years will be silenced and unable to contest it.

With that said, lets pay tribute to 2016: Hall of the troll king

https://youtu.be/RE-uhXKO-nk

I don't think it'll be scrubbed. If anything, it'll be regarded as a four year reign of terror, with 2020 being seen as the year of revolution where he was finally overthrown. If anything, the years that follow will be of the years where the nation heals, Trump and his supporters are brought to justice and removed from society, and the nation moves forward to a future that was prophesized.

Unless someone worse comes in or just someone the public just hates for whatever reason they’ll make up, and Trump is just remembered the way George W is. Unfortunately it will be a vicious cycle for years, unless America becomes so jaded and sick of that they just stop caring.

 

[A_throwaway_name62919]

You understand the right to vote is protected by the Constitution. Why is making it easier to vote a bad thing?

Generally speaking, making it easier to vote also risks making fraud easier. If you have to prove your identity with a photo ID while registering in person ahead of time, and then again with a photo ID at the polls when checking in to vote, it's a lot harder to get away with fraud than if everyone is automatically registered or can register online and you just need to show up with a signed piece of paper that could be replicated by a printer to vote. Similarly purging the voter rolls of people who haven't voted in several elections is a good way to remove people who have died or moved away compared to intentionally never purging the voter rolls once someone has registered.

The problem is that there's a balancing act and tug of war. The more effort it takes someone to verify their identity, register to vote, and go vote, the more likely you are to deter people who don't have that much time or energy to spend on voting; the more aggressively you purge people who are registered but aren't regularly voting, the more likely you are to remove a valid voter who just hadn't happened to vote. So the balancing act is trying to find a middle ground where the barriers to registering and voting are low, but your anti-fraud provisions are. The tug of war is that the side that favors easier voting likes to accuse the side that wants stricter validation of attempting to suppress voters, while the side that favors stricter validation likes to accuse the side that wants easier voting of trying to enable fraud and non-citizens voting. With both of them ignoring any sort of middle ground or other measure that might be taken to prevent fraud.

 

[Andrew Neiman]

Generally speaking, making it easier to vote also risks making fraud easier. If you have to prove your identity with a photo ID while registering in person ahead of time, and then again with a photo ID at the polls when checking in to vote, it's a lot harder to get away with fraud than if everyone is automatically registered or can register online and you just need to show up with a signed piece of paper that could be replicated by a printer to vote. Similarly purging the voter rolls of people who haven't voted in several elections is a good way to remove people who have died or moved away compared to intentionally never purging the voter rolls once someone has registered.

The problem is that there's a balancing act and tug of war. The more effort it takes someone to verify their identity, register to vote, and go vote, the more likely you are to deter people who don't have that much time or energy to spend on voting; the more aggressively you purge people who are registered but aren't regularly voting, the more likely you are to remove a valid voter who just hadn't happened to vote. So the balancing act is trying to find a middle ground where the barriers to registering and voting are low, but your anti-fraud provisions are. The tug of war is that the side that favors easier voting likes to accuse the side that wants stricter validation of attempting to suppress voters, while the side that favors stricter validation likes to accuse the side that wants easier voting of trying to enable fraud and non-citizens voting. With both of them ignoring any sort of middle ground or other measure that might be taken to prevent fraud.

Voter impersonation fraud is extremely rare; one Loyola Law School study was only able to identify 31 instances of voter impersonation fraud in 15 years. Increasing voter ID requirements wouldn't be worth the cost in terms of voter participation because the problem it attempts to solve is effectively nonexistent.

 

[Taco]

I don't think it'll be scrubbed. If anything, it'll be regarded as a four year reign of terror, with 2020 being seen as the year of revolution where he was finally overthrown. If anything, the years that follow will be of the years where the nation heals, Trump and his supporters are brought to justice and removed from society, and the nation moves forward to a future that was prophesized.

Calm down, the camps aren't even going to be that bad. It's not like the Mexican ones, they won't put you in a cage just dorm style military tents and it's only until you can re-enter society. If you just accept Trump lost and take the HRT you can get a deferment and you won't even have to go. It's not like you have to become a woman, just enough HRT to drop your test levels to the acceptable range and you can always use non-binary pronouns. I don't get why you guys are being babies about this.

 

[Random Internet Person]

Voter impersonation fraud is extremely rare; one Loyola Law School study was only able to identify 31 instances of voter impersonation fraud in 15 years. Increasing voter ID requirements wouldn't be worth the cost in terms of voter participation because the problem it attempts to solve is effectively nonexistent.

Then explain all the shit that happened with this election. We had things like places with more votes than registered voters.

 

[ZeroCool]

Donald Trump and his army of autistic spergs have filed and lost over 40 cases across the United State. That includes State Courts, Federal Courts, and yes the Supreme Court.

Once President Elect Joe Biden moves into the White House in January, after Trump is evicted, the potatoes will slink back to their trailer park or climb back into their mom's basement.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Then explain all the shit that happened with this election. We had things like places with more votes than registered voters.

