What made Trump lose the election?

[OddBeMe]

The split screen

The “immigrant eating” pets

His corruption

Other or all

[Anonymous]

The constant lying, all the laws he's broken. People see that he only cares about himself after he stopped the bipartisan border deal because it doesn't benefit him. Mainly his only chance was running against an 80 year old senile man. Anyone else was going to beat him. There are so many more answers lol.

[OlderAndWiser]

Since the election is two months in the future, I can conjecture that it might be an assassin, inspired by the hate openly espoused by the far leftists.

[msc545]

Assassins are inspired by their target's behavior.

[OlderAndWiser]

@msc545 So if someone assassinates Trump, that's his fault? And if someone assassinates Harris, that's her fault?

[msc545]

No, it is the assassin's fault of course.

[OlderAndWiser]

@msc545 And if someone encourages the assassin?

[msc545]

Encourages them in what way or fashion?

[OlderAndWiser]

@msc545 Like fomenting hatred for Trump, claiming that he is worse than Hitler, an enemy to Democracy, etc.

[msc545]

Well those things are not exactly lies. The similarities are a matter of opinion and as far as I know, people are still allowed to express their opinions. If between those things and his own intrinsic behavior, Trump makes people angry enough to try to kill him. I think that is the price of admission here at least in this election. I recognize that you're trying to blame Democrats for the assassination attempts. In this case, the blame would be misplaced. There are always going to be some people that kind of lose it and start plotting it to assassinate public figures. Luckily for us and the intended targets, the secret service is very efficient. You cannot suppress speech because you feel like it might somehow encourage people to act out violently. Unless of course it means inciting a riot. But of course, in this day and age nobody would really incite a riot right?

[msc545]

Let's not forget that Trump called the press an enemy of the people. Is that also fomenting violence?

[OlderAndWiser]

@msc545 The left has forgotten an important lesson about being a responsible member of a society: having a right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

And, yes, there is hate on both sides of the aisle. A civilized and intelligent member of our democracy, regardless of their political beliefs, should be interested in decreasing the level of hatred being expressed on a daily basis.

Aren't you capable of rising above pure partisanship?

[msc545]

This is politics which is, in the metaphorical sense, a blood sport. I hope you understand that. If Trump's feelings are hurt he might want to consider all the people HE has hurt with his bombastic lying rhetoric. You may want to consider that the constant lying and threats from the right are far from your stated ideal of "the right thing to do".

I don't hate Trump as I have told you repeatedly. I intensely dislike his behavior. Most of all, I recognize him as a psychiatrically very ill man who should have received treatment many years ago and still should - it is never too late.

[OlderAndWiser]

@msc545 And why has the clinician in you refused to acknowledge the dementia in Joe Biden. Slipping into clinical mode does not remove the partisanship from all that you do.

[msc545]

Why are you suddenly talking about Biden?

[msc545]

This condition whatever it is has nothing to do with the upcoming election really nor does it have anything to do with what we were talking about until just a moment ago.

[OddBeMe]

Cough…
https://youtu.be/FBdMPq1QqAU

[OlderAndWiser]

I am suggesting that your “clinical” interest is not clinical but, rather, another partisan charade.

[msc545]

Suggest all you want. Suggestions are not the same as facts as you well know. You may want to try applying Occam's razor to this problem.

[OlderAndWiser]

“Suggestions are not the same as facts as you well know.” You would do well to remember your own advice.

[msc545]

I think I need you to supply some context for this one. I have no idea what specific thing you were referencing with that general remark.

[goaded]

Weird.

[goaded]

[HopeTrust19]

Reminds me of the whole Ivermectin story, or Chinese Lab story.
Hmm...

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 Chinese lab story could be true. There’s just no evidence yet. Mostly because China is covering it up. But not the point.

[HopeTrust19]

@OddBeMe I was being sarcastic.
The issue is media misinformation, usually based upon preferential treatment towards a certain candidate or political ideology.
Much of what was viewed as "conspiracy theory" during the Trump administration (and sometimes stated by Trump himself), ended up being true, or at the very least against the common perspective pushed by mainstream media.
There is a reason why people don't trust the media anymore.

Even with Ivermectin, it was recognized early on how the media showed preferential treatment towards certain ideologies, or attacked various outlets they viewed as competitors.

It has nothing to do with truth anymore. If it ever did.
Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is actually correct, since many reports are leaning the direction that he is ultimately right, even not flourishing it a bit.
Yet, the real scary situation is how the media, and democratic leadership have no interest in discussing the real serious issues of this migrant problem..

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 How much of what Trump says is a lie versus Kamala lying?

[HopeTrust19]

Well, this depends on what we mean by lies?
For example, if we take the ABC debate, there was an attempt to protect Kamala, while pointing out any possible discrepancy (or something that can be misconstrued as one) with Trump.

