Unix Servers

This week, John Yoo, the Ricochet Podcast Senior Election Fraud Analyst and the Joan and Ray Kroc McRib Scholar at Hamburger University sits in for Peter Robinson and kicks the show off with a deep dive on where we stand with all of the current court cases and challenges around the election. Then, Avik Roy (listen to his American Wonk/COVID in 19 podcast right here on Ricochet) stops by to science us on the recent resurgence of COVID cases cropping up across the country. Then, National Review’s Jim Geraghty (do yourself a favor and subscribe to his must read Daily Jolt newsletter) visits for a bit to talk about Georgia, polling, and to drop a few impressions. Finally, mad props to Ricochet member @markcamp for winning the coveted Lileks Post of The Week badge for his tome, Was Perry Mason a Great TV Series? We’ll let you decide. Thanks to all who joined us for the live video version of the show. We apologize for Rob’s sweater.

Music from this week’s show: Don’t Look Back In Anger by Oasis

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

DonorsTrust

Jordan Harbinger Show

Mack Weldon

Use Code: RICOCHET

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 204 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JuliaBach Coolidge
    JuliaBach
    @JuliaBach

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    Mr Roy failed to address the most pressing question of all, represented by Elon Musk’s testing for COVID: 2 positive tests and 2 negative tests. What that suggests is that the false positive rate may be as high as 50% (yes a very small sample). (Alternatively, the false negative rate may be as high as 50%–but given the extreme sensitivity of 40 cycles of PCR, the former is far more likely). If it is that high, it makes the rt-PCR test about as good as flipping a coin. The reason why the false positive rate may be that high is the (insane) requirement that 40 cycles of DNA replication be done for the test. That creates over a trillion (2 to the 40th power) copies of viral DNA. Typical PCR tests use 25-30 replications. Using more cycles than that has the potential of detecting virus particles that are present in such minute numbers that they are not causing disease. This may have something to do with the high number of cases that appear to be asymptomatic, or minimally symptomatic. PCR testing has not been correlated with viral load, to my awareness. Nor has the point at which the test becomes positive been correlated with severity of disease.

    This makes a complete mess of the statistics on mortality rate, transmission rate, contact tracing, and herd immunity. If the false positive rate is high, we have been sold the greatest bill of goods, and been subjected to the greatest “scientific” fraud in history.

    Anyone know of any good data on viral load correlation with PCR testing, and clinical symptoms and disease course?

    PCR usually runs 40 cycles (I run at work).  Where you set Ct for a positive matters.  For COVID it’s often set at 35-40 Ct, which sets sensitivity too high.

    “The cut off for positive and negative Ct for SARS CoV-2 remains unclear. However, a good number of authors recommend a cut off of 40. [2,6,8] It means a test is considered positive if the Ct is < 40 and vice-versa. On the other hand, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) considers the Ct cut off of 35 and a Ct value > 35 considers that it could be the result from a contaminant.“

    ”Bullard et al. examined the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Ct values from respiratory samples, symptom onset to test (STT) and infectivity in Vero cell lines culture. [16] Viral growth was seen in only 28.9% of samples. Inter- estingly, there was no growth in samples with a Ct > 24 or STT > 8 days. They concluded that infectivity may be low in patients with Ct >24 and duration of symptoms longer than 8 days. Similarly, Wolfel et al. reported no SARS-CoV-2 grows in specimens collected after 8 days of the onset of symptoms. [11].”

    https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=jri

    • #121
  2. Barry Jones Thatcher
    Barry Jones
    @BarryJones

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    I think there is some fraud, but I agree that it’s not enough to overturn the election. I think it’s essential to go through the recounts to help people see that the election was just close. I think even though he lost, Trump won per the narrative that was against him and the fact that he got more voters for a second term. I also think it’s important to not call the people who want recounts kooks because it’s easy to understand why they feel like they’ve been mistreated for… four years.

    I also think the president probably lost the election per the razor thin margin in the first debate per early voting, but that’s just my thought. I have no evidence beyond a feeling that if he’d performed as calmly as he did in the last debate, he could have kept some more Biden skeptics. Perhaps enough to tip the thing back to him. This is because I know there were a lot of people who love Donald Trump. Fair enough. There were also a lot of people who liked his policies but didn’t like him at all. They held their noses. He made it harder to do that in debate one, and I suspect some people just threw up their hands. (So, again, I may be completely wrong.) If someone yells at me style over substance, my answer to that is yes. That’s… uh… part of an election with democratic elements.

    It’s my hope that Trump’s push to examine the votes helps make systems better, even though I don’t think it will change anything at all for 2020.

