ALL TRUMP!!! ALL THE TIME!!!

Agree, even though Trump had no direct bearing on either of these things (being that Covid is THE reason for the economic downturn).

Although, being that the vast majority of our media is bought and paid for (mostly through marriage) by the Democrats, they will convince liberals Trump secretly invented HIV in a lab at the Mar-a-Lago Club if they choose, so telling them Trump created Covid and by extension, affected the economy negatively won't even be a warm-up for them. Zealots are easily convinced when you tell them what they want to hear.

It's pretty well known that Trump mailed in a ballot, so to be concerned about voter fraud due to mail-in ballots, but then also use a mail-in ballot is insanity sprinkled with a dash of hypocrisy.

Trump calls the election rigged, yet wins it, then still cries about fraud, yet he won.

Liberals have been crying about voter fraud because there's actual evidence of tampering from Russia, just they couldn't link it to Trump, they can link some things to some of his campaign employees, but not him directly, because, and just a guess, Trump isn't a complete moron.

Let's just call this what it is: two sides of the same coin. Neither are rational, neither are exactly sane, but goddamn they're fun to watch.

You mean like the democrats did when trump won? "No such thing as voter fraud unless my guy loses".

RE: Polls. How did the polls go last time? All that crap means nothing because the only poll that counts is the actual vote on the day. The vast majority of people don't take part in polls and polling is subject to bias.

More than anything, I find it tiring. We had years of one manufactured "crisis" after another, and now that we actually kinda have a real one I'm just not in the mood.

At least with the last few years of manufactured crises everyone on the Right was more or less united by the Left's deranged behavior, but on those sporadic occasions when I actually tune into conservative talking heads I find myself slowly agreeing less and less with them. That's not to say I'm shifting any more left, though. That side was a "lol no" for me before and it's a "LOL NO" now, but I could really go for a sane centrist party at this point. It kinda sucks to be stuck in the ever-widening valley, but I'd take that over being a party shill.

(And no, despite what some might say, Biden is not a centrist. He's a weak puppet who would have his stances and policies determined via focus group.)

I completely agree. The DNC knew they stood no chance putting up a woman, gay man in a same-sex marriage, or any minority, so they chose the one thing to go up against an older, rich, white, cis gender, heterosexual male - another older, rich, white, cis gender, heterosexual male.

It was a safety play to try to get Trump out and Biden is a shill anyways, IF he wins he'll resign a year (if that) in, look at who he picks for VP, that's who will end up being POTUS.

Which is where the joke about Hillary being his running mate comes from.

It's all about *who* you ask the questions to and *how* you ask those questions in the first place. Most pollsters use voter registries from around major population centers because it's just plain easier. Then the data is aggregated with other similar polls and analyzed based on raw number of responses, which isn't how elections in the USA work. Base purely on raw responses, California, in alliance with New York, would control the entire USA and we would of likely had several more civil wars already. It doesn't matter what people in California, New York or any other large Democrat state think about Trump, they are going to vote for whomever the DNC tells them to vote for.

Instead we gotta ask those in the States that aren't hard one way or another and even then it's a wash because population centers almost always vote heavy left, while everyone else votes right. Basically you need tack a few percentage points onto the (R) side of any pool to get a decent approximation.

First part literally incorrect. Yes, they found evidence of Russia ATTEMPTING to access voter boxes but concluded they were unsuccessful. So, no, Russia really did not succeed in any form of voter, "tampering." Buying ads on social media or creating "fake" accounts to spread misinformation is called espionage, which ALL governments of industrialized nations have done since the dawn of there being governments and nations. It's just done a different way, now.

Even Jill Green exposed the literal vote tampering by Democrats when she demanded the recount after the election in Michigan. After re-tallying all the votes (write-ins and otherwise) the conclusion was the only discrepancies they could find were actually in favor of Hillary Clinton, so she in actuality lost Michigan by MORE votes than were initially tallied. That's just one of several examples of voter fraud on record by Democrats, let alone the incidents such as that fiasco in Florida.

Hillary Clinton was the one who had the quote were she was saying, "Anyone who is unwilling to accept the results of the election is a danger to democracy...." before the 2016 voting was concluded, then tried to corner Trump in one of the debates to come out and state he'd accept the results of the election, to which he famously replied he'd absolutely accept the results....(dramatic pause) if he won, with a snicker on his face....so he most obviously was just saying it that way to get her goat, which is the easiest thing to do with liberals these days.

So Trump has every reason in the world to think the Democrats and liberals would do absolutely anything in their power to rig the election if they had to in order to get him out (they've shown tons of evidence to this fact). They've publicly stated this on numerous occasions, from politicians to celebrities to your everyday, run of the mill social media, pink haired, obese scream queens. They rule the media, they rule social media, there are a myriad of insider videos of moderators who work at Instagram and Facebook who flat out admit to only deleting/moderating conservative and pro-Trump opinion posts and also deleting anything anti-Biden (or any other liberal pundit). That's the exact thing liberals would lose their mind over if it were going the other way, but it's not, so you don't hear a word from them about it.

