Donald Trump
Comments
-
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
It's not finished yet, the final figure is likely to be higher. But still probably within the 0.5% margin in which candidates can request a recount in Georgia.swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:0 -
I'm talking about the Dems refusing to accept the 2016 result, their Russia enquiry, etc...kingstongraham said:
This is total nonsense.coopster_the_1st said:
What we are seeing is a breakdown of losers consent. The Democrats have been doing this for the last 4 years and now Trump is adding to the toxicity following this election. Everyone loses here but both sides are at fault in creating this situation.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.
The Democrats have been saying that the mechanism is not representative and should be changed.
Trump is saying that the other side is cheating, and in places the assumption has to be he suspects in collaboration with the state election officials.
That is not a "both sides at fault here" situation.
The mechanism is still not representative, as Trump has lost by 4 million votes, but the result is this close.
This all lays a base for this, and then Trump is piling further toxicity on top0 -
Trump cried when he won.coopster_the_1st said:
What we are seeing is a breakdown of losers consent. The Democrats have been doing this for the last 4 years and now Trump is adding to the toxicity following this election. Everyone loses here but both sides are at fault in creating this situation.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Weird that you don't know that Texas doesn't for any general elections.swjohnsey said:
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.
0 -
You mean the enquiry that was launched by Trump appointees?coopster_the_1st said:
I'm talking about the Dems refusing to accept the 2016 result, their Russia enquiry, etc...kingstongraham said:
This is total nonsense.coopster_the_1st said:
What we are seeing is a breakdown of losers consent. The Democrats have been doing this for the last 4 years and now Trump is adding to the toxicity following this election. Everyone loses here but both sides are at fault in creating this situation.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.
The Democrats have been saying that the mechanism is not representative and should be changed.
Trump is saying that the other side is cheating, and in places the assumption has to be he suspects in collaboration with the state election officials.
That is not a "both sides at fault here" situation.
The mechanism is still not representative, as Trump has lost by 4 million votes, but the result is this close.
This all lays a base for this, and then Trump is piling further toxicity on top0 -
Sometimes the highest vote getter will request a recount in a effort to get over 50% and avoid a recount.bobmcstuff said:
It's not finished yet, the final figure is likely to be higher. But still probably within the 0.5% margin in which candidates can request a recount in Georgia.swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:0 -
I didn't know that. It changed back in 1986 after I got out of college. It hasn't come up so I didn't notice.kingstongraham said:
Weird that you don't know that Texas doesn't for any general elections.swjohnsey said:
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
What it's easy to laugh at Farage there he is correct that postal voting is more open to fraud.Pross said:
Every time I've heard a Republican grilled on this they go from "fraud has happened" to "postal votes are more open to fraud". It's fake news tactics at their finest - say something over and over until it is accepted as fact.Dorset_Boy said:Yesterday evening Sky News had an interview with the head of one of the international electoral oversight agencies. she said they had people on the ground in 31 of the US states including the 7 that were expected to decide the election. They had seen absolutely no evidence of electoral fraud whatsoever.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the tangoed censored actually outlined what fraud has taken place.
I once shared an office with a guy who had an ESRC grant researching this issue. Their conclusions were that we should stick as far as possible with in person voting because postal voting was abused and it was largely organised through Asian community associations. Culturally politics in some countries is done differently and whereas we see it more in ideological terms they suggested in some Asian communities it was more acceptable to see it in more immediately instrumental terms - if we all get behind candidate X they will deliver us y. Not saying one is better than the other just different.
Interestingly their report trod rather carefully round this - even 20 years ago they realised that being branded racist wasn't great for a career in academia.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Every day's a school day, eh. There are only runoffs in 2 statesswjohnsey said:
I didn't know that. It changed back in 1986 after I got out of college. It hasn't come up so I didn't notice.kingstongraham said:
Weird that you don't know that Texas doesn't for any general elections.swjohnsey said:
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
You were 39 when you graduated?swjohnsey said:
I didn't know that. It changed back in 1986 after I got out of college. It hasn't come up so I didn't notice.kingstongraham said:
Weird that you don't know that Texas doesn't for any general elections.swjohnsey said:
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
Remember, he has about 8 degrees so that would take some timeFirst.Aspect said:
You were 39 when you graduated?swjohnsey said:
I didn't know that. It changed back in 1986 after I got out of college. It hasn't come up so I didn't notice.kingstongraham said:
Weird that you don't know that Texas doesn't for any general elections.swjohnsey said:
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
Biden ahead in PA now.
