GDT Thread! It’s here - ELECTION “SEASON” 2022 will conclude in 2023

[KDIGGZ]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

I agree that occasionally a small piece of a meteor falls out of the sky and kills a person. I do not agree that we should waste a lot of time and resources on a meteor defense system, or change the way that we walk outside.

You have seen that happen? That would be wild. Because I've actually seen voter fraud by an otherwise good person who has probably never purposely broken the law in their life. They really didn't know how serious it was and didn't think it was a big deal at all. Those people didn't want to vote and he sent in for a mail in ballot for them. He thought he was going a good thing 

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I guess you missed the part where I clearly said it's almost impossible to prove. Which of course is the very point and why it's done. Not much chance you'll be caught.

 

The point is to take away the opportunity. 

 

Other than legitimate absentee ballots why should mass mail in voting be normalized?

 

Keep pushing the Big Lie... you'll never learn - nor win.

 

Americans are tired of the BS

 

 

[Brueggs]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The government wouldn't cover up voting mistakes. It's why states don't often certify the official election results for weeks (even after the media has called races) . Many states also conduct audits to verify the results before certification.

 

And it's highly unlikely that an attempted coverup would be possible or successful given the strict controls around how elections are conducted.

Well, you are far more trusting than I.

I do appreciate the response and respect your opinion.

[Sundancer]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I guess you missed the part where I clearly said it's almost impossible to prove. Which of course is the very point and why it's done. Not much chance you'll be caught.

 

The point is to take away the opportunity. 

 

Other than legitimate absentee ballots why should mass mail in voting be normalized?

 

Because it allows people a nice long time to research and decide on all their candidates. Because it's easy. Because people may not be able to control their plans on election day. 

 

Oh, and because there's no evidence of widespread fraud. Maybe I said that before. That's some right wing boogeyman under your bed. 

[BillsFanNC]

1 minute ago, Sundancer said:

 

Because it allows people a nice long time to research and decide on all their candidates. Because it's easy. Because people may not be able to control their plans on election day. 

 

So no good reason. Thanks.

 

1 minute ago, Sundancer said:

 

Oh, and because there's no evidence of widespread fraud. Maybe I said that before. That's some right wing boogeyman under your bed. 

 

Thanks for confirming your hackery. Carry on.

[Sundancer]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So no good reason. Thanks.

 

How do you feel about voting within a two week window instead of a specific day?

 

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Thanks for confirming your hackery. Carry on.

 

500 voting fraud cases out of 155 million votes cast--in an election with the most investigation into fraud ever. 

 

So. Much. Fraud. 

[KDIGGZ]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

 

Keep pushing the Big Lie... you'll never learn - nor win.

 

Americans are tired of the BS

 

I'll gladly respond to those talking points:

1. Good guys with guns is a deterrent to bad guys with guns. Bad guys will always have guns so why can't good guys protect themselves?

2. If they want to be armed then sure. If they are responsible ccw holders outside of school then why can't they in school?

3. Coal, oil, gas is not the future but it's the present and until technology reaches a point you don't need them then why would you limit your options

4. Climate change may not be a hoax but there is not enough evidence to prove it's an immediate threat either

5. Abortion is murder. If you go to an ultrasound and you see a baby in there and you kill it then that's murder no matter how inconvenient that is for you

6. Democrat policy allows for increase in that bad behavior, yes

7. There is a growing contingency that support communism/socialism and try and hide it by calling it democratic socialism

8. Democrats love identity politics. I was raised that all people are humans and skin color does not matter

9. Democrats love spending and printing money for socialist agendas which leads to inflation

10. I don't know the numbers on Democrats that believe in God or not but it seems a large number or atheist

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

It's virtually impossible to prove the fraud.

 

No it isn't. They've tried and tried and tried again and it never comes to fruition. The entire argument of voter fraud happening frequently enough to make a difference is just people like you swearing that it must be happening. That's not a reason to change fundamental democratic processes.