For example, her claims on project 2025, her positions on fracking, crime data, Charlottesville, deaths during J6, late term abortions laws. etc etc These were never fact checked

There is a reason why it was viewed as 3v1 debate lol.
Fact checking is not apolitical.

[HopeTrust19]

@OddBeMe I will emphasize, I am not a Trump supporter, or view him as "honest"
I don't personally believe "honesty" is the policy of either side
It just happens that certain media outlets have a preference, with what they report, and how they report.

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 actually it is. 1) P 2025 has all Trump people working on it. That’s his fingerprints. 2) fracking, abortion, j6…nothing she said was wrong or misleading.

There are no “late term abortions”…in 2022 the latest abortion was 30 weeks. The best they can do is induce labor and the baby lives or dies on its own.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Late_termination_of_pregnancy

[HopeTrust19]

Actually incorrect on all counts.
1. It is true to say that P2025 is under the assumption that Trump wins, but the organization and plan itself is not administered by the Trump campaign. If we used the same logic, then we would assume anyone connected to the Biden/Harris/Obama camp, that supported a certain plan, is thereby supported and pushed by those admins/camps themselves.
2. Her fracking positions have changed historically, and she denied it
3. She claimed police deaths during J6, there were none.
4. Late term abortions are legal in 8 states, including Colorado, where there are no term limits.

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 1) not supported…if Harris’ whole team was found working for a SuperPac, I’d say that SuperPac is the campaign.

2) I just rewatched it. She said in the debate she won’t ban fracking. Sake as 2019, right?

3. During Jan 6? Or after? (Shrug) she doesn’t actually specify…grammatically speaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VFuLJPKg0s

4. False. But again you missed the point.

“ 24 weeks or later: Four states ban abortions starting at 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Viability: More than a dozen states ban abortions after the fetus is considered viable. Some laws that don't specify a limit say it's up to the abortion provider's "judgment" to determine whether a fetus is viable.
Third trimester: Virginia is the only state that prohibits abortions starting in the pregnancy's third trimester, which starts at around 25 weeks, per Guttmacher.”

[HopeTrust19]

Well lets think logically
1. This is how you don't exactly apply the same logic, and this is what I mean. This is a common political tactic.
2. She was asked if she changed her perspective on fracking, and she denies ever changing it. Yet, she had consistently changed her perspective on it?
3. Once again, you are attempting reinterpret things, just like her claim of Trump saying there would be a Bloodbath if things were not to his liking. I think this would be a clear example of trying to redefine what someone means.
4. Colorado literally has no limits on abortion, and there is an movement to ban it
Abortion After 27 Weeks Colorado
Facts About Induction Procedure (25 Weeks And Up):
This is normally a 3 day procedure depending on your medical history. First, an ultrasound will be done. This is done by passing a microphone-like instrument over your abdomen (belly) which measures the size of your pregnancy. The final decision as to whether the induction can be done will depend on your medical history, physical exam, lab tests, and the doctor’s evaluation. On the first day the cervix is slowly opened with plastic or metal rods, each one slightly bigger than the last. When the cervix is as open as possible, small sponges (laminaria) that take up water from your body will be placed; they swell and continue to open the cervix overnight. The next morning the laminaria are removed and new laminaria are placed. This is repeated as needed until the cervix is adequately open. The induction abortion ends with the start of labor and delivery of a stillborn.

This is what I mean
Misinformation is severe in the United States today, and everything is politically charged. No one cares about facts.

[HopeTrust19]

She does say ON THAT DAY
and that he incited the violence
Just like she claimed he stated Nazis were very fine people during Charlottesville
^ which has been debunked for years, but is still a common media claim

This is what I mean.
This is where the bias exists.

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 I’m responding to what you’re calling lies. Everything I previously texted is true. It may be Kamala changed a bit. Not from what I saw.

Everything is logic. Did cops die on J6? No. They died the next day. Because of J6? Yes.

[HopeTrust19]

They died days later from suicide.
Then clearly politicized to label J6 in the most negative light, while we won't do the same thing for BLM riots?
If a police officer commits suicide, after dealing with BLM riots, should we then label that is a BLM murder?
This is what I mean...

[OddBeMe]

Grammatically speaking…”she said cops were beaten on that day…and they died.”

[OddBeMe]

And this actually THE problem. YOU are upset that Kamala didn’t specify which day Capitol cops died. I’m upset YOU don’t care that Capitol cops died.

47% of America will be voting for a cop killer.

[OddBeMe]

We do. No one is saying blm riots were ok.

And ‘very fine people on both sides’…what side was the other side? “Jews will not replace us!”

[HopeTrust19]

That is a emotionally charged claim, not a logically or factually based one.

