Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
I want Trump assassinated, but it's not because I disagree with him. The following analogy will hopefully make my point easier to understand.
Lets say you live in Missouri, where abortion is banned; you are a democrat governor candidate (pro choice), you run against a republican, you lose the election, and abortion gets banned in Missouri. Is there anything wrong with being that pro choice losing govorner candidate? Absolutely not.
Lets say they believe their election was rigged and they were saying, "If I lose, then it's rigged". Is there anything wrong with that? No. She would be wrong, but you are allowed, by the 1st amendment, so say wrong things.
Lets say this pro choice governor candidate decided to try and violently overthrow the democratically elected governor of Missouri in Jefferson City. All of a sudden, you are a terrorist. While I agree with her on abortion, she is a terrorist and she should be executed for trying to overthrow a democratically elected government that she disagrees with.
This is why I want Trump killed. I don't want him killed for his opinions. I believe he's racist, but you know what? You are allowed to be racist because of the 1st amendment. Him being a racist president (along with Biden, who is also racist) is not good enough to merit the death penalty. He can claim he lost the election; he can even sue Biden over the election that he thinks he lost if he pays for the court case; it's all free speech. But Jan 6 is an act of terrorism which undermines the point of free and fair elections.
Trump deserves the death penalty solely for what he did on Jan 6.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Republicans believe in pro-gun, pro-life, pro-nuclear family, anti-violence, anti-riots, pro-borders, pro-good economy (high employment, low inflation, no stock market crashes, no recession, low-home prices, etc.) I could keep going but I think you get the point.The republican party was created to stop slavery, then we also desegregated as well, and when Kennedy and Nixon finally gave blacks rights they were called racists and still are. That is also its ethos.
Contradictions:
- Pro life and pro gun. If a certain piece of gun control reduced the homicide rate 30%, then the republicans would still be against the gun control (which is fine for a party that doesn't claim to be pro life, but the GOP claims to be pro life, so it's not fine).
- Pro borders and pro economy. Open borders is very good for the economy due to the population going up which in turn increases GDP.
- It is a contradiction to claim the GOP was the party that ended slavery while claiming the civil war is not about slavery to justify flying the confederate flag.
- Pro borders and pro life. Deportations cause more innocent death than they prevent.
But having multiple different ethoses is impossible because it leads to contradictions. Lets say the GOP believed in only 2 things; pro death penalty and pro nuclear energy (both are GOP positions, but lets say the left and right agree on everything else). If someone is pro death penalty and anti nuclear energy (or vice versa), then are they republican or democrat? You can't tell. Who would be more republican, someone pro death penalty and anti nuclear energy or vice versa? It's objectively impossible to figure out. It's not a contradiction to be pro death penalty and pro nuclear energy, but these issues should be mutually independent issues. Being pro death penalty shouldn't make you more or less likely to back nuclear energy (and this can apply for any combination of 2 random issues). The one exception to this is if there is a consistent morality driving these 2 stances on these 2 issues (for example, being pro freedom causes libertarians to be pro 2A and pro LGBT; being anti unwanted pain causes left wingers to be pro gun control and pro LGBT, etc). What is bolded are examples of an ethos. An opinion would be something like pro-life (if pro life was an ethos, then it would mean being anti-abortion, pro universal healthcare, pro gun control and anti ICE because this is how you expand life the most out of these 4 issues).
If there was only one issue the left and right disagreed on, then it would be very easy to create a consistent ethos. But there are so many different beliefs that the GOP has adopted that aren't connected with any ethos that it means if you only agree with about 50% of the beliefs, then are you a republican? What if it's 60%? 67%? Any % is going to be arbitrary.
What is the consistent ethos of the GOP (not beliefs, but ethos)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
" Trump/Biden is the worst combination we have ever gotten.” I would agree, but only because Biden is on the ticket.
You know how the radical left is so stupid that they can't define what a woman is?
