Alchemist hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Die Anwälte sind echt schlecht. Warum fragen die nicht einfach 'wolle' nach Beweisen? |
Code: |
https://joannenova.com.au/2020/11/electronic-vote-fraud-equation-revealed-in-michigan-in-4-counties-138000-fake-votes-for-biden/ |
Zitat: |
A “Transistor Function” algorithm has been used to alter voting patterns in Michigan. It has a “Weighted Race” feature. |
Code: |
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-were-getting-ready-overturn-election-results-multiple-states |
Zitat: |
“We have so much evidence, I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose,” Powell said, while noting that she won’t reveal the evidence that she has. |
wolle hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||||||||
|
beachbernie hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Ja. Genauso ist es und so macht die real praktizierte Politik der Republikaner auch irgendwie Sinn. |
Zitat: |
Former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (D) said: "There was a backlash, I think nationwide, among people who were afraid of the riots and afraid of what they saw and afraid of this 'defund the police' stuff, which, although we tried to debunk, we didn't debunk enough." The result was Trump getting more votes in Philadelphia this time, in part from white voters who do not like people burning and looting stores, no matter how angry they are about something. |
Zitat: |
In the leafy parts of Milwaukee, Democrats did better, but elsewhere Trump did better. Trump's team went into Black areas with an anti-Latino message and into Latino areas with an anti-Black message. That may have worked. |
Zitat: |
More to the point, the divide (Elissa Slotkin) sees in the Democratic Party isn't so much between moderates like herself and progressives, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). It's between politicians in competitive districts (and states) and those in safe ones. She doesn't fault Ocasio-Cortez for pushing the envelope if that's what her constituents want, but she (Slotkin) doesn't want to be attacked for doing what her constituents want, even if that is very different from what members in very blue, very safe districts want. She resents having members from New York or California telling her how to represent her own district.
She likes to remind AOC and her friends in the Squad that Democrats did not win back the House in 2018 by promising to abolish ICE and pass Medicare for All. They won by promising to protect the ACA and to lower drug prices. On the caucus-wide call on Nov. 5, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) congratulated her team on their great victory. The mood lasted until Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Slotkin's closest friend in Congress (who barely survived), shouted: "If we are classifying Tuesday as a success from a congressional standpoint, we will get f**king torn apart in 2022." Spanberger then castigated progressives for talking about defunding the police and democratic socialism, which Spanberger said cost the party multiple seats in 2020 and will cost them more in 2022. Then the battle broke out. Within 48 hours it was full-blown warfare within the caucus. Slotkin likes to point out that Republicans stand for something: Donald Trump's view of the world, which, roughly summarized, is to take the country back to 1950. Democrats are fractured and don't have a coherent vision of what they are for. Are they for improving the ACA or abolishing it altogether and replacing it with Medicare for All? |
wolle hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||||||||
|
Zitat: |
A federal judge won't delay tomorrow's hearing on President Trump's lawsuit to overturn the election he lost in Pennsylvania because most of his lawyers quit. His remaining lawyer - who's also a radio host - will have to go it alone and is "expected to be prepared."
--- President Trump's new layer, who in addition to hosting a radio show and writing a column mainly practices business law according to his firm bio, joined the case today. --- Three of President Trump's other lawyers in the Pennsylvania case filed a somewhat noisy request to withdraw today, saying "Plaintiffs [that's Trump] will be best served" if they're allowed to leave the case. --- Trump's latest lawyer told listeners of his radio show Nov. 7 "in my opinion there really are no bombshells that are about to drop that will derail a Biden presidency, including the lawsuits" and suggested Trump's suits "don't seem to have much evidence." --- This is shaping up to be a totally normal and routine legal proceeding. |
beachbernie hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Ja. Genauso ist es und so macht die real praktizierte Politik der Republikaner auch irgendwie Sinn. |
narr hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Özdil zitiert Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mitglied des Repräsentantenhauses:
"...the history of the party tends to be that we get really excited about the grass roots to get elected. And then those communities are promptly abandoned right after an election." (Die Geschichte der Partei zeigt in der Regel, dass wir uns über die Wähler wirklich freuen, nur, um sie sofort nach der Wahl wieder im Stich zu lassen.) Sollte es Biden nicht gelingen das Vertrauen der Bevölkerung zurück zu gewinnen, wäre sein Sieg nur ein Pyrrussieg - so Özdil. Ich befürchte, diese Einschätzung ist korrekt. |
Zitat: |
Of the 50, 37 were indeed dead and had not voted, according to the voter information database. Five people out of the 50 had voted -- and they are all still alive, according to public records accessed by CNN. The remaining eight are also alive but didn't vote. |
Zitat: |
Several Republican challengers at the TCF complained about people inside the counting room wearing “Black Lives Matter” shirts. One Republican challenger complained she was called “Karen,” and told to go “back to the suburbs.” The moniker “Karen” has been applied to white women who make false and racially motivated allegations against Black people.
