VOTE! Election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

What will be the results of todays vote?

  • Trump wins big

    Votes: 11 15.5%
  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 16.9%
  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 27 38.0%
  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 15 21.1%
  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 6 8.5%

  • Total voters
    71

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,867
1,745
1,743
In other words you want us to vote for the party who props protestors/rioters/statue topplers/vandals and city burners up and supported that? AND when they are arrested they bail them out to go do more of the same. That's not voting for freedom when you conceded to lawlessness you invite more of the same everytime it's politically expedient.
If you are voting for a party, then you are doing it wrong. I will be voting for many different candidates across parties. Party Line voting is about the dumbest idea on the planet
It really shouldn’t even be an Option to vote straight ticket. Way too many people so this which also impacts campaigning and what candidates promise you. They know so many % of Rs and Ds will vote for them 100% of the time. They don’t even have to try to earn their vote.
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,867
1,745
1,743
How crazy will it be if the National polls are correct and trump still wins. 54/46 split on the national vote but trump still wins electorally, imagine the unrest if that happens.
Personally, I am not a big fan of the winner take all approach. I do appreciate the electoral college, and would like to preserve that. But I think it would be A more accurate representation of the will of the people to appropriate electoral college votes based on the popular vote of that state. So many millions of Republicans in California would get a say, andmillions of Democrats in Texas would get a say. Otherwise so many millions of people in D or R Strongholds really could simply just not vote because their vote doesn’t make any difference with a winner take all system.

It would additionally mean that a republican candidate would have to actually spend some time and effort in places like Oklahoma and a Democrat wouldn’t be able to Take California and new York for granted
 

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
14,707
9,289
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
Edmond Church of Christ is reporting a 3.5 hr wait to vote right now
I voted there this morning. Got there at 9am stood in the rain for the first hour and a half. Then cold wind for the next 2 hours. Got back to my car at 12:35. A lady in her 70's about 5 people ahead of me stood in that same line when we literally made it the the entrance doors, she collapsed and they had to call an ambulance for her. We had to step around her to get in the door. It was extremely sad. When I exited, the paramedics were still working on her.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,401
206
1,693
Denver
No, I am saying cities that have been blue for decades drive the bulk of economy.

You guys trash liberal policy for restricting growth when it is the liberal cities that drive the growth.

Sure it is a bipartisan effort even in those cities but you all trash the cities because they are "lawless and burning with riots" (not singling out you that is saying this). When if reality life has continued in every city 99.9% unchanged from the protests/riots and they are still driving what is the modern US economy.
First, I agree with you in regard to the vast majority of people/businesses are not affected by lawlessness in certain areas, but you cannot discount that these issues are predominantly in left-run cities.

But here is the quandary. You state democratic policies drive growth, yet of the cities with the top 20 poverty rate, the overwhelming majority are run by democrats (republicans bolded below). Point is, there are so many things that drive certain industries in certain areas. (A kudo to anyone who can tell me why Denver/Front Range was one of the first hubs for telecommunication). Harbors, natural resources, work force, education, weather, even tradition, the list goes on and on. The key to the whole deal, is what is done with the benefits of having a high "GDP" for a particular location. Clearly, the dems are falling behind in this aspect.

For poverty (Statistica, 2019)
1. Detroit
2. Philly
3. Houston
4. El Paso
5. Dallas
6. Boston
7. San Antonio
8. Los Angeles
9. Chicago
10. Columbus
11. NYC
12. OKC
13. Indy

14. Phoenix
15. Jacksonville, FL
16. DC
17. Nashville
18. Austin
19. Fort Worth
20. Denver
Also just saw that rural areas have on average a 16% poverty rate and Urban have a 12%.

Which makes sense. Cities are where more jobs are. Hence why they create higher gdp and draw people of all types.

Will be interesting to see how that changes in the next few years. Think we may see a bit of an exodus from lots of cities.
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,416
1,180
743
57
Better question, what happens to professional pollsters if Trump wins the popular vote...
If they follow suit of so many industries, they will get a raise
Also just saw that rural areas have on average a 16% poverty rate and Urban have a 12%.

Which makes sense. Cities are where more jobs are. Hence why they create higher gdp and draw people of all types.

Will be interesting to see how that changes in the next few years. Think we may see a bit of an exodus from lots of cities.
Without looking at it, these are what I would expect. But remember, 16% of a smaller number (I found 57 million living in areas deemed rural) is a lot less than 12% of a bigger number (272 million in areas deemed urban). Roughly 3.5 times less. So while the overall percentage is greater in rural areas the impact is felt by 3.5 times more people in urban areas.

I am not completely sold on the exodus yet. yeah, probably a noticeable tick, but I think there is still going to be way more people in urban areas. I fear more cities are going to end up like Detroit where the burbs go on for miles while the only people left in the city are poor (a bit of an exaggeration, but not too far off). Not exactly sure who would be heading for the burbs either but I do not think it is going to be the people deemed to be in poverty.
 
Last edited:

PF5

Cowboy
Jan 3, 2014
697
211
593
First, I agree with you in regard to the vast majority of people/businesses are not affected by lawlessness in certain areas, but you cannot discount that these issues are predominantly in left-run cities.

But here is the quandary. You state democratic policies drive growth, yet of the cities with the top 20 poverty rate, the overwhelming majority are run by democrats (republicans bolded below). Point is, there are so many things that drive certain industries in certain areas. (A kudo to anyone who can tell me why Denver/Front Range was one of the first hubs for telecommunication). Harbors, natural resources, work force, education, weather, even tradition, the list goes on and on. The key to the whole deal, is what is done with the benefits of having a high "GDP" for a particular location. Clearly, the dems are falling behind in this aspect.

For poverty (Statistica, 2019)
1. Detroit
2. Philly
3. Houston
4. El Paso
5. Dallas
6. Boston
7. San Antonio
8. Los Angeles
9. Chicago
10. Columbus
11. NYC
12. OKC
13. Indy

14. Phoenix
15. Jacksonville, FL
16. DC
17. Nashville
18. Austin
19. Fort Worth
20. Denver
are you talking Mayors?!
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,401
206
1,693
Denver
Better question, what happens to professional pollsters if Trump wins the popular vote...
If they follow suit of so many industries, they will get a raise
Also just saw that rural areas have on average a 16% poverty rate and Urban have a 12%.

Which makes sense. Cities are where more jobs are. Hence why they create higher gdp and draw people of all types.

Will be interesting to see how that changes in the next few years. Think we may see a bit of an exodus from lots of cities.
Without looking at it, these are what I would expect. But remember, 16% of a smaller number (I found 57 million living in areas deemed rural) is a lot less than 12% of a bigger number (272 million in areas deemed urban). Roughly 3.5 times less. So the overall percentage is greater, but the impact is felt by 3.5 times more people in urban areas.

I am not completely sold on the exodus yet. yeah, probably a noticeable tick, but I think there is still going to be way more people in urban areas. I fear more cities are going to end up like Detroit where the burbs go on for miles while the only people left in the city are poor (a bit of an exaggeration, but not too far off). Not exactly sure who would be heading for the burbs either but I do not think it is going to be the people deemed to be in poverty.
Yeah agreed, cities policies have more of an impact. So I think federal laws and leaders should be more geared to help cities and the needs of the people who live in them. Since that is where most people are and most of the money is made.

Yeah their local governments have a huge impact but lots of federal decisions have big impacts. Especially when a POTUS labels them anarchist "hell holes" and threatens to withhold funding cause they don't support him to his liking.
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,416
1,180
743
57
Yeah agreed, cities policies have more of an impact. So I think federal laws and leaders should be more geared to help cities and the needs of the people who live in them. Since that is where most people are and most of the money is made.

Yeah their local governments have a huge impact but lots of federal decisions have big impacts. Especially when a POTUS labels them anarchist "hell holes" and threatens to withhold funding cause they don't support him to his liking.
Do not mind paying taxes as I see it as a necessary evil but as one who would prefer smaller government, I would get behind more of what I pay be state/local. Understand there are a lot of things feds do but roughly 2 out of every 3 dollars goes to the feds, 20% to states and the remaining 13% to cities. Cannot see why the federal rate could not be cut to around 50% and let the states handle more of the burden directly. But that is a 25% reduction and the powers that be would never go for anything like it.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
15,236
5,537
1,743
Katy, TX
Wow, Glenn Greenwald has resigned from The Intercept

Full resignation post here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

Here is the article that started it all: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

My Resignation From The Intercept
The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.

Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.

The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here, and the emails with Intercept editors showing the censorship are here). My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.

As of now, I will be publishing my journalism here on Substack, where numerous other journalists, including my good friend, the great intrepid reporter Matt Taibbi, have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
31,608
10,194
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Wow, Glenn Greenwald has resigned from The Intercept

Full resignation post here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

Here is the article that started it all: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

My Resignation From The Intercept
The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.

Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.

The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here, and the emails with Intercept editors showing the censorship are here). My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.

As of now, I will be publishing my journalism here on Substack, where numerous other journalists, including my good friend, the great intrepid reporter Matt Taibbi, have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1322157600943808524

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1321953963462160384

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1321956731606323201

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1321959248100810755

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1321961764645425153
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,189
4,117
743
Edmond Church of Christ is reporting a 3.5 hr wait to vote right now
I voted there this morning. Got there at 9am stood in the rain for the first hour and a half. Then cold wind for the next 2 hours. Got back to my car at 12:35. A lady in her 70's about 5 people ahead of me stood in that same line when we literally made it the the entrance doors, she collapsed and they had to call an ambulance for her. We had to step around her to get in the door. It was extremely sad. When I exited, the paramedics were still working on her.
???? Do you know if she's ok? That's crazy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,627
9,971
1,743
Earth
He sold nukes to Saudi Arabia. So not out of the question he would do it. Then the GOP would likely defend him.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ
I share your concern...but inform yourself about our arms sales to Saudi Arabia over time prior to getting too bent. What this Administration did was just continue what was already happening for the past six or seven Administrations. Plus what I'm reading and finding on the web is that he didn't sell them Nuclear weaponry, but Nuclear technology. Still, I agree, something we should all keep an eye on with any Administration...In the past I've been very concerned with the Democratic Administrations release of technology to the CCP...at least this is an Ally.