Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

US political crisis

mack341 said:
well if you go back to the floyd riots, after the first evening of buildings being burned down and shops looted, random violence, why would you do up your laces on your shoes and head out to do some more 'peaceful' protesting the next evening, knowing that it is providing cover for thousands of criminals?

basically because they didn't care about that, more or less condoning it, one of the democrat politicians or tv talking heads remarked 'it's just property'
Click to expand...

Cause it it is idiots from all sides taking advantage of the situation, simple as that
 
mack341 said:
well if you go back to the floyd riots, after the first evening of buildings being burned down and shops looted, random violence, why would you do up your laces on your shoes and head out to do some peaceful protesting the next evening, knowing that it is providing cover for thousands of criminals?

basically because they didn't care about that, more or less condoning it, one of the democrat politicians or tv talking heads remarked 'it's just property'
Click to expand...
But it makes no sense blaming peaceful protesters for the crimes committed, right?
You cant blame the peaceful protesters in blm any more than you can blame the people who were peacefully protesting outside the capitol building.
 
Kroffe said:
But it makes no sense blaming peaceful protesters for the crimes committed, right?
You cant blame the peaceful protesters in blm any more than you can blame the people who were peacefully protesting outside the capitol building.
Click to expand...

It's the condoning side, complicity, I highly doubt if parts of sweden were getting torched and shops ransacked, you'd want to be anywhere near it even if you wanted to make a political protest.

edit: I don't think the BLM organistion, the people who run it, abide much by the idea of peaceful protests, they'll justify whatever they think is necessary to obtain their goals.

Strictly speaking I would't blame peaceful protesters, but common sense and proportionality must come into play once you start seeing the burning of buildings and violence, looting going on around you, it's time to go home.
 
Last edited:
mack341 said:
It's the condoning side, complicity, I highly doubt if parts of sweden were getting torched and shops ransacked, you'd want to be anywhere near it even if you wanted to make a political protest.
Click to expand...
I dont think the peaceful blm protesters were condoning the looting any more than the peaceful protesters in the capitol were condoning the murder of the policeman that happened.
Why would they?
Or are you saying everyone is complicit just by being there?
 
Kroffe said:
I dont think the peaceful blm protesters were condoning the looting any more than the peaceful protesters in the capitol were condoning the murder of the policeman that happened.
Why would they?
Or are you saying everyone is complicit just by being there?
Click to expand...

After the first night yes, and as each day goes by with more violence and mayhem, more so. Alternatively if the peaceful element had restricted themselves to daylight protests and away from businesses and property, shops etc..it might have been better? Some no doubt did that, sure I saw quite a few gatherings of that type, making speeches, holding a minute silence etc...
 
mack341 said:
After the first night yes, and as each day goes by with more violence and mayhem, more so. Alternatively if the peaceful element had restricted themselves to daylight protests and away from businesses and property, shops etc..it might have been better?
Click to expand...
Well we have to agree to disagree.
Imo thats like saying every Trump supporter attending a rally after the first one is complicit in and condoning what the proud boys & Qanon crazys do just because they also attend his rallies.
I dont think it makes sense to think that way.
 
Kroffe said:
Well we have to agree to disagree.
Imo thats like saying every Trump supporter attending a rally after the first one is complicit in and condoning what the proud boys & Qanon crazys do just because they also attend his rallies.
I dont think it makes sense to think that way.
Click to expand...
But you are conveniently forgetting or downplaying the consequences, and time and place, other than this capitol hill riot, there have been no buildings burned and shops looted at the same time as trumps rallies were taking place?

There will always be fights breaking out between different political groups, but this is an order of magnitude beyond that [the disorder which happened in the summer]

I don't know much about the proud boys, when they started, but is it a surprise with antifa and blm gangs indulging in violence against citizens, an opposing organised group didn't appear?
 
mack341 said:
But you are conveniently forgetting or downplaying the consequences, and time and place, other than this capitol hill riot, there have been no buildings burned and shops looted at the same time as trumps rallies were taking place?

