The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Trump and Congressional GOP 2020 Vote Shares Compared
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Trump did only marginally worse than Republican House members did. In two-way races, Biden beat Trump 52.3%-47.7% while congressional Democrats beat congressional Republicans 51.6%-48.4%. The Republican House outperformed Trump by 0.7 points. So while it is officially technically true that the party outperformed the president, it’s hard to read much into its significance.

For those who think they smell a rat, it’s circumstantial evidence of fraud on account of a disproportionately high percentage of “president only ballots” going to Biden.

On the other hand, 19 congressional Democrats ran unopposed compared to just 8 Republicans who did so. That means there were 11 more districts for some small number of people voting for a House Democrat voter to vote for Trump than there were districts for a House Republican voter to vote for Biden.

 
Hide 44 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. unit472 says:

    There are also 45 ‘Representative for Life or Indictment’ seats held by the Black Caucus where anyone running with a D after their name will amass a super majority. Consider the race between Frizzel Gray aka Kweise Mfume and Kimberly Klacik. Klacik was an attractive black female candidate who got national attention and was well funded. Frizzel got 71.8% of the vote

    • Replies: @216
  2. Jamie_NYC says:

    Can we see the number of votes per Senate candidates in key states, compared to votes for Orange Hitler / Hindenburg in the same states?

  3. Realist says:

    So the Deep State power has switched back to the Democrat side of the coin.

  4. What usefull conclusions can we achive by parcing the numbers in a stolen election?

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    , @Corvinus
  5. @WorkingClass

    It helps to look at places where the steal was not needed. Biden was ALWAYS going to win IL, so I would guess there was no need to pay people to cheat there.

    Same with, say, Idaho or Utah. Limit analysis to uncontested states like MD vs SC, or MA vs MO, and you might discover something interesting.

    Trump’s election percentage went up in IL and NY over the last time. That’s interesting.

  6. @TomSchmidt

    Good answer Tom. Thanks.

    I’ve got an attatude about national elections. I’m convinced that nothing good can come from the District of Corruption. If there is a way forward it’s Separation.

    • Replies: @unit472
    , @TomSchmidt
  7. Wyatt says:

    Considering that:

    -States with voter ID laws or signature verification (FL and OH) went solidly to Trump
    -He had improved massively turnout despite a massive media campaign against him
    -The fraud only occurred in Democrat controlled areas
    -Happened in unmonitored periods with principally with unvalidated mail-in ballots
    -Poll watchers were turned away or prevented from actual observation
    -Machines were proven to flip votes

    The fraud is not a question of if, but how extensive. It happened and because the Republicans budged the moment push came to shove, it will happen again.

    For those who think they smell a rat

    • LOL: Corvinus
  8. unit472 says:
    @WorkingClass

    D.C. was originally a 100 square mile rectangle carved out along the Potomac from the territory of Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia portion was ceded back and now forms part of Arlington County.
    The rest of D.C. should be ceded back to Maryland with only the Capitol, White House, Treasury, Scotus, DoJ? etc and the mall and national museums being Federal territory. Maybe 100,000 people tops. The other 600,000 would just be residents of Montgomery and Prince Georges county able to vote for that states Federal office holders.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  9. @unit472

    Yes, why the republicans haven’t done this yet is beyond me. It leaves open the danger of DC statehood and two more Senators for the D’s. If they DID make DC a part of the state of Maryland, that would eliminate 3 D electoral votes.

    Not coincidentally, it would make a tie vote in the electoral college impossible. Consider the scenario where Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin are all flipped to Trump before January 6th. You then get a 269-269 tie.

    Meanwhile, I’m guessing the D’s didn’t do something to cement their hold on the electoral college back in 2009 because they thought they had it in the bag going forward. All they needed to do was pass a bill through House and Senate expanding the house to, say, 1000 members. That would give everyone more Reps, but would dilute the Electoral College advantage of the R’s from all the states like MT, ND, SD, WY, AK, and a few others.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  10. @WorkingClass

    When the reserve dollar collapses, they will be unable to secure assets to run the bloat in DC. Nothing else will fix it. Addicts will keep getting their fix as long as they get money to buy more.

  11. @TomSchmidt

    Trump’s election percentage went up in IL and NY over the last time.

    I haven’t compared all 50 state results as yet, but Trump seems to have improved his total in nearly every one. New Hampshire and Maine are two of the very few states where Trump’s percentage went down.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  12. Corvinus says:
    @WorkingClass

    “What usefull conclusions can we achive by parcing the numbers in a stolen election?”

    It wasn’t stolen. Trump lost.

