- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 24,281
- SLU Posts
- 18459
Thank you for telling that nutless wonder that is my senior senator the truth even if its way politer than anything he deserves.
Its already dying. Under a republican government.I consider the responses to Texas Gov. Abbott’s tweets prescient — Look at the responses to this typical one:
Voter suppression and tampering are good enough reasons for me. Also, the question is not whether it is close or not but what is the risk. The possibility of another four years of Trump makes it too close for me.The only reason we’re sweating this election at all is because of what we may not know about vote tampering and suppression efforts. There is nothing else that indicates this race is close.
Reasons for what?Voter suppression and tampering are good enough reasons for me.
No one‘s debating the risk. I take issue with the false narrative that there is any evidence to believe this race is close. Especially when the person doing so quoted the only source that accurately warned about Trump’s possible victory in 2016.Also, the question is not whether it is close or not but what is the risk.
There’s no proof for any of this. But I’m tired of trying to argue against feelings masquerading as facts. You do you.Since we need action, I want people to feel like the race is close--if that's how they want to think of the election. Let it be a close race. Good. It promotes action.
Yeah but I literally know people, as in by name, who thought the idea of a President Trump was horrible but who didn't bother to vote in 2016 because the media and their polls made it sound like too much of a longshot to worry about.There's a difference between "sufficiently close that I feel reasonably confident about the outcome" and "sufficiently close that, despite the gravity of the situation, I won't bother to do what little I can to ensure a positive outcome".
She supported Trump in 2016 and said that her husband, who worked in construction, had a huge surge in business since Trump took office because of the “booming” economy. Of the four people in her group, she was the only one who voted last time.
Larry Stange, 61, reinforced how important it was that most of the group hadn’t.
“I’ve talked to — it’s not like I see a lot of people, but I think a representative sampling is that there are a lot of people who hadn’t voted before,” Stange said when I asked what he thought might happen. “I think it’s signified in — you know, Trump, if the numbers are right in rallies, it looks like close to 50 percent of people at a Trump rally either didn’t vote in 2016 or didn’t vote for him in 2016. I’m actually seeing that in the people that I talk to. I’m seeing a lot of that.”
Aye. There’s also a difference between tried and true methods of seeking information put out for peer review with methods posted for transparency and “feelings.”There's a difference between "sufficiently close that I feel reasonably confident about the outcome" and "sufficiently close that, despite the gravity of the situation, I won't bother to do what little I can to ensure a positive outcome".
They had clearly misjudged the two degrees of confidence, then, or confused the two.Yeah but I literally know people, as in by name, who thought the idea of a President Trump was horrible but who didn't bother to vote in 2016 because the media and their polls made it sound like too much of a longshot to worry about.
Yes. In a word (or two): Red Guy.They had clearly misjudged the two degrees of confidence, then, or confused the two.