There will always be fights breaking out between different political groups, but this is an order of magnitude beyond that [the disorder which happened in the summer]

I don't know much about the proud boys, when they started, but is it a surprise with antifa and blm gangs indulging in violence against citizens, an opposing organised group didn't appear?
Click to expand...
It was more to point out that you cant say people that are peacefully protesting are condoning or complicit with crimes commited.
Just make a search for violence connected to trump rallies and you will get about a million hits spanning these last 4 years.
By your logic, everyone attending a Trump-rally is condoning and complicit with that violence, but i dont agree.

White supremacy groups have been around in USA far longer than BLM has, no?
So instead of thinking the newly formed white supremacy group is an answer to BLM, im more inclined to believe its the other way around.
Antifa has probably been around a long time, but have gained more traction these last couple of years with the increase in white supremacists.

Imo Trump has been breeding extremists on both side of the political spectrum, far right and far left.
His politics have been very divisive, with a "us vs them" theme.
 
But now its time to pump some iron, and then make dinner.
sausage gif #2
qqq.gif


I had a weird video about the capitol in my recommended section, and the tiny doors reminded me of the great movie Being John Malkovich.
So i may or may not return later, that depends on if Being John Malkovich is as good as i remember.



Lets be honest, Watching a movie is more fun than discussing politics.
;)

 
Kroffe said:
It was more to point out that you cant say people that are peacefully protesting are condoning or complicit with crimes commited.
Just make a search for violence connected to trump rallies and you will get about a million hits spanning these last 4 years.
By your logic, everyone attending a Trump-rally is condoning and complicit with that violence, but i dont agree.

White supremacy groups have been around in USA far longer than BLM has, no?
So instead of thinking the newly formed white supremacy group is an answer to BLM, im more inclined to believe its the other way around.
Antifa has probably been around a long time, but have gained more traction these last couple of years with the increase in white supremacists.

Imo Trump has been breeding extremists on both side of the political spectrum, far right and far left.
His politics have been very divisive, with a "us vs them" theme.
Click to expand...

condoning and complicit: I could probably drag up dozens of quotes from the media, politicians and activists indicating 'condoning' regarding the attacks on property, complicit in terms of being an enabler rather than a deliberate accomplice, crowds of protesters going out at night into business and shopping districts provided cover for crime. They'd have to be really dumb and stupid not to realise that after the first night.

For me it is too much of a stretch to attribute attending a trump rally with making it possible/being responsible for proudboys fighting groups they oppose, the trump rallies will probably end now soon, but I bet violence between proudboys and antifa protesters will still occur.

The democrats have the WH power now, maybe there will be less tolerance of any political groups and street protests, a bit of a clamp down, biden's crime rhetoric from years gone by would tell me he doesn't approve of last summer's disorder.

A search of the internet, dominated by liberal msm hit pieces on trump, doesn't hold much weight with me in terms of independent, fair reporting/opinion, its motivated to push identity politics and create division, otherwise why is the US so explosive and divided now after all the years of equality laws and work in that direction, because a narrative has been cast out to increase tensions despite all the measures.
 
Kroffe said:
It was more to point out that you cant say people that are peacefully protesting are condoning or complicit with crimes commited.
Just make a search for violence connected to trump rallies and you will get about a million hits spanning these last 4 years.
By your logic, everyone attending a Trump-rally is condoning and complicit with that violence, but i dont agree.

White supremacy groups have been around in USA far longer than BLM has, no?
So instead of thinking the newly formed white supremacy group is an answer to BLM, im more inclined to believe its the other way around.
Antifa has probably been around a long time, but have gained more traction these last couple of years with the increase in white supremacists.

Imo Trump has been breeding extremists on both side of the political spectrum, far right and far left.
His politics have been very divisive, with a "us vs them" theme.
Click to expand...
I also think that we need to look at the context around these events:

BLM, George Floyd is killed by a police officer, people take to the streets to protest. Protest should always be peaceful, no need for the looting or any violence that followed, including the two murders committed by a " patriot " who took up his arms to protect the streets from the protesters after heeding the call.

