Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[Busaholic]

He isn't, the constitution is. It's older than Trump. It's even older than Biden.

Constitutions can be amended, as every bonehead who chants 'Second Amendment' when the sane try to rein the Gun Lobby in is admitting!

 

[nlogax]

No comment, because I don't know - many people believe it was stolen, many do not. I am extremely suspicious of the delayed/prolonged vote counting, which is not a feature of UK elections, with the exception of the complicated STV and De Hondt counting systems used in some non-English elections.

Sorry to say I've only just caught wind of this. Why the suspicion?

 

[daodao]

Sorry to say I've only just caught wind of this. Why the suspicion?

"Postal votes" were accepted that had been received after the polls closed AND the count was already under way, contrary to the usual practice in most countries such as the UK. Thus it was known how many votes would be required to alter the result in states where Trump was hitherto leading narrowly in counted votes, such as Pennsylvania. Those who wanted him to lose could work out how many late postal votes to "manufacture" to swing the result against Trump and thus steal the election. I don't know whether this actually happened, but the practice of accepting late postal votes when the count was in progress and close to completion makes me deeply suspicious of possible fraud.

Where late postal votes are accepted, for the avoidance of suspicion the count should not start until after the deadline for receiving them. The 1945 UK general election was held on 5th July, but the counting of votes was delayed until 26th July to provide time for overseas votes to be brought to Britain, and did not start until the deadline for receiving these votes had passed.

1945 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1945 United Kingdom general election was a national election held on 5 July 1945, but polling in some constituencies was delayed by some days, and the counting of votes was delayed until 26 July to provide time for overseas votes to be brought to Britain.

 

[najaB]

"Postal votes" were accepted that had been received after the polls closed and the count was already under way, contrary to the usual practice in most countries such as the UK.

However, and I know this might be a surprise, the USA is not the UK.

There is a long-standing principle (dating back to the Civil War in some cases) in a majority of states that the postmark date is what matters when determining the eligibility of postal votes. There is nothing new about counting ballots that were received after polling date.

If Mr Trump was so worried about postal votes being received in a timely fashion, why did he appoint a postmaster who almost single-handedly destroyed the USPS's ability to process mail in the regular timescales?

 

[daodao]

There is nothing new about counting ballots that were received after polling date.

,It was not this practice per se, but the combination of this practice with starting the count before the deadline for receiving postal votes, that creates the possibility and potential for fraud. I gave an example of accepting late postal votes in the July 1945 UK general election, but vote counting was also delayed until the deadline for receiving these postal votes had passed.

 

[Cowley]

,It was not this practice per se, but the combination of this practice with starting the count before the deadline for receiving postal votes, that creates the possibility and potential for fraud. I gave an example of accepting late postal votes in the July 1945 UK general election, but vote counting was also delayed until the deadline for receiving these postal votes had passed.

You’re clutching at straws just like our orange friend @daodao.

 

[Busaholic]

Some Fox TV stations are not covering Trump's speeches, a surefire indication that Murdoch thinks he's a goner, Polling of Republicans shows 55% wanting a candidate other than Trump for the next elaction, up from 49% in a week. Meantime Republican bigshot Karl Rove has taken to Murdoch's Wall Street Journal to make disobliging comments about the orange man, such as Trump's claims that he'd won the last election were untrue.

 

[najaB]

It was not this practice per se, but the combination of this practice with starting the count before the deadline for receiving postal votes, that creates the possibility and potential for fraud.

How? By travelling back in time to put the required number of fake ballots into the post in time to be postmarked before the polling date?

 

[Basil Jet]

Trump got more votes in 2020 than any candidate has ever received before, and yet Biden allegedly got more. However, Biden got fewer votes than Hillary had got 4 years previously in every state and every district, except for the 5 swing states that he needed to win. Somehow Biden's popularity in the 5 swing states was so great that he was able to win more votes nationally than the most popular incumbent of all time despite getting fewer votes than the previous losing candidate in nearly every part of the country.

 

[GusB]

"Postal votes" were accepted that had been received after the polls closed AND the count was already under way, contrary to the usual practice in most countries such as the UK. Thus it was known how many votes would be required to alter the result in states where Trump was hitherto leading narrowly in counted votes, such as Pennsylvania. Those who wanted him to lose could work out how many late postal votes to "manufacture" to swing the result against Trump and thus steal the election. I don't know whether this actually happened, but the practice of accepting late postal votes when the count was in progress and close to completion makes me deeply suspicious of possible fraud.

Where late postal votes are accepted, for the avoidance of suspicion the count should not start until after the deadline for receiving them. The 1945 UK general election was held on 5th July, but the counting of votes was delayed until 26th July to provide time for overseas votes to be brought to Britain, and did not start until the deadline for receiving these votes had passed.

