All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[JimC]

Trump's best arguments are actually quite rational - mail voting tends to maximise Democrat votes. Corrupt, certainly, but valid arguments if you simply want to win at all costs...

[Joe]

Well, yeah. We can't have socialism now, can we?

[Cunt]

It's obvious how well you understand the other side of this issue. As is often the case, your information is unexpectedly informative.

[Brian Peacock]

It's obvious how well you understand the other side of this issue. As is often the case, your information is unexpectedly informative.

Help me understand. What's the other side of the issue?

[JimC]

There are good people on both sides, Brian...

[Cunt]

Mail-in voting. One side is 'turn the whole voting system to mail-in voting', and the other is 'keep in-person voting'.

If you don't know the reasonable arguments for one side or the other, I made my point.

I could tell you some of them, but I doubt you would believe me anyway. Better to get it from (this is a guess) Dan Crenshaw, Ted Cruz or that sort of Republican orator.

[pErvinalia]

So you can't explain the other side of the issue?

[Brian Peacock]

It appears not - but then again the definition of 'voting' is unclear and 'postal voting' means different things to different people.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Mail-in voting. One side is 'turn the whole voting system to mail-in voting', and the other is 'keep in-person voting'.

If you don't know the reasonable arguments for one side or the other, I made my point.

I could tell you some of them, but I doubt you would believe me anyway. Better to get it from (this is a guess) Dan Crenshaw, Ted Cruz or that sort of Republican orator.

Nobody is trying to go to vote-by-mail exclusive of in-person voting, though there are states that already have that, and have had it for years. What states like Michigan and Nevada are trying to do is expand their vote-by-mail capacity. Neither of them is proposing to eliminate in-person voting.

In the current circumstances, the only argument against expanding vote-by-mail that might carry any weight is a claim that it increases voter fraud. There has been no increase in voter fraud in states that are exclusively vote-by-mail, and in any case voter fraud is known to be extremely rare in the US.

Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that Trump created a commission to investigate voter fraud. It was disbanded when it found nothing of significance.

[Scot Dutchy]

Mail-in voting. One side is 'turn the whole voting system to mail-in voting', and the other is 'keep in-person voting'.

If you don't know the reasonable arguments for one side or the other, I made my point.

I could tell you some of them, but I doubt you would believe me anyway. Better to get it from (this is a guess) Dan Crenshaw, Ted Cruz or that sort of Republican orator.

Nobody is trying to go to vote-by-mail exclusive of in-person voting, though there are states that already have that, and have had it for years. What states like Michigan and Nevada are trying to do is expand their vote-by-mail capacity. Neither of them is proposing to eliminate in-person voting.

In the current circumstances, the only argument against expanding vote-by-mail that might carry any weight is a claim that it increases voter fraud. There has been no increase in voter fraud in states that are exclusively vote-by-mail, and in any case voter fraud is known to be extremely rare in the US.

Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that Trump created a commission to investigate voter fraud. It was disbanded when it found nothing of significance.

Was it just looking into fraud? Not voter suppression? Voting by post allows more corruption.

[Brian Peacock]

The ability to vote by post is vital for those who can't get to a polling station on election day.

[Tero]

[Brian Peacock]

Why Bother With The Story When The Headline Says It All?

[L'Emmerdeur]

There are many per capitas. You get a per capita, and you get a per capita--everybody gets a per capita.

I know there's some context that will make the statement 'and you know when you say "per capita," there’s many per capitas. It’s like, per capita relative to what?' something other than abject ignorance spewed from the burgerhole of a vacuous blowhard. I haven't found it yet, but I've been assured that the image of Trump that most of the world holds is false, ginned up by the Enemies of the People, so there must be some way to look at that statement that demonstrates a genuine understanding of the topic of demographics.

[Animavore]

A US TV host has furiously rebuked President Donald Trump for falsely suggesting her husband and co-presenter may have got away with murder.

In tweets, Mr Trump has appeared to link MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough to the death of an aide two decades ago, a conspiracy theory debunked by police.

"Donald, you're a sick person," anchor Mika Brzezinski said on air as she defended her husband.

She also demanded Twitter take down the president's incendiary tweets.

What else did Brzezinski say?

"He's once again tweeting conspiracy theories about Joe, falsely accusing him of murder," Ms Brzezinski said on her MSNBC show Morning Joe on Wednesday, before addressing the president directly.

She questioned how the president could subject the family of a congressional aide - who authorities said died of natural causes in Mr Scarborough's office in 2001 - to such "BS".

"Donald, you're a sick person," Ms Brzezinski said. "You're really a cruel, sick, disgusting person."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52748844

Why does he get away with this?