Capitol Hill storming, a potential uprising to try and forcibly change the fair results of a free election, an election which everyone, with the exception of Donald Trump and his minions, agrees that there was minimal fraud, and definitely not enough fraud to change the election.
Republican governors and election officials agree, Trump appointed officials on the election oversight boards agree, the SCOTUS agree, and every state court that Trump has taken his lies to has agreed. No injustice, no murder, nothing except a fair election which was won by the Democrat candidate.

Whilst there may be reason for the BLM protest, I can see no legitimate reason for storming Capitol Building to try and find Pence and Pelosi, whom they would no doubt have caused harm to if they had found them, there was no legitimate reason for the "call to arms" in Washington, but there was definitely a legitimate reason for BLM.

I will state again, protest should be done peacefully, whether its protest from the left or from the right, and in my opinion protest that turns to violence should have the full weight of the law used against it and each and every reasonable person should condemn it out of hand.
 
mack341 said:
condoning and complicit: I could probably drag up dozens of quotes from the media, politicians and activists indicating 'condoning' regarding the attacks on property, complicit in terms of being an enabler rather than a deliberate accomplice, crowds of protesters going out at night into business and shopping districts provided cover for crime. They'd have to be really dumb and stupid not to realise that after the first night.

For me it is too much of a stretch to attribute attending a trump rally with making it possible/being responsible for proudboys fighting groups they oppose, the trump rallies will probably end now soon, but I bet violence between proudboys and antifa protesters will still occur.

The democrats have the WH power now, maybe there will be less tolerance of any political groups and street protests, a bit of a clamp down, biden's crime rhetoric from years gone by would tell me he doesn't approve of last summer's disorder.

A search of the internet, dominated by liberal msm hit pieces on trump, doesn't hold much weight with me in terms of independent, fair reporting/opinion, its motivated to push identity politics and create division, otherwise why is the US so explosive and divided now after all the years of equality laws and work in that direction, because a narrative has been cast out to increase tensions despite all the measures.
Click to expand...
What news organisation would you consider fair reporting?

Is fox, breitbart,oann,newsmax etc any more fair in their reporting, or is it just the same thing going the other way?
Imo they are exactly as divisive as all the so called mainstream media.
I would include fox among mainstream tho, dont they have the most viewers of all news shows? (or had before they dared go against trump for a second and he disowned them. :P)

If its too much of a stretch connecting people on a trump rally with the proud boys that are there to fight, surely it must be a stretch to connect innocent blm protesters with the idiots looting/committing crimes, no?
 
Kroffe said:
What news organisation would you consider fair reporting?

Is fox, breitbart,oann,newsmax etc any more fair in their reporting, or is it just the same thing going the other way?
Imo they are exactly as divisive as all the so called mainstream media.
I would include fox among mainstream tho, dont they have the most viewers of all news shows? (or had before they dared go against trump for a second and he disowned them. :p)

If its too much of a stretch connecting people on a trump rally with the proud boys that are there to fight, surely it must be a stretch to connect innocent blm protesters with the idiots looting/committing crimes, no?
Click to expand...

well I have gone over that before, you are providing cover for the looting and arson, first night unintentional as you can't have known the scale of disorder about to occur, but after that you are knowingly helping it to occur [imo] in the nightly mayhem.

the proudboy fights are not dependent on trump doing a rally to occur. And these sporadic punch-ups are not in the same magnitude of the events that occured in the summer. Still wrong and ugly however, but the police can cope with it.

I think OANN are better than newsmax, which leans more GOP rino and hawkish, but would I go to these channels or fox for an unbiased view on biden's activity, I think I'd have to take what they say with a pinch of salt.

I'm in the uk so no expert of US tv history, but it wouldn't surprise me if Murdoch's fox was the first to go down a more partisan direction, that goes with his tabloid mentality, and now all the others are doing likewise. When I watch old clips of nbc, cnn etc.. it seems to me they used to be a bit more critical all round, fair handed. [90s to early 2000s]
 
mack341 said:
After the first night yes, and as each day goes by with more violence and mayhem, more so. Alternatively if the peaceful element had restricted themselves to daylight protests and away from businesses and property, shops etc..it might have been better? Some no doubt did that, sure I saw quite a few gatherings of that type, making speeches, holding a minute silence etc...
Click to expand...

