The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

GTPlanet Exit Poll - Which Presidential Ticket Did You Vote For?

  • Trump/Pence

    Votes: 16 27.1%
  • Biden/Harris

    Votes: 20 33.9%
  • Jorgensen/Cohen

    Votes: 7 11.9%
  • Hawkins/Walker

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • La Riva/Freeman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • De La Fuente/Richardson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Blankenship/Mohr

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Carroll/Patel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Simmons/Roze

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Charles/Wallace

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 25.4%

  • Total voters
    59
  • Poll closed .
Apparently there are 32 states which can require the electors to vote for the state's popular vote winner and the remainder choose not to legislate such a requirement. Perhaps that explains why Nebraska and Maine are rogue actors.

There are 32 states that have chosen to tie their electors to the state's popular vote. The remainder have chosen not to do so. Two have chosen to tie their district-level votes to the popular vote within those districts (what is "rogue" about this?). The recent SCOTUS ruling declined to change or remove the ability for states to continue to choose what they want to do.
 
All the states have the legal authority to require electors to vote for the state's popular winner. 32 states plus DC have chosen to do so. Yet only two have seemingly voted out of step with the practice of a state voting for its popular winner.

The combined scholarship the forum, primarily led by the remarkable Dotini, have seemingly come to an understanding of reality.

It will be interesting to see if these numbers shift a bit for the current election.
 
All the states have the legal authority to require electors to vote for the state's popular winner. 32 states plus DC have chosen to do so. Yet only two have seemingly voted out of step with the practice of a state voting for its popular winner.

The combined scholarship the forum, primarily led by the remarkable Dotini, have seemingly come to an understanding of reality.

It will be interesting to see if these numbers shift a bit for the current election.

Ya, it's called states' rights.
 
“The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for president,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote..

If it's in the Constitution and it's also in the interest of the states, then how much closer to Paradise can you get?!
 
If it's in the Constitution and it's also in the interest of the states, then how much closer to Paradise can you get?!

Yes, it's called states' rights. The Constitution allows for states to determine how they cast electoral votes, the Supreme Court upheld that by saying states can determine how they cast their electoral votes. I'm not sure what the disconnect is here.
 
If it's in the Constitution and it's also in the interest of the states, then how much closer to Paradise can you get?!

"It" being the general ability of each state to determine it's own process rather than the notion of enforcing any particular process, yes?
 
There are 32 states that have chosen to tie their electors to the state's popular vote.
They all choose to vote for the popular vote. What you are missing is that the 32 states have punishments in place if they have unfaithful electors. A state within those 32 could have an elector vote opposite of the popular vote, and it be pushed through, and then the elector removed and replaced for the future.

I’m not sure I understand what the current debate is though...
 
They all choose to vote for the popular vote.

I'm not sure how to parse this.

What you are missing is that the 32 states have punishments in place if they have unfaithful electors.

I haven't missed that at all.

A state within those 32 could have an elector vote opposite of the popular vote, and it be pushed through, and then the elector removed and replaced for the future.

I understand that. This ruling upheld the already existing ability for any state to "punish" a faithless elector if they so choose.

I’m not sure I understand what the current debate is though...

Dotini was of the mistaken view that the recent ruling would now require that all states tie their Electoral votes to their state's popular vote. This isn't true.

He has now seemingly shifted to grokking that, while still holding to the belief that the 32 states have it right, and that this ruling somehow affirms it? I dunno.

What I do know is that this ruling was just about as neutral as could be. It was basically SCOTUS saying "we don't have any standing to interfere in any state handling its electoral votes as they see fit, nor do we have any interest in doing so; now please go away."
 
Laura Loomer has won the Republican primary for a district that includes Mar-a-Lago in Florida. For those that don't know who she is (I'm very jealous) here is what she's about:

For example, Loomer has described herself as a “proud Islamophobe” and said that “someone needs to create a non-Islamic version of Uber or Lyft because I never want to support another Islamic immigrant driver.” Worse, she has argued that “Muslims should not even be allowed to seek positions of political office in this country.”

This is what the Republican party has become. She has direct endorsements from various members of congress and the president himself. As such, it's reasonable to assume that they do not or at least do not strongly disagree with her views. Further, as the President is effectively the party figurehead, I'd argue their consent is tacit to party endorsement to those views. For our conservative members here, a question for you: Is blatant Islamophobia a reasonable attribute for a representative in congress? Is it reasonable to hate a person to the level of real, institutional discrimination purely because of their religion? Does religious freedom apply broadly, or just to Christianity?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...mary-election-florida-trump-gop-a9678556.html
 
So all cops are bad is justified as well then? All NFL players are wife beaters, and all school teachers are child molesters?

You missed my point. The President of the United States, the undisputed leader of the Republican party, has endorsed & even celebrated this particular person. If the commissioner of the NFL endorsed players who beat their wives, it would be different. If the union of school teachers or chair of the school district in question endorsed child molesting teachers, it would be different. I also did not say all Republicans endorse these positions - clearly the writer of the article doesn't - I said that their leader has and therefore the party as an institutional entity has.

The broader point is that, as the writer notes, the Republican party has a serious problem at its fringes that it is turning a blind eye towards. No way in hell would an outspoken Islamaphobe been supported by national level Republicans in the pre-Trump era. Can you imagine the Bushes or Romney or McCain supporting this woman?
 
Romney/McCain, no. GWB, absolutely.

George W Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington DC, September 17, 2001

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.
 
Laura Loomer has won the Republican primary for a district that includes Mar-a-Lago in Florida. For those that don't know who she is (I'm very jealous) here is what she's about:



This is what the Republican party has become. She has direct endorsements from various members of congress and the president himself. As such, it's reasonable to assume that they do not or at least do not strongly disagree with her views. Further, as the President is effectively the party figurehead, I'd argue their consent is tacit to party endorsement to those views. For our conservative members here, a question for you: Is blatant Islamophobia a reasonable attribute for a representative in congress? Is it reasonable to hate a person to the level of real, institutional discrimination purely because of their religion? Does religious freedom apply broadly, or just to Christianity?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...mary-election-florida-trump-gop-a9678556.html
She sounds like a parody of Ann Coulter, only real and with a Government seat.

Is Florida a really that stupid, to elect a Lunatic like that?

Scrub that, it's Florida of course they are that stupid.
 
I know we have already highlighted that Union soldiers actually voted and voted by post during the 1864 election but this particular factoid specifically about an army's postal services during a war is another clear demonstration that postal voting is not difficult; posting letters is functionally the same as posting ballots.

 
Although the word "factoid" now also means a small piece of trivia, it originally meant a piece of information presented as if true and, through frequent repetition, taken to be true, despite not being true.

Which, as a vague irony, is what QI was originally all about.
 
Although the word "factoid" now also means a small piece of trivia, it originally meant a piece of information presented as if true and, through frequent repetition, taken to be true, despite not being true.

Which, as a vague irony, is what QI was originally all about.

QI also does have a reputation for the exaggeration it purports to disprove and a reputation for tweetbait hyperbole but it's still okay. Just.

Perhaps factette is a better diminutive. :D
 
Last edited:
It occurred to me yesterday that if Trump cannot sabotage the postal service by decree, eventually his base will attempt to sabotage the postal service by spamming it with bogus mail. Like a DDoS attack but with physical objects.
 
It occurred to me yesterday that if Trump cannot sabotage the postal service by decree, eventually his base will attempt to sabotage the postal service by spamming it with bogus mail. Like a DDoS attack but with physical objects.

Let's show how useless the post office is by spending millions of dollars on postage! Ya that sounds like something they'd do.
 
Apparently Trump was really upset with Obama last night, tweeting in all caps.


BTW, reading through his Twitter feed is something I can't decide between sad or disturbing. It reads like the parody of propaganda those Tropico games poke fun at, except it's real.
 
It occurred to me yesterday that if Trump cannot sabotage the postal service by decree, eventually his base will attempt to sabotage the postal service by spamming it with bogus mail. Like a DDoS attack but with physical objects.

I've heard rumours of post boxes being physically tampered with a big red clamp or vise to stop them opening and preventing people from using them.

I really, really would like to think that it is untrue. Not only are politicians trying to sabotage an election, the people themselves are taking away their own right to a free and fair election.
 
Apparently Trump was really upset with Obama last night, tweeting in all caps.


BTW, reading through his Twitter feed is something I can't decide between sad or disturbing. It reads like the parody of propaganda those Tropico games poke fun at, except it's real.

I read earlier today that if you re-read his Tweets and imagine that they all start with "Mummy,", they make considerably more sense.
 
I read earlier today that if you re-read his Tweets and imagine that they all start with "Mummy,", they make considerably more sense.

It took me a second to translate that to American. At first I was thinking this one:

1506360182Cute-halloween-mummy-clip-art-free-clipart-images-image.png
 
Back