President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
No, I was just mocking your idea that it is voter suppression to require someone to go to precinct to vote because it requires effort. My "idea" of having vote takers go door to door was meant to sound as idiotic as saying requiring people go to polls is voter suppression.
You would 100% support mandatory door-to-door collection of votes if you thought Republicans had any greater chance of winning. That's how people know you're full of dogshit. That and the assertion that going out to the mailbox and strapping up the wheelchair to the car to go to a polling station requires the same effort.
I’ll delete the post but it should be noted that the mass majority of post reports (100%) from the last month are right wingers who are happy to insult people who can’t defend themselves complaining that they are being insulted to their face
I am not particularly sympathetic
I'd like for it to be in record that I reported 0 posts in the last several months (except perhaps 1-2 of that Uber Nazi account that got insta banned? not sure I had the time to report before his ban).
You would 100% support mandatory door-to-door collection of votes if you thought Republicans had any greater chance of winning. That's how people know you're full of dogshit. That and the assertion that going out to the mailbox and strapping up the wheelchair to the car to go to a polling station requires the same effort.
political experts, analysts and so on have been clear recently that "get out the vote" efforts aren't worth it anymore to the Democratic party and increases in turnout, for the first time in many decades, don't necessarily help democrats and might even backfire (at least in presidential election years).
so while it's pretty obvious that 15-20 years ago republicans going for ID laws did that because they thought it was better for their party, it isn't obvious today
a lot of judicial meat today.
SCOTUS emergency docket voted 5-4 (Roberts went with the 3 liberals) to allow Trump to cut federal NIH grants for DEI-tainted initiatives
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna222...
plaintiffs though can sue again in a different court, and the guidance keeps stayed.
ACB was the "nuanced" vote for this complex decision that doesn't clarify anything (for now) lol.
Yes he believed that. You think he's dumb for that.
You believe Elon tampered with the voting machines. I think you're ____ for that.
If trump really believed the election was stolen the yes , he is incredibly stupid and dumb .
But then again he believe in people eating cats and dogs so …
believing easily stupid stuff sounds pretty much being dumb imo .
If trump really believed the election was stolen the yes , he is incredibly stupid and dumb .
But then again he believe in people eating cats and dogs so …
believing easily stupid stuff sounds pretty much being dumb imo .
Elon tampered with machines is the dumbest take in the thread and its not particularly close
Elon tampered with machines is the dumbest take in the thread and its not particularly close
That’s fine and I wasn’t talking about that .
It's a pretty ****ed up country that wants to make access to guns easy and voting hard.
Making voting harder probably does make it harder for dumb folks to vote.
Since much of the Group Mind here seems to think that Republicans are as dumb as rocks, these new voting laws should help the Dems win more elections.
Elon tampered with machines is the dumbest take in the thread and its not particularly close
Claiming trump believes the election was stolen is inconceivably stupid.
Just full blown blatant lack of critical thinking skills on display repeatedly for a long time now
You would have to be an idiot to believe either Trump's fact-free claims about the 2020 election or some random Threads users' fact-free claims about and Elon/Starlink and the 2024 election.
You would have to be an idiot to believe [that Trump believes] Trump's fact-free claims about the 2020 election or some random Threads users' fact-free claims about and Elon/Starlink and the 2024 election.
Slight edit to what is being argued.
He is narcissistic enough that I think it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that he believes what he's saying about the 2020 election
Slight edit to what is being argued.
He is narcissistic enough that I think it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that he believes what he's saying about the 2020 election
It's kind of a mix. I think he knows some of the info etc he tosses around is bs but it's def possible he does believe some version of he was "cheated".
political experts, analysts and so on have been clear recently that "get out the vote" efforts aren't worth it anymore to the Democratic party and increases in turnout, for the first time in many decades, don't necessarily help democrats and might even backfire (at least in presidential election years).so while it's pretty obvious that 15-20 years ago republicans going for ID l
Yeah, cool. Thanks for all the links substantiating your claims. So then why do you think your boy, mickey, wants in-person voting only if he doesn't think mail-in voting hurts his party's chances of winning?