You might want to remember that the pro-Trump supporters have had more than 1 march on Washington DC and other state capitols before the ultimate stop the steal march or whatever they called it on the 6th, an event that already started on the 5th. Most of it was peaceful but if you even had a 5 minute look at the livestreams at night you saw that's when the kids came out to play.
 
mack341 said:
But you are conveniently forgetting or downplaying the consequences, and time and place, other than this capitol hill riot, there have been no buildings burned and shops looted at the same time as trumps rallies were taking place?

There will always be fights breaking out between different political groups, but this is an order of magnitude beyond that [the disorder which happened in the summer]

I don't know much about the proud boys, when they started, but is it a surprise with antifa and blm gangs indulging in violence against citizens, an opposing organised group didn't appear?
Click to expand...

You are conveniently forgetting that there were plans to kidnap the Governor of Michigan a couple of months ago?
 
sufferinsilence said:
You are conveniently forgetting that there were plans to kidnap the Governor of Michigan a couple of months ago?
Click to expand...

Yes, remind what was that sign behind the ringleader, and the ear lobes. Not a conservative to my eye, some sort of strange mentalist, were his gang part of the proudboys, I must admit I didn't follow it that closely ?

1610824929227.webp
 
mack341 said:
Yes, remind what was that sign behind the ringleader, and the ear lobes. Not a conservative to my eye, some sort of strange mentalist, were his gang part of the proudboys, I must admit I didn't follow it that closely ?

View attachment 149159
Click to expand...

I knew you were going to come up with that again :laugh:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Can explain it better than me.
 
sufferinsilence said:
You are conveniently forgetting that there were plans to kidnap the Governor of Michigan a couple of months ago?
Click to expand...

whatever happened to the 'whataboutism' concept, I thought that was to be avoided in debates at all costs, liberal folk kept telling me I was indulging in whataboutism and therefore my points weren't valid, but as soon as the riots are brought up and put under the microscope, then the response in turn from liberals is 'what about....etc...' :p
 
mack341 said:
well that weren't me :laugh: I'm sure
Click to expand...
Well originally it was about the domestic terrorists i guess, and how white supremacy was the biggest domestic threat facing USA.
But that kind of died, since apparently posting a link from homeland security that shows what i base my opinion on was "flaming"
Never quite figured out why tho. =)

But that was in the pre-mack era of this thread.
 
mack341 said:
whatever happened to the 'whataboutism' concept, I thought that was to be avoided in debates at all costs, liberal folk kept telling me I was indulging in whataboutism and therefore my points weren't valid, but as soon as the riots are brought up and put under the microscope, then the response in turn from liberals is 'what about....etc...' :p
Click to expand...

I'm not a liberal.
 
This is a gambling forum and we are here to share our experiences on it. This is how I feel about the election:

A gambler enters a casino and wants to play BJ. There are 6 tables and he goes around to place a single bet at each table simultaneously. Wonder of wonders, he gets 20 for all his 6 hands whereas the dealer gets an aggregate of 14-16 after 2 cards are drawn. The gambler is ecstatic and jubilantly declares he would be winning. Suddenly, the dealer's final card(s) cannot be drawn due to malfunction of the shoe and all bets are frozen till the shoes are fixed. The gambler is asked to leave the tables temporarily and come back later to resume play. An hour later he comes back and play resumes. I
 
chuchu59 said:
This is a gambling forum and we are here to share our experiences on it. This is how I feel about the election:

A gambler enters a casino and wants to play BJ. There are 6 tables and he goes around to place a single bet at each table simultaneously. Wonder of wonders, he gets 20 for all his 6 hands whereas the dealer gets an aggregate of 14-16 after 2 cards are drawn. The gambler is ecstatic and jubilantly declares he would be winning. Suddenly, the dealer's final card(s) cannot be drawn due to malfunction of the shoe and all bets are frozen till the shoes are fixed. The gambler is asked to leave the tables temporarily and come back later to resume play. An hour later he comes back and play resumes. In each of the 6 hands the dealer draws up to 21. The gambler cries foul but is lambasted by all spectators for being a sore loser.
Click to expand...