    Hat Tip –> dfordoom

    The election was essentially a one-issue election. It was a referendum on whether Trump should remain president or whether he should go. And people on both the “Trump must stay” and “Trump must go” sides were incredibly highly motivated. Unfortunately for Trump the “Trump must go” side outnumbered the “Trump must stay” side.

    But don’t despair. January 6 will be epic!

    https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/mike-pence-intends-to-count-the-electoral-votes-on-a-dominion-voting-machine/

    • Replies: @Getaclue
    , @Anonymous
  13. nebulafox says:

    McConnell would rather lose the Senate than give struggling ordinary Americans money.

    Bu free money for Israeli missile systems, 3rd World generals, Wall Street, or tech CEOs that don’t even politically support the Republican Party? He’s all good with that. You can debate the economics of giving away free money all you want, but you can’t justify those optics. And for all the GOP loves to laud small businesses, they have a bit of a track record of screwing them over in favor of big ones in practice.

    (Yes, the Democrats aren’t to be trusted: why trust anybody who’d prioritize foreign aid over domestic aid in a year like this? But come on, we all know that already or we mostly wouldn’t be commenting here.)

    Until this changes, your chances of political success are inversely correlated with how much the GOP likes you. Case in point: Donald Trump. Victor in 2016. Loser in 2020. What changed? He got along better with the GOP, and this coincided with a pandemic wiping out incumbent advantage.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Rosie
  14. nebulafox says:
    @TomSchmidt

    Because Stupid Party Saves The Evil Party, every time.

  15. anon[283] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    pandemic wiping out incumbent advantage.

    It occurred to me today while exercising that if Trump had just followed in the footsteps of President Lightbringer and President Shrub he likely would have been re-elected, since warmongeringtime Presidents tend to get a second term. In exchange for not once again sending mostly white combat troops from mostly flyover states to foreign lands to kill and get killed, the elites made huge efforts to push Trump out of office.

    Yeah, I phrased that a bit differently than CNN / PBS / NPR / CBS / NBC / NPR / ABC / NYT / FOX / WaPo etc. would put it. I’m a flyover deplorable, whattaya expect?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @nebulafox
  16. Rosie says:
    @nebulafox

    McConnell would rather lose the Senate than give struggling ordinary Americans money.

    Bu free money for Israeli missile systems, 3rd World generals, Wall Street, or tech CEOs that don’t even politically support the Republican Party? He’s all good with that. You can debate the economics of giving away free money all you want, but you can’t justify those optics.

    It is truly astonishing. It’s almost like it’s personal or something. He just really hates our guts.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  17. Rosie says:
    @anon

    In exchange for not once again sending mostly white combat troops from mostly flyover states to foreign lands to kill and get killed, the elites made huge efforts to push Trump out of office.

    Did he think he could split the baby in half? Caving to the establishment on some things but not others? That was never going to work. They will accept nothing less than total submission.

  18. nebulafox says:
    @anon

    Congrats: he didn’t start a new stupid war. I’ll fetch my cookies.

    Actually, joking aside, that isn’t anything to sneer at. Trump has the honor of being the first President since Carter who didn’t. But then that leads to the question-why, as Commander in Chief, did things get to the point where there needed to be “negotiation” about withdrawal from Afghanistan? It’s not the Senate: there’s not supposed to be any negotiation involved with military commands. So, why wasn’t Trump able to do that? Matter of fact, why did Obama turn his back on anti-interventionistic rhetoric in office?

    • Replies: @anon
  19. anon[419] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    why, as Commander in Chief, did things get to the point where there needed to be “negotiation” about withdrawal from Afghanistan?

    The alphabet agencies benefit from war.

    It’s not the Senate: there’s not supposed to be any negotiation involved with military commands.

    “Ought” vs. “is”.

    So, why wasn’t Trump able to do that?

    Because the deep state was opposed to him, as should have been obvious back in 2016. Watergate was nothing compared to the full spectrum coverage laid on Trump even before he was elected.

    Matter of fact, why did Obama turn his back on anti-interventionistic rhetoric in office?

    Maybe he’s a liar and a hypocrite who would literally say anything to get into office?

  20. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Such a claim, in the face of so much contradictory evidence, requires at least some amount of factual support.

  21. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    That “debunking” is false. Not only did states stop counting, the criminal states in question added millions of mail ballots to the totals the claimed to have collected on Election Day.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  22. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “Such a claim, in the face of so much contradictory evidence, requires at least some amount of factual support.”

    Indeed, Anonymous Conservative, a well known Alt Right blogger, made the claim based on chatter from 4/chans stating that Pence will end up “saving America”.