     

     

    There is election fraud. Period. The only question is how much…I have one other point. We need to address our voting systems. Every election there is vote stealing, vote loosing, vote finding, vote manufacturing, vote under counting, double voting, voting in multiple jurisdictions and so on all over the country. We have a worse than 3rd world voting system that in some locations looks to have been set up to enhance cheating. I am tired of it and want something that is a bet closer to reflecting a true vote than systems that makes Venezuela and Zimbabwe wish they had something that was half as crooked.

    • #122
  3. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    I think there is some fraud, but I agree that it’s not enough to overturn the election. I think it’s essential to go through the recounts to help people see that the election was just close. I think even though he lost, Trump won per the narrative that was against him and the fact that he got more voters for a second term. I also think it’s important to not call the people who want recounts kooks because it’s easy to understand why they feel like they’ve been mistreated for… four years.

    I also think the president probably lost the election per the razor thin margin in the first debate per early voting, but that’s just my thought. I have no evidence beyond a feeling that if he’d performed as calmly as he did in the last debate, he could have kept some more Biden skeptics. Perhaps enough to tip the thing back to him. This is because I know there were a lot of people who love Donald Trump. Fair enough. There were also a lot of people who liked his policies but didn’t like him at all. They held their noses. He made it harder to do that in debate one, and I suspect some people just threw up their hands. (So, again, I may be completely wrong.) If someone yells at me style over substance, my answer to that is yes. That’s… uh… part of an election with democratic elements.

    What we are really seeing right now is the return of Sore Loserman in Trumpian clothing.  

    Every election produces a winner and a loser.  The loser usually looks for rationalizations for the loss and evil software voting machine trickery is a rationalization that satisfies the loser. 

    Back in 2004 many on the Left could not stomach George W Bush’s reelection and, thus, decided that it had to be Diebold voting machines subtly shifting votes from John Kerry toward George W Bush.  

    In 2020 we have Trump offering up an updated version of the Diebold voting machine conspiracy.  

    It’s the same old same old excuse for losing.

     

    • #123
  4. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Gazpacho Grande’ (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):Of course. And if the media had their way – and they usually do – that’s all we would see of Trump. And we usually do.

    Ah, there it is — Trump Mantra: It’s always someone else’s fault.

    Don’t you mean Barry?

    Or did you miss those 8 years of blaming other people for whatever issue he couldn’t figure out that day.I made the point that it’s always someone else’s fault with Trump and his supporters and you blamed someone else.

    Thank you.

    What is always someone else’s fault? Your original response to Kedavis was a nonsequitur because he wasn’t blaming anyone for anything. Brian posted a meme, you said similar tactics could be used against Trump, and Kedavis said that they already do and already have as a matter of course in one way or another. No fault was ever at issue in this exchange.

    Now GG jumped in to say that Obama actually did tend to deflect blame to everyone else, and you jump back in to say that Trump and his supporters always blame everyone else. No one is blaming anyone in this exchange. Your fixation is bizarre, and telling.

    One, kedavis was blaming the media for running stories about Trump’s bad behavior — as if Trump himself has no control over that. Of course he does — he could have stopped making inflammatory statements intended for no other reason than to be inflammatory both on Twitter and in live situations. Here’s a revolutionary thought: If he doesn’t create those moments then the media can’t run them.  One would think that would be obvious, but apparently not for Trump, who provided the media with a never ending stream of often outrageous patter.

    P.S. Please don’t come at me with “but the media would make Trump look foolish no matter what he did!” They absolutely would. But what they came up with would have far less effect than the real ones Trump supplies them with on an almost daily basis.

    The first Presidential debate is a prime example of what I’m talking about. Trump was a bull in a china shop and it played terribly.  Was the media obliged to ignore it? How differently would the election have played out had Trump not behaved like a total boor in that debate and had actually shown up for the second one instead of skipping it because his feelings were apparently hurt (no, it had nothing to do with COVID)?  We don’t know of course, but does anyone want to argue that Trump wouldn’t have done better had he behaved better in the first debate and shown up (and as well behaved) in the 2nd debate?

    Two, the topic here is Trump and how his actions turned off a lot of voters. What Obama did or didn’t do is irrelevant in this context and using him is (at this point) a tired and shopworn obfuscation — an attempt to deflect Trump’s culpability for his own behavior. I don’t buy it.

    Donald Trump is the President of The United States. He is responsible for his actions, his words and the way they are distilled to the public. He never made any serious attempt to change that dynamic that lasted longer than a few weeks. And it likely cost him re-election.

    • #124
  5. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Paul Ryan is on the board of Fox News. One of the Murdoch children Fox News is rabidly anti-conservative, I think.