The fact any of you are attempting to state what liberals have done this past 3 years when it comes to public thought manipulation and flat out media coercion is anywhere close to Trump whining from time to time about possible voter fraud is beyond laughable.

Can't edit these? Hmmph.

And my comment by no means Voren meant I was claiming you were doing so, you were simply attempting to be objective when dealing with a side that lacks any and all ability to be objective.

All I am saying is (which I've said more than once) Trump holds out many reasons to bash on him on a silver platter. The left has plenty of honest complaints they can plant their flag in. Questioning voter fraud simply is not one of them. It's like Hillary Queen of Lies calling people liars. That suit just doesn't fit.

Because people abused the edit function here editing is disabled in P&R.

Meet Saevel. He has been on vacation for a bit. He isn't as bad as most Q believers are, not that he is a Q believer, just not as far out as they are.

It comes close sometimes.

How can one "abuse" an edit function? Real question.

I use just because I type with 3 fingers and sometimes, the forum algorithm seems to think what I typed is what I meant to type and that red line doesn't pop up.

Also, what is a "Q believer?"

A poster used to, after reading responses to his posts, edit those posts to make the responses seem irrelevant, immaterial, or stupid.

Qanon.

Outrage mounts over report Russia offered bounties to Afghanistan militants for killing US soldiers

Fierce response from top Democrats after US intelligence finding was reportedly briefed to Trump in March, but the White House has yet to act
The Guardian US

Trump wasn't briefed on report Russia paid Taliban to kill coalition forces in Afghanistan, White House says
USA Today

I have no idea what she's talking about. The only editing I ever did was grammar / typos and if it was more then a few minutes after a post I would put a :edit: at the bottom staying it was for grammar / typos. Maybe she's got me mixed up with Nasui / Vic or one of the other rampant cave dwellers.

This is going to be a problem for Trump. First of all the WH is already lying, unless they are implying that Trump learned about the Russian bounty's by reading the NYT report, which I want to believe is impossible. Therefore Trump did know about it before the story went public, and he has done nothing. Even the GOP is demanding answers, the WH had better come up with a better excuse, fast.

I paraphrased way too much, that's on me. It's easy to hurry and jump from espionage and saturating social media with ads to interfering and tampering. If I make an error I expect to get spanked for it, well played.

I don't care for any of the candidates this go round. I'd have loved to have been able to vote for Buttigieg if nothing else than to really *** with conservatives and boomers, but he had some policies that I agreed with and wasn't nearly as left as most.

I wasn't talking about you Saevel. The poster I was referring to is banned. You should remember who it was.

Ok it just seemed like you where due to phrasing, but it's all good. And yes I suspect I know who your talking about.

Ah...

Paragraph tends to = change of topic. I will be more careful in the future.

Ah ok, so one of those social media buzz words. I honestly think Saevel from my pint of view is one of the more objective posters, at least on the police topic, even more so than I feel I am. But, whatever.

I normally steer clear of toxic websites and political argument threads so I'm basically a troll virgin. I just got wrapped up in this one(these) because at first, I saw some light with some of the posters to possibly be more objective than the 4chan/reddit type crowd. In some respects, I was mistaken and some not.

wonder if Trump is going to do anything about the peaceful Chaz/Chop area in Seattle considering there's been a few shootings already and the mayor hasn't done anything

Yea, I imagine he will tweet about it.

Notice how they removed the term "autonomous zone" from it's name.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307145/twitch-donald-trump-ban-campaign-account




hmm if Twitter/Facebook & other social media groups suspend/ban Trump would that be considered censorship?

Good for twitch, they still suck tho.

They are just the PR wings of the Democrat Party.

That depends on how you define censorship.

In the strictest sense, any sort of content moderation is censorship. Even the rules here, as lax as they can be at times, constitute a form of censorship. Nothing other than no-rules-ever would qualify under that definition.

This argument also comes in when people talk about the First Amendment, which ONLY relates to the government itself stopping you from saying something. It's not twitch.gov, so they can do whatever they like to curate their environment.

There's discussions to be had as to whether or not private platforms should have rules and how strict those rules should be, but that's a problem for the free market to deal with. If Twitter is too restrictive, people will go elsewhere. If I finally snap and start nuking people who talk about Cloudsplitter builds, they'll go to r/ffxi, etc, etc. Conversely, a platform that has much laxer rules - and because it's the internet, will have more extreme speech - will generally only attract people interested in that sort of speech. This does not, as many have found out, include most advertisers.

There are actual laws relating to publisher vs platform. Platforms can't censor while publishers can and in return, we can sue publishers while we can't sue platforms.

That's the law that President Trump ordered the FCC to look into and reclassify the Twitters, Facebooks and Youtubes from platforms to publishers. For a long time online media companies got to pretend to be one or the other depending on which was the most advantageous for them legally. I see that ending here very soon.

They replaced it with "occupied protest."

I didn't know the president was twitchy. Is that why he was celebrating being able to drink a glass of water using only one hand?

Occupied protest doesn't indicate they see succeeding from the Union or setting up a separate government.