What is a republican? Like, what ethos does the GOP stand for that includes everyone who is a republican and excludes everyone that isn't? For libertarians, they believe in freedom consistently. For the democrats, they believe in reducing unwanted pain. What do the republicans consistently stand for?
I will define woman in a consistent way when you define republican in a consistent way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
Me disagreeing with Trump about half of the time is not why I want him killed. We disagree on Roe V Wade (for now at least). We disagree on Immigration (I'm anti ICE; Trump is pro ICE). If all he did was repeal Roe and deport more people, that is not good enough reason in my view to assassinate him. But Jan 6, on the other hand, is good enough reason to assassinate Trump.
If Trump never did Jan 6, then I would be against all POTUS assassination attempts. But Trump disagreeing with me on Qualified immunity is him being authoritarian; but not tyrannical; there is a place for authoritarianism in society and I disagree with Trump on Qualified immunity, but he has the right to those views and people have the right to vote for him because of a Qualified immunity position. Jan 6 and trying to overthrow a government elected by the electoral college (and I support the electoral college because I know getting rid of it is a power grab; people here think I'm far left; that's not true) is tyrannical and when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
So why are you trying to own the left again?
Because the left follows the herd with left wing media as does the right does with Trump. The left was anti-war until Ukraine; then they become the biggest hawks out there. Whatever Biden says on any new issue, the vocal left will just follow suit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I'm wanting Trump dead so Mr. Jan 6 isn't in charge. If Trump never did Jan 6, then I would be against his assassination attempt. But treason should merit the death sentence.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nobody hates just Trump's ear. Either you hate all of Trump's body or you don't hate any of Trump's body.
But what if Trump had 100 assassination attempters at the same time? If anyone has 100 bullets hitting them at once, then they aren't surviving.
Maybe there needs to be a group of assassins that target Trump. I'm not volunteering, but I hope others do.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I believe you are right, but MAGA world won't deem he was defending against tyranny because Trump could advocate for lynching black people and MAGA world would eat it up. If Ann Coulter said the same thing, then she gets canceled as racist.
Trump is their god. They won't leave him no matter what.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
The person who tried to kill Trump obviously hates his guts.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He was simply exercising his Second Amendment right that Trump has talked about as a political remedy in the past.
If the government actually went "tyrannical" (which the pro 2A people need to define how that would be possible), then if Trump does the tyranny, then MAGA world wouldn't deem it tyrannical.
Even when it's left wing policies they deemed as tyranny (lockdowns during COVID), they won't go out of their way to rebel against the government with guns.
2A advocates who argue the 2nd amendment is about defending against tyranny are all bark and no bite; so while I support the right to own AR 15s, I believe they are useless in defending against tyranny because the US population is unwilling to do a revolution if the government ever goes tyrannical. The right argued, "Social media is the new public square; there should be free speech absolutism on there"; Big Tech censored their accounts over conservative content; the right never did a mass shooting at Facebook headquarters.
They don't have the guts to do a revolution, and there is nothing wrong with that if you are upfront with it (if the 1st and 2nd amendment got repealed tomorrow, then I wouldn't deem it tyrannical enough to murder people over it although I would hate the decision). But MAGA world isn't upfront with it. You think Biden is a tyrant? Then overthrow his government! But you won't do that because you don't have the guts to, making your 2nd amendment irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I wouldn't be surprised. Actual libertarians hate Trump (because they view him as authoritarian). The left's reason for hating Trump is his vibes. Libertarians are too principled for that.
Created:
Posted in:
If this was from Biden, then the supreme court ruled that presidents have total immunity from what they did in office to protect Trump with Jan 6. I don't like that standard, but it's the standard, so if Biden tried to kill Trump, then that's legal due to presidential immunity.
But everyone knows the rules only apply to democrats; not republicans; it's why the right gets angry at the inner cities for being on welfare, but not the Trailer Parks.
Your group votes republican, the right lets you get away with much more. It's why Kid Rock (vocal republican) is the parent of an aborted baby (along with Herschel Walker). The right doesn't care because they are republicans.