No problem. Give an example then, hmm?

 

[ZeroCool]

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

View attachment 1794018

Not sure I believe this. Those retweets and likes are Biden-tier. Trump voters would eat that up.

 

[Maradontia]

Here's the thing: back in 2016, every liberal talked about leaving the country if Trump won, and people were calling bluffs and pushing people to balk the talk. Now, we're seeing people saying that the Democrats clearly used dirty tactics that can't be explained away very easily, and some feel that what the plans are for the country could be an unmitigated disaster, and this could be the only chance to stop things before it's too late due to the iron grip being solidified.

And they will continue to lose. As the late, great John McCain said: "Not only will you see, I guarantee it."

https://youtu.be/0dQfV-0R4ZY?t=121

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Then explain all the shit that happened with this election. We had things like places with more votes than registered voters.

Lol no we didn't. Keep believing Boomer Facebook posts, though.

Voter impersonation fraud is extremely rare; one Loyola Law School study was only able to identify 31 instances of voter impersonation fraud in 15 years. Increasing voter ID requirements wouldn't be worth the cost in terms of voter participation because the problem it attempts to solve is effectively nonexistent.

Exactly. If you're gonna do election fraud, that's a terribly inefficient way of doing it. You'd have to:
1. Research exactly who you were gonna impersonate, make sure they didn't vote, etc...
2. Stand in line for a while.
3. Go to the polls as them, vote
4. Hope they don't go to the polls themselves

All for just 1 vote.

 

[CreamyHerman’s]

lost over 40

I believe the cases were dismissed, not lost. Lost would mean they would have to at least hear the case

 

[Hippopatumus]

Voter impersonation fraud is extremely rare; one Loyola Law School study was only able to identify 31 instances of voter impersonation fraud in 15 years. Increasing voter ID requirements wouldn't be worth the cost in terms of voter participation because the problem it attempts to solve is effectively nonexistent.

Get the fuck out of here with this dumb fucking smooth brained retardation. Third world countries ID people at the fucking polls because not even they are this fucking retarded. The bar to bring an ID to participate is democracy is so low that literally the only reason dipshits like you argue against it is because deep down YOU FUCKING KNOW it leads to fraud but you seem to think only your team is going to cheat so the ends justify the means.

"Voter impersonation is extremely rare" mother fucker how are you suppose to prove that. Shut the fuck up.

 

[JaneThough]

Generally speaking, making it easier to vote also risks making fraud easier. If you have to prove your identity with a photo ID while registering in person ahead of time, and then again with a photo ID at the polls when checking in to vote, it's a lot harder to get away with fraud than if everyone is automatically registered or can register online and you just need to show up with a signed piece of paper that could be replicated by a printer to vote. Similarly purging the voter rolls of people who haven't voted in several elections is a good way to remove people who have died or moved away compared to intentionally never purging the voter rolls once someone has registered.

The problem is that there's a balancing act and tug of war. The more effort it takes someone to verify their identity, register to vote, and go vote, the more likely you are to deter people who don't have that much time or energy to spend on voting; the more aggressively you purge people who are registered but aren't regularly voting, the more likely you are to remove a valid voter who just hadn't happened to vote. So the balancing act is trying to find a middle ground where the barriers to registering and voting are low, but your anti-fraud provisions are. The tug of war is that the side that favors easier voting likes to accuse the side that wants stricter validation of attempting to suppress voters, while the side that favors stricter validation likes to accuse the side that wants easier voting of trying to enable fraud and non-citizens voting. With both of them ignoring any sort of middle ground or other measure that might be taken to prevent fraud.

Here's the thing. If ID laws are enacted, then IDs need to be free and easy for citizens to obtain. The constitution is pretty clear that money should not hinder anyone's right to vote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

When it comes down to it, if there is anyone out there trying to make voting more difficult, they're not doing it to protect anything. They're doing it because if the majority of the country votes unimpeded, they will lose.

 

[Hippopatumus]

Here's the thing. If ID laws are enacted, then IDs need to be free and easy for citizens to obtain. The constitution is pretty clear that money should not hinder anyone's right to vote

This is the first thing I've seen you post that isn't totally retarded. Good job.

We agree.

ID should be free, and it should be mandatory to vote.

 

[Andrew Neiman]

Then explain all the shit that happened with this election. We had things like places with more votes than registered voters.

What, specifically, do you want me to explain? I’m not convinced that there was anything irregular about this election other than that the losing candidate attempted to invalidate the result after the fact.

"Voter impersonation is extremely rare" mother fucker how are you suppose to prove that. Shut the fuck up.

If you want to convince people that it’s worth making a big sacrifice to solve a problem, you first have to convince them that the problem exists. I don’t know what to say other than that. If you could prove to me that thousands upon thousands of people were committing voter impersonation fraud, I’d be happy to support increasing voter ID requirements.