US Presidential Election 2020

[Grizzly]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/07/16/why_bush-era_neocons_are_getting_behind_biden_517376.html
Why Bush-Era Neocons Are Getting Behind Biden via MOA

JESUS, Piranhas's to the "left", sharks to the right, we're so fucked...

[Grizzly]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/07/16/why_bush-era_neocons_are_getting_behind_biden_517376.html
Why Bush-Era Neocons Are Getting Behind Biden via MOA

JESUS, Piranhas's to the "left", sharks to the right, we're so fucked... BUILD BACK BETTER, yall!

https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2020/07/11/bush-era-neocons-put-their-weight-behind-biden-and-that-can-mean-only-one-thing/

Addendum:
Remember 12 years ago, when the most decent person running for President was a Republican?

[stickdog99]

A post for any true blue Democrats who are cheering today's result and yet still wondering what Democrats, after losing seats in the House and almost losing a second time to the worst US Presidential candidate of any of our lifetimes, can possibly do to attract more voters?

Anything new. Anything different. Any reform. Anything that helps average people with their daily struggles. How hard is this for you to see?

How hard is it for strategic Democrats to finally realize that people rightly associate Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer with the political rot and corruption that has sold out the interests of American workers and rightly view them as completely out of touch elitists?

How hard is it for strategic Democrats to finally realize that people rightly know that the one thing that they don't want is more of the same?

How hard is it for strategic Democrats to finally realize that people don't actually care about any of the idiotic reasons MSNBC has given you to fear an incompetent like Trump as worse than Hitler? Nobody cares one bit about Russiagate or the Ukraine or the false reports that the intelligence community floated to keep us in Afghanistan or the Lincoln Project grifters who collected hundreds of millions just to increase Trump's percentage of Republican votes from 90% in 2016 to 93% in 2020.

Instead, Democrats should have been attacking Trump for all the real things he did wrong:

1) accelerate wealth inequality even further with completely unnecessary tax cuts to the people who needed tax relief the least

2) spend more than ever while delivering absolutely nothing with all this spending to the average American

3) incompetently deliver on basically none of his promises (other than tax breaks for the rich), especially on his promise to bring manufacturing jobs back the USA

4) set new world records for wasteful military and domestic police para-military spending

5) deliver on none of his promises to end endless wars

6) tear up almost ever treaty the USA had with the rest of world

7) needlessly accelerate climate change

8. preside over ever increasing insurance rates and ever increasing rates of uninsured Americans during the midst of a pandemic that necessitated delivering free COVID-related healthcare and testing to every American

9) exercise incompetent executive leadership at every turn, especially in his response to COVID-19

10) deliver exactly zero major programs or policies to "Make America Great Again" or even to give a modicum of relief to the average American living paycheck to missing paycheck in the midst of a pandemic

11) and most importantly using the office of the Presidency to directly enrich himself, his family, and his swamp-filled band of ravenous kleptocrats.

But of course, attacking Trump on his actual weaknesses would have required running a candidate who did not directly rival Trump in his infinite kleptocacy and war mongering. And it would have required running a candidate whose campaign promises included ANYTHING different (COVID-relief, healthcare and drug cost relief, housing cost relief, student and medical debt relief, green and infrastructure jobs, manufacturing jobs, actually ending the endless wars) that held any promise to improve the lives average American than Biden's solitary promise to get rid of Trump and return to the exact same status quo that to got us Trump in the first place.

I admit that leftists who think exactly like me right now make up a small minority of the US voting population. But at least my subset of the electorate is active, viable, and more than willing to campaign for and contribute time and money to a grassroots movement that keeps growing every year, despite our voices being totally censored by all major US media outlets (and increasingly all major tech platforms as well).

How about white establishment Democrats who think that political utopia consists of a return to an alternate universe in which Hillary Clinton was elected President, comfortable college educated corporate managers and the billionaires they serve were allowed to exploit their workers further and further in peace, and everything that ever went wrong in our rapidly deteriorating country was blamed on rascally Russians and Republicans? How viable and growing is that segment of our electorate?

Seriously. Just think about that for second. Just how popular would your current political agenda (a return to an alternate Clintonian timeline) be in the USA without the reliable votes of the minority groups you take for granted (yet offer exactly nothing but virtue signaling to) and the rapidly dying media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, the WaPo, and every late night host on any every major network) that you are all addicted to?



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ks-volumes

[Elvis]

^^^^ Well said.

Nobody cares one bit about

...anything except Donald Trump's personality. I exaggerate but less than half of Biden voters gave a shit about any issues.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ident.html

Which was more important in your vote for president today?

My candidate's positions on the issues 73% of voters

Trump voter: 52
Biden voter: 47

My candidate's personal qualities 23%

Trump voter: 30
Biden voter: 66

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Don't watch CNN and haven't bothered to verify this yet, but:




No surprise here, if true.

[JackRiddler]

Trump abruptly fires chief of agency overseeing U.S. nuclear stockpile, ahem, pissing off Republican senator, and also two other officials -- one on an Energy Department commission, don't know if it's related, the other deputy chief of USAID. (I'd think the deputy in that department must be CIA?)

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updat ... f-election

Happy sleeping, y'all.

[Grizzly]

You know who won't be pardoning Snowden or cancelling Assange's extradition order? Joe Biden.~Jeff Wells

Tangentially related, "Who declared Biden won? The MSM or the congress?"

[JackRiddler]

.

Biden hasn't won and nobody has until I think Dec. 14th, i.e., the Congressional acceptance of the Electoral College vote.

The corporate media are free to describe the process however they like. However they are not "declaring" a winner. They are reporting the vote counts, which are entirely in the hands of state authorities in each state. They are using these reports in (legally null) projections of an overall winner.

This describes the media reporting process that has accompanied every election for decades, since television and radio at least. The headlines "declaring" a victor and "analyses" of what it meant and other blah blah do not differ from any other presidential election. In all but I think two or three cases, this reporting was completed (and accepted as an accurate assessment of a mathematically inevitable final result) within the night of the election, or by the early afternoon after. Yet in all of the cases, counting continued for weeks before finalization and official conclusion of a winner.

I'm wondering how much you have to block out to seriously believe pluralities didn't vote against Trump in enough states to make this result.

I wonder what you thought about 2000, or think about the work of Palast from then until now (in the present election).

Are you thinking the popular vote count isn't reflective of the reality? (It's an understatement, no doubt.)

Also, you're blocking out the work of the real winners for Biden, who were the black organizers in the neighborhoods of Detroit and Atlanta and Philadelphia and the natives in Arizona who worked tirelessly (easily providing the margin). While the D-leadership consorted with Wall Street and the frauds of Lincoln Project and pursued a nearly disastrous strategy, wittingly. And the people who won this are now going to be cut out, but possibly not without a fight.

In those places and many others, you damn well know people were terrorized into voting by mail in overwhelming numbers, and you damn well know it takes forever to count that shit and is no more prone to fakery than the electronic voting machines or the rest of the system. (It's all prone to fakery!)

From my observation the only questions here relating to count are about how and why the far likeliest outcome going in, that Trump would lose, was so fucking close, even after the Trumpside declared the intent of a fascist coup d'etat (I don't care how "plausible" it is, I heard him say the equivalent repeatedly, and declare himself the leader of the fascist movement). They told you they were acting to suppress, sabotage, physically attack, litigate forever, and never accept the vote and count. And this after years of fascistoid rhetoric, now promising the full version after the election.

Part of why it was close is the vote suppression actions you can actually see evidence for (rather than construct as speculation, credible or not) and that have been central to the long-term Republican strategy (in the generals: yes, Republican).

Part of it is that the Democrats pursued (as they are programmed to do) what was effectively a suppression of their own potential vote by way of intentionally not offering any positive policy program they can be held to now.

.

[Grizzly]

https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1325488835841712136
George W congratulates Biden, Thanks him for his wonderful speech. When he stole an election it still took 37 days to get away with it. Shouldn't these twisted bastards at least pretend they are not all on the same team?

Yes, I’ve loved everything Palast has done. One of the last investigative journalists left.

[Grizzly]

Note: Just cause I post this does NOT mean I support larouche or the Lincoln log project show. I merely find it interesting...as does someone at
http://thesaker.is/did-president-trump-just-launch-the-largest-sting-operations-in-us-history-against-the-corrupt-swamp-of-the-democratic-party/

Did President Trump Just Launch the Largest Sting Operations in US History Against the Corrupt Swamp of the Democratic Party?

by Peter Koenig


https://larouchepac.com/20201107/huge-vote-fraud-mechanism-exposed-sidney-powell-j-kirk-wiebe

Huge Vote Fraud Mechanism Exposed by Sidney Powell, J. Kirk Wiebe




Some of you love to kill the messenger...

How Trump was watching fraud in real time thanks to HAMMER and SCORECARD.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1325124397729001472.html

History 101

[JackRiddler]

Excuse me, under what circumstances would Bush (or his secretaries) not have sent congratulations to whomever won? What is this evidence of? Did he not congratulate the 2012 and 2016 winners? Come on!