    They would be a lot better off with the Flight 93 guy on the board.

    https://omny.fm/shows/the-dan-proft-show/november-6-2020

    vhttps://amgreatness.com/2020/11/11/the-stakes-for-america-talking-with-michael-anton/

    The left is for the ultra rich, the corporations, education, the bureaucracy, and the poor.

    The Trump right is for everybody else.

    Then you are left with a residual.

    James Murdoch quit the board of NewsCorp last summer. This interview (trigger warning: it’s by Maureen Dowd) is very interesting and I recommend it if you have an interest in the media business. Traditionally, the NewsCorp board has been a rubber stamp for Rupert’s wishes, but maybe that has changed now that Lachlan (the other son) is running things day to day.

    Fox News has owned the Conservative media space for 20+ years. Nothing is forever, of course, and in the conversation about media consolidation, I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing that they have been so completely dominant. We may indeed see a shift in the landscape. The rise of streaming and the move away from the cable bundle certainly makes them vulnerable.

    But Fox News isn’t going to go down without a fight. A bloody one. You can count on that.

    It was interesting over the summer after The New York Times newsroom staff was successful in a partial purge of the paper’s op-ed department over having the nerve to run an opinion piece by Tom Cotton, the newsroom staff at the Wall Street Journal attempted the same thing with their paper’s conservative editorial department, but were slapped down by News Corp. execs, who know they’d  hemorrhage readers if the op-ed section lurched left. The question with Fox is more post-election, if the channel’s already hemorrhaged viewers who the conservative prime-time show hosts can’t bring back.

    • #125
  6. SParker Member
    SParker
    @SParker

    Technical note amidst the sad preview of the next…12…years:  Perry Mason got his clients off during preliminary hearings every week.  California does have grand juries but doesn’t normally use them for criminal procedures when you’ve already been charged with a serious crime.  They answer the basic questions: did it happen here and is it not entirely impossible that you did it, dude/chick?  And they are brief.

    My favorite personal memory of the show is being 8 and sitting with my grandfather watching an episode (original airing).  At some point in the first 1/2 hour.  Him:  I know who did it!  Me: Who? Him: The ice-man! [laughs uproariously] Me: ?????  It was many years later and long after the ice-man, the milk-man, the bread-man, the occasional vacuum cleaner, brush, or encyclopedia salesman, or Fred MacMurray in Double Indemnity could have done it that the inflation-adjusted penny finally dropped.  But here, let Big Maybelle explain it to the younger set in verse 3:

    • #126
  7. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    The one thing that always gets me about the conspiracy denial crowd. They keep claiming that conspirators have to be in contact in order to conspire. Legally they dont. People whom have never met or spoken can be in cooperation in a conspiracy. This is a strategy to avoid detection. I believe that there is not wide spread election fraud but concentrated and directed.

    There are maybe 10 – 15 counties that have regular election fraud on a large scale. All the places that gave Biden this election.

    • #127
  8. Cow Girl Thatcher
    Cow Girl
    @CowGirl

    JennaStocker (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Perry Mason, if nothing else, is a full accounting of mid-century interior design and urban studies; it’s an inadvertent documentary of LA in a way Dragnet never was.

    I’ll take that and raise you a Rockford Files.

    And The Jetsons might out mid-century modern the most mid-century modern, if by imagination innovation alone. Everything was the future, and the future was now!

    Rockford Files!! I loved that show! I want to live in a cheesy trailer in Malibu!

    • #128
  9. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Zuckerberg Drops an Additional $100 Million into ‘Safe Elections’ Project that Looks Like a Democrat GOTV Effort

     

    Notably, Zuckerberg and Chan made the $400 million in total contributions to the CTCL and CEIR with their own personal funds,

     

    Critics say the CTCL project’s grants look a lot more like Democratic “Get-out-the-Vote” (GOTV) efforts in major cities around the country than good government efforts to protect the integrity of the electoral process of all Americans, regardless of their party affiliation.

     

    More than 99.5 percent of this funding — $63.4 million — went to election commissions in 17 counties and two cities won by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Less than one half of one percent of the funding — a mere $289,000 — went to a county Donald Trump won in 2016, Hays County, Texas, which the president barely won by a margin of 50.4 percent to 49.6 percent.

     

    “Government using private money to target a demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as targeting a demographic to suppress the vote,” Phill Kline, director of the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, told Breitbart News.

    “This privatization of elections invites the monies and powerful to stuff the umpires pocket with cash before they call the first ball or strike,” Kline added.