    “That “debunking” is false. Not only did states stop counting, the criminal states in question added millions of mail ballots to the totals the claimed to have collected on Election Day.”

    You’re going to have to do better than wishful thinking. In 2016, Trump won largely because of Shitlery’s unpopularity. In 2020, Trump lost because of his own unpopularity. Indeed, he got 74 million votes, but that was because of high voter turnout across the board. “Voter turnout in 2020 was relatively higher in large battleground states with large urban areas,” said DePaul University political scientist Wayne Steger. “Turnout in states won by Biden was 43% greater in 2020 than in 2008.”

    Is it not reasonable to believe that just enough voters had decided on their own accord to NOT support him in 2020, much in the same manner that just enough voters chose of their own volition to NOT support Shitlery in 2016? Why?

    Of course, perhaps you can show us all how:

    1) the U.S. Army seized servers for Dominion in Germany;

    2) Trump’s cyber team has clear proof that Dominion machines in Ware County, GA and Antrim County, MI , votes had been purposely switched for Biden -and-

    3) Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act and declare martial law by the end of December.

    • LOL: 36 ulster
    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @Anonymous
  23. Thomasina says:
    @Rosie

    Well, it IS personal. McConnell is being paid to do what his corporate donors tell him to do. Exactly the same as the Democrats. If McConnell doesn’t do what he’s told, doesn’t produce the results they want, he will be gone.

    Voters don’t matter anymore. The elite just rig the elections. I’m sure they rigged them in 2016 too, but just not enough. That’s why Hillary was so shocked she lost; they were supposed to be better rigged!

    It is a corporate takeover of the country, and these people want Trump gone. A guy who holds rallies and thinks of the people? Get rid of him – now!

    Yes, the elite do hate you. You are just getting in their way.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  24. Thomasina says:
    @Corvinus

    Hitlery lost in 2016 because they didn’t rig the election enough! They didn’t make the same mistake this time; they just stopped the counting and stuffed.

    A right-in-your-face theft.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @nebulafox
  25. Anonymous[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    The election was stolen months ago by extraconstitutional usurpations of Legislative authority by state Supreme Courts. The idiot republicans let this transpire. The events on November 3 and since are only the more blatant acts of theft.

    No, turnout did not increase by 43% in Biden states. Reported vote totals did.

    You cannot offer me a reasonable causal explanation for that increase without fraud.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  26. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “The election was stolen months ago by extraconstitutional usurpations of Legislative authority by state Supreme Courts.”

    Citations required here.

    “The events on November 3 and since are only the more blatant acts of theft.”

    That is Fake News on your part.

    “No, turnout did not increase by 43% in Biden states”.

    Please offer evidence that refutes that statement made by DePaul University political scientist Wayne Steger.

    “You cannot offer me a reasonable causal explanation for that increase without fraud”.

    More like you refuse to accept any reasonable explanations because it does not fit your world view.

  27. Corvinus says:
    @Thomasina

    “A right-in-your-face theft.”

    Nope. Hat Tip –> dfordoom

    The election was essentially a one-issue election. It was a referendum on whether Trump should remain president or whether he should go. And people on both the “Trump must stay” and “Trump must go” sides were incredibly highly motivated. Unfortunately for Trump the “Trump must go” side outnumbered the “Trump must stay” side.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  28. https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/statistical-model-indicates-trump-won-landslide/

    This article examines the statistics of the Presidential election at the county level. Looks at the differences from previous elections, modeling each county on ethnicity and (for whites) education. The national swing for each group accounts for the results in nearly all states. Differences between the model and the actual results should be random, sometimes favoring Biden and sometimes Trump. Instead the discrepancies all favor Biden, and occur in a few of the battleground states. It is hard to account for these discrepancies except by fraud.

    The national swing for each ethnic/educational group should have given Trump Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; but not Michigan.

    The article includes links to the electoral and census data that it uses, so you can examine the claims for yourself.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  29. Thomasina says:
    @Corvinus

    Dream on, Corvinus. Anyone with two working brain cells knows they attempted to steal the election.

    A blatant, out in the open, in-your-face attempted robbery.

    The globalists (China included) must be getting desperate. They’ve exposed themselves. But I guess it was either that, or lose.

    Dumb, because now they really have lost. Shame.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  30. Corvinus says:
    @Thomasina

    “A blatant, out in the open, in-your-face attempted robbery.”

    Nope.

    Pennsylvania State Senator Ryan Aument (R) had criticized members of his own party for urging the legislature to discard the election results and appoint a new slate of pro-Trump presidential electors.

    “Those making those accusations [of fraud], which are very serious accusations, in my view, have a responsibility, an obligation to present that evidence in a court of law under oath,” Aument said. “I’m not aware to date in federal court that that evidence has been presented or even asserted. There’s a lot being said publicly, there’s a lot on social media, a lot stated at press conferences or even at Senate policy committee hearings, but that evidence has not been presented in a court of law”.

    Interesting, because Trump lawyers in their court cases around the nation aren’t claiming sweeping fraud.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267

    For example, they sought to have the Bucks County (PA) Court of Common Pleas invalidate more than 2,200 supposedly “defective ballots” counted after a review by the Board of Elections. Trump lawyers agreed to sign documents saying that there was zero evidence of fraud or misconduct when it came to said ballots.

    Attorneys for both sides signed a “joint stipulation of facts—an instrument meant to provide the court with facts relevant to the case that are undisputed by either party in the action—which clearly disavows any claims that voting in the commonwealth’s fourth-largest county was affected by any fraudulent conduct.”

    The joint statement literally reads: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.” Additionally, both sides agreed that election observers from each party were allowed full access to view the pre-canvassing and canvassing processes.

    Trump lost, but at least Epstein didn’t kill himself.

  31. Corvinus says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Yeah, about those “statistical models” being bandied about by Trump and his supporters…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/11/vote-fraud-statistic-trump-ballots/

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  32. nebulafox says:
    @Thomasina

    Hillary lost in 2016 because she was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Biden wasn’t as offensive to as many voters as Clinton was, and Trump was in a weak position due to a mix of his own mistakes and COVID. Lousy economy + not completely noxious opponent candidate can unseat an incumbent, as was the case in 1980 and 1992.

    It’s really that simple. If the MSM didn’t decide to lie daily about the worst riots the United States ever seen and burn whatever was left of their credibility after the 2010s, Biden would have won by a bigger margin.

    (No, I don’t put it beyond the Democrats to engage in fraud: my family is originally from a city dominated by one of the most corrupt urban machines in the US, I know how this works. But saying this decided the election is the right-wing version of “THE RUSSIANS BRAINWASHED MILLIONS INTO VOTING FOR TRUMP”.)

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Thomasina
  33. nebulafox says:
    @Thomasina

    If you want to argue that giving away 2,000 dollars per head on fiscal grounds is a bad idea, go ahead and do so. But don’t expect people to take your arguments with a straight face if you can simultaneously still find the money to go and drone wretched Pashtun shepherds or educate Mirpuris on the finer points of 3rd wave feminism. Whether it is part of the same bill or not is irrelevant. The optics do the talking: namely, that the American government will prioritize anything over its own citizens, Democrats and Republicans alike.

    Authorities in the United States are not willing to let increasing amounts of Americans work. They also won’t give aid. This won’t end well.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Thomasina
  34. @Corvinus

    James Surowiecki of the Washington Post does not actually debunk the revolver.news story, which claims to be based on the actual election results. Surowiecki writes about a number of simple anomalies that he can explain away. He would like his readers to jump to the conclusion that any claim based on statistics will prove to be equally groundless.

    The Revolver story appears to present a serious analysis, and it includes the data that it used so anyone can check its inputs, methods, and conclusions.

    https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/statistical-model-indicates-trump-won-landslide/

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  35. Corvinus says:
    @James N. Kennett

    “James Surowiecki of the Washington Post does not actually debunk the revolver.news story..,”

    The point is that statistical models can be employed to show desired outcomes.

    Who exactly at Revolver developed this model?

    Why should the viewing public simply trust their findings?

    What is the probability that Revolver is leading its readers to jump to the conclusion that any opposition to their analysis will prove to be groundless?

    What are their bona fides in terms of experience in statistical modeling?

    Have they contacted independent experts to verify their findings?

    If their findings are accurate, when can we expect Trump’s lawyers to then have a news conference with other experts to disseminate this work to the public?

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  36. nebulafox says:

    >Why should the viewing public simply trust their findings?

    Why should the public accept the absurdity of the likes of Stacey Abrams demanding that the Republicans respect the electoral process, or the media breathlessly warning against a coup, especially after four years of idly indulging in fantasies of one?

    I’m not a fan of what Hawley is doing because unlike a lot of people here, I don’t think it is exactly out of the question that an incumbent so visibly incompetent can lose fairly, but I have zero sympathy for the Dems. They are just getting pissy that the monster they used for decades every time a Republican won the Presidential election is now targeting them for once. You reap what you sow. Either Congress has a role in looking at certification of state elections and the Democrats are being hypocrites, or they don’t and Democratic actions after the 2004 and 2016 elections were “coups in the making” too.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  37. Corvinus says:
    @nebulafox

    “I don’t think it is exactly out of the question that an incumbent so visibly incompetent can lose fairly”

    Exactly.

    “Either Congress has a role in looking at certification of state elections and the Democrats are being hypocrites, or they don’t and Democratic actions after the 2004 and 2016 elections were “coups in the making” too.”

    Let’s take a closer look here, as those two situations–as well as what happened in 2001–were NOT coups, but specific, tailored objections. Sour grapes, certainly.

    In 2001, a dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, joined by a few sympathizers, sought to block the counting of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, contesting that there were repeated efforts by officials there to disenfranchise black voters. In response, Vice President Al Gore repeatedly gaveled down those members, ruling their objections and parliamentary procedures out of order, and made official the election of his opponent, GW Bush.

    In 2005, a representative from Ohio and a senator from California objected to certifying Ohio’s electoral votes. Their complaints mirrored those from the Congressional Black Caucus four years earlier, and they were soundly rejected by a majority of both chambers. Republicans dismissed the effort as a political stunt, noting that investigations by news agencies and state officials into the allegations proved to be untrue. “But apparently, some Democrats only want to gripe about counts, recounts, and recounts of recounts,” said Rep. Deborah Pryce, an Ohio Republican. “So eager are they to abandon their job as public servants, they have cast themselves in the role of Michael Moore, concocting wild conspiracy theories to distract the American public.”

    In 2016, a representative from Texas and a representative from California, arguing “voter suppression”. Their effort was short-lived, as no Senator took up their cause. In response, Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly gaveled down those members, ruling their objections and parliamentary procedures out of order, and made official the election of Donald Trump.

    Those three situations are no where near what is occurring today, given how Republican officials and Trump appointed judges have indicated there was not the widespread voter/election fraud as claimed. NOTICE that Trump lawyers in their court cases around the nation were not making those charges in their court filings/hearings.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267

    For example, Trump lawyers sought to have the Bucks County (PA) Court of Common Pleas invalidate more than 2,200 supposedly “defective ballots” that were counted after a review by the Board of Elections. YET, they agreed to sign documents saying that there was zero evidence of fraud or misconduct when it came to said ballots. Attorneys for both sides signed a “joint stipulation of facts—an instrument meant to provide the court with facts relevant to the case that are undisputed by either party in the action—which clearly disavows any claims that voting in the commonwealth’s fourth-largest county was affected by any fraudulent conduct.” The joint statement literally reads: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.” Additionally, both sides agreed that election observers from each party were allowed full access to view the pre-canvassing and canvassing processes.

    So, how will VP Pence respond on January 6 to Senator Hawley and others who seek to join his cause? Remember, Pence’s role is to merely oversee the joint session of the House and Senate that will officially count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president. He cannot simply “discount” or “dismiss” the results and declare Trump victorious.

    http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Siegel-BOOK.pdf

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  38. @Corvinus

    The debate, unfair on the one side and irrational on the other, is too hot for me to join. Regarding this isolated point, however:

    Remember, Pence’s role is to merely oversee the joint session of the House and Senate that will officially count the Electoral College votes for president and vice president.

    They will not remember, for they dispute that it is so.

    The Constitution has always been ambiguous on this point. When red-faced citizens leap to their feet to insist with raised fists that the Constitution “very clearly states” something or other, they backhandedly attest to the very ambiguity they wish to deny.

    Our problem is that the statute to which you refer is rooted in no authority clearly granted by the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, nor granted by any other article or section. The statute nevertheless exists because no one has clear authority in the matter, so there the statue sits, trying to suspend itself in midair by its own belt, so to speak. It would be interesting in theory to hear what Blackstone had to say about a case like this, but I fear that tempers are too raw to consult that sage of yore now.

    I take no position as to whether Mike Pence or anyone else should force the issue Jan. 6. However, if both sides do force it, then we shall have the very definition of a constitutional crisis on our hands.

    By nature, constitutional crises cannot be resolved by principally legal means, but by violent or, preferably, political means.

  39. 216 says:
    @unit472

    There were four Dem black incumbents in moderate suburban districts. All four won.

  40. Thomasina says:
    @nebulafox

    “But saying this decided the election is the right-wing version of “THE RUSSIANS BRAINWASHED MILLIONS INTO VOTING FOR TRUMP”.)”

    Not the same thing at all. Hand over the voting machines and let’s have a real audit; then we can talk.

  41. Thomasina says:
    @nebulafox

    “If you want to argue that giving away 2,000 dollars per head on fiscal grounds is a bad idea, go ahead and do so.”

    I never said anything of the sort. Maybe you like putting words in people’s mouths?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS