2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[San Lumen]

McConnell treats politics as a game to gain and maintain power, if he thought it was possible for Trump to fake it through the election he absolutely would support it. Right now he doesn't see it as viable but he could be convinced.

The list of reasons to not trust these people is ridiculously long, but any day now they're going to force through a Supreme Court nomination after just a few years ago saying that no such thing should happen in an election year. Their word means nothing to them, this should be obvious.

McConnell told the incumbent governor of his state last year to prove his allegations of massive fraud or step aside.

[Thermodolia]

If Trump pushes the "I'm not leaving" card too hard, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a military coup.

If Trump loses the election and tries that, then it wouldn't be much a coup, would it? By all means Biden would be the legitimate President of the United States, if he doesn't stand down by inauguration then his hypothetical arrest and removal wouldn't be a coup, it would be a prevention of one. If Trump wins then that's just what happened in 2016, he tries to delegitimize the results in front of an election he's expected to lose but rolls with it after.

The USAF won't act sooner than the election, if you mean to imply they go after him before then.

It still would be a coup. A coup can happen to prevent another coup.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Breitbart and other reliable right wing sources to US Republicans,

No, let me stop you right there.

As you say, No, let me stop you right there.

Like it or not and I know all of you don't like it.

Breitbart, Redstate.org, Fox News used to be fair and balanced on their sig, lol, One America News Network, Town Hall and the Epoch Times, right wing sources are reliable news sources to us Republicans.

Just like MSNBC and the Progressive and other sources are reliable new sources to you guys or many of you guys.

A certain Leftist Person on NS had the nerve to chose for me, which news sites, I should post, quote, link and comment from, decided by the leftist person who strongly disagrees with me and us Republicans, and are allowed on NS.

Many on your side call our right wing sources garbage, trash and a rag, I at least don't do so on your leftists and anti Trump, anti Republican sources.

They get to decide for us what news sources are reliable, but we cant decide for ourselves, how convenient.

How fair and democratic.

How fair and Balanced.

This is a classic.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again, but of course, it is just a figure of speech.

I don't care that I have been forced to repeat myself like the broken record I am on auto response, when the posts and post responses fit the posts.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

"Reliable to x" is the problem here. Reality doesn't change depending on your political persuasion.

[Thermodolia]

No, let me stop you right there.

As you say, No, let me stop you right there.

Like it or not and I know all of you don't like it.

Breitbart, Redstate.org, Fox News used to be fair and balanced on their sig, lol, One America News Network, Town Hall and the Epoch Times, right wing sources are reliable news sources to us Republicans.

Just like MSNBC and the Progressive and other sources are reliable new sources to you guys or many of you guys.

A certain Leftist Person on NS had the nerve to chose for me, which news sites, I should post, quote, link and comment from, decided by the leftist person who strongly disagrees with me and us Republicans.

Many on your side call our right wing sources garbage, trash and a rag, I at least don't do so on your leftists and anti Trump, anti Republican sources.

They get to decide for us what news sources are reliable, but we cant decide for ourselves, how convenient.

How fair and democratic.

How fair and Balanced.

This is a classic.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again, but of course, it is just a figure of speech.

News shouldn’t be partisan. It’s not democracy to say that you can’t use what amounts to a party propaganda outlet as a source. MSNBC is just as bad as Fox News

[San Lumen]

No, let me stop you right there.

As you say, No, let me stop you right there.

Like it or not and I know all of you don't like it.

Breitbart, Redstate.org, Fox News used to be fair and balanced on their sig, lol, One America News Network, Town Hall and the Epoch Times, right wing sources are reliable news sources to us Republicans.

Just like MSNBC and the Progressive and other sources are reliable new sources to you guys or many of you guys.

A certain Leftist Person on NS had the nerve to chose for me, which news sites, I should post, quote, link and comment from, decided by the leftist person who strongly disagrees with me and us Republicans, and are allowed on NS.

Many on your side call our right wing sources garbage, trash and a rag, I at least don't do so on your leftists and anti Trump, anti Republican sources.

They get to decide for us what news sources are reliable, but we cant decide for ourselves, how convenient.

How fair and democratic.

How fair and Balanced.

This is a classic.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again, but of course, it is just a figure of speech.

I don't care that I have been forced to repeat myself like the broken record I am on auto response, when the posts and post responses fit the posts.

Breitbart, Redstate.org, OANN are not news sources. You don't know the definition of reliable source. You should care that your a broken record. It shows you have no real argument or anything of substance to share. If Trump said the Earth was flat and dinosaurs were a hoax you'd find a way to defend it.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

"Reliable to x" is the problem here. Reality doesn't change depending on your political persuasion.

It's called conservative postmodernism.

[San Lumen]

https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and ... 38fb6.html

New YouGov polls have Biden leading by 4 in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and by 6 in Michigan

New poll finds very close results in three red states https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/p ... -iowa.html

Georgia: 45-45
Iowa: Biden 45, Trump 42
Texas: Trump 46, Biden 43

https://filesforprogress.org/memos/2020 ... plines.pdf

Also new Kansas poll has the senate election tied and Biden only down 4.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

As you say, No, let me stop you right there.

Like it or not and I know all of you don't like it.

Breitbart, Redstate.org, Fox News used to be fair and balanced on their sig, lol, One America News Network, Town Hall and the Epoch Times, right wing sources are reliable news sources to us Republicans.

Just like MSNBC and the Progressive and other sources are reliable new sources to you guys or many of you guys.

A certain Leftist Person on NS had the nerve to chose for me, which news sites, I should post, quote, link and comment from, decided by the leftist person who strongly disagrees with me and us Republicans.

Many on your side call our right wing sources garbage, trash and a rag, I at least don't do so on your leftists and anti Trump, anti Republican sources.

They get to decide for us what news sources are reliable, but we cant decide for ourselves, how convenient.

How fair and democratic.

How fair and Balanced.

This is a classic.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again, but of course, it is just a figure of speech.

News shouldn’t be partisan. It’s not democracy to say that you can’t use what amounts to a party propaganda outlet as a source. MSNBC is just as bad as Fox News

I'd say that news (certainly opinions about news) can be partisan, but the unreliable-reliable axis needs to be separated from the conservative-liberal axis. A source is either factually sound or it isn't. Granted, sources that are biased tend to be more unreliable, in my experience.

[Greater Miami Shores]

"Reliable to x" is the problem here. Reality doesn't change depending on your political persuasion.

Here we go again, according to whom, decided by whom, those who strongly disagree with us on all sides of political ideologies, which are facts and which are opinions, those who strongly disagree with you - Eukaryotic Cells?

How would you all like it, If I or anyone call your sources opinions and our sources facts, decided by those that strongly disagree with you, this goes for all of you?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

How would you all like it, if I or anyone like it call your sources, garbage, a trash and a rag?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

There is no problem, accept the substance all sources right wing, left wing, and other wings have, past their spins, while strongly disagreeing with them on the issues, like I do.

I don't call any sources I strongly disagree with, garbage, trash and a rag, I just strongly disagree with their views and their spins and I leave it there.

You guys should do like I do.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again.

I don't care that I say it again, because it fits the post.

[San Lumen]

"Reliable to x" is the problem here. Reality doesn't change depending on your political persuasion.

Here we go again, according to whom, decided by whom, those who strongly disagree with us on all sides of political ideologies, which are facts and which are opinions, those who strongly disagree with you - Eukaryotic Cells?

How would you all like it, If I or anyone call your sources opinions and our sources facts, decide by those that strongly disagree with you, this goes for all of you?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

How would you all like it, if I or anyone like it call your sources, garbage, a trash and a rag?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

There is no problem, accept the substance all sources right wing, left wing, and other wings have, past their spins, while strongly disagreeing with them on the issues, like I do.