Tell us more....
Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
The FBI conducted a court-authorized search at John Bolton’s home as part of a national security investigation into whether he disclosed classified information in his 2020 book, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Things that make you go hmmm.....
GOP governors are sending troops to DC. Their states have 10 cities with higher crime rates
Yeah, there's a paywall, but the title says it all
Oh, yeah, and this...
Can you say "police state"?
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has signed an order authorizing National Guard troops deployed in Washington, D.C. to carry weapons if their mission requires it, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The new authority is expected to be acted on in coming days, the person said.
Hegseth's decision paves the way for the nearly 2,000 troops now mobilized in Washington, D.C., to expand their operations significantly, including possible security patrols in neighborhoods that struggle with crime.
Yeah, cool. Thanks for all the links substantiating your claims. So then why do you think your boy, mickey, wants in-person voting only if he doesn't think mail-in voting hurts his party's chances of winning?
If Everyone Had Voted, Harris Still Would Have Lost
New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/upsho...
/
As for mickey, my guess is he genuinely can't understand how lack of identification can be a thing for voting. I certainly can't, and it's a fully bipartisan thing in europe, from the left to the right no one is asking to remove ID requirements to vote afaik.
As for mail in i can only answer with a guess, but the insanity of not having the complete, absolutely clear picture of ALL Races 24 hours after the vote is an utter abomination that no one can defend. Third world countries manage to have the count done in 24h.
If you want mail in it has to be in a way that guarantees all votes get counted quickly (like they do in some states to be fair, usually where republicans govern).
Can you say "nazi germany"?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice...
No doubt the military will be right behind them
The head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has threatened to “flood” Boston with immigration agents following Mayor Michelle Wu’s refusal to drop the city’s sanctuary policies.
The hits keep coming...
Mesa Country clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to nine years behind bars for a data-breach scheme spawned from the rampant false claims about voting machine fraud in the 2020 presidential race.
But President Donald Trump is calling her “a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians.”
If Everyone Had Voted, Harris Still Would Have Lost
New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.
Even if this is a correct post-mortem of the 2024 election, it doesn't follow that it is generally true from election to election that Republicans benefit from higher turnout.
Even if this is a correct post-mortem of the 2024 election, it doesn't follow that it is generally true from election to election that Republicans benefit from higher turnout.
Does higher voter turnout even benefit Democrats anymore?
The diploma divide could change the conventional wisdom.
John Sides - October 25, 2023
Image: (cc) Quinn Dombrowski
Acouple weeks ago, I wrote about why Donald Trump should love automatic voter registration. The upshot: Automatic voter registration increases turnout by a few percentage points but does not, as Trump fears, help Democrats win elections. In general, increasing turnout often does not change the balance of Democrats and Republicans in the electorate.
But the conventional wisdom – that higher turnout helps Democrats – persists, in Trump’s mind and elsewhere. Now, a new study suggests that the conventional wisdom needs updating.
The study, just published in American Politics Research and authored by political scientists Spencer Goidel, Thiago Moreira, and Brenna Amstrong, begins with the well-known “diploma divide” in the U.S. electorate, whereby white voters with more formal education have been shifting toward the Democratic party while white voters with less formal education have been shifting toward the GOP.
Of course, people with more formal education are also more likely to turn out and vote. Thus, habitual voters might now be more Democratic-leaning, and people who vote less frequently more Republican-leaning. If higher turnout means that more infrequent voters actually vote, then the authors quite reasonably ask: Could the diploma divide mean that higher turnout actually benefits … Republicans?
Goidel, Moreira, and Armstrong investigate this by examining how higher turnout could have affected Democratic vote share in the 2010 to 2020 elections. Building on a technique employed by political scientists Michael Martinez and Jeff Gill, the authors of the new paper use statistical models to estimate the probability that people vote as well as the probability that, when they vote, they vote Democratic or Republican.