     

    https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/18/zuckerberg-drops-additional-100-million-safe-elections-project-looks-like-democrat-gotv-effort/ 

     

     

    • #129
  10. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    The first Presidential debate was a prime example of what I’m talking about. Trump was a bull in a china shop and it played terribly. 

    I would agree with this.  I really think this is where he lost the election.  But I also am sympathetic to how abused and bruised many Trump supporters feel when it comes to how Trump and Trump voters are almost always portrayed in the media, whether the president is saying something foolish or not.  

    I mean, I am absolutely certain @blueyeti has followed politics long enough to know that Joe Biden makes weird statements, exaggerates (if I’m being nice with my word choice) in self-aggrandizing ways, can act like a bullying buffoon, is thin-skinned, makes very inappropriate statements, and doesn’t really seem all that bright.  Yet he’s lifted up as a statesman… a nice guy… that good ol’ “Uncle Joe.”

    These obvious discrepancies in treatment of different party candidates over what has been decades are bound to make a group of people a wee bit defensive, even when Trump deserves some of the disdain others have for his antics.  

    Personally, I am less invested in the president himself.  I did not vote for him in 2016.  I voted for him in 2020, but it was as much a vote against the Democrats as anything else.  (I do like some of his policies, too.)    

    I think Trump lost his office, but he won the election in that he managed to keep himself very relevant per the margins.  He turned out enough voters to deny Joe Biden any sort of mandate, though again we see that Biden’s win in 2020 is trumpeted as historically significant while Trump’s win in 2016 was constantly being pointed out as razor thin and suspect.  

    No one will be able to call Donald Trump “Jimmy Carter” after he leaves the White House.  (Carter, btw, was calling Trump an “illegitimate president” who had stolen the 2016 election with the help of the Russians halfway through Trump’s term!)  This was not a humiliating result.  

    So I don’t want President Trump to stir passions in people by making them feel as if they need to go buy “resistance” t-shirts and have marches, but I would love it if some of the concerns about voter fraud that has always existed at least on the margins were actually taken seriously in this moment so that they can be exposed, and people can have more confidence in future elections… so that local governments are less influenced by political machines that really do seem to cheat in areas that have been controlled by one political party or the other for generations.  

    This isn’t an opportunity for Trump to flip the vote.  It’s an opportunity to apply a “no broken windows” philosophy to petty corruption in elections, which discourages bigger crimes.   It also helps Trump voters heal a bit and accept the results.  

    • #130
  11. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    Barry Jones (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    I think there is some fraud, but I agree that it’s not enough to overturn the election. I think it’s essential to go through the recounts to help people see that the election was just close. I think even though he lost, Trump won per the narrative that was against him and the fact that he got more voters for a second term. I also think it’s important to not call the people who want recounts kooks because it’s easy to understand why they feel like they’ve been mistreated for… four years.

    I also think the president probably lost the election per the razor thin margin in the first debate per early voting, but that’s just my thought. I have no evidence beyond a feeling that if he’d performed as calmly as he did in the last debate, he could have kept some more Biden skeptics. Perhaps enough to tip the thing back to him. This is because I know there were a lot of people who love Donald Trump. Fair enough. There were also a lot of people who liked his policies but didn’t like him at all. They held their noses. He made it harder to do that in debate one, and I suspect some people just threw up their hands. (So, again, I may be completely wrong.) If someone yells at me style over substance, my answer to that is yes. That’s… uh… part of an election with democratic elements.

    It’s my hope that Trump’s push to examine the votes helps make systems better, even though I don’t think it will change anything at all for 2020.

     

     

    There is election fraud. Period. The only question is how much…I have one other point. We need to address our voting systems. Every election there is vote stealing, vote loosing, vote finding, vote manufacturing, vote under counting, double voting, voting in multiple jurisdictions and so on all over the country. We have a worse than 3rd world voting system that in some locations looks to have been set up to enhance cheating. I am tired of it and want something that is a bet closer to reflecting a true vote than systems that makes Venezuela and Zimbabwe wish they had something that was half as crooked.

    Yes, every election will feature some votes by otherwise ineligible voters. But if you honestly think that our system as a whole is no better than some of the most corrupt nations on earth, then provide some hard evidence. Because that’s just insane. I have multiple family members who work as poll workers and vote counters and here in Wisconsin we have a pretty darn good system. There is no one stuffing ballots or hacking the machines. Did you believe the count was accurate 4 years ago? If so, what changed this time?

    • #131
  12. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    Barry Jones (View Comment):

    There is election fraud. Period. The only question is how much…I have one other point. We need to address our voting systems. Every election there is vote stealing, vote loosing, vote finding, vote manufacturing, vote under counting, double voting, voting in multiple jurisdictions and so on all over the country. We have a worse than 3rd world voting system that in some locations looks to have been set up to enhance cheating. I am tired of it and want something that is a bet closer to reflecting a true vote than systems that makes Venezuela and Zimbabwe wish they had something that was half as crooked.