Source required, please

 

[Cloud Strife]

Trump got more votes in 2020 than any candidate has ever received before, and yet Biden allegedly got more. However, Biden got fewer votes than Hillary had got 4 years previously in every state and every district, except for the 5 swing states that he needed to win. Somehow Biden's popularity in the 5 swing states was so great that he was able to win more votes nationally than the most popular incumbent of all time despite getting fewer votes than the previous losing candidate in nearly every part of the country.

Do you actually check what you're writing before posting?

Biden beat Trump by nearly 7m votes. Trump lost badly in urban areas (60-38), he lost in suburbia (50-48) and even in rural areas, he scored 57-42, which pales to his 62-32 in 2016. If you look at where Trump lost, it was in the suburbs, which switched from Trump to Biden, especially in swing states. Georgia was a textbook example of this: it was spoken about before the election and after, as Trump simply didn't sit well with middle class suburbia in places like Atlanta.

Biden got more votes than Clinton in every state that they both won.

 

[Shrop]

Trump got more votes in 2020 than any candidate has ever received before, and yet Biden allegedly got more. However, Biden got fewer votes than Hillary had got 4 years previously in every state and every district, except for the 5 swing states that he needed to win. Somehow Biden's popularity in the 5 swing states was so great that he was able to win more votes nationally than the most popular incumbent of all time despite getting fewer votes than the previous losing candidate in nearly every part of the country.

You've missed out the point that Hillary got more votes overall than Trump did in 2016, but Trump still got into power.
Note also that in every UK election for many decades, the LibDems have been grossly under represented in Parliament according to their votes received, and the Tories generally gain far more seats than their votes represent. The SNP even more so.
The present systems in both the UK and USA encourage negative voting, ie voting against the Party you dislike, rather than in favour of the one you want, and it's never healthy to run a country based on negativity, as we often see so often from our MPs. And from Trump.too. In both countries the present systems are seriously outdated, open to twisting and corruption, and in need of major overhaul.

 

[Basil Jet]

Do you actually check what you're writing before posting?

No need to be so rude to every non-communist you meet.

Biden beat Trump by nearly 7m votes. Trump lost badly in urban areas (60-38), he lost in suburbia (50-48) and even in rural areas, he scored 57-42, which pales to his 62-32 in 2016. If you look at where Trump lost, it was in the suburbs, which switched from Trump to Biden, especially in swing states. Georgia was a textbook example of this: it was spoken about before the election and after, as Trump simply didn't sit well with middle class suburbia in places like Atlanta.

Biden got more votes than Clinton in every state that they both won.

Okay, I think I should have said

"Trump got more votes in 2020 than any candidate has ever received before, and yet Biden allegedly got more. However, Biden got *a smaller percentage* of votes than Hillary had got 4 years previously in every state and every district, except for the 5 swing states that he needed to win. Somehow Biden's popularity in the 5 swing states was so great that he was able to win more votes nationally than the most popular incumbent of all time despite getting *a smaller percentage* of votes than the previous losing candidate in nearly every part of the country."

So my basic message was correct, although I fluffed the detail. But the analysis is moot, because the Democrats essentially admitted that they cheated in the infamous Time magazine "fortification" article in which all of the people conspiring behind the steal were named, so that they could get the credit they felt they deserved from the rest of the Democrat party.

 

[najaB]

But the analysis is moot, because the Democrats essentially admitted that they cheated in the infamous Time magazine "fortification" article in which all of the people conspiring behind the steal were named, so that they could get the credit they felt they deserved from the rest of the Democrat party.

If this article is the one you mean then I respectfully suggest you take remedial comprehension lessons as it says nothing about a "steal".

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions

time.com

If it is another article you're referring to then please provide a source.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

If this article is the one you mean then I respectfully suggest you take remedial comprehension lessons as it says nothing about a "steal".

Technically it does, but in the context of the advance knowledge that Trump was trying to do just that! First rule of right-wing extremism: accuse the other side of doing exactly what you are trying to do yourself.

 

[najaB]

Technically it does, but in the context of the advance knowledge that Trump was trying to do just that! First rule of right-wing extremism: accuse the other side of doing exactly what you are trying to do yourself.

True. What I should have said is that it says nothing about the Dems stealing the election.

 

[Busaholic]

Donald Trump is predicted to be in the position as an active Defendant in court terms for the rest of his days in view of the number of legal actions he will be facing, almost regardless of how many ever get any further, as there are so many. Whether he ever receives justice by being incarcerated I doubt, though I live in hope.

 

[Basil Jet]

Technically it does, but in the context of the advance knowledge that Trump was trying to do just that! First rule of right-wing extremism: accuse the other side of doing exactly what you are trying to do yourself.