They then simulate higher and lower turnout levels by adding or dropping voters based on their predicted probability of turning out. For example, to “raise” turnout by 5 percentage points, you’d take people who didn’t vote and “add” the ones with the highest chance of voting to the electorate until the turnout rate is 5 points higher. Based on these new voters’ predicted chance of voting Democratic or Republican, you can estimate how much this 5-point increase in turnout helped or hurt either party.
A key finding: Increases in turnout no longer increase Democratic vote share very much. For example, here’s what they write about the estimated impact of increasing turnout by 15 points over the actual level in each of the six elections:
A 15% increase in turnout would have led to a 1.5% increase in Democratic votes in 2010, a 1.0% increase in 2012, a .7% increase in 2014, a .3% increase in 2016, a .2% increase in 2018, and a .4% increase in 2020.
In other words, in 2016 and 2020, when the diploma divide widens, Democrats are no longer helped much by increased turnout.
What about when you drop turnout by 15 points? The estimated effect is a -6.1 point decrease in Democratic vote share in 2010, -1.8 point decrease in 2012, a -2.7 point decrease in 2014, a -2.6 point decrease in 2016, a -0.2 point decrease in 2018, and a -1.1 decrease in 2020. This also suggests a more muted effect in more recent elections.
Goidel, Moreira, and Armstrong go on to show how the “marginal abstainer” – the 15% of nonvoters with the highest predicted probability of voting – has become slightly more likely to be Republican than Democratic:
In 2010, marginal abstainers are substantially more Democratic than voters – 7.2%. The gap in Democratic identification between voters and marginal abstainers shrinks until 2018 when the relationship reverses. In 2018 and 2020, the voters are .5 and .2% more Democratic than the marginal abstainers.
If higher turnout means pulling more of these marginal abstainers into the electorate, then the partisan balance may not shift in Democrats’ favor. Indeed, it could be basically a wash and even slightly beneficial to Republicans
If Everyone Had Voted, Harris Still Would Have Lost
New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.
Wait... you're saying an unpopular vice president, who got crushed in the Democrat primaries as a presidential candidate and wasn't selected by voters to be the presidential candidate in 2024, would still have lost regardless of voter turnout? YouDon'tSay.gif
Now provide evidence that this outlier is the standard moving forward.
/
As for mickey, my guess is he genuinely can't understand how lack of identification can be a thing for voting. I certainly can't, and it's a fully bipartisan thing in europe, from the left to the right no one is asking to remove ID requirements to vote afaik.
What lack of identification? You need to prove you're a US citizen to register to vote. You need to provide that in order to cast a vote.
As for mail in i can only answer with a guess, but the insanity of not having the complete, absolutely clear picture of ALL Races 24 hours after the vote is an utter abomination that no one can defend. Third world countries manage to have the count done in 24h.If you want mail in it has to be in a way that guarantees all votes get counted quickly (like they do in some states to
This has never been a problem before. It has always taken weeks to tally the final results. If a race is tight, then more data needs to be collected before a "clear picture" can be shown. I guess you just want a winner chosen regardless if it's accurate or fraudulent because of muh feels.
You would have to be an idiot to believe either Trump's fact-free claims about the 2020 election or some random Threads users' fact-free claims about and Elon/Starlink and the 2024 election.
I said the jury was out, which isn't a claim that I believe it happened
And the starlink stuff is pure nonsense
I said the jury was out, which isn't a claim that I believe it happened
And the starlink stuff is pure nonsense
I don't know what the allegation is other than Starlink.
In any case, when it comes to affirmatively disproving an improbable conspiracy theory, it is almost inevitable that the jury will be out indefinitely, which is why transferring the burden of proof to the the skeptic is so essential to proponents of such theories.
Slight edit to what is being argued.
He is narcissistic enough that I think it's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that he believes what he's saying about the 2020 election
Trump's narcissism is so comprehensive that it is hard to know what he really believes. Gun to the head, I probably would go with a watered-down version of what you are suggesting -- that is, he doesn't necessarily believe the particulars of what he is saying about the election, but he chooses to believe at the 100,000 ft level that he must have won because he can't handle the cognitive dissonance of accepting defeat.
Either way, we would be talking about a profoundly damaged person who is obviously unfit to be president.