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

I'll gladly respond to those talking points:

1. Good guys with guns is a deterrent to bad guys with guns. Bad guys will always have guns so why can't good guys protect themselves?

2. If they want to be armed then sure. If they are responsible ccw holders outside of school then why can't they in school?

3. Coal, oil, gas is not the future but it's the present and until technology reaches a point you don't need them then why would you limit your options

4. Climate change may not be a hoax but there is not enough evidence to prove it's an immediate threat either

5. Abortion is murder. If you go to an ultrasound and you see a baby in there and you kill it then that's murder no matter how inconvenient that is for you

6. Democrat policy allows for increase in that bad behavior, yes

7. There is a growing contingency that support communism/socialism and try and hide it by calling it democratic socialism

8. Democrats love identity politics. I was raised that all people are humans and skin color does not matter

9. Democrats love spending and printing money for socialist agendas which leads to inflation

10. I don't know the numbers on Democrats that believe in God or not but it seems a large number or atheist

You’re entitled to all of these views.  But they aren’t winning elections.  So the R question now is to move to the middle or to double down on this stuff.  This was the best environment for Rs in maybe decades and what did they get?  Maybe marginal control of the House, a basically deadlocked Senate and, at least where I live, status quo despite scads of money spent on mailers, etc.  

[Warcodered]

30 minutes ago, SCBills said:

It’s evident … the powers that he have moved to DeSantis. 
 

Fox has been openly propping up a DeSantis run while suggesting Trump should step aside. 
 

Donors are lining up behind DeSantis.  
 

Major conservative influencers in social media doing the same. 
 

If Trump goes in .. it’s looking like he’s going in with the apparatus behind someone else.  
 

Apparently there was a pretty interesting meeting held the night Trump attacked DeSantis .. some notable kingmakers flew into Florida to sit down with DeSantis and his family to gauge if he’s ready for/wants the fight.  

It might not be a bad idea for him to start that fight sooner than later.

[KDIGGZ]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

No it isn't. They've tried and tried and tried again and it never comes to fruition. The entire argument of voter fraud happening frequently enough to make a difference is just people like you swearing that it must be happening. That's not a reason to change fundamental democratic processes.

You agree there is fraud. We have established that. So I suppose your argument is there is not a lot of fraud, enough to sway an election. I think that is hard to determine and the only fair way to know for sure is make people show ID and vote in person. In the future there will surely be retinol scans or fingerprints but that would be giving a lot of power to the government and I'm not in a hurry to get there. I think showing ID is a good compromise for now

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

You’re entitled to all of these views.  But they aren’t winning elections.  So the R question now is to move to the middle or to double down on this stuff.  This was the best environment for Rs in maybe decades and what did they get?  Maybe marginal control of the House, a basically deadlocked Senate and, at least where I live, status quo despite scads of money spent on mailers, etc.  

I'm not an R and have voted D in many elections prior to 2020. I'm about as middle of the road as it gets. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't impact me. The D's went too far left and it's making me look like an R basically. The balance has shifted too much

[BillsFanNC]

15 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

How do you feel about voting within a two week window instead of a specific day?

 

Better than what we have now in many cases. More for it if it's all in person except for legitimate absentee ballots.

 

15 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

 

500 voting fraud cases out of 155 million votes cast--in an election with the most investigation into fraud ever. 

 

So. Much. Fraud. 

 

You must have missed the second time where I said that fraud, specifically with mail in ballots is nearly impossible to prove. Which again is the whole point of why bad actors want more of it and why people who want honest, transparent elections want less of it.

 

And there were extensive investigations? The most investigations ever? Really?

 

Because I recall the DHS in November 2020, just days aftet the election, telling us that the election was the most secure election in US history.

 

Case closed. Shut up if you dare question it.

 

That was a really quick extensive investigation. Especially for the government. 

 

Can you link us to the report that they released showing us how super duper extra secure everything was?

 

[BillsFanNC]

23 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No it isn't. They've tried and tried and tried again and it never comes to fruition. The entire argument of voter fraud happening frequently enough to make a difference is just people like you swearing that it must be happening. That's not a reason to change fundamental democratic processes.

 

People like me and Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Well prior to 2020 anyway, but sure.

 

 

[sherpa]

29 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

Oh, and because there's no evidence of widespread fraud. Maybe I said that before. That's some right wing boogeyman under your bed. 

 

The lack of evidence of widespread fraud is not a good reason to not tighten up our voting process. Evidence of such fraud can only happen after it occurs, which is something  \we don't want to witness,

I did this thing as a volunteer for six years, and I know how it works, and it's working pretty well.

 

Still, this isn't the 1950's, and nefarious groups are at work, internally and externally.

 

My point....We need to standardize and secure a system, nationally,  which allows qualified voters to vote in their precincts, and eliminate manipulation.

 

Back to scheduled programming.

[Tiberius]

The voting system is fine, it works

[BillsFanNC]

August 2020. An experienced mail in ballot fraudster explains the many ways it can be done. 

 

Now imagine the ballot smorgasbord that was available to people and organizations like him in 2020 because covid. 

 

Most secure election in US history. Sure and I've got some Nebraska beachfront property to sell you.

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

36 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

You agree there is fraud. We have established that. So I suppose your argument is there is not a lot of fraud, enough to sway an election. I think that is hard to determine and the only fair way to know for sure is make people show ID and vote in person. In the future there will surely be retinol scans or fingerprints but that would be giving a lot of power to the government and I'm not in a hurry to get there. I think showing ID is a good compromise for now

I'm not an R and have voted D in many elections prior to 2020. I'm about as middle of the road as it gets. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't impact me. The D's went too far left and it's making me look like an R basically. The balance has shifted too much

Your point is well taken. The Democratic Party on the national level today bears little resemblance to the very successful Democratic Party of Bill Clinton.

But have you looked at the Republican Party lately? How is the Trump 2016 platform - one that was left standing in 2020, the Party leaders being afraid of publicizing it again - related to, say, the Bush 41 platform? The Reagan platforms? As I mentioned elsewhere, there's just one constant: overturn Roe v. Wade. Everything else is different. Free trade? That's so 1986. Balanced budget? Ditto. And on and on.

Third parties always fail in our electoral system. But sometimes you need them to carve out a new space in the center and to start dragging the Republicans AND Democrats back there.

[Doc]

Trump's denial is the Second Big Lie

 

Thought I'd put that here.  And that's from NBC's site.

[SCBills]

Betting markets now favor Cortez-Masto over Laxalt.  
 

Not going to do anything to quell the side eyes some have when even Jon Ralston, who is an expert level on Nevada politics as it gets, looked at the remaining ballots last night and said it’s a long shot for her to come back and defeat Laxalt.  
 

For the record, I don’t believe shady ish goes on to the level to fraudently deny someone an election they otherwise would have won.  
 

I do think they invite the attacks and criticism when elections drag on for days/weeks and vote totals are released like molasses.  
 

Especially when the vote totals start countering trends.  ‘20 made sense as outstanding vote totals were known to be from heavy Dem areas.   Nevada and Arizona both have been analyzed via trends and where/when vote remaining is to be counted as the election workers take their time - and have been shown to be likely wins for Laxalt, Lombardo and Lake.   Masters more of a long shot.  Yet now, out of nowhere, Laxalt flips and Nevada says this likely will go into next week. 
 

Ok…. 
 

Edited November 10, 2022 by SCBills

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

Trump's denial is the Second Big Lie

 

Thought I'd put that here.  And that's from NBC's site.

Liberal media opinion piece? 

[Big Blitz]

 

[Backintheday544]

6 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

[KDIGGZ]

16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Your point is well taken. The Democratic Party on the national level today bears little resemblance to the very successful Democratic Party of Bill Clinton.

But have you looked at the Republican Party lately? How is the Trump 2016 platform - one that was left standing in 2020, the Party leaders being afraid of publicizing it again - related to, say, the Bush 41 platform? The Reagan platforms? As I mentioned elsewhere, there's just one constant: overturn Roe v. Wade. Everything else is different. Free trade? That's so 1986. Balanced budget? Ditto. And on and on.

Third parties always fail in our electoral system. But sometimes you need them to carve out a new space in the center and to start dragging the Republicans AND Democrats back there.

I'm not saying the other side is necessarily better, I'm saying there needs to be a rebalance. The group in power went too far one way and I think a lot of people realize that but tribalism is a real thing and they will never vote for the other side no matter what. It's not about voting for the other side, it's about showing the side in power that they screwed up. If things keep going this way then it will certainly carve out a space for a 3rd party. I've spoken to many people that said the Left went crazy but they would never vote for Trump. So where does that leave us as a country?

[B-Man]

1 minute ago, KDIGGZ said:

I'm not saying the other side is necessarily better, I'm saying there needs to be a rebalance. The group in power went too far one way and I think a lot of people realize that but tribalism is a real thing and they will never vote for the other side no matter what. It's not about voting for the other side, it's about showing the side in power that they screwed up. If things keep going this way then it will certainly carve out a space for a 3rd party. I've spoken to many people that said the Left went crazy but they would never vote for Trump. So where does that leave us as a country?

 

True.

 

That's why I am hoping that the GOP takes over the Senate by one and the House by just a few.

 

Adults in both parties (sadly a minority)  may finally take this opportunity to work together to pass some bills that actually address problems.

 

Rather than mis-titled bills that only reward the ruling classes.

 

 

.

[HomeskillitMoorman]

The big thing with conservatives when it comes to abortion is such a huge chunk of them are pro-birth rather than actually being pro-life, and what it reflects about them. 

 

One of the examples is a good percentage of pro-life people are also against gay marriage, which can affect the ability to adopt. You could have a kid that's in a terrible foster home that a loving, supportive gay couple would like to adopt and the kid wants to go there and could be in a stable home, and they can refuse it if they are not comfortable with having gay parents. 

 

Here's what those conservatives want to tell a kid like that..."YOU shouldn't get to have that because of MY personal religious beliefs". It's sickening. It's not about the life of children, it's about control. It's a microcosm of what that party and wanting to integrate church into state is all about. The idea that they want "less government" is the biggest crock of ***** and most young people can see that. 

 

I'd probably consider myself more Libertarian than anything, because I actually want less government involvement.

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

True.

 

That's why I am hoping that the GOP takes over the Senate by one and the House by just a few.

 

Adults in both parties (sadly a minority)  may finally take this opportunity to work together to pass some bills that actually address problems.

 

Rather than mis-titled bills that only reward the ruling classes.

 

 

.

 

Given our current electoral system, partisan media environment, and geographic sorting, there is no fixing this without electoral reform and getting rid of FPTP. Only then can people successfully challenge the status quo and two-party dominance.

[Big Blitz]

2 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

The big thing with conservatives when it comes to abortion is such a huge chunk of them are pro-birth rather than actually being pro-life, and what it reflects about them. 

 

One of the examples is a good percentage of pro-life people are also against gay marriage, which can affect the ability to adopt. You could have a kid that's in a terrible foster home that a loving, supportive gay couple would like to adopt and the kid wants to go there and could be in a stable home, and they can refuse it if they are not comfortable with having gay parents. 

 

Here's what those conservatives want to tell a kid like that..."YOU shouldn't get to have that because of MY personal religious beliefs". It's sickening. It's not about the life of children, it's about control. It's a microcosm of what that party and wanting to integrate church into state is all about. The idea that they want "less government" is the biggest crock of ***** and most young people can see that. 

 

I'd probably consider myself more Libertarian than anything, because I actually want less government involvement.

 

Literally no conservatives of any significance in any kind of majority number - nowhere close - are saying gay parents can’t adopt.  That’s absurd.  
 

 

What we will argue is the State can’t make a religious foster care center adopt out to gay couples if it violates their religious convictions or beliefs.   
 

And I’m not even sure how many of those do actually refuse.  

[SCBills]

7 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

The big thing with conservatives when it comes to abortion is such a huge chunk of them are pro-birth rather than actually being pro-life, and what it reflects about them. 

 

One of the examples is a good percentage of pro-life people are also against gay marriage, which can affect the ability to adopt. You could have a kid that's in a terrible foster home that a loving, supportive gay couple would like to adopt and the kid wants to go there and could be in a stable home, and they can refuse it if they are not comfortable with having gay parents. 

 

Here's what those conservatives want to tell a kid like that..."YOU shouldn't get to have that because of MY personal religious beliefs". It's sickening. It's not about the life of children, it's about control. It's a microcosm of what that party and wanting to integrate church into state is all about. The idea that they want "less government" is the biggest crock of ***** and most young people can see that. 

 

I'd probably consider myself more Libertarian than anything, because I actually want less government involvement.

This reads as opinion. 
 

Gay Marriage opps is so 1990’s 

 

So much so that gay white men are aligning more and more with conservatives because they’ve become “straight adjacent”. 

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

You must have missed the second time where I said that fraud, specifically with mail in ballots is nearly impossible to prove. Which again is the whole point of why bad actors want more of it and why people who want honest, transparent elections want less of it.

 

Ah yes, the old “there’s no evidence so that proves it” rationale. 
 

You get top marks for that in Conspiracy 101. 
 

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

And there were extensive investigations? The most investigations ever? Really?

 

Because I recall the DHS in November 2020, just days aftet the election, telling us that the election was the most secure election in US history.

 

Case closed. Shut up if you dare question it.

 

That was a really quick extensive investigation. Especially for the government. 

 

Can you link us to the report that they released showing us how super duper extra secure everything was?

 

Less than 500 convictions despite the inferno of watchers and complaining. Just wasn’t there. 
 

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? No evidence could mean she’s real. 

[HomeskillitMoorman]

9 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Literally no conservatives of any significance in any kind of majority number - nowhere close - are saying gay parents can’t adopt.  That’s absurd.  
 

 

What we will argue is the State can’t make a religious foster care center adopt out to gay couples if it violates their religious convictions or beliefs.   
 

And I’m not even sure how many of those do actually refuse.  

 

Sure they do, they held it up in many places for a long time and many want to go back to that. What do you think they mean they want to "go back to supporting traditional marriage"? Clarence Thomas basically came out and said it. People like DeSantis and Boebert have pretty much openly said they want to bring church into state, which is scary stuff. 

 

Also, shouldn't it be up to the child in that religious foster care center if they want to be adopted out to a gay couple if that's an option? I wouldn't believe in any kid having to go to adoptive parents that they don't want to go with whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, but if a kid in the custody of that foster care center wanted to be adopted out to gay parents, they 100% should be able to. They'd probably have to face being shunned by religious nutjobs which is unfortunate, but it would be the right thing. 

[HomeskillitMoorman]

17 minutes ago, SCBills said:

This reads as opinion. 
 

Gay Marriage opps is so 1990’s 

 

So much so that gay white men are aligning more and more with conservatives because they’ve become “straight adjacent”. 

 

Then you probably aren't paying attention to the growing amount of conservatives who are pushing to bring church into state, including some of the most popular ones right now. 

 

That was one example, but conservatives want to push government into some of the biggest human rights issues that exist. Look at assisted death for people who are suffering, or the integration of new natural medicines that are approved by doctors. 