Your party has no consistent principles; it's a Trump cult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are correct, but then I'm assuming you no longer back UHC if it raises taxes on the globalists. Is that correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
You can vote for Bush or Obama in a 2024 election; that doesn't mean Bush or Obama should be allowed to run.
Give me a Harris vs Ramasuamy ticker, or a DeSantis vs Newsom or a Buttigeig vs Donalds ticket. Trump/Biden is the worst combination we have ever gotten.
Created:
Posted in:
@wylted
I think most people are going to agree you are a sick fuck and a piece of shit for saying Biden should be assassinated.
I will let you believe that. I prefer to be a actual free thinker, but that term is only for the MAGA right when they are non-white, gay, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
@amber
420-1776 is a satire account. Says so on their profile.
But if you believe in free speech, then unblock me; otherwise you only believe in free speech for your team (which is not really a pro free speech position).
Created:
I know there is Barney, but I don't know who else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
America has not lost it's democracy; people will still be allowed to vote Trump. Just like you can vote for David Duke if you want; that doesn't mean David Duke or Trump should be allowed to run (different reasons).
Created:
Posted in:
@wylted
This is sick. Grow up.
Classic SJW insult right here.
This is a lie and you know it.
It's not a lie, the experts say so (and I am more willing to be a sheep to the experts than a sheep to podcasters).
Here are some things from the bill. It wants to abolish the following:
Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—whose remaining departments would be folded into other agencies or privatized, including the Transportation Security Administration.
I don't know about you, but I like public school and believe it should get more funding paid for with tax hikes on the globalists, I like clean air, I like a secure bank account, and I like safe travel, and I can tolerate the $2 or so a year I have to pay to get them to operate smoothly.
TikTok would be banned
Nothing says small government like banning a social media app used by millions of people. But MAGA doesn't believe in small government, so they should stop acting like they do.
Project 2025 would seek to get rid of current tax rates and most deductions and credits, instead proposing a 15% rate for anyone under the Social Security wage base ($168,000 in 2024) and 30% for taxpayers earning more than that—which means the lowest-income taxpayers will now pay more and some higher earners will pay less, and it would also lower the corporate income tax rate to 18%.
We need to raise taxes on the globalists, not cut them.
Trump has to pretend to distance himself from it and says that he disagrees with some things, but he never states what he disagrees with, so I assume he agrees with it since it's made by conservatives. Like, I disagree with Project 2025 and I can list some things I disagree with it. Trump won't do that because to the normie voter, being vague is an advantage.
I also think Jan 6 is treason and should be punishable with death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
If I was 80% sure that he would be a dictator, then fine, shoot him. But I don’t have that much confidence.
I have that much confidence.
John Wilkes Booth didn’t like Lincoln. The entire south didn’t like Lincoln.
Lincoln never did a Jan 6 if he lost and I don't think he would if he lost.
If Trump never did Jan 6, then I would be opposed to the assassination attempt. I would still hate Trump; I would think he's authoritarian; but I would condemn the assassination attempt. Once you do Jan 6, I want you dead because the tree of liberty needs from time to time to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
You didn't get the joke Roosevelt was making.
Every time there is a mass shooting, GOP politicians say, "thoughts and prayers" instead of backing the left wing position on guns (nationwide ban on AR 15s until there is another mass shooting, then more gun control, then the 2nd amendment being overthrown, then the US losing the 1st amendment because the 2nd protects the 1st).
Roosevelt is using that same strategy for when Trump gets attacked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
First of all, Trump has been trying very hard to distance himself from the project.
He said he disagrees with, "some" aspects of it, but doesn't clarify because he wants to appeal to crazy and normal people. If he says, "I don't want to become a dictator", then he pisses off the crazies; if he says the opposite, than he pisses off the normies. My rule is if you stay silent, then the most extreme position is assumed. Lets say you ask if I'm racist and I say, "Well, um ...". It's safe to assume I would be a racist in that situation.
Second, John Wilkes Booth thought that he was taking down a dictator also. But Lincoln was a democratically elected president who was going to step down.