I don't call any sources I strongly disagree with, garbage, trash and a rag, I just strongly disagree with their views and their spins and I leave it there.

You guys should do like I do.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again.

I don't care that I say it again, because it fits the post.

You don;t make points. You have canned answers and copy and paste. Also stop using nation names. If you quote someone its unnecessary to do so.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Here we go again, according to whom, decided by whom, those who strongly disagree with us on all sides of political ideologies, which are facts and which are opinions, those who strongly disagree with you - Eukaryotic Cells?

How would you all like it, If I or anyone call your sources opinions and our sources facts, decide by those that strongly disagree with you, this goes for all of you?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

How would you all like it, if I or anyone like it call your sources, garbage, a trash and a rag?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

There is no problem, accept the substance all sources right wing, left wing, and other wings have, past their spins, while strongly disagreeing with them on the issues, like I do.

I don't call any sources I strongly disagree with, garbage, trash and a rag, I just strongly disagree with their views and their spins and I leave it there.

You guys should do like I do.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again.

I don't care that I say it again, because it fits the post.

You don;t make points. You have canned answers and copy and paste.

You are wrong again, I don't copy paste it, I type it and post it. I am not lying.

I have made many good points today on my posts, you don't like, and your friends that agree with your political views and opinions don't like.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

"Reliable to x" is the problem here. Reality doesn't change depending on your political persuasion.

Here we go again, according to whom, decided by whom, those who strongly disagree with us on all sides of political ideologies, which are facts and which are opinions, those who strongly disagree with you - Eukaryotic Cells?

How would you like it if I or anyone said your sources are opinions and our sources are facts, decided by those that strongly disagree with you, this goes for all of you?

I am sure you all of you would not like it and strongly disagree with them?

How would you all like it, If I or anyone call your sources opinions and our sources facts, decide by those that strongly disagree with you, this goes for all of you?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

How would you all like it, if I or anyone like it call your sources, garbage, a trash and a rag?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

There is no problem, accept the substance all sources right wing, left wing, and other wings have, past their spins, while strongly disagreeing with them on the issues, like I do.

I don't call any sources I strongly disagree with, garbage, trash and a rag, I just strongly disagree with their views and their spins and I leave it there.

You guys should do like I do.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again.

I don't care that I say it again, because it fits the post.

I don't think that you should insist that a source is reliable, solely because it happens to agree with your political perspective.

I would consider the Wall Street Journal to be a reputable news source, even though their opinion column has a strongly conservative slant. Fox News has an excellent polling operation. I would consider them to be reliable in that sense, even though the network as a whole has a pretty strong conservative slant.

Centrism can be its own slant. What matters is how reliable they are in reporting facts. If they're consistently hiding or manipulating facts, I don't care what their partisan slant is, they suck.

[San Lumen]

Here we go again, according to whom, decided by whom, those who strongly disagree with us on all sides of political ideologies, which are facts and which are opinions, those who strongly disagree with you - Eukaryotic Cells?

How would you like it if I or anyone said your sources are opinions and our sources are facts, decided by those that strongly disagree with you, this goes for all of you?

I am sure you all of you would not like it and strongly disagree with them?

How would you all like it, If I or anyone call your sources opinions and our sources facts, decide by those that strongly disagree with you, this goes for all of you?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

How would you all like it, if I or anyone like it call your sources, garbage, a trash and a rag?

I am sure all of you would strongly disagree with them?

There is no problem, accept the substance all sources right wing, left wing, and other wings have, past their spins, while strongly disagreeing with them on the issues, like I do.

I don't call any sources I strongly disagree with, garbage, trash and a rag, I just strongly disagree with their views and their spins and I leave it there.

You guys should do like I do.

Have I made any sense to any of you on any of my posts and points?

I rest my case again.

I don't care that I say it again, because it fits the post.

I don't think that you should insist that a source is reliable, solely because it happens to agree with your political perspective.

I would consider the Wall Street Journal to be a reputable news source, even though their opinion column has a strongly conservative slant. Fox News has an excellent polling operation. I would consider them to be reliable in that sense, even though the network as a whole has a pretty strong conservative slant.

Centrism can be its own slant. What matters is how reliable they are in reporting facts. If they're consistently hiding or manipulating facts, I don't care what their partisan slant is, they suck.

the latter of which is what Breitbart, Red State and OANN do. manipulate facts to suit their narrative.

[No State Here]

Fox News is clearly biased, but their online articles are generally reliable. The same goes for CNN. The unreliable conspriacies can generally be attributed to the talking heads on TV, not the online articles

[San Lumen]

Fox News is clearly biased, but their online articles are generally reliable. The same goes for CNN. The unreliable conspriacies can generally be attributed to the talking heads on TV, not the online articles

Id say that more about Fox news than CNN regarding talking heads.

[No State Here]

I am not following the American election very closely, but I hope whoever is the anti China candidate wins

That describes neither Biden nor Trump. Trump is a fake anti china warrior that is actually in debt to the chinese and his recent trade deal was still unfairly in China's favor, and Biden is more than open about his willingness to "mend relations" with the evil empire.

I’ve been neutral on China for years, five years ago I would’ve laughed at comparing it to Nazi Germany, but after the recent revelations from Xinjiang and in Inner Mongolia, there’s just no defending them

[Thermodolia]

Fox News is clearly biased, but their online articles are generally reliable. The same goes for CNN. The unreliable conspriacies can generally be attributed to the talking heads on TV, not the online articles

Right. When CNN or Fox do news they actually do it well. It’s their talking heads and opinions that screw it up

[Greater Miami Shores]

Fox News is clearly biased, but their online articles are generally reliable. The same goes for CNN. The unreliable conspriacies can generally be attributed to the talking heads on TV, not the online articles

Id say that more about Fox news than CNN regarding talking heads.

Just like MSNBC, the Progressive and other such sources are also biased. They all have their spins.

I have been having internet connection problems on and off on and off while I was posting a long awesome post, on another quote, I am being cyber attacked, just kidding on the cyber attacked part.

[Valrifell]

If Trump loses the election and tries that, then it wouldn't be much a coup, would it? By all means Biden would be the legitimate President of the United States, if he doesn't stand down by inauguration then his hypothetical arrest and removal wouldn't be a coup, it would be a prevention of one. If Trump wins then that's just what happened in 2016, he tries to delegitimize the results in front of an election he's expected to lose but rolls with it after.

The USAF won't act sooner than the election, if you mean to imply they go after him before then.

It still would be a coup. A coup can happen to prevent another coup.

A coup, by definition is extralegal. If they just arrest Trump for squatting on the White House grounds, then it's not outside the law and isn't a coup.

[San Lumen]

Id say that more about Fox news than CNN regarding talking heads.

Just like MSNBC, the Progressive and other such sources are also biased. They all have their spins.

and your trash sources like Breitbart, redstate and OANN aren't and don't twist facts to suit their narrative?

[Aureumterra III]

Fox News is clearly biased, but their online articles are generally reliable. The same goes for CNN. The unreliable conspriacies can generally be attributed to the talking heads on TV, not the online articles

Talking heads on TV are arguably what "ruined" journalism, along with social media

Way back in the day, people would buy newspapers as that was the only way to get news, eventually radio and television came along, but they generally had an hour or two per day allowed to reporting the news. Due to the limited time, they did just that, report the news. 24 hour news is when the opinion and media propaganda machine began, and social media has now broken official news outlet’s monopoly on the news

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517 ... transition

McConnell shut down Trumps outrageous comments about a peaceful transfer of power.

he said in a statement "The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792, The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517 ... p-comments

Senator Graham also vowed the party will accept election results.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I trust the military more than Trump. At least the U.S. Mil. has patriots in it. The Trump Admin. does not.

[Kowani]

"Reliable to x" is the problem here. Reality doesn't change depending on your political persuasion.

It's called conservative postmodernism.

Innuendo Studios?