My point is not to argue against the hypothesis that they're all in the same club (which has always included Trump and Trump's sponsors), since you know I believe it too. My point is that maybe you shouldn't be believing evidence of nothing is evidence of anything.

So Palast has spent the last months working together with (wait for it) Stacey Abrams on fighting voter suppression in Georgia through legal means and helping organizers on the ground. And you see the results were pretty good, though in the end the Republican machine may steal it just like they stole it from Abrams in 2018. (Was that correct statement an endorsement of Abrams' politics, or Bloomberg's money? I hope you don't think so.)

.

[Marionumber1]

I have no intention of shooting the messenger but I'll certainly go after the message itself. As I've posted here before, these people claiming pro-Biden election fraud need to stop asserting fraud based primarily on the fact that Trump was initially leading and then no longer was after the mail-in votes began getting counted. This is disturbingly reminiscent of the same fraud that was perpetrated in 2000, where the Bush team tried to claim that efforts to count all the votes in Florida constituted an attempt to "steal the election".

Indeed, there seems to be a common dialectic between the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of the establishment on the subject of election fraud (almost as if they are collaborating to make sure this narrative takes hold ), one which especially picked up steam in 2016 when puppet Donald Trump began raising the specter of a rigged election. GOP forces, who are the primary beneficiaries of the kind of systemic election fraud (voter suppression and electronic vote rigging) we have seen since 2000, will loudly cast the results as illegitimate and accuse Democrats of rigging it. "Liberals" then respond with nothing-to-see-here indignation about how our elections are fair and anyone questioning their integrity is a threat to democracy. Then the fraud happens and it is almost always these "liberals" defending the process who get steamrolled with no recourse on their part. There are some exceptions, like the Doug Jones vs. Roy Moore race where it appears Jones was the beneficiary instead, but that is the usual pattern.

As for the claims about Hammer and Scorecard, they are interesting but again feel like an inversion of the perpetrators and victims (not that we can really call Democrats victims when they have been perfectly fine letting this happens for decades). The description of how votes are intercepted and changed as they are sent to a central tabulation office sounds exactly like the SmarTech setup used in the 2004 Ohio election to deliver it to Bush. This system was set up by Karl Rove (an intelligence-linked figure who has been an advisor to Trump's reelection effort) and Ken Blackwell (a member of Trump's "election integrity" commission and the Council for National Policy that has had strong influence over his administration), giving a good indication of who would actually be controlling the likes of Hammer/Scorecard.

And it gets even worse when you consider the claims that Hammer/Scorecard were used to steal the election for Biden in 2012. Election integrity analysts back then actually found that, more likely than not, the same strategy from 2004 was set up to be repeated that year in Mitt Romney's favor. It didn't go through, due to the intervention of hacktivists in disabling the rig and/or increased scrutiny brought to light on Ohio, but everything was set up for it to happen. One highlight of the article making it clear just how deep the parallel went: Election Defense Alliance received information "that SmarTech had, as in Ohio E2004, contracted with state election administrators in several key swing states to “process” votes on out-of-state servers". So again, these Hammer/Scorecard claims feel like classic disinformation ensuring the the "right" inverts the narrative of who benefits from the fraud while the "left" turns their noses at any claims of fraud.

[Grizzly]

@Marionumber1

Fair enough. Guess we'll see soon. Maybe dump will concede with both his wife and son in law pressuring him to.

Jared Kushner, Melania Trump advise Trump to accept election loss

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/08/politics/jared-kushner-donald-trump-concession/index.html

[Marionumber1]

If my current suspicion that whatever fraud happened in the presidential race was largely pro-Trump is correct, then I think a concession is very likely before too long. That being true would mean that electoral manipulation attempted to attain but fell short of the margin required to push Trump over the edge, so there would be no benefit for his crowd to audit or recount the results as that would only expose it. Indeed, that could be part of why Trump seemed like he was angling to pull a Bush v. Gore yet received very little backing from the party on it.

[Harvey]

If my current suspicion that whatever fraud happened in the presidential race was largely pro-Trump is correct, then I think a concession is very likely before too long. That being true would mean that electoral manipulation attempted to attain but fell short of the margin required to push Trump over the edge, so there would be no benefit for his crowd to audit or recount the results as that would only expose it. Indeed, that could be part of why Trump seemed like he was angling to pull a Bush v. Gore yet received very little backing from the party on it.

You may be entirely right. But before we get lost in nuance, let me ask: do you think the primaries were legit?

If not, how much does it matter who cheated whom afterward? The country was already cheated. A woman who has no mandate of any kind will be American president. The best narrative I can find here is that Democrats may have cheated less. After nearly losing to the man who some people have called 'the worst president in history.'