I hope this analogy sums up what had happened. Mathematically, at least to me, the above seems highly improbable if not impossible but let's hear your thoughts on the lighter version of events.
 
Following that analogy, the player then hires lawyers to take the case to court for him.
When the judges ask the lawyers if they are implying fraud has taken place, the players lawyers say no.
This is repeated 60+ times, with the same outcome, from different courts and judges from both the casino and player association.
They keep saying fraud happened on twitter tho, where evidence is not quite as important as it is in a court of law.

Enter Kraken
News stations tag along with this, making wild claims about how the card-shoe-thingy for the blackjack table is from venezuela, and has been used in fraudulent blackjack dealings several times before.
They keep this up until the guys who make the card-shoe-thingy tell the news stations to please stop lying, or we will sue you.
Then suddenly they take back everything they said, because they know they cant back it up and would prefer to not get sued.

;)
 
Kroffe said:
Following that analogy, the player then hires lawyers to take the case to court for him.
When the judges ask the lawyers if they are implying fraud has taken place, the players lawyers say no.
This is repeated 60+ times, with the same outcome, from different courts and judges from both the casino and player association.
They keep saying fraud happened on twitter tho, where evidence is not quite as important as it is in a court of law.

Enter Kraken
News stations tag along with this, making wild claims about how the card-shoe-thingy for the blackjack table is from venezuela, and has been used in fraudulent blackjack dealings several times before.
They keep this up until the guys who make the card-shoe-thingy tell the news stations to please stop lying, or we will sue you.
Then suddenly they take back everything they said, because they know they cant back it up and would prefer to not get sued.

;)
Click to expand...

Hey! They won 1 case, a poll watcher was too far away due to social distancing measures and he couldn't see what was going on.
 
chuchu59 said:
This is a gambling forum and we are here to share our experiences on it. This is how I feel about the election:

A gambler enters a casino and wants to play BJ. There are 6 tables and he goes around to place a single bet at each table simultaneously. Wonder of wonders, he gets 20 for all his 6 hands whereas the dealer gets an aggregate of 14-16 after 2 cards are drawn. The gambler is ecstatic and jubilantly declares he would be winning. Suddenly, the dealer's final card(s) cannot be drawn due to malfunction of the shoe and all bets are frozen till the shoes are fixed. The gambler is asked to leave the tables temporarily and come back later to resume play. An hour later he comes back and play resumes. I
Click to expand...

It's not as easy as this analogy tho. Different states have different rules for counting votes: some states count the vote by mail-in the days leading up to election day so they can be added immediately and full results are available within a couple of hours but other states can only start opening the mail-in ballots at the end of election day and count them after the ballots that were casted in person. In this election there were a shitload of mail-in ballots due to people not wanting to chance their health by waiting in line for hours.

What should they have done? Stop counting once Trump was leading when votes from in person election day were coming in? Or count all the "legal" votes like Trump was saying.

As Kroffe pointed out Team Trump actually didn't win any of the cases pertaining illegal votes or about issues with the voting machines because they didn't present evidence to the courts, even the Supreme Court didn't take the case because it was rubbish.
 
sufferinsilence said:
It's not as easy as this analogy tho. Different states have different rules for counting votes: some states count the vote by mail-in the days leading up to election day so they can be added immediately and full results are available within a couple of hours but other states can only start opening the mail-in ballots at the end of election day and count them after the ballots that were casted in person. In this election there were a shitload of mail-in ballots due to people not wanting to chance their health by waiting in line for hours.

What should they have done? Stop counting once Trump was leading when votes from in person election day were coming in? Or count all the "legal" votes like Trump was saying.

