2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I mean it can, lead to strife, but it's not a causal link because there have been other elections where the candidate didn't concede or conceded quite late (2000 springs to mind) that did not lead to "strife."
Do you believe that if there has been a single instance of A not causing B then that means there is no causal link between A and B? In other words, do you believe that A has to be followed by B 100% of the time A happens to allow us to draw any inferences about causality between A and B?
Well, i'm guessing here but this is how I think it played out.
Fraudulent Biden votes that were set aside to be used if needed were dumped in the dead of night, in just the right amounts to secure a win. How else do you explain the large numbers of Biden votes all dropping at the same time? It's a statistical impossibility.
The Biden votes didn't all drop at the same time. There were three different "huge" dumps in three different swing states. Though in PA the over 1,000,000 mail in votes were made public mostly from 12am to 3am.
Also they weren't "Biden Votes". There were Trump votes as well. The reason Biden had more votes in these "dumps" was because they were mail in ballots from Democratic counties. With huge populations. Except in MI where a clerical error resulted in the Biden count going up by about 135,000 votes (first reported as Biden count of over 15,000 votes then corrected to over 150,000)
Because of the vote counting rules, all mail-in ballots in MI, PA, and WI couldn't be processed until Election day. That means that they were all reviewed starting on the morning of election day and they were all put into piles that would be counted by tabulating machines when all processing had been completed. So the results of say Milwaukee which were over 200,000 votes were published at one time. That is not a statistical impossibility. It is a statistical likelihood.
100% of the "evidence" people have of election fraud or rigging is them simply not understanding how elections work and ballots are counted.
Again, ignorance. It's not an excuse.
What's the case for how banning pharmaceutical ads wouldn't be a first amendment violation?
You could make the argument that paying press companies to advertise products interferes with their freedom to report fairly on those same products and is an inherent violation of freedom of the press.
You could also make the argument that companies/corporations don't qualify for freedom of expression or speech rights generally considered to apply to actual human beings. I mean they already don't. A company already can't refuse to associate based on race, religion, etc.
And why we shouldn't also ban unlimited campaign donations that are supposedly protected under the same amendment per the Citizens United ruling?
In my opinion, we should. I don't think companies should be able to donate at all.
Do you believe that if there has been a single instance of A not causing B then that means there is no causal link between A and B? In other words, do you believe that A has to be followed by B 100% of the time A happens to allow us to draw any inferences about causality between A and B?
More nuanced discussions about complexity of circumstances and context aside, no, but when your sample size is 3 and 2 instances don't lead to "strife," it's probably not true there exists a causal link.
I mean it can, lead to strife, but it's not a causal link because there have been other elections where the candidate didn't concede or conceded quite late (2000 springs to mind) that did not lead to "strife."
I'll take, Elections That Weren't Nearly As Contentious for $500, Alex.
Well, admittedly it's tough to have objective prospective when you're balls deep in a cult, but the rest of us know.
Who cares wtf she said 3 years after the election? The point is she conceded officially and gracefully the next morning and had Trump done the same thing, none of the bullshit would have happened after the 2020 election.
If Trump conceded gracefully in 2020, this year is probably a complete landslide right? Might still be, but he clearly harmed himself with his antics.
The City of Milwaukee and being a huge disappointment. Name a more iconic duo.
What's the case for how banning pharmaceutical ads wouldn't be a first amendment violation?
The short answer is that commercial speech doesn't have the same level of First Amendment protection as non-commercial speech. The government can regulate commercial speech under a test described in a case named Central Hudson. The government interest must be substantial and the regulation must be no broader than necessary to advance the interest.
If Trump conceded gracefully in 2020, this year is probably a complete landslide right? Might still be, but he clearly harmed himself with his antics.
True landslides are not possible in the current environment, but he certainly would be in a better position in the general election if he had conceded gracefully. It's possible, however, that conceding gracefully would have made it harder for him to secure the GOP nomination.
I mean it can, lead to strife, but it's not a causal link because there have been other elections where the candidate didn't concede or conceded quite late (2000 springs to mind) that did not lead to "strife."
do you.
Maybe the lack of strife was because there was no Jan 6 rally and fight like hell speech in 2000.
2000 was incredibly contentious. 42% of Americans believed the election was illegitimate in 2000.
Well, admittedly it's tough to have objective prospective when you're balls deep in a cult, but the rest of us know.
It's hard to have an objective perspective period, but at least I admit it.
The short answer is that commercial speech doesn't have the same level of First Amendment protection as non-commercial speech. The government can regulate commercial speech under a test described in a case named Central Hudson. The government interest must be substantial and the regulation must be no broader than necessary to advance the interest.
But corporations were specially included in the Citizens United case.
In other words, "Just give us more time to [count]"
D2
What are the % chances that the republican nominee 2028 gets 70-72+ mil votes nationally? would you say 60? 80? 90%?
and no it wont be trump in 2028 or for the first time in history peopel actually saying the "death of the republican party" would prolly be accurate
If Trump conceded gracefully in 2020, this year is probably a complete landslide right? Might still be, but he clearly harmed himself with his antics.
Oh, he definitely harmed himself. Whether he harmed the country more with his antics than himself is up for debate, I suppose.
2000 was incredibly contentious. 42% of Americans believed the election was illegitimate in 2000.
Are you laughing as you type that out? I would be. 2000 was nothing at all like 2020 in terms of political tension, so either you were 12-years-old back in 2000, live in a different country and didn't follow American politics then, or you're straight-up trolling.
You haven't admitted ****. Literally people were refreshing Twitter for Trump's orders. It's not hard to figure out the rest.
We don' have to theorize how or why it happened. It's been well documented.
True we don't have to theorize when there are facts available.
Here you go. Factual evidence of fraud in 6 key swing states.
D2
What are the % chances that the republican nominee 2028 gets 70-72+ mil votes nationally? would you say 60? 80? 90%?
and no it wont be trump in 2028 or for the first time in history peopel actually saying the "death of the republican party" would prolly be accurate
Not sure why you're asking me, I have absolutely no idea.
The problem is it's hard to prove that it was rigged without access to the actual ballots and the machines that counted them. Plus most of the courts didn't want to adjudicate on the election for obvious reasons and simply refused to let evidence be presented on procedural grounds.
The bottom line to me is that there are thousands of people all around the world who study or monitor elections as professionals. Plenty are conservative, plenty are liberal.
The US Presidential election is the most important one in the world. So there is no reason to rely on politicians or internet sleuths who have never studied an election before. If there were good reason to be suspicious, whether it be of Russia rigging it for Republicans or Dems rigging it, then these people would be falling all over themselves to be the one to discover the evidence.
It's cute how everyone engages with BJ like he actually cares about things like facts.
The bottom line to me is that there are thousands of people all around the world who study or monitor elections as professionals. Plenty are conservative, plenty are liberal.
The US Presidential election is the most important one in the world. So there is no reason to rely on politicians or internet sleuths who have never studied an election before. If there were good reason to be suspicious, whether it be of Russia rigging it for Republicans or Dems rigging it, then these people would be fall
See my previous post.