I don't believe Trump will step down if he wins. But to compare someone everyone likes (Lincoln) to someone only some people like (Trump) is bad arguing.
If he does attempt to become a dictator, we have safeguards in place for this
Trump is removing those safeguards this time around from what I've heard.
but we have a duty to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Otherwise, we become the dictators taking democracy into our own hands.
I could see the argument here, but politicians don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If you ask a politician if they are racist and they say, "Maybe", it's obvious the answer is yes. Trump said he would only accept the results of the election if he won.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Trump is probably going to get project 2025 done, which would make him a dictator and put an end to our democratic elections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I truly despise Trump but by no means does he deserve to die.
What if Trump wins and takes away future elections like what he tried to do with Jan 6?
Human life is not priceless. Valuable? Sure. But priceless? No.
I would have liked it if the assassination attempt succeeded. If you are a leader and don't want to get assassinated, then don't do tyrannical shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Did Hitler deserve to die when he was first looking to take power in the early 1930s?
One person's life or millions of Holocaust victim's lives? Decision made.
Tyrannical leaders deserve to die; the 2nd amendment protects against tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
If Biden got assassinated tomorrow, then MAGA world would cheer it on (as would I). They don't realize he would be replaced by someone tougher to beat than Biden; but I would.
If Trump's assassination attempt succeeded, then he would be replaced (maybe with Tucker Carlson) whom MAGA world loves and I would at least prefer to Biden. I don't like that Tucker likes Russia, but he's better to a carcass for POTUS.
If Trump isn't a tyrant over Jan 6 if he succeeded (which was a threat to our free and fair elections), then I don't know who would be a tyrant.
Created:
Posted in:
Call me whatever name you want under the condition that it's accurate. But you won't be able to call me a liar.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Conservatives (and when I say conservatives, I don't mean Dave Rubin, Blaire White, Christain Walker or any LGBT person that calls themselves conservative either out of a grift or a desire to be a, "pick me") view homosexuality similar to how you would view beastiality. No human being gets harmed by beastiality (and if you are concerned with animal welfare, then become vegetarian).
But you believe bestiality is degenerate and conservatives believe homosexuality is degenerate.
Here are various sexual possibilities:
- Premarital sex
- Interracial marriage
- Homosexuality
- Calling Cisgender man/ transgender woman sex straight sex.
- Polygamy
- Incest
- Bestiality
- Pedophilia
Conservatives tend to give lower numbers than liberals do.
Pretty much all of society accepts 1 and 2, 76% support 3, about 40% believe in 4; 16% believe in 5, and virtually nobody agrees with legalizing 6-8.
Which one of these do you think should be legal to do (#4 is more of if you agree with the proposition or not, but the same concept applies)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that your derived fantasy society of Globalists and Patriots, is what it is...Social media inspired conspiracy stuff.
Globalist and billionaire are interchangable in this context, as are Patriot and American.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm surprised you are against UHC because you live in the UK.
But that's how some people work. If I say, "Tax the globalists to pay for the healthcare of Patriots!", then you are against it. If I say, "Tax the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor!", then you support it.
These 2 statements are equivilant. One is meant to appeal to the left; the other to the right. But you care only about the vibes on a statement, which is a pretty stupid thing to care about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you clearly have no idea how money works
What relavent information am I missing?
Created:
Posted in:
@wylted
Giving the government and the people who have purchased government more power over out health than they already have, punishes them how?
It increases their tax bill, which means the government is going to have to spend more. It's punishing the government because they are going to have to spend more, and it punishes the globalists because the government will end up having to tax them more to pay for the health costs of blue collar American Patriots!
I think western civilization is the best civilization out there, and the most western place in the world (Europe) has UHC.
Make America Europe!
Created:
Posted in:
I support Patriot care! It's about punishing the bureaucratic government for getting involved and controlling our lives by forcing them to pay for the healthcare of American Patriots (paid for by raising taxes on the globalist elites)!