    Yes, every election will feature some votes by otherwise ineligible voters. But if you honestly think that our system as a whole is no better than some of the most corrupt nations on earth, then provide some hard evidence. Because that’s just insane. I have multiple family members who work as poll workers and vote counters and here in Wisconsin we have a pretty darn good system. There is no one stuffing ballots or hacking the machines. Did you believe the count was accurate 4 years ago? If so, what changed this time?

    Back in 2004, when George W Bush was running for reelection against John Kerry, I volunteered to be a poll watcher for the Republican party in Denver, Colorado.  There were some minor issues.  But nothing truly significant.  And I was part of a large team of Republican poll watchers.  Our goal was to have at least 1 Republican poll watcher at every polling place and I think we succeeded.  George W Bush won reelection, by the way.  And the media wasn’t exactly going easy on George W Bush.  In fact the media accused Bush of being a war criminal for the war in Iraq.

    • #132
  13. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    the topic here is Trump and how his actions turned off a lot of voters.

    His actions also gained more. Among every demographic except white men.

    What’s the problem with white men these days?

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    The first Presidential debate was a prime example of what I’m talking about. Trump was a bull in a china shop and it played terribly. 

    Not with everyone. Maybe with a bunch of white men.

    You know who else played terribly at that first debate? Joe Biden. Why does nobody talk about that? Everyone expected the President to be brash and blunt. So that’s not even news. But that good ol’ Joe Biden that the press was selling all year? He wasn’t there either. That might be news. But it wasn’t.

    • #133
  14. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    I would agree with this. I really think this is where he lost the election. But I also am sympathetic to how abused and bruised many Trump supporters feel when it comes to how Trump and Trump voters are almost always portrayed in the media, whether the president is saying something foolish or not.

    I mean, I am absolutely certain @blueyeti has followed politics long enough to know that Joe Biden makes weird statements, exaggerates (if I’m being nice with my word choice) in self-aggrandizing ways, can act like a bullying buffoon, is thin-skinned, makes very inappropriate statements, and doesn’t really seem all that bright. Yet he’s lifted up as a statesman… a nice guy… that good ol’ “Uncle Joe.”

    These obvious discrepancies in treatment of different party candidates over what has been decades are bound to make a group of people a wee bit defensive, even when Trump deserves some of the disdain others have for his antics.

    It’s pretty much a given that if Trump does not run again in 2024, whoever gets the GOP nomination will be the next Hitler in the eyes of the media, especially if that candidate says anything nice at all about Trump and his agenda. The main question — since Trump is not going away anytime in the near future and the media will still continue to throw their same accusations at him thinking he might run in ’24 — is whether or not the swing voters will finally get Hitler Fatigue, and the ability to turn on a dime and declare someone else New Hitler that America has to freak out over, after spending 7-8 years calling Trump Hitler, will be effective if the Biden/Harris (or Harris/Biden) Administration is screwing things up for a majority of those voters.

    • #134
  15. repmodad Inactive
    repmodad
    @Repmodad

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    You know who else played terribly at that first debate? Joe Biden. Why does nobody talk about that? Everyone expected the President to be brash and blunt. So that’s not even news. But that good ol’ Joe Biden that the press was selling all year? He wasn’t there either. That might be news. But it wasn’t.

    I’m a national media basher from way back. But at least 70 million people watched the first debate. If Trump’s bad behavior overshadowed Biden’s bad behavior, it’s through the eyes of those people, not because the media finessed it. 

    • #135
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    repmodad (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    You know who else played terribly at that first debate? Joe Biden. Why does nobody talk about that? Everyone expected the President to be brash and blunt. So that’s not even news. But that good ol’ Joe Biden that the press was selling all year? He wasn’t there either. That might be news. But it wasn’t.

    I’m a national media basher from way back. But at least 70 million people watched the first debate. If Trump’s bad behavior overshadowed Biden’s bad behavior, it’s through the eyes of those people, not because the media finessed it.

    What I’m saying is that all anyone talks about is how awful Trump was. Nobody seems to talk about Biden’s awfulness. (An awfulness that increased since his awful debate with Paul Ryan.)

    This is the first election where the incumbent ran against a ghost. A man who stayed in his basement for most of the campaign, called “lid” by 10:00 am most days. Couldn’t get even a dozen people to his rallies. He barely spoke with the press, for most of the fall he campaigned maybe one out of three days, in only 10 states. When he did open his mouth he could barely stay coherent and yelled at people a lot. He refused to answer a whole lot of questions about his plans for his administration.

    That this ghost was able to miraculously win an election is, itself, a red flag.

    • #136
  17. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):

    repmodad (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    You know who else played terribly at that first debate? Joe Biden. Why does nobody talk about that? Everyone expected the President to be brash and blunt. So that’s not even news. But that good ol’ Joe Biden that the press was selling all year? He wasn’t there either. That might be news. But it wasn’t.

    I’m a national media basher from way back. But at least 70 million people watched the first debate. If Trump’s bad behavior overshadowed Biden’s bad behavior, it’s through the eyes of those people, not because the media finessed it.

    What I’m saying is that all anyone talks about is how awful Trump was. Nobody seems to talk about Biden’s awfulness. (An awfulness that increased since his awful debate with Paul Ryan.)

    This is the first election where the incumbent ran against a ghost. A man who stayed in his basement for most of the campaign, called “lid” by 10:00 am most days. Couldn’t get even a dozen people to his rallies. He barely spoke with the press, for most of the fall he campaigned maybe one out of three days, in only 10 states. When he did open his mouth he could barely stay coherent and yelled at people a lot. He refused to answer a whole lot of questions about his plans for his administration.

    That this ghost was able to miraculously win an election is, itself, a red flag.

    The Biden campaign held to a strategy that allowed Trump to do all the talking, figuring that the more Trump talked, the more people would be motivated to vote for Biden in order to rid themselves of Trump.  It worked.  Biden received well over 78 million votes. 

    • #137
  18. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):

    repmodad (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    You know who else played terribly at that first debate? Joe Biden. Why does nobody talk about that? Everyone expected the President to be brash and blunt. So that’s not even news. But that good ol’ Joe Biden that the press was selling all year? He wasn’t there either. That might be news. But it wasn’t.

    I’m a national media basher from way back. But at least 70 million people watched the first debate. If Trump’s bad behavior overshadowed Biden’s bad behavior, it’s through the eyes of those people, not because the media finessed it.

    What I’m saying is that all anyone talks about is how awful Trump was. Nobody seems to talk about Biden’s awfulness. (An awfulness that increased since his awful debate with Paul Ryan.)

    This is the first election where the incumbent ran against a ghost. A man who stayed in his basement for most of the campaign, called “lid” by 10:00 am most days. Couldn’t get even a dozen people to his rallies. He barely spoke with the press, for most of the fall he campaigned maybe one out of three days, in only 10 states. When he did open his mouth he could barely stay coherent and yelled at people a lot. He refused to answer a whole lot of questions about his plans for his administration.

    That this ghost was able to miraculously win an election is, itself, a red flag.

    The Biden campaign held to a strategy that allowed Trump to do all the talking, figuring that the more Trump talked, the more people would be motivated to vote for Biden in order to rid themselves of Trump. It worked. Biden received well over 78 million votes.

    Go spam another forum. I think in the last week you’re responsible for half the comments on the entire site. We already know your point of view. Repeating it another hundred thousand times won’t make us suddenly agree with you.

     

    • #138
  19. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    You know who else played terribly at that first debate? Joe Biden. Why does nobody talk about that? Everyone expected the President to be brash and blunt. So that’s not even news. But that good ol’ Joe Biden that the press was selling all year? He wasn’t there either. That might be news. But it wasn’t.

    This is a fair point. Biden also had a poor debate. The problem is that Trump refused to shut up and in effect rescued Biden every time Trump interrupted him. 🤷‍♂️

    • #139
  20. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    The Biden campaign held to a strategy that allowed Trump to do all the talking, figuring that the more Trump talked, the more people would be motivated to vote for Biden in order to rid themselves of Trump. It worked. Biden received well over 78 million votes. 

    Nailed it. 

    • #140
  21. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    Go spam another forum. I think in the last week you’re responsible for half the comments on the entire site. We already know your point of view. Repeating it another hundred thousand times won’t make us suddenly agree with you.

    Why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that while a lot of voters liked Trump’s policies, they found the man exhausting and petulant? This is the question I asked at the beginning of this thread — why do you expect voters to look past who the guy is and only vote for what he is? When has that ever worked in politics?

    • #141
  22. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):

     

    What I’m saying is that all anyone talks about is how awful Trump was. Nobody seems to talk about Biden’s awfulness. (An awfulness that increased since his awful debate with Paul Ryan.)