Although many alleged bias, either by poll workers, other staff or lawyers at the TCF, they did not specify how this purported bias affected the counting process. |
Alchemist hat folgendes geschrieben: |
VTler: Ja, mag sein, aber was ist mit den anderen 13.950 auf der Liste? |
jdf hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
same here. |
jdf hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Nur mal so am Rande zu Trumps Klagen gegen den Wahlausgang:
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1328514432461365249 Dieses Theater ist wirklich unfassbar. Und trotzdem spenden ihm seine idiotischen Anhänger Millionen, damit er seine Schulden bezahlen kann, was noch unfassbarer ist. |
Critic hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||
Noch so eine Betrachtung: Demnach müßten die Demokraten eigentlich die Republikaner in jeder (zumindest landesweiten bzw. nicht durch irgendwelche Strichziehungen gerrymanderten) Abstimmung plattwalzen: Wenn wirklich alle durch sie Ansprechbaren wählen gehen würden, wären das so etwa 130 Millionen Menschen, im Vergleich zu "nur" 100 Millionen potentiellen Republikaner-Wählern. (Diese Mengen dürften sich in der Praxis etwas überschneiden, aber eigentlich ist das ja ein gewaltiger Unterschied.) |
jdf hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||||
Das Gerrymandering betrifft ja nur die House-Seats. Aber ein Senator aus Californien repräsentiert knapp 20.000.000 Einwohner, einer aus Wyoming nur 290.000! Und zu beachten ist, dass die Wähler in Washington DC weder Senatoren noch Repräsentanten wählen. Dafür gibt es zwei Dakotas. Nicht umsonst gibt es die Diskussion darüber, Puerto Rico und Teile von DC zu neuen Bundesstaaten zu machen, um das strukturelle Ungleichgewicht zugunsten der Konservativen auszugleichen. Und das Electoral College bevorzugt ebenso kleine Staaten. Die Electoral Votes werden aus der Zahl der Repräsentanten + der Zahl der Senatoren gebildet. Und von der voter suppression habe ich noch gar nicht angefangen... |
sünnerklaas hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Wichtig ist wohl, jetzt noch als Lame Duck einen grossen Krieg anzufangen. Einen, bei dem John Doe richtig drauf zahlt. Das ganze schiebt man dann den Demokraten in die Schuhe. |
Zitat: |
Obama wollte den Iran an der Herstellung von Atomwaffen hindern. Dazu erwog er schon im Senatswahlkampf 2004 mögliche Raketenangriffe auf das Land.[144] |
wolle hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||
Das gleiche Bild bei Obama: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Iran schrieb:
|
Zitat: |
“As part of the presidential transition, Barack Obama asked Bush if it would be possible for him to meet all the ex-presidents. Bush was happy to oblige, and organized a White House luncheon in the Oval Office on January 7. Bush and Obama were joined by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. The luncheon lasted over two hours, each former president ordered his lunch à la carte from the White House mess, and the tone was convivial and friendly. “All the gentlemen here understand both the pressures and possibilities of this office,” said Obama before the meeting. “For me to have the opportunity to get advice, good counsel and fellowship with these individuals is extraordinary, and I just want to thank the President for hosting us.”
Bush was equally effusive. “We want you to succeed,” he replied. “Whether we're Democrat or Republican we care deeply about this country. And to the extent we can we look forward to sharing out experiences with you. All of us who have served in this office understand that the office transcends the individual.” |
beachbernie hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Wenn es darum geht Wähler zu täuschen und zu betrügen scheint der Phantasie der Republikaner keine Grenzen gesetzt zu sein. Hier wird die mir bisher unbekannte Technik des "Schattenkandidaten" erläutert, die darin besteht einen dritten, "unabhängigen" Kandidaten mit gleichem oder ähnlichem Namen wie der Konkurrent des eigenen Kandidaten ins Rennen zu schicken um so die entscheidenden paar Wähler auszutricksen, damit sie den falschen Kandidaten wählen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/20/florida-election-trump-senator-rodriguez/?fbclid=IwAR1OCDz1hpa4GNWL2YAUSxttoYzFrbDHQy5HCONAkvW9fT3yUPcon9IZ-oA |
beachbernie hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Einfach unglaublich, was da im Amiland alles passiert. Ich rechne die USA schon seit geraumer Zeit nicht mehr zu den demokratischen Laendern. Die fallen fuer mich längst unter die Kategorie der pseudodemokratischen Laender wie Russland oder der Iran. |
beachbernie hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Ich gehe davon aus, dass es auch noch weitere Versuche der Republikaner geben wird die aktuelle Präsidentenwahl zu stehlen. Der Drop ist noch nicht gelutscht. Es gibt noch ein paar Tricks, die die noch probieren koennen. |
jdf hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Dir ist schon klar, dass die einzigen, denen so eine Meinung nützt, die russische und die iranische Führung sind...? |
Zitat: |
Democrats are fond of pointing out that if 77,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had gone the other way in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have won. They frequently use that number to say that if she had tried a little bit harder in those three states (for example, by visiting Wisconsin just one time), she could surely have gotten 77,000 more votes and pulled it off.
What are the analogous numbers for 2020? What about these: Biden won Arizona's 11 EVs by 10,457 votes Biden won Georgia's 16 EVs by 12,781 votes Biden won Wisconsin's 10 EVs by 20,565 votes Add them up and you get 43,803 votes. And 37 electoral votes. If Trump had picked up 37 electoral votes to add to his 232, the score would have been 269 to 269 and the House would have picked the president with each state getting one vote. Republicans control more House delegations than Democrats, so the House would have elected Trump as president. If Trump had gotten 23,000 more votes in NE-02, he would have also won that EV and won the election cleanly with 270 EVs. So actually, the 2020 election was closer than the 2016 election because flipping a mere 44,000 votes would have given Donald Trump a second term. That's 44,000 votes out of 153 million votes counted already, with more to come. That's 0.03%. |
Zitat: |
Briefly summarizing it, Joe Biden did very slightly (0.5%) worse than the polls predicted but Donald Trump did 4.7% better than the polls predicted. (...) (And) (i)n all 29 races that were polled (excluding the Georgia special election, which is weird), the Republicans outperformed the polls. In all of them! The average overperformance was 6.8%. |
Zitat: |
The nonexistence of a "Latino vote" was made crystal clear by what happened along the Rio Grande in Texas. Zapata County, which is 94% "Latino," turned red for the first time in 100 years. In nearby Webb County (95% "Latino"), Republicans doubled their turnout. In Starr County to the South (96% "Latino"), Republicans gained 55 percentage points compared to 2016. So it is not so surprising that Democrats failed to take Texas. |
Zitat: |
Another question gives some insight as to why Republicans did so well. The top issue in voters' minds is the economy (37%) with health issues second (21%). Nothing else is close. This is true across all educational levels, ethnicities, religions, and every other category. It sounds a lot like: "I want my job back and if a bunch of old people have to die as a consequence, so be it." The only group where the economy didn't rank first is seniors, who see Social Security and Medicare as the top issues, the economy second, and healthcare third. |
sehr gut hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Wahlbeteiligung soll so bei ~66.4% liegen, also 2/3.
(musste einiges suchen um eine konkrete Zahl zu finden) |
beachbernie hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Ja und? Soll ich deshalb die Fakten ignorieren? |
sehr gut hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Wahlbeteiligung soll so bei ~66.4% liegen, also 2/3.
(musste einiges suchen um eine konkrete Zahl zu finden) |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde