jdub27

Disagree, the hatred for Hillary was off the charts on both the right and left. D's didn't have the burning hatred for Trump yet (maybe because he had previously been a registered Democrat as recently as 2001-2009?) and he hadn't crossed a bunch of R's yet either. I believe the number is slightly low, but I'm not sure what is so confusing about the difference between land and people. States =/= counties when looking at national elections as it relates to the electoral college. A single county in New York City (Queens) has 3x the population as all 53 counties in ND combined. Another (Brooklyn) as 3x the population of South Dakota's 66 counties. So out of the 121 counties mentioned, Biden won a whopping 10 of them (8.3%), yet Biden had 1.2 million votes and Trump had 853K. Land doesn't vote. In 2016, Hillary won something like 18.2% of counties, had nearly 3 million more votes nationally and lost the electoral college by around 60,000 votes spread out between 3 states. It is no secret that Trump did better in rural American while Biden did better in the population centers. This is nothing new between R and D voter breakdowns. Lay out the population of the counties Biden won vs. the counties that Trump one and there is nothing fishy about it.

Now do 2016.

Well, I mean, Trump is the one who publicly stated she was on the team so.....? Hopefully they got away quick enough to not damage the R's chance in the Senate races since Powell's strategy seems to be going scorched earth by calling out R leaders of the state as part of the conspiracy with no evidence to back up. Not exactly a great look when you're trying to win two pretty important races.

Fixed your post.

I agree fully with this, which is why I've stated multiple times R's should be fine with a short-term loss in the WH to gain even more seats in the House in 2022 mid-terms and have an excellent shot to take the WH back in 2024 (assuming they don't absolutely drop the ball on a candidate like both parties have the last two elections). It gives them a change to reset and put forth a quality candidate that can unite their base and bring in more independents. The D's have their far-left wing screaming at Biden already which is going to cause internal issues and turn off independents. That being said, I think this shows even further that there was not the massive voter fraud that is being claimed. If you're going to smart and bold enough to cheat in one race, why not bolster your ranks in the Senate and House as well and make it worth your while.

But it isn't a short-sighted opinion. In fact, by your own admission, it is accurate. It has nothing to do with CNN or the "liberal" media. You can find plenty of sources touting the exact same thing. Hey look, the Forum even wrote an article about it today: https://www.inforum.com/news/government-and-politics/6759749-What-is-Parler-and-why-are-so-many-conservatives-going-there As for your comments about swearing an oath to defend the constitution and thus the Freedom of Speech (which I fully back people to have an opinion I don't agree with), how exactly are you trying to apply that to a company like Facebook or Twitter or Parler or whatever else is out there. No one is requiring people to use those platforms and they have a right to set their community standards, whether you agree with them or not.

From what I hear, you'd probably have at least a few takers. Which is definitely part of the disappointment. I firmly believe there is a fair amount of spreading going on by the kids, but they are asymptomatic so their cases aren't necessarily being caught and counted but there is steps that could be taken by some staff that would also help.

Feel free to look back at my posts. I've repeatedly said I thought they needed to do whatever possible to keep kids in school. That was literally my highest priority. If that took some personal sacrifices for myself and others, it was worth it. Unfortunately that became impossible when they literally don't have enough staff (which includes support staff, paras, specialty teachers) to monitor all the classrooms which is happening everywhere in Grand Forks. It literally doesn't matter. You're the one who got offended when I made a joke that Parler was a safe space for the far-right, which isn't that far off. No one is upset about it other than you, who is somehow afraid to admit what it is, even though you are literally doing that in your post above. Personally, I prefer to understand both sides of discussions, which is why I think Twitter is personally fine. If I see something that is marked as inaccurate and I actually care, I will look into it. Don't care if its right or left. Despite being right leaning, I have no issue with how companies handle their free to use platforms.

Between this and your comparison of professional sports pods and nursing homes, you really are on a roll!

Yet Trump is 1-28* in his court filings trying to prove election fraud. *I believe the lone victory was recently overturned by the PA Supreme Court.

Who's getting their panties in a bunch besides you? Though it's hilarious if you don't think it's going to end up with the same issues as Twitter or end up a giant sh*t show. Parler has, predictably, already ran into issues with their "free speech" policy. LOL. Far from it but I'm guessing you didn't have an original comment (again) but already had a link to someone else's thoughts on the matter queued up. I have zero issues with Parler but I'm also not pretending it's something it isn't at this point in time. Exactly. Not sure why this is such a problem for some to admit. The are literally right-wing personalities advertising it as this, yet it's apparently taboo to admit. I don't get it.

What exactly is dumb about it? It's literally how they have marketed it and why it has recently gained traction. They are promoting "free speech" to conservatives. Wonder how much stake some of those influencers have gotten to switch over and promote the product. Based on what I've seen, that's pretty far from accurate. At this point it is mostly a far right echo chamber that prioritizes verified users. Nothing wrong with that but no point in pretending it's something it isn't.

The new safe space for the extreme right?

Brilliant, why hasn't anyone thought of that yet? Counterpoints: Who's going to care for them? And do we lock down those caregivers families as well, including all of their kids? "How is that plan going to work with the hospitals in the region that are already nearing capacity with workers who are near their breaking point? I'm sure they will be happy to watch it "let er rip" while continuing to be stretched extremely thin due to a shortage of workers and/or capacity. How do you account for the large amount of the population who aren't vulnerable yet will continue to take cautions, particularly as people are ready to "let er rip". How well do you think that plan is going to work out for the businesses that I assume your plan is set to help.

After reading the filings and considering Trump is still letting Rudy argue in front of federal judges (in disastrous fashion) to prove his case, tough to buy its anything more than a money grab. If it wasn't, you'd think he'd use the money being donated to him for an actual defense instead of using it to pay off campaign debt. Didn't take them long to change course and certify it. He'll be 78. Not that he'd be successful if he ran, but he'll work other ways to pad his pockets.

I never claimed he started it, I stated he has made it an up-front, central part of his political strategy. I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, if you can't see Trump thrives off divisiveness and openly creating an "us vs. them" mentality more than any other politician in my lifetime, I don't know what to tell you. Is it prevalent with politicians of both parties? Absolutely. Does Trump openly take it further than anyone else? Without question. It is a strategy that worked for him in 2016 when he had the perfect villian in Hillary. It mostly worked during his 4 years as president to keep his base engergized but it absolutely is what derailed his election. If he had toned down his rhetoric and at least pretended that he could work with others, he would have won and probably by a fair amount. None of this should be any sort of shocking revelation. Nowhere did I state the division was along any sort of race or ethnicity line.

I agree. But the trade-off was letting Trump's brand of conservatism and strategy of divsion set the party back much further with another 4 years.

Anecdotally, I'm aware of plenty of that happening just in North Dakota. Not hard to see conservatives being tired of Trump and knowing that Biden would have minimal power with a R Senate. On top of that, frankly, it's the better play for the R's in the long run anyway. A D president give the R's a better shot at turning the house in 2022 (mid-terms historical show losses for the party holding the White House) and then they can run an actual conservative in 2024 who very possibly could be running against Harris, who would have to be a big underdog in a general election. Minimal short term pain (moderate Biden who can claim to have his hands tied with an R Senate) for long term gains (turning the House at mid-terms and running a solid candidate in 2024 to take back the White House).

Not disagreeing, just trying to figure out what the concern is: -There are accusations of citizens' most sacred right being denied -Citizens' votes don't actually matter in a Presidential election so Trump's legal strategy is a waste of time (though I believe the level of this varies from state to state)

Given that, it is interesting that one of the strategies being put forth is to remove the "will of the people" and have the state legislators pick their own electors, effectively eliminating those citizens most sacred right. I think the overall point is that the "fraud" actually being taken front of judges are minimal and even if they were to be proven as accurate, will have absoultely no effect on the final outcome of the election.

Talk about undermining the will of the people and removing any faith there would be in any presidential election going forward.

Wait, so now we're listening to Fauci? I get confused on who's right, who's wrong, when we should count votes, when we shouldn't, etc. 2020 is quite the conundrum.

Devil's advocate: Were you as concerned 4 year's ago when it was the D's claiming fraud? I'd also be curious what level of "irregularities" that 70% believes. Based on Trump's filings, his own lawyers don't have any basis or proof for the fraud they are claiming, admitting it to a judge and dismissing their own filings. Despite that, he's still on on social media continuing to rail that there was fraud and that is doing even more harm to undermine the election process. I have zero disagreements that if there is proof of fraud that it needs to be fully investigated, zero questions asked. But the evidence provided thus far has shown nothing even remotely concrete to verify that. As for "calling" the elections, the AP has been doing so since 1848. D's and R's alike have had no trouble accepting the results, including Trump himself who won by razor thin margins with calls of fraud from the otherside. The media reporting the votes and using experts analyzing the data to determine how things will shake out. Will there be an occasional miss? Absolutely. But if the media didn't report and we waited until December 14 until the election is certified, the country would burn. Can you imagine the sh*tshow that would occur if the current president got 40+ days to claim he won the election only to find out mid-December that he didn't? On top of that, there is important transition plans that need to be started. I get your overall point, but think the concern is overblown. To both points, it is wash, rinse, repeat every 2-4 years with the sides switching roles. No doubt that social media continues to exacerbate the problem.

His own lawyers are admitting they don't have evidence of fraud when asked in court.

Per the WHO, smallpox and rinderpest. Based on the lawsuits his team has been filing, I'd put pretty heavy odds on the former being the favorite. A most likely scenario is that he's pushing the envelope to raise money for a "defense fund" because he can use 60% of the funds to retire campaign debt. If he happens to throw something at the wall and it sticks, then even better.