    This is the first election where the incumbent ran against a ghost. A man who stayed in his basement for most of the campaign, called “lid” by 10:00 am most days. Couldn’t get even a dozen people to his rallies. He barely spoke with the press, for most of the fall he campaigned maybe one out of three days, in only 10 states. When he did open his mouth he could barely stay coherent and yelled at people a lot. He refused to answer a whole lot of questions about his plans for his administration.

    That this ghost was able to miraculously win an election is, itself, a red flag.

    The Biden campaign held to a strategy that allowed Trump to do all the talking, figuring that the more Trump talked, the more people would be motivated to vote for Biden in order to rid themselves of Trump. It worked. Biden received well over 78 million votes.

    I suppose the question now is what kind of ‘mandate’ does a ghost have, and will swing voters who ousted Trump for his temperament suddenly find themselves taken aback by the policies of the man they voted for, based simply on him being Not Trump?

    (Biden, in turn has his own COVID-related dangers since he can’t go back to the Obama 2009 playbook, which was to jam all the recovery dollars into the deep Blue urban centers and let the rural areas fend for themselves. In trying to take Trump down, they’ve built up so much fear in their own voters about those deep Blue areas being incubation centers for viral death, trying to suddenly flip on a dime and bribe their voters in those areas to act like it’s Oct. 2019 again is going to be a tough sell, vaccine or not.)

    • #142
  23. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    The Biden campaign held to a strategy that allowed Trump to do all the talking, figuring that the more Trump talked, the more people would be motivated to vote for Biden in order to rid themselves of Trump. It worked. Biden received well over 78 million votes.

    Nailed it.

    Or, far more likely his campaign figured the less Biden talked, the less opportunity for him to reveal himself as an addled old man who will happily sell us out to the far left (and China). Which is another reason they kept him in the basement — less of a chance for him to make a fatal gaffe.

    The President took the risk.

    I get that you hate the President, but it’s strange that you think Joe Biden was playing some kind of 4-D chess here.

    Biden couldn’t play tic tac toe against a chicken and win.

    • #143
  24. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    Go spam another forum. I think in the last week you’re responsible for half the comments on the entire site. We already know your point of view. Repeating it another hundred thousand times won’t make us suddenly agree with you.

    Why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that while a lot of voters liked Trump’s policies, they found the man exhausting and petulant?

    Who’s being exhausting here? C’mon man!

    • #144
  25. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):
    Go spam another forum. I think in the last week you’re responsible for half the comments on the entire site. We already know your point of view. Repeating it another hundred thousand times won’t make us suddenly agree with you.

    Why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that while a lot of voters liked Trump’s policies, they found the man exhausting and petulant?

    Who’s being exhausting here? C’mon man!

    I’m about 100% sure I’ll regret wading in here, but…

    Count me among those who find (found?) Trump exhausting and petulant. (I voted for him this year, and it was a pretty easy decision.)

    And yet. The dude received at least seventy-two million votes. He and Biden are the only two presidential candidates ever to exceed 70 million. There are clearly a ton of Americans who are on board with Trump, foibles and all. They weren’t all holding their noses or voting against Biden either–they love Trump and what he’s done in office. So I’m not entirely convinced that a less-Trumpy Trump would have automatically resulted in more votes. Who’s to say that a less-Trumpy Trump wouldn’t have attracted more votes from demographic A while at the same time decreasing the total from demographic B? 

    • #145
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Jon1979 (View Comment):
    I suppose the question now is what kind of ‘mandate’ does a ghost have

    Perfect. 

    It’s so interesting how The Squad and Bernie knew they could hijack him, but on the other hand the broad election results were a total repudiation.

    When Harris takes over, I don’t see her having any principles except getting reelected.

    • #146
  27. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    I guess I’ll never understand the people who say “Yeah, the President had great policies, but I didn’t particularly care for his manners, so I’ll happy vote for totalitarianism.” These are not serious people. They’re trivial people fixated on trivia.

    But yeah, let’s just give Iran another kajillion dollars, send more of our soldiers into the meat grinder and bend over for China. Because we don’t like the President’s manners.

    • #147
  28. Barry Jones Thatcher
    Barry Jones
    @BarryJones

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    Barry Jones (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    I think there is some fraud, but I agree that it’s not enough to overturn the election. I think it’s essential to go through the recounts to help people see that the election was just close. I think even though he lost, Trump won per the narrative that was against him and the fact that he got more voters for a second term. I also think it’s important to not call the people who want recounts kooks because it’s easy to understand why they feel like they’ve been mistreated for… four years.