 

I'm former military and I know some that struggle immensely with PTSD...there is amazing research around the benefits of treatment from MDMA/shrooms that doctors recommend for them but they'd have to go to Oregon to get it. It's heavily opposed to by majority conservatives.

 

Listen to the messaging there. Again, it's "YOU shouldn't get to have that because of MY beliefs". Just like it's telling someone who's suffering "YOU shouldn't get to die peacefully if that's what you want because of MY beliefs". 

 

Again, the rally cry from conservatives about less government is just such bull####. The Democratic party for the most part just fundraises and I have no idea where the money goes, so I have my issues with them as well. My leanings on that side are more with progression when it comes to human rights. 

[Big Blitz]

Yep - bc low info college kids aren’t voting on Election Day -  but looooong lines

 

 

https://twitter.com/thelastrefuge2/status/1590775258172329993?s=46&t=UfZTWxwjENltDpfqg42GNg 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Liberal media opinion piece? 

 

Yup.  Carries more weight.

[BillsFanNC]

40 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

Ah yes, the old “there’s no evidence so that proves it” rationale. 
 

You get top marks for that in Conspiracy 101. 
 

Less than 500 convictions despite the inferno of watchers and complaining. Just wasn’t there. 
 

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? No evidence could mean she’s real. 

 

Another hack leftist. Carry on.

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

 

 

LOTS of outstanding military ballots... and again, the 'in person' voting is overwhelmingly GOP. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

The big thing with conservatives when it comes to abortion is such a huge chunk of them are pro-birth rather than actually being pro-life, and what it reflects about them. 

 

One of the examples is a good percentage of pro-life people are also against gay marriage, which can affect the ability to adopt. You could have a kid that's in a terrible foster home that a loving, supportive gay couple would like to adopt and the kid wants to go there and could be in a stable home, and they can refuse it if they are not comfortable with having gay parents. 

 

Here's what those conservatives want to tell a kid like that..."YOU shouldn't get to have that because of MY personal religious beliefs". It's sickening. It's not about the life of children, it's about control. It's a microcosm of what that party and wanting to integrate church into state is all about. The idea that they want "less government" is the biggest crock of ***** and most young people can see that. 

 

I'd probably consider myself more Libertarian than anything, because I actually want less government involvement.

 

I'm a dyed in the wool conservative.  I waiver on abortion but lean more towards keeping it legal (up to a reasonable amount of time) and safe and am absolutely for gay marriage.  I have been for years based on my career work the past 20 plus years.  I doubt I'm the only one.  

 

Oh and I'm a huge non-believer.  Guess I'm a conundrum.  

[HomeskillitMoorman]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm a dyed in the wool conservative.  I waiver on abortion but lean more towards keeping it legal (up to a reasonable amount of time) and safe and am absolutely for gay marriage.  I have been for years based on my career work the past 20 plus years.  I doubt I'm the only one.  

 

Oh and I'm a huge non-believer.  Guess I'm a conundrum.  

 

That's good, that means you think for yourself. But then I'm not sure why you would classify yourself as dyed in the wool conservative. What is the party's actual message? It's certainly not "less government" or I myself would also probably be because that's what I seek for the most part. 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

That's good, that means you think for yourself. But then I'm not sure why you would classify yourself as dyed in the wool conservative. What is the party's actual message? It's certainly not "less government" or I myself would also probably be because that's what I seek for the most part. 

 

 

 

I think you're confusing conservatives with the Republican party of today.   As a matter of fact you even referred to the "conservative party".  Conservativism is not a political party it's a philosophy.  

[HomeskillitMoorman]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I think you're confusing conservatives with the Republican party of today.   As a matter of fact you even referred to the "conservative party".  Conservativism is not a political party it's a philosophy.  

 

That's fair, but I think even the philosophy overall is a muddled, inconsistent one. What do you consider it to be? 

[aristocrat]

 

dems gonna be returning some donations