[HopeTrust19]

That is probably why you should see the entire speech, instead of the BS the MSM pushes.
This is why the country is becoming politically charged and divided to ridiculous degrees.
That is the same thing as saying "Well Kamala Supports Ukraine, and so she probably supports that one Nazi brigade, and thus supports Nazism"
Most of the protestors were fine people, but each side had their baddies... That is the sad reality.

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 true that’s my feelings about your opinions. I wished you cared more that Capitol cops died because of Jan 6.

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 true. But who was on the other side of Charlottesville that you’re ok with? Seriously asking.

[HopeTrust19]

@OddBeMe Would that not be the same argument that Republicans use
"Well, its a shame you support BLM, but not the police who have lost their jobs, and their livelihood, and sometimes their lives due to the BLM"
That is emotionally charged, and ignores the entire point of why someone (I assume most) would support the BLM, or other such movements.
This is merely your attempt to turn this argument in another direction, and make assumptions about my own views, which instead of being logical are more emotionally charged.

I have made no claims about this topic in regards to my view of capital police
The topic was misinformation in regards to Kamala and her statements.

[HopeTrust19]

@OddBeMe I dont have a perspective on who was the "right" side.
I am merely commenting on how Trump was misquoted.
My conversation here is about misinformation, not my own political allegiances.

[OddBeMe]

@HopeTrust19 no that’s a right wing false equivalency. I can support blm and the cops. Especially since most who were arrested looting or beating cops weren’t actually at the blm protests.

But Trump is having awards galas for Jan 6ers who beat many cops that day. Little different right?

And you can’t even say who Trump was talking about “on the other side”. Irony much?

[HopeTrust19]

@OddBeMe Just how we can say BLM protests are mostly peaceful, and Antifa doesn't exist. The way we frame it depends upon our political perspective
and no I am not answering because I have no interest in giving my political opinions either way.
This topic has nothing to do with my political perspectives, but instead that of misinformation.
I never claimed to be supportive of either side, and have no interest in stating who I would vote for, or support, or follow.. etc.
That isn't my objective here.

[goaded]

"Just like she claimed he stated Nazis were very fine people during Charlottesville"
That's not what she said:

"Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side."

What part of that isn't true? (Not that I disagree with your interpretation, because people who stand shoulder to shoulder with white supremacists, especially after their actions the night before, are equally reprehensible.)

"Let's remember that when it came to the Proud Boys, a militia, the president said, the former president said, "Stand back and stand by.""

Why aren't you talking about this, especially as since Trump commanded that, the leaders have been convicted and sentenced for decades for fighting for Trump on Jan 6?

[goaded]

@HopeTrust19 "how we can say BLM protests are mostly peaceful" Because only 1.6% of BLM protests involved anyone getting injured or killed.

Nobody says AntiFa don't exist, we say they're irrelevant when there aren't people being openly fascist.

[OddBeMe]

@hopetrust19 It’s not our problem your candidate is cool with white supremacists. And there’s been countless articles about the protests being overwhelmed by looters. Perhaps because criminals don’t bother protesting, right?

www.usatoday.com/.../

[andreasderjuengere]

Unfortunately, this is not yet the last word.

Although personally, I wish all the worst for that slime bag.

[Drewtate]

If he'd lost they wouldn't be trying to kill hom again

[Anonymous]

Voter fraud if you want to be frank about it. Trump has to win substantially larger majority than democrats can creditably add votes.

[msc545]

Instead of saying it over and over again, how about providing some proof?

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 We would if you would look at it or even establish verifiable election systems

[msc545]

There have been numerous investigations of alleged voting fraud and many recounts and lawsuits as I am sure you are aware. The number of "bad" votes has always been minimal, and not statistically significant, and nowhere near the number needed to affect election outcomes - yet you people keep up with the accusations and allegations.

You need to accept that your policies are not all that popular, and your candidates often espouse positions that most people don't like or agree with - despite your fervent belief in all these things.

Your problem is NOT fraud - it is unpopularity, and that exists for a reason.

Nobody is going to take the time or money to satisfy your unfounded and unprovable suspicions.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 The few such investigations that took place only ever concluded they didn't find evidence of fraud except in such cases. Not much of a shocker given the voting system by design never created, collected, or retained such evidence to be found.

If you want to have a fancy vote by mail or without ID system you need to be able to verify the person casting the vote is the person entitled to it. There is no way to do that via the black box upon which your system depends and in which anything could have happened with no evidence either way.

[msc545]

Too bad. We have been voting this way for hundreds of years, and your suspicions won't change it. The excuse that "there is no fraud because the system won't provide the evidence" doesn't work. Nobody is going to change the system to provide what you say you want. What you REALLY want is fewer votes by non-whites, which is understandable given that you people treat non-white people like shit.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 You have not been voting this way for hundreds of years because the technology to do so simply didn't exist.

[msc545]

We have voted for many years in different ways without significant fraud. Just because your candidate thinks he lost due to fraud does not somehow prove the existence of fraud. I reiterate - nobody is going to spend time and money to satisfy the narcissistic persecution fantasies of a very ill old man. I frankly do not care what Trump thinks about election fraud - it is really all about racism.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Its not what Trump thinks that matters but what half the population thinks about the reliability of the "election system" you have put into place in the last few decades.

In many states the system is soo unverifiable and poorly designed that you would never know if there was or was not fraud. Therefore we have no way of knowing that the election results reflect the will of the people. It is as such fair game for half the population to doubt that fact, and that is a doubt that didn't start in 2020 but for decades previous with ever weaker and less verifiable election rules being imposed by those who "Win" them.

Ultimately we are just going to assume we live in a dictatorship in our regard for the legitimacy of the goverment.

[msc545]

Half the population doesn't think that but even if they do it doesn't matter. We don't run things based on ignorant beliefs that are unprovable.

[msc545]

Nothing that you can say or do is going to change this situation. If Trump gets in office which I think he will not, get him to make it illegal for anyone who isn't white to vote which is what you people really want.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545
1: Trump is running for president not state legislator so he can't change voting laws.
2: In the State's in question the voting system itself is unverifiable, as such cannot be so proven to be democratic or otherwise.
3: If you want the population to give the goverment the presumption of a democratic mandate you need to make that mandate clear and obvious to everyone not just the people who "win".

[msc545]

3 is not going to happen.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 In that case you should embrace the Electoral cottage allowing different states to follow different systems without interfering with eachother, as well as instability as there really isn't a well established theory of legitimacy we agree on anymore if not the people.

[msc545]

I think we are going to get rid of the electoral college very soon. It has led to some very perverse outcomes.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545
The trouble with an interstate compact theory is any state can abandon it at any time, and it is not in the interest of most of them.

The trouble with a popular vote as indicate is it gives every state to employ dubious means jack up their "voter" turnout.

This would make such an election less and less creditable among other states giving them less and less reason to support the same.

[msc545]

If any state is going to employ dubious means, by recent history, that would be a Red State. Your guys who are presently trying to suppress voting. Not sure why you are worried about "dubious means" right now.

In a longer view, if you think Any states (s) will employ "dubious means" we might as well not have elections. So far there has been NO evidence of vote tampering or election rigging of any consequence.

Ever wonder why my side never brings this stuff up and its only you people yelling about it?

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Your does bring up voter fraud too when you lose, and to be frank given how weak and unverifiable many state's voter laws are it can't be proven one way or the other.

We have no idea what happened in the black box thou which theses new systems of 'voting' are conducted because there is no record being retained.

The right however has been consistently concerned about it for decades going back 60+ years now.

[msc545]

Link to an instance when Democrats brought up voter fraud. Maybe I missed it.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 nypost.com/.../

[msc545]

So maybe Biden did that. Virtually ALL Trumpers do it.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Hilary Clinton did too, as have many other democrats. While Republicans are more consistent and loud about voter fraud for 60 years now doesn't mean they are the only ones.

The voting system in many states opens itself up to fraud.

[OddBeMe]

I would ask, what would convince you there is no fraud? We’ve already handed right wing investigators the keys to the 2020 election and they only found other right wingers committing rescue after the fact to prove there was fraud. #strangerthanfiction

[msc545]

Offer proof if you can. Allegations are cheap.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 You don't seem to be following the conversation, in which i am saying the voting system designed in many states is soo fundamentally flawed as to not even collect the needed information to know it was legitimate.

[msc545]

Yes. These systems are not designed to identify or collect fraud. There is no fraud, and designing a system to collect something that doesn't exist is a complete waste of time.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 We agree the systems were designed to facilitate fraud, but your very clearly not tracking fraud if you send ballots thou the mail, don't require voter ID, or accept ballots from anyone who hasn't been IDed as the voter to which it belongs.

[msc545]

They were not designed to facilitate fraud, they were designed to ignore it because the very little that might exist is not enough to worry about.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Fine, If that is how you want to spin their unverifiable design on your own arrogant presumption.

I don't think the politicians that made the rules were consistently interested in their own reelection and that of their friends being subject to the whim of the people.

So if you don't have a simple transparent system, sooner or later one of them is going to cheat.

[msc545]

Cheating ti the extent that it affects results is not as easy or straightforward as you seem to think, which is probably why it is very rarely attempted.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 If you make the system to enable it and control the people who run it, its not as hard as you would think it would be.
They have created convenient opperunties.

[msc545]

Really? when and where?

[msc545]

His corruption to some extent is going to be the cause, but I think more likely it will be his multiple crimes and his multiple legal convictions and his lack of any charm whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

by an assassination attempt just like the one that happened today

[Walksbehindtherows]

He will win