Accusing the other side of doing exactly what you are trying to do yourself is a standard left-wing tactic, in fact, you're using it here.

 

[Cloud Strife]

To be honest, one thing that was so disappointing about the 2020 election (and now the 2024 election) is that it's shaping up to be one old white man against another old white man. Neither Biden nor Trump are representative of America, but I suspect that the Republicans know that Trump can't win due to his immense unpopularity among undecided voters. As a result, it looks like both the Democrats and the Republicans are waiting for the other to blink, although would the Democrats really oust a proven winner, especially one that won 12m more than the popular Obama?

IMO, if it does end up being Biden vs Trump Round 2, then I could see a billionaire like Bezos or Musk turning up and completely wrecking the field. Either of those two could tear the election apart, and both Biden/Trump would be sitting ducks against an insanely rich younger challenger with proven credentials.

 

[najaB]

IMO, if it does end up being Biden vs Trump Round 2, then I could see a billionaire like Bezos or Musk turning up and completely wrecking the field. Either of those two could tear the election apart, and both Biden/Trump would be sitting ducks against an insanely rich younger challenger with proven credentials.

I was with you up until there. What exactly in Elon Musk's history counts as 'proven credentials' where national/international politics is concerned?

 

[AlterEgo]

I was with you up until there. What exactly in Elon Musk's history counts as 'proven credentials' where national/international politics is concerned?

He doesn’t even have that much money any more!

 

[Cloud Strife]

I was with you up until there. What exactly in Elon Musk's history counts as 'proven credentials' where national/international politics is concerned?

Money. I was thinking specifically in business, and more accurately, the fact that both of them have enormous egos who could easily put up the ~$2-3bn needed to win. Neither of them are proven in politics, of course, but Trump proved that you can be an ignorant loudmouth as long as you have the connections.

I cannot stand either of them, but American politics are all about the sizzle rather than the steak. Musk would wreck Biden's chances overnight, while he could also do his 'muh free speech' talk which would go down well in rural America.

 

[AlterEgo]

Money. I was thinking specifically in business, and more accurately, the fact that both of them have enormous egos who could easily put up the ~$2-3bn needed to win. Neither of them are proven in politics, of course, but Trump proved that you can be an ignorant loudmouth as long as you have the connections.

I cannot stand either of them, but American politics are all about the sizzle rather than the steak. Musk would wreck Biden's chances overnight, while he could also do his 'muh free speech' talk which would go down well in rural America.

Musk can’t run for President. He was born in South Africa.

 

[Shrop]

... would the Democrats really oust a proven winner, especially one that won 12m more than the popular Obama?

The question is, how many of those 12m (or indeed the many other multi-millions of votes) were actually pro-Biden, and how many were simply anti-Trump? There is a difference.

 

[JamesT]

Musk can’t run for President. He was born in South Africa.

They just need to pass the 61st amendment, like in Demolition Man. Anyone for President Schwarzenegger?

 

[nlogax]

Donald Trump is predicted to be in the position as an active Defendant in court terms for the rest of his days in view of the number of legal actions he will be facing, almost regardless of how many ever get any further, as there are so many. Whether he ever receives justice by being incarcerated I doubt, though I live in hope.

Indeed, I saw that in a story last in either the Post or the Graun last night. With DeSantis surging in GOP polls I'm unsure whether Trump will actually run again. Having a dozen legal cases and multiple threats of jail time hanging over him won't help his prospects, though he's still the bookies' favourite.

"Trump got more votes in 2020 than any candidate has ever received before, and yet Biden allegedly got more. However, Biden got *a smaller percentage* of votes than Hillary had got 4 years previously in every state and every district, except for the 5 swing states that he needed to win. Somehow Biden's popularity in the 5 swing states was so great that he was able to win more votes nationally than the most popular incumbent of all time despite getting *a smaller percentage* of votes than the previous losing candidate in nearly every part of the country."

Your use of 'allegedly' applies only to Biden. Why is that? If you want to get down and dirty with the analytics and maybe quit edging on conspiracy there is a wide selection of sites you can visit to understand what actually happened both in terms of vote count per state and how those votes panned out over the course of the election. The NY Times is a good example.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-president.html

 

[Basil Jet]

The NY Times is a good example.

LOL.

 

[nlogax]

LOL.

So you don't believe the data. The same data you can find on Fox News, should you prefer.

You're part of the problem.

 

[TwoYellas]

Then they came for Trump, and I did not speak out.

Because no ones out to get you, you egotistical, climate change denying, MAGA hat wearing loon!

 

[najaB]

The NY Times is a good example.

LOL.

A classic example of why it is so difficult to reason with someone who is of a conspiratorial mindset - extreme confirmation bias. Anything that contradicts the conspiracy is automatically written off since the source is clearly "in" on it.