As Kroffe pointed out Team Trump actually didn't win any of the cases pertaining illegal votes or about issues with the voting machines because they didn't present evidence to the courts, even the Supreme Court didn't take the case because it was rubbish.
Click to expand...
Thx for joining the conversation. This election is the most controversial ever. Usually, depending on one's political stance, rebuttals are made. Correct me if I am wrong but in each of the 6 swing states, counting was abruptly halted when 60-70% of total votes had been tallied. Observers were told to leave the counting premises and when counting resumed the spike in the number of votes for Biden vs TRUMP was astronomical which does cause suspicion.
On the lawsuits there were precious few cases, if any, where the courts made their decisions based on evidence. They were tossed out based on technicality eg. it came too late, the plaintiff had no interest in the case (Texas). I would have thought the courts need to ascertain whether the change in voting rules were constitutional. Its like the dealer not standing on 17 and continue to draw when the player's hand beats the house.

Nevertheless, I think we might agree to disagree. One thing is certain though. The USA is divided like never before and it may take years or even decades to heal.
 
chuchu59 said:
Thx for joining the conversation. This election is the most controversial ever. Usually, depending on one's political stance, rebuttals are made. Correct me if I am wrong but in each of the 6 swing states, counting was abruptly halted when 60-70% of total votes had been tallied. Observers were told to leave the counting premises and when counting resumed the spike in the number of votes for Biden vs TRUMP was astronomical which does cause suspicion.
On the lawsuits there were precious few cases, if any, where the courts made their decisions based on evidence. They were tossed out based on technicality eg. it came too late, the plaintiff had no interest in the case (Texas). I would have thought the courts need to ascertain whether the change in voting rules were constitutional. Its like the dealer not standing on 17 and continue to draw when the player's hand beats the house.

Nevertheless, I think we might agree to disagree. One thing is certain though. The USA is divided like never before and it may take years or even decades to heal.
Click to expand...

This election is controversial because Trump thought he had "bought" the necessary governors, senators and judges to win without having the votes. Turns out it doesn't work that way, not even in the USA.

Trump had a majority of the in person votes on election day, and had been saying for months how mail-in voting was going to be rigged. Ofcourse he was always going to start complaining once they started counting the mail-in votes which were mostly for Biden.

As what's been said in this topic before: judges can only make decisions when evidence is presented. Trump's lawyers talked a mean game but once in court they didn't have evidence to back up their lawsuits and they were thrown out. The Texas v Pennsylvania lawsuit was declined simply because it wasn't constitutional, that's the only thing SCOTUS looks at.
 
sufferinsilence said:
This election is controversial because Trump thought he had "bought" the necessary governors, senators and judges to win without having the votes. Turns out it doesn't work that way, not even in the USA.

Trump had a majority of the in person votes on election day, and had been saying for months how mail-in voting was going to be rigged. Ofcourse he was always going to start complaining once they started counting the mail-in votes which were mostly for Biden.

As what's been said in this topic before: judges can only make decisions when evidence is presented. Trump's lawyers talked a mean game but once in court they didn't have evidence to back up their lawsuits and they were thrown out. The Texas v Pennsylvania lawsuit was declined simply because it wasn't constitutional, that's the only thing SCOTUS looks at.
Click to expand...
I reckon this is why we need to agree to disagree. The info we get is so different. From what I understand SCOTUS tossed out the lawsuit and did not give a verdict on whether Pennysylvania had acted within its Constitution. I can understand people saying mail-in votes are mainly for Biden but from what had been revealed those votes were not 6-4 or even 7-3 in favour of Biden. They were more than 9-1 or even exceeded 29-1 in some instances. Furthermore, the signatures of these mail-in ballots werent verified. The arguments from both sides could go on and on with each side adamant it is right so the immediate priority is to heal the division.
 
chuchu59 said:
I reckon this is why we need to agree to disagree. The info we get is so different. From what I understand SCOTUS tossed out the lawsuit and did not give a verdict on whether Pennysylvania had acted within its Constitution. I can understand people saying mail-in votes are mainly for Biden but from what had been revealed those votes were not 6-4 or even 7-3 in favour of Biden. They were more than 9-1 or even exceeded 29-1 in some instances. Furthermore, the signatures of these mail-in ballots werent verified. The arguments from both sides could go on and on with each side adamant it is right so the immediate priority is to heal the division.
Click to expand...

