What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

Al-O-Meter said:
The American people also voted, and all who voted chose someone else. Kamala got zero votes in the primary and won a rigged delegate vote where the delegates were "faithless" to the electorate.

en.wikipedia.org

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Delegates don't have to be faithful to the electorate. That is where you are confused. In this case they couldn't be faithful to the electorate since that candidate no longer existed. That is another thing you are confused about. I'm sorry that you are so confused.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I believe government should have the consent of the governed or it is not legitimate.
Click to expand...
Yep, your beliefs aren't factual. We understand that.

If the electorate voted for me to be the nominee but I didn't want to be the nominee (just like Biden didn't) then there is no way to have the consent of the governed. Can't force me (or Biden) to be the presidential nominee.

Also, the delegates are governed. They consented. So the government had the consent of the governed in this case anyway. You can rejoice now because you got what you wanted. A legitimate candidate voted for by the governed!

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
LogGrad98 said:
Yep. Apparently she stole the election away from Biden, so all she does is steal elections, so obviously she is going to steal the election next month too.
Click to expand...
Republicans never face legitimate opponents. When they lose, it’s because they’re cheated. Even in 2008, they didn’t lose. They were cheated out by a black guy who didn’t even have a valid birth certificate. Only one party should ever rule America.
 
One thing I hope for is that after Donald loses here in a week, a lot of these no nothing morons who think politics and history began in 2016 find something else to bitch about. Politics should be boring. Hopefully they find hobbies, god, porn, or drugs. Just something to do in your parents’ basement other than pretending to know anything about history or politics.
 
Plans….

www.propublica.org

“Put Them in Trauma”: Inside a Key MAGA Leader’s Plans for a New Trump Agenda

Private videos reveal Trump adviser Russ Vought’s “shadow” plans for using the military on protesters, defunding the EPA and villainizing civil servants.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org

Reporting Highlights​

  • “In Trauma”: A key Trump adviser says a Trump administration will seek to make civil servants miserable in their jobs.
  • Military: In private speeches, he laid out plans to use armed forces to quell any domestic “riots.”
  • 1776 and 1860: He likened the country’s moment to those fractious periods in American history.
A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term.

In private speeches delivered in 2023 and 2024, Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, described his work crafting legal justifications so that military leaders or government lawyers would not stop Trump’s executive actions.

He said the plans are a response to a “Marxist takeover” of the country; likened the moment to 1776 and 1860, when the country was at war or on the brink of it; and said the timing of Trump’s candidacy was a “gift of God.”

Vought does not hide his agenda or shy away from using extreme rhetoric in public. But the apocalyptic tone and hard-line policy prescriptions in the two private speeches go further than his earlier pronouncements. As OMB director, Vought sought to use Trump’s 2020 “Schedule F” executive order to strip away job protections for nonpartisan government workers. But he has never spoken in such pointed terms about demoralizing federal workers to the point that they don’t want to do their jobs. He has spoken in broad terms about undercutting independent agencies but never spelled out sweeping plans to defund the EPA and other federal agencies.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhrhyBwgFFE
 
Red said:
[*]Military: In private speeches, he laid out plans to use armed forces to quell any domestic “riots.”
Click to expand...
The thing I find so funny about this narrative is that only four years ago detractors were screaming about Trump not making use of the National Guard to protect the capitol. Everybody knows the National Guard is military, right? Now he's saying that he will make use of the tools at hand to maintain the peace if a similar event happens in the future, and now the detractors are screaming about that. Methinks the detractors just like to detract,
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Al-O-Meter said:
The thing I find so funny about this narrative is that only four years ago detractors were screaming about Trump not making use of the National Guard to protect the capitol. Everybody knows the National Guard is military, right? Now he's saying that he will make use of the tools at hand to maintain the peace if a similar event happens in the future, and now the detractors are screaming about that. Methinks the detractors just like to detract,
Click to expand...
L-O-****ing-L that you think Trump is actually talking about January 6 rioters as the ones he wants to use the military on. Those 'day of love' people who were there on his behalf and that he has never denounced.

Clown ****, I know you don't actually believe what you type but that was bad even for you.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
L-O-****ing-L that you think Trump is actually talking about January 6 rioters as the ones he wants to use the military on.
Click to expand...
Trump's efforts to use the National Guard on January 6, against the rioters even though they were there to support him, is documented fact.

cha.house.gov

Transcripts Show President Trump's Directives to Pentagon Leadership to "Keep January 6 Safe" Were Deliberately Ignored

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration
cha.house.gov cha.house.gov

I'm not sure why people don't think I believe what I write. Not only do I believe it, but I nearly always have the evidence from reputable sources to back it up.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
L-O-****ing-L that you think Trump is actually talking about January 6 rioters as the ones he wants to use the military on. Those 'day of love' people who were there on his behalf and that he has never denounced.

Clown ****, I know you don't actually believe what you type but that was bad even for you.
Click to expand...
Of course trump wanted to use the national guard on the peaceful patriots who were simply hanging around for a day of love. Uh huh.

Trump is even worse than I thought! He wants to use the military on peaceful patriots apparently.
 
Last edited:

Vice President Kamala Harris is on track to narrowly win the 2024 presidential election, according to a new analysis based on artificial intelligence (AI), with 276 Electoral College votes against 262 for Republican rival Donald Trump.

It concluded that Harris would win the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada, but lose in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.

The 14-vote Electoral College lead it gave Harris would be the third-closest in American history, after Rutherford B. Hayes' 1876 victory by one vote and George W. Bush's 2000 defeat of Al Gore by five votes. However, if Trump wins either Pennsylvania or Michigan, with 19 and 15 Electoral College votes respectively, it would be enough to hand him victory, according to the model.

Speaking to Newsweek, a Bonus Code Bets spokesperson said: "For years, opinion polls have been used to indicate the outcome of elections, but new technology provides new ways for results to be predicted.

"And having such a powerful AI tool look at the entirety of the campaign and still predicting that Kamala Harris will win by a single state shows just how close this election will be."
 
fishonjazz said:
"For years, opinion polls have been used to indicate the outcome of elections, but new technology provides new ways for results to be predicted."
Click to expand...
Exactly! Opinions, ideas, and popularity no longer decide elections which makes opinion polls, of which the election itself is supposed to be an opinion poll, obsolete for determining outcome. The AI is seeing the system has been rigged and is reporting the outcome based on that understanding. The AI just told you exactly what I told you with the exception of Nevada, and I'll admit that I could be wrong on Nevada but in the bigger picture Nevada doesn't matter. The system has been rigged enough that it is not possible for a GOP candidate to win a national election. The opinion polling of our elections cannot overcome the rigging now in place.
 
fishonjazz said:

Vice President Kamala Harris is on track to narrowly win the 2024 presidential election, according to a new analysis based on artificial intelligence (AI), with 276 Electoral College votes against 262 for Republican rival Donald Trump.

It concluded that Harris would win the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada, but lose in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.

The 14-vote Electoral College lead it gave Harris would be the third-closest in American history, after Rutherford B. Hayes' 1876 victory by one vote and George W. Bush's 2000 defeat of Al Gore by five votes. However, if Trump wins either Pennsylvania or Michigan, with 19 and 15 Electoral College votes respectively, it would be enough to hand him victory, according to the model.

Speaking to Newsweek, a Bonus Code Bets spokesperson said: "For years, opinion polls have been used to indicate the outcome of elections, but new technology provides new ways for results to be predicted.

"And having such a powerful AI tool look at the entirety of the campaign and still predicting that Kamala Harris will win by a single state shows just how close this election will be."
Click to expand...
I kind of hate these things because I firmly believe there is a chunk of kind of lazy people out there (often like myself) who decide whether they will bother to vote or not based on this stuff. If you show their guy winning, they think "eh, doesn't matter if I vote now, it's in the bag" and vice versa if their guy isn't winning it makes them think they better get out and vote "if it's going to be close". Not sure it's enough to swing an election but anything that diminishes the feeling that they need to vote no matter what is a bad thing, imo. Get out and vote!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top