Trump thread and the 2020 election

[doulos]

I also saw Trump say he'll not make a mandate for the whole USA to wear masks out in public. And it's getting a large angry amount of articles, but in Canada, provincial level gov'ts aren't even doing that so why are people freaking out that Trump isn't? That I will say is just hate towards Trump.

Because Trump's behaviour is not done in isolation. It's the complete package of everything he does every single day.

- - - Updated - - -

I hear there are some unmarked vehicles grabbing violent scumbags in Portland and hauling them away.

I don't know who is behind this but thumbs up to whoever is trying (finally) to clean up the streets there!

Like I said. Cultist. Completely in favour of facism as long as it's "the enemy" getting theirs.

[Auston'sWilly]

More info on why you should be ignoring the polls at the moment:


Even Trump has admitted that, on the morning of November 8, he didn’t think he was going to win.
But it wasn’t just the pundits, the politicians, the comedians and Trump who got it so incredibly wrong. The professional pollsters who devised meticulous methodologies for forecasting election results were also caught with egg on their faces. The Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance of winning. The Huffington Post’s forecast gave Clinton 98 percent, PredictWise gave her 89 percent, and the New York Times’s The Upshot gave her 85 percent. Even FiveThirtyEight, which was the most bullish on Trump, gave Clinton over a 71 percent chance of winning.

source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...of-2016-214555

[doulos]

More info on why you should be ignoring the polls at the moment:


Even Trump has admitted that, on the morning of November 8, he didn’t think he was going to win.
But it wasn’t just the pundits, the politicians, the comedians and Trump who got it so incredibly wrong. The professional pollsters who devised meticulous methodologies for forecasting election results were also caught with egg on their faces. The Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance of winning. The Huffington Post’s forecast gave Clinton 98 percent, PredictWise gave her 89 percent, and the New York Times’s The Upshot gave her 85 percent. Even FiveThirtyEight, which was the most bullish on Trump, gave Clinton over a 71 percent chance of winning.

source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...of-2016-214555

https://i.imgur.com/IVl5DE1.png

[Daydream Nation]

If this stuff is up your alley, you might also enjoy: Them - Why We Hate Each Other and How to Heal (Ben Sasse, GOP Senator from Nebraska).

Thanks for the tip. I am curious to read some thoughts and explanations from Republicans who I don't agree with politically.

[forumname]

I hear there are some unmarked vehicles grabbing violent scumbags in Portland and hauling them away.

I don't know who is behind this but thumbs up to whoever is trying (finally) to clean up the streets there!

Are you really okay with this practice?

[Daydream Nation]

More info on why you should be ignoring the polls at the moment:


Even Trump has admitted that, on the morning of November 8, he didn’t think he was going to win.
But it wasn’t just the pundits, the politicians, the comedians and Trump who got it so incredibly wrong. The professional pollsters who devised meticulous methodologies for forecasting election results were also caught with egg on their faces. The Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance of winning. The Huffington Post’s forecast gave Clinton 98 percent, PredictWise gave her 89 percent, and the New York Times’s The Upshot gave her 85 percent. Even FiveThirtyEight, which was the most bullish on Trump, gave Clinton over a 71 percent chance of winning.

source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...of-2016-214555

I hope people ignore the polls. I don't want voters to feel confident in Biden's large lead right now. I want Democrats and Independents to continue to be outraged and angered over Trump's daily actions so that it ensures that they vote. If that happens and GOP-driven voter suppression tactics are minimized, Biden will win.

[Daydream Nation]

https://i.imgur.com/IVl5DE1.png

I consume a large percentage of of 538 material and they had Clinton with a 2/3 to 3/4 chance to win in 2016.

[Auston'sWilly]

Are you really okay with this practice?

As a general "practice" ? No, of course not.
Who said this was a practice ?

[Eskimo Brother]

As a general "practice" ? No, of course not.
Who said this was a practice ?

So you're okay with what is going on, just not with it being called a practice?

[forumname]

So you're okay with what is going on, just not with it being called a practice?

I guess he's okay with it in this case because he doesn't like the people it's being done to. But he doesn't want to defend it as a "practice" going forward, in case it ends up being used in a way that he doesn't agree with in the future. In other words, it's okay to do it to his enemies but not his friends...

[doulos]

I consume a large percentage of of 538 material and they had Clinton with a 2/3 to 3/4 chance to win in 2016.

Depends at what point in the election cycle, but by the end I thought it was even higher than that. Trump getting elected was not a zero percent chance and here we are.

Also, if you look at the link I posted it shows some interested comparisons between the two election cycles.

It looks like at this point in the election cycle last go round, they actually had Trump leading at this point.

Anything can happen still, particularly when you have someone who will go to any length to make sure he wins. But things are certainly slightly different than last go round right now. I certainly can see ways that Trump can win though.

[PenguinHunter]

I guess he's okay with it in this case because he doesn't like the people it's being done to. But he doesn't want to defend it as a "practice" going forward, in case it ends up being used in a way that he doesn't agree with in the future. In other words, it's okay to do it to his enemies but not his friends...

I think the word 'violent' was mentioned... can we not all agree that violent people should be taken off the streets?

[forumname]

I think the word 'violent' was mentioned... can we not all agree that violent people should be taken off the streets?

By unmarked, unidentifiable secret police? No!!!

[doulos]

I think the word 'violent' was mentioned... can we not all agree that violent people should be taken off the streets?

Do you know that all of these people that have taken off the streets were violent? Was there any due process? Who exactly was taking these people? Are they law enforcement? Are they Chinese spies? Are they aliens? Are they farmers? Do we have any idea of proper identification? Are there proper protections put in place to assume that people are innocent until proven guilty?

[PenguinHunter]

Do you know that all of these people that have taken off the streets were violent? Was there any due process? Who exactly was taking these people? Are they law enforcement? Are they Chinese spies? Are they aliens? Are they farmers? Do we have any idea of proper identification? Are there proper protections put in place to assume that people are innocent until proven guilty?

You failed to answer my question so I shall ask it again before I answer any of the above.

Can we agree that VIOLENT people should be taken off that streets?

That is all I asked!

- - - Updated - - -

By unmarked, unidentifiable secret police? No!!!

I didn't ask how or by whom or anything other than:

Can we not all agree that violent people should be taken off the streets?