Agreed

This was a vote (again) for who people hate the least.

Despite being in politics for 47 years, Biden doesn't have a huge negative stigma attached to him.

True. He doesn't have any notable policies either except for the 1994 crime bill and maybe some others I'm not yet aware of. But I didn't find out about that until the past few months myself.

Biden to most Americans is just some old politician that hasn't (quite frankly) done anything in half a century in politics.

But they see the big orange man who has been demonized on the news as their opponent.

I don't think they really are that partisan that they wouldn't be open to investigating discrepancies.

I hope they aren't that partisan to ignore very concerning signs that the voting and vote counting process has issues.

The biggest issues to me personally would be that media is very biased toward one side, and that's how Americans formulate their opinions on politics and policy. This obviously includes social media bias.

When information is curated, your democracy is dying.

Wholeheartedly agree on that. Media is the single biggest propaganda/wielder of power over the people's opinions and thought processes.

And like you said; when your information is curated, your democracy is dying.

And I feel like the reasons for that stem from enterprises/businesses being way too involved in politics.

I'm (surprise) anti-establishment.

These big conglomerate businesses buy up dying news agencies from a bygone era and then end up curating what journalists report on, and they largely base that on their political affiliation/candidates of choice.

Who in turn play a game of favors to the businesses themselves.

It's a really bad situation to be in.

Sounds like some Gangs of New York stuff going on

Boss Tweed era shenanigans

And surprise surprise, it's mostly owned by companies that have boomed economically due to the boom of the internet in the 90s, the rise of cellphone technology, and have such massive market shares because of it.

Like, I don't mind that business can support politicians, but I have a problem with businesses that support politicians, then curate information Americans rely upon for their political opinions.

There is a very glaringly obvious conflict of interest there.

I think people just need to unknow that common forms of news media and social media are unbiased in any fashion, and reknow that they are basically party platforms

using Facebook is basically giving money and power to the DNC, nothing short

Interesting thing I just saw on Crowder about vote fraud in Michigan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivT2z5UgHxo

however, this knowledge will lead to a bifurcation of media, and a bifurcation of employers, and businesses

I saw that too as it was breaking on Crowder. More red flags throwing the vote process integrity into question

Honestly: I'd sum up my political opinions by saying one thing: There are four branches of government and the one that is never talked about is the enterprise branch.

It's becoming less and less about citizens and more and more in favor of corporate interests for conglomerate enterprises.

Love that @Maw I've always thought about it like a layer or a "corporate blanket" that keeps the powers in both parties warm and fuzzy.

@RobertGrulerEsq Much agreed. It's a big comfy blanket made of money.

Where tf is a table. F the useless map.

North Carolina ; electoral votes] ; [R%] ; [D%] ; [%tallied]
ETCETERA

Seriously. Abolish the media NOW.

If you were to make that actual string parsing from a programming language it'd look more like: ```"%1$s ; [%2$d] ; [%3$d] ; [%4$c] ; [%5$d\%]"```

Depends on the language though.

In not. It's just a table.

https://youtu.be/UMO-sWMhwBM

Where is it???

@RobertGrulerEsq I live in PA. Been watching your show for a while. Don't comment very often. The PA Supreme Court also ruled that signatures on mail in ballots don't need to match, so a lot of people are freaking out about that. An article I read says that the law doesn't mention requiring signatures to be verified. I'm super mad about the PA SC for extending the deadline, and feel it is a major overreach of power, but in my mind the SC was within their power to say-the law doesn't mention signatures, so if election officials are satisfied with the vote save for the signature, they cannot reject it. Any thoughts? Personally, I think matching signatures are a no brainer, but if it's not in the law-it's not in the law. Any thoughts or additional info you might be aware of??? Thanks!

Hi Theresa thanks for the great comment. It is definitely an issue and as you know something we've been following. I've got a PA litigation update queued up for the end of the show today. Two issues right now: 1. Trump's suit to stop canvassing until they can monitor has a hearing scheduled tonight at 7 p.m. and 2. Trump filed to join the US Supreme Court case regarding the ballot extension and those issues. I think it is going to get messy.

It means deceased people (and cats) may able to be cast valid ballots more often.