    I also think the president probably lost the election per the razor thin margin in the first debate per early voting, but that’s just my thought. I have no evidence beyond a feeling that if he’d performed as calmly as he did in the last debate, he could have kept some more Biden skeptics. Perhaps enough to tip the thing back to him. This is because I know there were a lot of people who love Donald Trump. Fair enough. There were also a lot of people who liked his policies but didn’t like him at all. They held their noses. He made it harder to do that in debate one, and I suspect some people just threw up their hands. (So, again, I may be completely wrong.) If someone yells at me style over substance, my answer to that is yes. That’s… uh… part of an election with democratic elements.

    It’s my hope that Trump’s push to examine the votes helps make systems better, even though I don’t think it will change anything at all for 2020.

     

     

    There is election fraud. Period. The only question is how much…I have one other point. We need to address our voting systems. Every election there is vote stealing, vote loosing, vote finding, vote manufacturing, vote under counting, double voting, voting in multiple jurisdictions and so on all over the country. We have a worse than 3rd world voting system that in some locations looks to have been set up to enhance cheating. I am tired of it and want something that is a bet closer to reflecting a true vote than systems that makes Venezuela and Zimbabwe wish they had something that was half as crooked.

    Yes, every election will feature some votes by otherwise ineligible voters. But if you honestly think that our system as a whole is no better than some of the most corrupt nations on earth, then provide some hard evidence. Because that’s just insane. I have multiple family members who work as poll workers and vote counters and here in Wisconsin we have a pretty darn good system. There is no one stuffing ballots or hacking the machines. Did you believe the count was accurate 4 years ago? If so, what changed this time?

    I stand by my thought that there is election fraud. And specifically there is and has been election fraud every single election. Good for you if you think the elections in Wisconsin are ok, bit can you honestly say the same for Philadelphia or Chicago? I am pretty sure some election shenanigans hae and are occurring here in GA. I am not talking about massive conspiracies but a fair number of small actions that add up to election fraud. There have been over the years a number of cases documented (just to show that it is non partisan – in the 2018 election there was election fraud in a race for House Rep in NC by the Republican side – the candidate – the Republican – called for a revote and did not stand as a candidate). There is much that can and should be done to protect the vote as every vote falsified or stole negates a true vote.

    • #148
  29. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):The Biden campaign held to a strategy that allowed Trump to do all the talking, figuring that the more Trump talked, the more people would be motivated to vote for Biden in order to rid themselves of Trump. It worked. Biden received well over 78 million votes.

    Nailed it.

    Or, far more likely his campaign figured the less Biden talked, the less opportunity for him to reveal himself as an addled old man who will happily sell us out to the far left (and China). Which is another reason they kept him in the basement — less of a chance for him to make a fatal gaffe.

    The President took the risk.

    I get that you hate the President, but it’s strange that you think Joe Biden was playing some kind of 4-D chess here.

    Biden couldn’t play tic tac toe against a chicken and win.

    I do not think Biden was playing 4-D chess — not at all. I think he was simply observing the oldest rule in politics (sometimes credited to Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, although that may not actually be the case): “When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, stay out of his way.”

    That’s all Biden did. And it was successful. Because Trump did all of the hard work for him.

    For the record. I do not hate the President. I am not a Never Trumper. I’m Trump Neutral: willing –eager even– to support him if he shows me he has the temperament for the job.  I have made clear that my issues with him were largely confined to the way he conducted himself in office. Many here think I and other voters should ignore that. But we can’t separate the man from his policies. Nor should we have to. The President isn’t just a policy machine. He’s the leader and public face of the country to the world and personally, I don’t think it’s asking too much for him to behave like it. Or at the very least, shut up so you are not in our heads every day. I would have gladly taken that approach to the office (h/t: Calvin Coolidge).

    No question he’s accomplished much: he was the steward of a very strong economy and given us a Supreme Court that will serve the country well for decades to come. His Middle East peace initiatives are truly remarkable and he succeeded where every U.S. President for the last 70 years have failed. His China policy has that country on its heels. He got dealt a bad hand with COVID, and dealt with it as best he could, but he was probably not the best leader for this type of crisis. Nonetheless, he has gotten the country most of the way through it in his own inimitable way.

    For all of those reasons,  Trump should have been re-elected and indeed, he almost was. I can’t help but think about what might have been: A little less Tweeting (OK, a lot less Tweeting — in fact, how about no Tweeting?), a bit more humility, 10% less stirring up the media, and he almost certainly would be looking at another 4 years in the White House.

    • #149
  30. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta&hellip; (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    the topic here is Trump and how his actions turned off a lot of voters.

    His actions also gained more. Among every demographic except white men.

    What’s the problem with white men these days?

    Maybe they really are the racists the media tells us they are and decided to vote for the genuine article instead of the guy who doesn’t deliver on his supposed racism.

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.