Think this is a good idea? I really don't like the government and I want to punish them somehow in a way that would improve our life; forcing them to pay for my healthcare as an American Patriot and forcing them to pay for the healthcare of other American Patriots.
Tax the globalists!!!
Created:
-->
@WyIted
What you said is funny if it's under a satirical account (the Trump version of that post came from a satirical account; your account is not satire) and nobody has seen it before. It's obvious you got that from 420-1776 and he was the one that invented that joke about Trump.
Make your own jokes.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Reparations aren’t libetarian. I have certain traits about me that employers know about and maybe 90% of them rejected me because of this trait. This doesn’t mean I go on welfare while bashing the government that gives me welfare.
I’m assuming the reason you are referring to is you being a pedophille. What you CAN do is anytime you reference pedophillia in a positive way, ask the mods to delete all of your pro pedophillia posts.
Excuses are like assholes; everyone’s got one and they all stink.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would rather post shit online than have a job.
And THAT'S why you don't get to call yourself fiscally libertarian; because you are willing to be on welfare which libertarians want to eliminate.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I don't see what could be at issue here.
The fact that I say my political opinions on the internet. And unlike you (who might be applying to blue collar jobs), I'm trying to be an Actuary in Hartford (the field is very left wing).
Why don't you PM me.
Sure.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Can you list out all the moderators so I can contact them on this thread to see if they can help me with my goal?
Created:
-->
@Barney
He hasn't been on in 3 days and I think he transferred ownership of the site to someone else, but I'll DM him.
Do you know who else I can DM if Michael is off this website?
Created:
-->
@Barney
If you don't want to manually delete 4k forum posts, then fine. You can temporarily make me a mod, I manually delete the 4k fourm posts myself, I let you know when I delete all my posts in 1 final post, and then you don't delete 4K fourm posts, but just one forum post where I let you know I completed the task.
Let me know if you accept this.
Any in which you doxed yourself are the only ones where there’s such a notable possibility (even if still unlikely).
You might be right, but I don't want to gamble my future on this claim.
Also some members will happily assist you in your job search, you need just ask.
These members are like a low income person trying to end world hunger; their intentions and will are awesome; but they don't have the ability. I believe my social media presence is holding me back, so I want to become a temporary mod so I can delete all of my fourm posts one by 1 if you are fine with that.
Created:
-->
@Barney
This applies for my 3 accounts; Alec, Underdog, and 420-1776. I need my information gone so I am more hirable.
Created:
The conservatives: The 2nd amendment protects the first amendment!!
Me: You realize that you already don't have free speech. If you say something conservative on an account corporations see and they don't like it, then you get fired (or you don't get hired). That's capitalism. What are you going to do; take up arms against Home Depot because they fired you because of something you said on the internet?
If the government took away your right to free speech, then you are just as likely to take up arms against that government as you would take up arms against Home Depot for firing you. You don't have the guts to kill others over the right to free speech (which to be fair, neither do I. It violates my morals and I hope it does to you as well), so don't be all bark and no bite.
When Elon Musk banned people for calling Nazis white trash, you didn't care.
Capitalism is more important than the right to speak about issues that you will never be able to change. I learned that the hard way; now I don't think I'm ever going to get hired. I've deleted all of my social media posts; the ones on DART I would like to see get deleted, but I don't think they will because the mods (aka Barney) have more faith in the privacy of DART posts from corporations than I do, but I want him to delete every post I made on both of my accounts.
I don't make the same mistake I did. The right to post about certain opinions whose policies you will never get to change is less valuable than your income. I don't plan on posting anymore, and I hope Barney fufills my request to delete all of my social media posts (including this one). If he has more faith in DART's privacy from employers than I do, fine; he can take that chance and post on DART and have his posts stay up. I want all of mine taken down. We have different opinions and should be able to live by those opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
I watched the video and I believe I debunked the points.
I also I could also claim you only support it because it benefits democrats.
If you actually believed RCV harmed democrats, then you would support RCV as a right winger. But I don't really care who wins; the generic democrat or generic republican. If you raise the voting age to 21 and do RCV, then I would be alright with that and I honestly don't know who benefits overall.
Every single benefit brought up by you in the op has been dismantled and this is why you refuse to debate, because it would harm your ego.
My main reason for refusing to do formal debates is I've learned with debates, both sides try super hard to prove their points and it is less likely people are willing to change their mind.
I believe I addressed all of your points.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The right tries to compare abortion to slavery by citing the inequality dynamic between a woman and a zygote (also applied to ancient American blacks compared to their white overlords).
The left tries to compare banning abortion to slavery as it is forced unpaid labor (also applied to ancient American blacks).
There is an argument for both sides. So if you want abortion banned, then make the argument for it, but keep black history out of your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Wylted is going to be against RCV because it would benefit democrats. Look at what happened in Alaska with Mary Pelota. You aren't changing his mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
The left: We need to spend a lot of money to get a lot of nutritious high quality groceries.
The right: We need to cut grocery spending to save money. We are racking up a high enough credit card bill.
Me: Give me both of your proposed shopping lists.
The left/right: NO!! We know it's unpopular; it's why we keep it hidden.
Created:
Posted in:
@wylted
1: Where you reference 4 games to play.
Games and presidents are not the same. Lets say 3 people want to play tag and 7 people want to play hide and seek. The 3 people that want to play tag can play tag and the 7 people that want to play hide and seek. The political equivalent to this would be if all the Trump supporters selected Trump as their president and Trump was president of the Trump supporters, Biden was president of all the Biden supporters, RFK was POTUS of all the RFK supporters, etc. You need one president to unify the country whether you voted for him or not. The stakes are much lower with what game you play vs the leader of your country. If you really hate tag and most people want to play tag, then you don't have to play tag. If you really hate a POTUS and most people want that POTUS, then too bad; he's your POTUS. It's not a fair comparison.
You didn't provide the 71% citation. But lets say you are correct. So what? That 71% should fall under 50% by persuasion unless there is a good reason to not do that.
2: The claim they look confusing.
Rank choice voting is arguably confusing. So is building a bridge. This is why normies don't have to do the complicated stuff; just bridge makers or election workers. All the normie has to do is list off their favorite to least favorite candidates.
3: The argument that ranking votes is confusing.
This is why you study the candidates beforehand and you need to know in advance who is on the ballot. And it's fine to not rank all of the candidates. If you like Sanders, then Warren, and nobody else, then you rank Sanders, then Warren, and you leave everything else blank. If Sanders and Warren get eliminated, then it would be like you didn't vote, but this can be applied to all 3rd party voters without rank choice voting and it would merely encourage informed voting, where a democrat voter would have to decide who they like more out of Beto O Rouke vs Pete Buttigeig (which is easy to do, if you are bigger on gun control, then you rank O Rouke higher; if you are bigger on LGBT representation, then you go with Pete Buttigeig).
4: Tens of thousands of votes being thrown out
You can request a new ballot if you make a mistake. But ballots should have pencil instead of pen because pencil is easier to erase if you make a mistake.
5: 20-30 candidates competing for a single spot
I would max it out at 5-7 candidates for a single primary spot and the Party national convention approve of the list (kindof like now, but with more options). 30 is too many; but 2 is too few.
6: The Voter turnout Saint Paul vs rest of Minnisota
Source needed. But I would prefer it if the only people willing to vote are those willing to do a good amount of research on politicians before they vote. You wouldn't want someone voting for Obama just because Obama is black if Obama disagrees with that voter 70% of the time. I believe voting should be a choice and the voter turnout rate is irrelevent.
7: Coting the government money
Elections cost a nominal amount of money for the government vs other expenses.
Machienes should be counting the votes, not human beings.
8: RCV helps the left
This is irrelevent; if an election is between Biden, DeSantis, and Trump and Biden gets 40% of the vote (Trump 31% and DeSantis 29%), then he would win that election with our current elections, but RCV would have Trump or DeSantis win if every DeSantis vote was transferred to Trump.
Created: