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 14.1%
  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 15.4%
  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 29 37.2%
  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 17 21.8%
  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 9 11.5%

  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,218
1,881
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
I believe there was fraud and the way votes were allowed there is no true way to prove it without a full audit or revote. At this time move on, but secure the elections in the future as trust has now been eroded in the system.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
In other words, Christopher Krebs, a former Homeland Security official, who said there was no significant vote fraud, wasn't smart enough to know what vote fraud is when he saw it?

I think if Republicans, especially in battleground states Trump lost, want free and fair elections, they will have to seek to abolish early voting as well as mail in voting as they don't seem to think that is a proper or traditional way to vote.
 
Jun 14, 2011
851
711
643
I'll stop you right there. Your first sentence is an outright lie. He said to march to the Capitol and peacefully and patriotically protest and make their voices heard.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
He also said, "We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." (1:11 into the speech) So... not a lie.

Here is the full transcript of his ramblings if anyone wants to read it or watch it again. Though, it was painful enough going through it live.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6
 
Jul 5, 2020
582
86
28
57
Broken Arrow
He also said, "We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." (1:11 into the speech) So... not a lie.

Here is the full transcript of his ramblings if anyone wants to read it or watch it again. Though, it was painful enough going through it live.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6
So then I suppose an unprompted “If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun” is interpreted as a request for peace and tranquility.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,712
242
1,693
Denver
The day before a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, an arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association sent out robocalls urging supporters to come to D.C. to “fight” Congress over President Trump’s baseless election fraud claims.​
“At 1 p.m. we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal,” said the message first reported by the watchdog group Documented. “We’re hoping patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections.”​
[...] Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, the chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund, the nonprofit that sent out the calls, blamed the group’s staffers.​
I was unaware of unauthorized decisions made by RLDF staff with regard to this week’s rally,” he said in a statement to the Montgomery Advertiser. “It is unacceptable that I was neither consulted about nor informed of those decisions. I have directed an internal review of the matter.”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/11/gop-robocalls-trump-rally-capitol/

So GOP members were sending out robocalls recruiting people to the riots. Gonna be hard to claim the GOP isn't complicit now.
 
Jun 14, 2011
851
711
643
So then I suppose an unprompted “If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun” is interpreted as a request for peace and tranquility.
Uhh... what? I posted a link so everyone can do their own research and pointed out an additional statement showing what was said by @HacklemanPoke was, indeed, not a lie. I know research into facts isn't your jam, so I'll say the link was for everyone else.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
9,110
6,269
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Couldn't agree more. And since the courts ruled that Trump couldn't block people on Twitter, banning him or anyone is real can of worms. You can't rule that people have a right to access your stuff, but you can be banned from it. Especially when presidents are involved.

21st century problems.
Why can't we just require that official written statements from the office of the president be handled like official written statements from the office of the president?... Treat social media statements just like they would a press release. It should be an official communication to the nation, not some egomaniacs every thought in a stream of consciousness with no consequence. Seems like a win-win to me. Hopefully we never have another president that this becomes an issue to the same level that it was with this one though...
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,218
1,881
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
When Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, he alleged massive voter fraud, created a commission to investigate and put former Kansas Sec.of State Kris Kobach in charge. They found almost no fraud and disbanded. There was nothing to follow up on.
But wasn't their excuse was that states did not cooperate much and so made investigations difficult?
 
May 4, 2011
2,260
1,085
1,743
Charleston, SC
I grant you the logic. And everything being equal I would agree.

But Amazon in turn is provided significant protections from the government (the cake maker does not enjoy those). I support Amazon's rights to drop Parler....but they also should lose their government protections of their company ...plus regulations which not only help their business, but infringe on the business freedoms of others (Amazon spent millions of lobbying dollars to get those protections).
You keep repeating this and I'm curious in case I missed something, what protections are you talking about? The ones where they can't be held liable for what's posted on sites they host or for companies like facebook, what gets posted on their sites/platforms? Sincere question, what other protections do they get? Don't get me wrong, that protection is huge, but my understanding was that it applies to basically every host and platform. If you want them to give up those protections, they're just going to crack down more and limit speech on their platforms even more than before because now they're liable for everything that gets posted. I'm also not sure how you do that without it applying even harder to smaller hosts and platforms (like this one) because they're then liable for everything that gets posted and they don't have the lawyers to fend off criminal and civil suits.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2006
3,465
2,057
1,743
You keep repeating this and I'm curious in case I missed something, what protections are you talking about? The ones where they can't be held liable for what's posted on sites they host or for companies like facebook, what gets posted on their sites/platforms? Sincere question, what other protections do they get? Don't get me wrong, that protection is huge, but my understanding was that it applies to basically every host and platform. If you want them to give up those protections, they're just going to crack down more and limit speech on their platforms even more than before because now they're liable for everything that gets posted. I'm also now sure how you do that without it applying even harder to smaller hosts and platforms (like this one) because they're then liable for everything that gets posted and they don't have the lawyers to fend off criminal and civil suits.
The liability is one (for the record, I am in favor of Section 230 - it makes sense to me),
but I am talking about a different protection that, to me, is larger (and admittingly a little personal because it screwed up a great business opportunity I was personally involved about 10 years ago)

Amazon is one of the largest lobbying dollars for Net Neutrality. They gave millions during Obama campaign to reassess all ISPs under an old 1934 FCC regulation. The FCC order was dropped by FCC Chairman Pai recently, but most people in industry believe Biden will reinstate.

The regulation ties the hands of ISPs. It reduces innovation, etc. There are several points to the regulation, but a major one is ISPs must carry Google and prohibit ISPs from doing anything that may treat Google differently than others. As Google is by far the dominant leader in search-engine, search-engine marketing, web services, and online advertising -- this order protects their dominance and makes it much more difficult for small upstart companies to compete. It also takes away business freedoms.

I am fine with Google dropping Parlor --- but why should they government force ISPs to carry Google (Google has it one way and their cake too). Google in many ways negatively impacts smaller ISPs that struggle with bandwidth (ie witness what happened with Youtube in Europe during beginning of Pandemic). Youtube video is a massive cost to ISPs. IMO, ISPs should have the ability to make business decisions about the network they bought and constructed and let the market decide who wins.
 
Jun 20, 2012
2,607
955
743
At this point, I call on the moderators to close this thread. The election is over and subjects being talked about aren't going anywhere. Someone wants a thread about the riot at the Capitol I think they should start it over. Or maybe it should be basically banned as talk about blm was at one point.
I have a job and family to deal with. Talk to you about sports or something else later.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You have proven yourself to be a total tool for propaganda. Your absence from this discussion will affect nothing, considering the total lack of said evidence or even credible news articles you’ve contributed alongside your baseless claims. When you talk sports be sure to mention you bowl with the gutter bumpers.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,450
10,192
1,743
Earth
PSA: As a former voter for the current POTUS, I plead with anyone reading this NOT to resort to any actions that you will ultimately regret between now and POTUS Biden's inauguration day. It is insanely stupid and self destructive to do harm or endanger a fellow human or even property just because of your/their political beliefs.

We are one nation, under God, Indivisible...if that is your stance, be the man or woman you are AND live up to it and take your lumps and move on down the road. The election was not stolen, some irregularities happened but not enough to "steal it." These happen in most if not all elections both ways. And even IF it was (it wasn't), you personally can do nothing but harm reforms by being stupid and doing something stupid as stories suggest may be planned for state and federal capitals (I hope they are incorrect reports).

What we all need is a unified week and day in which this divisiveness ends. We need to pray for unity, wisdom, and actually support the next POTUS Mr. Joe Biden at least until he is otherwise proven not to provide unity, and even then we need to be far more civil than things have been in the last four years by all sides. I STILL have faith in my fellow man and that our rights and freedoms of speech and assembly will be upheld...if you are caught up in conspiracy theories on line, PLEASE do NOT end your future with stupid actions based on conspiracy theories which you have made to be truth in your own heart and mind. "The heart is deceitful, who can know it."

So, please, go forth, do the right thing and put 2020 / 21 behind us and move on down the road.

That is all...Thank you.
 
Last edited:

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
15,028
9,360
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
PSA: As a former voter for the current POTUS, I plead with anyone reading this NOT to resort to any actions that you will ultimately regret between now and POTUS Biden's inauguration day. It is insanely stupid and self destructive to do harm or endanger a fellow human or even property just because of your/their political beliefs.

We are one nation, under God, Indivisible...if that is your stance, be the man or woman you are AND live up to it and take your lumps and move on down the road. The election was not stolen, some irregularities happened but not enough to "steal it." These happen in most if not all elections both ways. And even IF it was (it wasn't), you personally can do nothing but harm reforms by being stupid and doing something stupid as stories suggest may be planned for state and federal capitals (I hope they are incorrect reports).

What we all need is a unified week and day in which this divisiveness ends. We need to pray for unity, wisdom, and actually support the next POTUS Mr. Joe Biden at least unit he is otherwise proven not to provide unity. I have faith in my fellow man and that our rights and freedoms of speech and assembly will be upheld...if you are caught up in conspiracy theories on line, PLEASE do NOT end your future with stupid actions based on conspiracy theories which you have made to be truth in your own heart and mind. "The heart is deceitful, who can know it."

So, please, go forth, do the right thing and put 2020 / 21 behind us and move on down the road.

That is all...Thank you.
You actually think someone on this board is going to do something? I'm pretty sure everyone here is at least level headed enough to not do anything like that.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,712
242
1,693
Denver
So the majority of people who deemed it wrong not to make a gay cake should be against Amazon removing Parlor?
That case was about discrimination and religious rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in public accommodations based on race, color, religion or national origin.

Not sure not hosting an app or website would be viewed as discrimination. Since it doesn't single out a race, color, religion or national origin.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
24,450
10,192
1,743
Earth
You actually think someone on this board is going to do something? I'm pretty sure everyone here is at least level headed enough to not do anything like that.
Not posters but maybe someone lurking or reading needs a reminder. I've been seeing these stories and I just want to make 100% sure they know that even the most conservative among us on this board don't buy into mass conspiracy theories. Our State voted nearly 70% for Trump so you never know if 10% of those are loony toons and if even one visits Orangepower and changes his/her mind from my post then I'm glad I did it.
 
May 4, 2011
2,260
1,085
1,743
Charleston, SC
The liability is one (for the record, I am in favor of Section 230 - it makes sense to me),
but I am talking about a different protection that, to me, is larger (and admittingly a little personal because it screwed up a great business opportunity I was personally involved about 10 years ago)

Amazon is one of the largest lobbying dollars for Net Neutrality. They gave millions during Obama campaign to reassess all ISPs under an old 1934 FCC regulation. The FCC order was dropped by FCC Chairman Pai recently, but most people in industry believe Biden will reinstate.

The regulation ties the hands of ISPs. It reduces innovation, etc. There are several points to the regulation, but a major one is ISPs must carry Google and prohibit ISPs from doing anything that may treat Google differently than others. As Google is by far the dominant leader in search-engine, search-engine marketing, web services, and online advertising -- this order protects their dominance and makes it much more difficult for small upstart companies to compete. It also takes away business freedoms.

I am fine with Google dropping Parlor --- but why should they government force ISPs to carry Google (Google has it one way and their cake too). Google in many ways negatively impacts smaller ISPs that struggle with bandwidth (ie witness what happened with Youtube in Europe during beginning of Pandemic). Youtube video is a massive cost to ISPs. IMO, ISPs should have the ability to make business decisions about the network they bought and constructed and let the market decide who wins.
Let me make sure I'm understanding this right. You have a problem with net neutrality as it existed under Obama, but does not exist now? The issue is that ISPs previously had to treat all traffic equally, meaning that Cox/spectrum/google fiber can't slow down traffic of specific domains. The argument I had seen previously about why net neutrality hurt innovation was largely about the idea that it reduced incentives for expanding infrastructure. Is that what you mean about reduces innovation? As I understand it that does not apply in the same way to hosting services, which I believe are different things (amazon web services vs spectrum).

To pull everything together, you're saying that because google lobbied for net neutrality to avoid limitations on their traffic, they shouldn't be able to drop an app from its app hosting platform (i.e., the play store and its related software)? And that applies even though that version of net neutrality isn't currently in place?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.