0 -
To be fair, 1986 is after a 73 year old would have graduated.First.Aspect said:
You were 39 when you graduated?swjohnsey said:
I didn't know that. It changed back in 1986 after I got out of college. It hasn't come up so I didn't notice.kingstongraham said:
Weird that you don't know that Texas doesn't for any general elections.swjohnsey said:
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
In the words of Jean-Luc Picard, make it so.kingstongraham said:Biden ahead in PA now.
0 -
The Pennsylvania count does not include any received postmarked before but received after election day, so that brand of fake outrage isn't included and you would assume they would be heavily pro Biden.
Think it's over.0 -
I wonder why they didn't cast Giuliani to play a mobster in "The Irishman"... he would be perfect as a sidekick to De Niro and Joe Pescileft the forum March 20230
-
I was in my 30s. I spent 20 years in the army before I went to college. I only have two degrees.First.Aspect said:
You were 39 when you graduated?swjohnsey said:
I didn't know that. It changed back in 1986 after I got out of college. It hasn't come up so I didn't notice.kingstongraham said:
Weird that you don't know that Texas doesn't for any general elections.swjohnsey said:
Not positive but I would guess just about all states require a majority not a plurality. You will notice several run-offs for senate and house seats.First.Aspect said:
How many states would that apply to (a) in 2020 (b) in 2016 (c) in 2000?swjohnsey said:
This is interesting. If they were running for governor instead of president this would require a run-off as no one got over 50%kingstongraham said:
Just as mere examples of when a less popular Republican "won". You can't have it both ways.0 -
OK, so there is visually more red than blue... so Trump won, then...kingstongraham said:
left the forum March 20230 -
I'm sure he'll say he won "real America".ugo.santalucia said:0 -
What is the real America? Biden certainly won the cities even in places like Texas. He probably got 80+% of the minority vote. The media is on his side.kingstongraham said:
I'm sure he'll say he won "real America".ugo.santalucia said:
It looks like Biden will win but it ain't over yet. No matter who is ahead after all votes are in, there will be recounts and legal challenges. States have 35 days after the election to decide which slate of electors they will certify. This could drag on for another month.0 -
OK, so there is visually more red than blue... so Trump won, then...kingstongraham said:
So not the closest in the lifetime of a 73 year old (or even a 21 year old) then? In fact, almost identical to the last election.0 -
You don't think he should give it up if it's 306?swjohnsey said:
It looks like Biden will win but it ain't over yet. No matter who is ahead after all votes are in, there will be recounts and legal challenges. States have 35 days after the election to decide which slate of electors they will certify. This could drag on for another month.0 -
Some rumours are circulating he (DT) may concede.0
-
Recounts don't make enough difference, generally. Recently has been a couple of hundred in either direction. Georgia could wind up being very, very close though.swjohnsey said:
What is the real America? Biden certainly won the cities even in places like Texas. He probably got 80+% of the minority vote. The media is on his side.kingstongraham said:
I'm sure he'll say he won "real America".ugo.santalucia said:
It looks like Biden will win but it ain't over yet. No matter who is ahead after all votes are in, there will be recounts and legal challenges. States have 35 days after the election to decide which slate of electors they will certify. This could drag on for another month.0 -
Meanwhile Putin, who is a lot more clever, is paving the way to his retirement by getting lifetime immunity... this is how you do it...shirley_basso said:Some rumours are circulating he (DT) may concede.
left the forum March 20230 -
if he were to do that, it'd be the sole stylish act of his presidencyshirley_basso said:Some rumours are circulating he (DT) may concede.
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0