The issue with Texas v Pennsylvania was that Texas had no right to challenge other states election results. SCOTUS full verdict can be read here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I'm sure some counties were 100% Trump votes, should those be questioned too or are they fine because they were for Trump? :) I mean, I'm fine with questioning results and debating them but it seems only Biden votes are questioned. Not even the downballot votes on the ballots, nope.. only those in favor of Biden. To know why some vote dumps were in favor of one candidate or the other you need to go and have a look at the make up and voting history of the county.

And like I mentioned before Trump had been saying for months not to vote via mail, while Biden was actively encouraging mail-in voting. Trump (or his advisors) isn't a moron, he knew exactly what was going to happen on election night when the results from certain important swing states would come in and he would use that to rile up his base. To the extent they eventually met up to storm the Capitol.

I'm fine with halting our conversation here, I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me either. Fact is Joe Biden will be inaugurated next wednesday tho.
 
This is laughable support or interest, the next US president a man who got the most votes ever and his VP Harris, could only attract 1,335 live viewers on youtube, the population of the US is nearly 330 mil, most with access to YT.

Why vote for someone to lead the country for 4 years, if you have no interest in his speeches and pronouncements :confused: old yang or the skateboard kid would have gained a bigger audience here.





Edit: I forgot the damn tv broadcasts! :oops: :( :laugh:
 
Last edited:
mack341 said:
This is laughable support or interest, the next US president a man who got the most votes ever and his VP Harris, could only attract 1,335 live viewers on youtube, the population of the US is nearly 330 mil, most with access to YT.

Why vote for someone to lead the country for 4 years, if you have no interest in his speeches and pronouncements :confused: old yang or the skateboard kid would have gained a bigger audience here.


Click to expand...

You do realise that this was also broadcast on Television, right? I don't know about you, but I tend to use news channels for news, not youtube.
 
mack341 said:
You've looked into this I take it then, I wonder could you find what the viewing figures were?
Click to expand...
I doubt any broadcast number have been released from yesterday. But it's pretty obvious that most will have viewed it on the news, not youtube.

PS. do you know that twitter account have been proven to spread groundless claims and lies numerous times?
 
Halvor said:
I doubt any broadcast number have been released from yesterday. But it's pretty obvious that most will have viewed it on the news, not youtube.

PS. do you know that twitter account have been proven to spread groundless claims and lies numerous times?
Click to expand...

No I didn't even click on the name, as it looked a bit wacky, but other tweets making the same point didn't have a screen shot.

TBF looking just now at NBC news on youtube who streamed it, it has been watched 523,000 times, that's obviously worldwide youtube, but a healthier total.

I think the top news programs like fox and cnn only get about 4 mil viewers per episode, I'm still not sure biden is generating the interest you'd expect from a new president - but he's not exactly unknown so voters know what they are likely getting.
 
Last edited:
mack341 said:
No I didn't even click on the name, as it looked a bit wacky, but other tweets making the same point didn't have a screen shot.

TBF looking at NBC news on youtube who streamed it, it has been watched 523,000 times, that's obviously worldwide youtube, but a healthier total.

I think the top news programs like fox and cnn only get about 4 mil viewers per episode, I'm still not sure biden is generating the interest you'd expect from a new president - but he's not exactly unknown so voters know what they are likely getting.
Click to expand...
The twitter user in question is the same that started the disproved claims of dead Biden voters in Michigan for example,

It's also a factor here that less of Biden's voters are fanatic social media users, compared to the reality show presidents. Biden supporters are more likely to stick to established media channels, compared to Trump voters. A lot of this stems from Trump spending 4-5 years attempting to paint main stream media as the enemy and unreliable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 89 (members: 0, guests: 89)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top